Sitting of 2 July 1991

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

  CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
  NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNCIL COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 4 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Defence Industry
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the future prospects of the British defence industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): I have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend promote the best interests of all sectors of the British defence industry, including those of missile manufacturing? Does he agree that defence jobs are more secure with the policies of this Government than with those of the Labour party?
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. From my own conversations with management and work forces, I can confirm that the defence industry knows well what its prospects would be if Labour ever got its hands on the defence budget.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister realise the damage that is being done through uncertainty, speculation and rumour as a result of the Government's continued inability to make a decision on the EH101? Will he say today when that decision will be made? I plead with him, for goodness sake say something, because the uncertainty now risks
    148
    killing jobs, undermining orders, threatening European co-operation and delaying Westland providing a piece of equipment that the Navy desperately needs to do its job.
    Mr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman, for constituency reasons, chooses to depict that problem in lurid colours. In doing so, he is being somewhat irresponsible because he knows that this is a highly important procurement decision in which a number of factors must be weighed carefully. As the right hon. Gentleman also knows, we are appointing a prime contractor. In the fullness of time, the results of the tender will be made known. It is not for me to accelerate that process, because all the data must be weighed carefully and I do not want to cut any corners.
    Mr. Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the English Electric Valve company in my constituency is a world leader in the manufacture of third-generation image intensifiers? Does he agree that there is something inherently unfair in the fact that, although American companies can tender or compete for supplying the British armed forces with equipment, the EEV cannot compete in the American market to supply the Americans with image intensifiers because the American Government have stressed that non-American companies cannot take part in the tendering process? I should be extremely grateful if my right hon. Friend could look into the matter and try to persuade the American Government to have a more realistic and fair tendering policy.
    Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend draws attention to an extremely important point. He says that the American Government "have stressed" that that cannot happen, but there is no hard and fast rule. From time to time, cases of United States arms procurement protectionism occur and I am always glad to have them drawn to my attention. I shall do my best to raise them in the appropriate quarters in Washington, if my hon. Friend will give me fuller details as soon as possible.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Minister aware that, in contradistinction to the offensive remarks about the Opposition that were made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), 1 million skilled workers are engaged in defence work and that, although they understand the need to restructure the forces and for the "Options for Change" exercise, their trade union leaders are concerned that the outcome will bite deep into the core of our high-tech industries? What, then, of our future design teams and professional and highly skilled workers?
    Mr. Clark: Defence spending is set to decline by only 6 per cent. over the next three years. That is no more serious an impact than that which many specialised industries suffer in a time of recession. Equally, I would not want to deny the validity of much that the hon. Gentleman says, because he has deep and sympathetic experience in this area. My hope and belief is that redundancies in highly skilled sectors will rapidly be absorbed in the civilian sector, particularly as the recession turns round and we move back to greater prosperity.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when redundancies are about to be announced at Ministry of Defence workplaces, hon. Members are informed of them in advance? Is he aware that I have received letters from trade unions at 35 Base Workshop, Old Dalby, in my

    149
    constituency, saying that they were told about redundancies, yet the constituency hon. Member was not aware of them?
    Mr. Clark: This is the first that I have heard of that. Had my hon. Friend written to me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State we would have tried to deal with the matter circumspectly. In so far as any discourtesy has been suffered or felt by my hon. Friend, I apologise to him.
    Mr. Rogers: In the past two years I have asked the Secretary of State about the Government's defence sales to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Even in yesterday's debate on the Army, Ministers denied selling arms and defence materials to Iraq. Now that we can prove—the circumstances are outlined in the Financial Times today—that International Military Services Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary responsible directly to the Secretary of State, has been selling arms to the Iraqis, will the Minister make a statement and apologise for misleading the House?
    Mr. Clark: The House does not like Members to read from prepared matter at Question Time, but I hope that I shall be forgiven for doing so on this occasion. IMS was given a licence by the Ministry of Defence to market the design in 1979. A contract was signed in 1981 for the design and supervision of the construction, supply and installation of safety and monitoring equipment. The contract was completed in 1987, as there was a two-year delay in letting the construction contracts, which went to a South Korean firm. Originally, the facility was due to be finished in 1984, and the safety and monitoring equipment was shipped in 1983. All necessary Government approvals were obtained prior to IMS signing the contract in 1981.

    Rapid Reaction Force
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made towards establishing a European rapid reaction force.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): Western European Union Ministers met in Luxembourg on 27 June. Copies of the communiqué issued after their discussions have been placed in the Library of the House. The Ministers agreed to put work in hand on a future operational role for the WEU. The United Kingdom intends to make a positive contribution to all aspects of the work. One possibility would be the establishment of a European rapid reaction force.
    Mr. Taylor: With the effective ending of the Warsaw pact by the signing of the protocol in Prague yesterday, and with the grave events in the Balkans which threaten the security of the rest of Europe, it is natural that attention should be moving to the idea of a European rapid reaction force. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the justifiable interest of the European Community in stretching the discussion of security to defence would be best protected if the European rapid reaction force were based within the Western European Union, thereby providing a bridge and keeping the command structure under NATO?
    Mr. King: We believe that the prime defence of Europe lies in the NATO alliance to which our forces are assigned. We see that there could be circumstances outside the NATO area where there could be value in European
    150
    co-operation and where our forces—not separate but separable from NATO—could, perhaps in combination with other European countries, have a part to play in certain circumstances, and we are discussing that aspect in the WEU.
    Mr. Dalyell: Would it be part of the task of a rapid reaction force to search out Iraqi nuclear facilities at Tuwaitha, Abu-Gharaib or wheresoever the Iraqis have taken nuclear facilities in Iraq? If so, would part of its task also be to try to monitor what has happened? Is it not incredible that we make such a fuss about carefully stored nuclear waste, but that no one has monitored the nuclear situation in Iraq after the bombing?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of resolution 687. There seems to be clear evidence that Saddam Hussein is already in breach of it, because it requires him to disclose full information about his nuclear materials. We have made it absolutely clear that we intend to implement resolution 687, which involves urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, as appropriate, of all the items concerned.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the rapid reaction corps concept, readiness is crucial and that any idea that parts of units committed to it, such as that of the 4th squadron in each tank regiment should be mothballed, would be fatal to the whole design? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that there would be considerable disquiet on both sides of the Chamber if cuts in generals, admirals and civil servants were prevented while cuts in our frontline forces went through?
    Mr. King: On the first point, I have already made the distinction between separable and separate forces. I agree that one would not allocate one squadron in a regiment to the European rapid reaction force while the other remained in NATO. The concept of the European rapid reaction force is comparable to what happened in the Gulf. We transferred to the Gulf forces assigned to NATO, such as the 1st British Armoured Division. I see no concept of having separate forces or different bits of separate regiments. If my hon. Friend will watch this space, he will hear very shortly about our proposals for streamlining the Ministry of Defence, which will meet precisely the objectives that he has in mind.
    Dr. Reid: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is fitting and proper that the rapid reaction force should be placed under British command? Is it not a testimony to the expertise of our troops and the esteem in which they are held by our allies? If the rapid reaction force points to the future need for highly flexible and mobile troops, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to dispel newspaper reports which have spoken of the emasculation of the Parachute Regiment by the closure of its headquarters, one battalion and all the reserve battalions?
    Mr. King: In the debate on the Army yesterday, my right hon. Friend made it clear that we would not comment on any regiments until I make a statement, which I hope to do before the House rises. I have already made it clear that I hope to publish the White Paper on defence estimates early next week. I hope to make a statement on the details of the Army restructuring before the summer recess.

    HMS Endurance
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of HMS Endurance.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): HMS Endurance has entered her routine maintenance period on return from the Antarctic. She will have an extensive structural survey during her maintenance period. A decision on deployment this winter will depend on the results of that survey.
    Mr. Gill: As one of several Members of this House who has had the pleasure and privilege of visiting the Falkland islands, may I say that any decision not to maintain or replace that vessel will send shock waves through the islands' population? Will my right hon. Friend, in his future deliberations on that subject, further consider the much heightened awareness of people in this country about developments in the south Atlantic generally and their interest in having the Antarctic region maintained in pristine condition?
    Mr. Hamilton: I completely accept that at present the Endurance has a much wider responsibility than merely for the Falkland islands. As for the shockwaves, Falkland islanders are greatly reassured about their future defence interests by the massive investment that we have made in Mount Pleasant airport and by the ability that we have to reinforce at very short notice.
    Mr. William Ross: Although it is well recognised that the other vessels in the south Atlantic have a defence capacity far in excess of anything that Endurance might be able to provide, is it not a fact that the Royal Navy has to carry out quite a lot of scientific work and that that work can be done only by an ice-strengthened ship? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us not only that Endurance will be kept in service for some years to come, but that when it finally has to be withdrawn from service there will be a suitable replacement vessel both to carry out the scientific work and to offer a public demonstration that we will maintain the defence of the Falkland islands by keeping a vessel down there permanently?
    Mr. Hamilton: I can give the hon. Gentleman the guarantee that he needs: we shall continue to defend the Falkland islands—our investment there is great. I accept that HMS Endurance has a certain value to the Royal Navy, but I am afraid that we shall have to wait and see how things pan out. The future of Endurance depends a great deal on the survey work being done on her at the moment.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Why is my right hon. and gallant Friend so coy about this matter? That is not a role that usually befits him and it is most uncharacteristic of him. Would it not be much better if the Government and the Ministry of Defence recognised that we had a long-term strategic interest in Antarctica and the Falkland island dependencies and that the balance of power round the Horn depends on our presence there?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am trying to be as forthcoming as I can. The fact remains that a survey is being carried out on the ship and we shall have to wait for its results before we can say with any clarity what the ship's future will be.

    RAF St. Athan
    Mr. John P. Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will consider making enhanced payment to civilian employees at RAF St. Athan to prevent them from being recruited by competing employers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): The existing civil service pay system provides sufficient flexibility to enable pay rates to be adjusted to overcome local recruitment and retention problems. There is no evidence that any such adjustment is necessary at present in respect of the civilian employees at RAF St. Athan, and I cannot speculate about what may happen in the future.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the Minister for that reply. As yet, there is not a problem at RAF St. Athan, but, given the pay differentials of up to 25 per cent. between the Ministry of Defence and civil aviation companies, there is a danger that when British Airways builds its unit at Cardiff-Wales airport there could be mass poaching of skilled precision engineers from RAF St. Athan. That will have serious defence implications. I hope, therefore, that the money is available should the air officer commanding maintenance unit call for special payments.
    Mr. Carlisle: To make enhanced payments there must be clear evidence that existing rates are failing to attract adequate staff. There are no significant staff shortages at present and we have no problems with recruitment. Should the situation take a turn for the worse, however, we shall take the necessary action to maintain proper employment at St Athan.

    Kurdish Refugees
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the assistance given by his Department to Kurdish refugees.
    Mr. Tom King: The initial deployment of RAF Hercules and Chinooks played a major part in getting vital supplies to the refugees in their desperate plight. That assistance was then backed up by 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, who helped ensure the safe return of refugees from the mountains. Throughout, they have worked closely with the other coalition forces and the aid agencies in this remarkable achievement. There are at present about 1,200 United Kingdom personnel in northern Iraq and nearby in Turkey, providing reassurance to the Kurds. We are consulting our allies on a suitable security presence in the area to underline our continuing interest in preventing a recurrence of the previous persecution.
    Mr. Barnes: The Kurds of Iraq feel that they are being left unprotected. British troops may pull out too early. What is to be done about assisting the United Nations to pick up the role that allied troops have been playing, so that the United Nations can deploy the necessary forces and resources? Will the British Government see that the United Nations is helped in that way?
    Mr. King: Many of the Kurds who have expressed such concern are alive only because of the action that saved the lives of hundreds of thousands. To my personal knowledge and from observation, those people would be dead if

    153
    Operation Haven had not been launched. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer in which I said that we would consult our allies about a suitable security presence in the area. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also spelt out our criteria, which we expect to see established.
    Sir Alan Glyn: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to allow troops to remain there until the United Nations has a force that is capable of guarding the secure areas where Kurdish refugees are staying?
    Mr. King: We certainly look for a significant presence by the United Nations, but we would not rely on that alone. We are considering in what ways we can back that with a security presence in the area and effective warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression would meet the severest response. We want to see a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back those warnings, and the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq. That is the strategy which was spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it has wide support among our allies.
    Mr. Ron Brown: As Turkey wishes to join the European Community, will the Secretary of State, when he next meets his counterparts in Turkey, advise the Turkish Government that it would be helpful if the Kurds in Turkey were not persecuted, as they are at the moment?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all the relief efforts, which have resulted in the saving of hundreds of thousands of lives, owe a great deal to the support and help that we have had from the Turkish Government in connection with our bases. It would not have been possible to mount the rescue operation without the active support of the Turkish Government, to whom I pay tribute. That co-operation was given at a time when Turkish policemen and others were being shot by Kurdish terrorists.

    Directorate General of Quality Assurance
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the directorate general of quality assurance.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the directorate general of quality assurance and the outcome of the study into relocating this to Portland.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: We are continuing to examine, in the context of "Options for Change", exactly what technical services currently provided by the directorate general of defence quality assurance will be needed in future and how they might best be supplied.
    Mr. Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the indecision in his Department since November has resulted in one of the five flagship sites on Teesside effectively being blighted? I urge my hon. Friend to bring his review forward as quickly as possible so that we can get on with an alternative development if necessary or with the development of the facility if he decides to send it to us.
    Mr. Carlisle: I recognise that my hon. Friend is anxious for a decision. So am I. However, substantial sums of
    154
    public money are at stake and it would be wrong to announce a decision until we have thoroughly concluded our studies.
    Mr. Bruce: I wonder whether the Ministry of Defence has got this quite right, because surely no other buyer would seek to put its quality assurance in a building that was separate from its other functions. Surely it would be far more sensible to locate geographically close to suppliers, users and research facilities—in Portland for instance.
    Mr. Carlisle: There is a considerable overlap between our research establishments in the technologies of quality assurance. A very good centre is in Portland in my hon. Friend's constituency. As I have said, in view of the high expenditure that is envisaged for any move, we must finish our studies properly before reaching a decision on the future of DGDQA.
    Mr. Frank Cook: We are well aware that considerable sums of public money are involved in the decision. A letter from the National Audit Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) dated 19 June categorically states:
    "A core project can be accommodated within the available finance."
    That is some sort of reassurance. Will the Minister guarantee that a decision will take account of the numerous youngsters who have been taken on for training as a result of the original decision to take this to Teesside? Will he also take account of the numerous instances of other Government relocations that have been directed away from Cleveland on the strength of 1,500 jobs that were to go there in the first place?
    Mr. Carlisle: Of course we shall take various circumstances into account, but under "Options for Change" our aim has to be to reduce the support areas within the Ministry of Defence in line with the armed services. This means that we have to look carefully at our plans to ensure that they are truly justified in the new circumstances.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the Minister spare a thought for the quality assurance staff at Woolwich, who have been operating under a cloud of continuing uncertainty for 15 years? How does he expect them to do a good job when they still do not know where they and their families will end up? Is not it time that the Government took a decision on this and, having taken it, stuck to it?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the need to come to a decision on this important issue as soon as we can.

    Regimental System
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what implications his "Options for Change" review will have for the regimental system.
    Mr. Tom King: Even though numbers will reduce under "Options for Change", the Government have made it clear that they believe in, and will maintain, the regimental system.
    Mr. Cran: My right hon. Friend has, rightly, not ruled out the possibility that some regiments and battalions may have to be disbanded. Does he agree that the criteria for that purpose should be not whether the battalion or

    155
    regiment has an illustrious past or a name but rather how well it has recruited and retained its members? Will he consider the possibility that, if some battalions and regiments have to be disbanded, they could be transferred to the Territorial Army and the name retained for other use?
    Mr. King: That possibility has been considered. The Army is pursuing this matter in consultations and I am sure that that is the right way to go about it. One of the most objectionable remarks made in the debate yesterday was that I should have intervened and decided, without consulting the Army or giving it the opportunity to determine this difficult change for itself. In the end, I have to take the responsibility and I shall have to stand at the Dispatch Box and justify the decisions reached. Therefore, it is far better for me to invite the Army to see whether it can arrive at the most satisfactory solution for the Army.
    Mr. Martlew: Ministerial guidelines say that the criteria used for the reduction in the infantry should take into consideration previous amalgamations and the geographical area for recruitment. Is the Minister aware that there will be great anger in Carlisle and throughout Cumbria if there is a move to disband the King's Own Royal Border Regiment? Will he give a guarantee that he will look carefully at keeping the county regiments, because there will be even greater anger if the two Yorkshire regiments of the King's Division are left unchanged?
    Mr. King: I have no doubt that there will be great anger in the hon. Gentleman's constituency about possible changes to regiments. I wonder how much anger there would be if he or any of his constituents knew that his Front-Bench spokesmen have said that they see no further relevance in the regimental system.
    Mr. Boscawen: When my right hon. Friend exercises his responsibility in making decisions on the future of the regimental system, will he bear in mind the fact that a central part of that system is the training of recruits and refresher training of non-commissioned officers and officers? The system that has been built up over many years is excellent, so will my right hon. Friend not discard it easily or lightly?
    Mr. King: I give my hon. Friend the absolute undertaking, which I know is shared by the Army board and those involved in the exercise, that none of those decisions will be taken easily or lightly. These are serious issues. Almost all right hon. and hon. Members recognise that changes have to come, but they raise difficult issues which we shall consider seriously.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will have had the opportunity to consider at leisure the speeches made in the debate yesterday, including, I hope, the most telling contribution from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Does the Secretary of State realise that he could remove a great deal of the anxiety that is felt about possible changes to regiments if he were to make it clear now that the ability to recruit and to retain will be regarded as the primary factors in determining whether regiments continue?
    Mr. King: I am grateful for the thoughtful and constructive contribution from my predecessor in this office. He said, fairly, that when the Army board puts forward its proposals and I announce to the House
    156
    whatever decisions are taken upon them, we must make clear the basis and the reasons for those proposals. The decisions will not be easy. There is great concern for the loyalty and all the other features of the regimental system that we cherish which will be at stake. However, I fully accept the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger).
    Mr. Hague: Given the importance of the ability to attract and retain good recruits, even though my right hon. Friend cannot comment, will he note that, with the sole exception of the Gurkhas, the Green Howards is the best-recruited regiment in the British Army and the last locally recruited regiment in the north-east and that its amalgamation or disbandment would be a serious blow to the recruiting ability of the Army?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend is joining others in giving a positive demonstration of why we believe, unlike Opposition Members, that there is much in the regimental system that is worth preserving and that we intend to keep.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Yesterday the nation recalled the battle of the Somme some 75 years ago. The event was particularly commemorated throughout Northern Ireland because of the sacrifices of Ulster people and southern Irish people, both Roman Catholics and Protestants. Will the Secretary of State ensure that those great traditions are retained by maintaining the Royal Irish Rangers?
    Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that I shall not comment on individual regiments, but I understand why he raises that point. As he will know, I have personal experience of the excellent work and traditions of that regiment.
    Mr. Couchman: My right hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of consultation with the Army and taking the onus for the difficult decisions on the Army; but at the end of the day, political decisions will have to be made and when he as Secretary of State makes those decisions, will he bear it in mind that the large regiments, particularly the Queen's and the Anglian regiments, are the result of amalgamations in past years and that they must remain as viable regiments in the future?
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend puts well one of the concerns that I know are felt by many regiments that have already faced amalgamation, lost their traditional names and gone forward to establish a considerable esprit de corps and reputation of their own. I understand that point very well.

    Explosive Handling Jetty
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow of 21 May, Official Report, column 456, if he is in a position to outline the steps he proposes to take in order to deal with the delays in the explosive handling jetty construction programme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman on 21 May—that the explosives handling jetty construction programme has been subject to some delay and we are currently examining what further steps are necessary in order to maintain the programme.
    Dr. Godman: It is more than three years since I first criticised the consultants, Rendel, Palmer and Tritton, for their unwise recommendation concerning the use of concrete instead of steel for the construction of the jetty. Is not it the case that because of the use of concrete the cost of the jetty has risen from £98 million to £141 million and it will not now be completed until 1993–94? Is not that nothing short of a scandal?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's continuing interest in the project. It is true that the whole apparatus will have to be strengthened more than was originally envisaged; however, I do not know that that can be blamed on the use of concrete rather than steel. We are now taking all possible measures to rectify the problems and to ensure that the entire explosives jetty comes on stream in time for our Trident boats.
    Mr. McFall: Has not the project almost careered out of control because of the 56 design changes that have been made? I have been contacted by contractors in my constituency who are owed millions of pounds, while at the same time they are being chased by the Treasury and others for VAT payments. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will contact other Departments to ensure that that stops? More important, will he investigate what I said in last Thursday's Royal Navy debate about sub-contractors, so that their affairs can then be put in order?
    Mr. Hamilton: The project has certainly not "careered out of control". As the hon. Gentleman says, changes have been made in the design contract; as I said, we are now trying to rectify the position. If sub-contractors have individual problems relating to payment, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me. We can then investigate them.

    Ships and Submarines
    Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current number of ships and submarines in service with the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The Royal Navy currently has three aircraft carriers, an escort fleet of around 50 destroyers and frigates which is being reduced to around 40, two assault ships and other specialist amphibious shipping, and a substantial flotilla of smaller warships. In addition to the four Polaris boats, we currently have 14 nuclear-powered submarines and seven diesel electric submarines.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that we are witnessing a continued decline in the number of naval vessels? Can he tell us how many naval bases we shall require and whether Rosyth will continue to be among their number?
    As for submarines, will the Minister tell his hon. Friends and some Opposition Members who signed the sixth report of the Select Committee on Defence, that no one in Scotland wants a nuclear submarine, decommissioned or otherwise, as a museum piece? If they want it, why do they not stick it in the Thames?
    Mr. Carlisle: The House should be reminded that, in 1989 and 1990, the Labour party conference voted to cut British defence spending by £9 billion a year, or over a
    158
    third of the current defence budget. The brutal truth is that that would lead not to tenders for the order for three frigates—which we have just achieved—but to the destruction of most of the Navy and of hundreds of thousands of jobs in naval bases, industry and elsewhere.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my hon. Friend accept that there will be a continuing need for first-line technology in the Royal Navy and that that will require an ongoing building programme? Does he take on board the fact that it is essential for the shipbuilding industry to have some idea of the number of ships likely to be ordered over the next five to 10 years?
    Mr. Carlisle: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. I am certain that Swan Hunter will produce an impressive tender for the three new frigates.
    Mr. Boyes: Will the Minister consider the establishment levels required on ships and submarines and, in particular, the deployment of Wrens on submarines, so that the skills for which they have been trained can be fully utilised? Women must have equal opportunities; if they wish to serve on submarines, the necessary arrangements should be made without delay.
    Mr. Carlisle: As I said last Thursday, we are studying that possibility.
    Dame Janet Fookes: Many of us think that the fleet is already being cut to the bone without any further reductions. How many of the ships that are currently in service can go to sea at present and are not in the process of being refitted or repaired?
    Mr. Carlisle: As I said, our policy is to order new ships to replace the older ones and thus to have a more effective Navy. I remind the House that, should Labour's plans ever be implemented, the effect on our equipment and defence budget would be catastrophic.

    Private Barry Hemingway
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the death in the Falkland islands of Private Barry Hemingway.
    Mr. Archie Hamilton: I very much regret the sad death of Private Hemingway, but I am sorry that there is nothing that I can add to what has already been made known to the hon. Gentleman in his correspondence with my Department.
    Mr. O'Brien: Following the tragic death of Private Barry Hemingway in a hospital in Montevideo from a virus developed as a result of diving in the Falklands, his family are at a loss because they have asked several questions but the answers are still outstanding. His mother was told on 8 August last year to be ready to fly out to her son, but that failed. She asked for more information and was told that it was not available because the satellite had broken down. People in Germany were made aware of her son's death before she was.
    Will the Minister conduct an inquiry into the death of Private Barry Hemingway and will someone call to see the family so that they can be given the information first hand? Can we have answers to the questions that the family has put to me and that I have put to the Minister, but which have not yet been answered?
    Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry if some of the hon. Gentleman's questions have not yet been answered. The provision to fly Mrs. Hemingway to see her son was on the basis that he was recovering from the original viral pneumonia that was diagnosed. It was only subsequently that his condition deteriorated and he had a cardio-respiratory arrest, which, tragically, killed him. I shall look again at the correspondence that we have had with the hon. Gentleman and answer any questions that have not yet been answered. Somebody will certainly visit Mrs. Hemingway.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Harry Ewing: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the prospectuses for PowerGen and other privatised industries say that Her Majesty's Government do not expect to use their shareholding to vote on resolutions before the annual general meetings of those companies, but—this is the important point—that they reserve the right to do so? Will the Prime Minister, for once, act decisively, do as he did in the case of the chairmen of the banks and call in the chairmen and chief executives of all the privatised industries and make it clear to them that he will use the power given to him in the prospectus to intervene and stop the obscene salary increases that they are granting to themselves—or is this yet another example of all talk, all dither and no action?
    The Prime Minister: I have made clear my view on the large increases on a number of occasions. I have also made it clear that the freedom given in the prospectus is not to be used in that fashion. The hon. Gentleman has been told that before and I reiterate it now.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look into the effect on the employment of women of implementing the provisions in the social charter which relate to part-time work? Will not the social charter, which is fully supported by the Labour party, destroy job opportunities for women and restrict the flexibility of part-time work from which so many women benefit?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are able to support parts of the social charter, but the draft directions on part-time work would add substantially to the cost to British industry and, in so doing, cost the jobs of many people.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister still certain that, as he promised just two weeks ago, Britain will come out of recession in the second half of this year?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I still believe that we will see the economy move out of recession during the second half of this year. That view is echoed by a number of independent commentators and I see no reason to revise our previous forecasts.
    Mr. Kinnock: The engineering employers, steel makers, car manufacturers and retailers are all telling the Government in clear terms that the serious losses of jobs, output and capacity will continue for the rest of this year and even into 1992 and beyond. What evidence does the Prime Minister have to demonstrate that those people, who certainly live in the real world, are wrong?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the latest CBI survey is precisely in line with the Red Book forecasts, which show that the economy will come out of recession in the second half of this year. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the G7 Finance Ministers agreed that the world economy was moving out of recession and back into growth. The impact of that will certainly assist our recovery in the second half of this year.
    Mr. Kinnock: As for the forecasts of recovery from the world recession, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which other major industrial country has had a zero-minus-growth rate this year—[Interruption.] Under the policies of this Government—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take a lot of time.
    Mr. Kinnock: Under the policies of this Government, a zero growth rate would be an improvement.
    Can the Prime Minister tell us which other major industrialised country has has a growth rate of minus 2 per cent. this year? What sort of recovery can the right hon. Gentleman look forward to, when every manufacturer in Britain clearly records a loss of capacity and of confidence that have eroded the British manufacturing base for the second time in 10 years?
    The Prime Minister: As for the long-term strength of British industry, the right hon. Gentleman should read the recent comment by the director general of the CBI. He said:
    "Virtually everything associated with our manufacturing base is better today than it was in the so-called 'golden era"'
    to which so many people look back fondly. The director general was right—that was the era of strikes, loss of delivery, lost market shares and Labour.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will doubtless have had reported to him the serious news that the Japanese research and development total exceeded £9 billion for the first time last month. Of that sum, £1·5 billion is spent by the five largest semiconductor firms in Japan, exceeding the total research and development expenditure on semiconductors of the United States and western Europe. Had this matter been considered by the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology, which my right hon. Friend chairs? If it has, does that committee share the views of the congressional committee on semiconductor dependency about the serious implications that that has for the defence and the industrial base of the western world?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend rightly makes the point that the huge research and development in the private sector has brought about the remarkable improvement in Japanese productivity in recent years. I shall chair a meeting of ACOST in the near future and I expect that that is one of the matters that we shall discuss.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that 16-year-olds on youth training have had their allowance frozen at £29·50 for several years and that, had their allowance risen since 1978 in line with average earnings, it would be £68·60 today? How does the Prime Minister think that those youngsters feel when they again read reports in the press that the heads of newly privatised industries such as PowerGen are awarding themselves pay rises of up to 163 per cent? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that those youngsters are worth so much less than Mr. Wallis?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a few moments ago, I have made my opinion on these large increases perfectly clear. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have a more substantial employment package for young people than this country has ever had and it was added to just a fortnight ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

    European Single Currency
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the benefits accruing from a single currency in the European Community to the United Kingdom and other European Community countries either now or in the future.
    The Prime Minister: Theoretically, a single currency within a single trading area can save industry the risks and costs of exchange rate transactions. It also saves ordinary travellers cost and inconvenience. Of course, all those advantages apply to a common currency such as that which the United Kingdom has proposed.
    But the economic benefits of a single currency can be exaggerated and they carry economic risks with them. If widely divergent economies are forced into the straitjacket of a single currency, the strains in the system may be unsustainable.
    Mr. Janman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Was he in the Chamber last week to hear the critical but interesting observation that a federal state bears three distinguishing marks? One of those marks is the existence of a single currency and of a central bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sentiments behind that observation, made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), fly in the face of the Labour party's policy on Europe?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that the Labour party is split on the question of Europe.
    Sir Russell Johnston: If the Prime Minister is saying that he agrees that a single currency is acceptable in principle, is not it also logical that a European central bank should control European-wide interest rates?
    The Prime Minister: What I have said repeatedly about a single currency is that if it is market driven and if it is required, it is acceptable to us in principle. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say yesterday, we have maintained our reserve on the prescriptive single currency which is at present before the Community.
    Mr. Fayell: With my right hon. Friend's successful Luxembourg conference behind him, will he reject any new proposals to interfere with the Government's right to tax, to spend and to fix interest rates, as otherwise the non-imposition of a single currency could be but a hollow victory?
    The Prime Minister: We are still at the very early stage of negotiations on economic and monetary union. I have already made it clear that I am as jealous as any other hon. Member of the rights of the House.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Prime Minister aware that last Friday I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what studies had been made into the benefits for the United Kingdom of economic and monetary union? He answered by referring in column 541 to a written answer that he had given to me on 7 December at column 216. Both answers showed that no study had been made of the benefits. As the First Lord of the Treasury, will the Prime Minister tell us why that is so?
    The Prime Minister: I set out in my original answer to my hon. Friend a few moments ago what the theoretical advantages of a single currency would be. The hon. Gentleman may care to read that answer.

    Engagements
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hayward: Will my right hon. Friend take time to consider the impact on income tax of a massive increase in public spending? Will he in particular say whether he has received any detailed written response to the analysis of the Labour party's programme which was issued by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about a fortnight ago?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. I can confirm that I have received no such written response. The Opposition are remarkably coy about their spending plans. These days they set great store by the Financial Times, but, as that newspaper said recently:
    "Any Labour Government would face clear choices: either unsustainable borrowing, or significantly higher taxation, or a great many disappointed hopes for higher public spending"—
    or, of course, all three.
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eadie: In view of the Government-inspired vendetta against the miners and their union, which is now in disrepute, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we are not on the verge of another scandal? As the Government have authorised Rothschild bank, Touche Ross and Geoffrey Chancer to advise the Government on the privatisation of the coal industry, will the Prime Minister give us an assurance today that the £6.5 billion miners pension fund will not be used as bait to sell off our coal industry?
    The Prime Minister: There is no vendetta against the miners. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to Question Time a few days ago, he would have heard of the number of miners in Nottinghamshire, for example, who now earn well over £20,000 a year, so little is the vendetta of the Government.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Field: May I refer my right hon. Friend to my ten-minute Bill on 29 June 1988, at column 399 of the Official Report, when I proposed financial penalties on parents of perpetual truants? In the process of introducing
    164
    the Bill, I referred to the 1985 Home Office report on parental supervision and delinquency. Has not the case been proved that if parents are careless of the whereabouts of their children, the children are more likely to offend? Is not it high time that we tightened up the rules on truancy? As my old friend, ex-prison governor and Isle of Wight broadcaster C. A. Joyce used to say, "I never met a criminal from a loving and caring home."
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. It is vital that parents fulfil their duty to secure their children's education. As my hon. Friend will know, under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, the maximum fine for the parents of truants will rise to £1,000. We are very concerned to bring an end to truancy and, through that and other policies, we will seek to do so.

Asylum
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be making a similar statement in another place.
The number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has risen sharply, from 5,000 a year in 1988 to more than 30,000 in 1990. From January to May this year, 21,000 applications were received—a rate of nearly 1,000 a week. In the light of that increase, the Government have been examining asylum arrangements, and I would like to inform the House of our initial decisions.
Britain has a long tradition of providing refuge for people who face imprisonment, torture or death because of their beliefs or ethnic origin. But for hundreds of millions of people who live in disordered countries or under totalitarian Governments the answer to their problem does not and cannot lie in emigration to the west.
Last year, about 500,000 people applied for asylum in Europe. Numbers of this kind cannot be sustained year after year and go far beyond what was envisaged when the present international arrangements were established.
Fear of persecution is no longer the dominant element for many asylum seekers. In only a small minority of cases in the United Kingdom are the applicants shown to have a "well-founded fear of persecution", as required by the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. The convention is an instrument of last resort, designed to protect life and liberty from immediate threat. It does not confer an unfettered right to travel the world and settle in the country of one's choice. It does not oblige parties to facilitate, still less to encourage, the arrival of asylum applicants. We cannot allow immigration control to become optional, nor must we let the institution of asylum to be undermined by abuse.
Across Europe, Governments are having to review their procedures and to provide additional resources to cope with the unprecedented weight of numbers. I am, of course, discussing the problem with our EC partners. In the United Kingdom, we have decided to take the following action.
First, we want to make it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom is not normally prepared to entertain claims from individuals who have failed to claim asylum in the first safe country that they reached. If individuals arrive here who could have safely claimed asylum elsewhere on their way to the United Kingdom, they will be sent back to that country for the claim to be dealt with there. The only exception is where the applicant has such close links with the United Kingdom that his or her claim should be considered here. In particular, applicants who arrive from other European Community countries should claim asylum there. The asylum convention that we signed in Dublin last year deals with these matters. We shall strengthen procedures at seaports and airports, particularly at Dover, to identify such applicants.
Secondly, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, through charges on airlines, discourages the acceptance of passengers who do not have valid travel documents. I recognise that many carriers have tried to comply with this, but other carriers are simply not doing enough. I am therefore laying before the House today an
166
order doubling from £1,000 to £2,000 the charge payable by the carrier for each passenger who fails to produce valid documents. We shall increase our programme of training for airlines' staff to implement that Act.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are exploring, with the co-operation of host Governments and airlines, other ways to improve document checks at certain overseas airports. We are willing to provide document specialists to advise carriers about the authenticity of travel documents, perhaps taking photocopies of travel documents for later verification. The police will continue to seek out corrupt agents who are operating in or through the United Kingdom, some of whom have already been prosecuted and convicted.
Fourthly, I am particularly concerned that asylum seekers can arrive here with no passport or other means of identification and must be admitted while their claim is considered. Evidence is coming to light that some asylum seekers have made multiple applications for asylum and have claimed social security benefits in a number of different identities. That is not acceptable. We have recently required asylum seekers to provide photographs of themselves. I am considering the contribution that fingerprinting might make in such cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and I are examining how the opportunities for such fraud can be reduced. I will consider whether any further powers are needed.
Fifthly, the present system for handling refugee applications is excessively cumbersome. The system is now completely overloaded. There are 50,000 undecided cases and the backlog is growing at more than 3,000 cases a month. The average decision time is already more than 16 months and is getting worse.
On 26 April, I announced proposals to speed up the process. Accelerating the process will bring early justice to the genuine applicant and the speedier removal of many more bogus applicants. We are recruiting up to 500 staff for the immigration department at Croydon so that the initial determination can be made more rapidly.
At the earliest parliamentary opportunity, we shall introduce a Bill to allow a substantial acceleration and simplification of procedures. The present opportunities for delay through repeated representations and litigation will be substantially pruned.
Some asylum seekers already have the right to appeal to the immigration appellate authorities before removal, but some have not. The Bill will make it clear that all those who are turned down in the determination process will be able to appeal while they are in the United Kingdom. In addition, new procedural rules will impose time limits for the submission of material in support of claims. Decisions on cases will take into account such matters as the deliberate destruction of travel documents and entry by deception. We shall also carefully examine the credibility and good faith of applicants who make claims for asylum after they have resided in this country for some time.
My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will be recruiting extra adjudicators and other support staff to the appellate authorities to ensure that asylum appeals will be heard more quickly.
In order to assist the process of improving and streamlining adjudications, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I also propose to change the publicly funded arrangements for advice and representation in asylum and immigration cases. At present advice

167
and assistance but not representation are available to those whose means qualify them under the legal aid green form scheme. We propose that in future advice and assistance, and where necessary representation before the immigrant appellate authority, should instead be provided by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. We believe that this will enable those who genuinely need it to be given such help more economically and effectively than under the green form scheme. When the necessary arrangements are completed my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor will bring forward regulations to effect the change, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
In consequence of this, and as a result of the extra work which will flow from the changes that I have announced today, we intend to increase substantially the Home Office grant to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. I am grateful that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees continues also to contribute to the costs of the refugee unit of UKIAS.
Our aim will be to decide all cases within a matter of months from start to finish. But in some cases it will be clear from the outset that the applicant has no claim to our protection. The Bill will provide for accelerated handling of clearly unfounded cases. An adjudicator will be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim.
I believe that the rapid rejection of a large number of unfounded claims and the early departure of those applicants from this country will play a major part in deterring further abuse of the process and allow us to tackle the dramatic growth in the number of applications.
The Government recognise their obligations to genuine refugees, but they also have an obligation to the British people to control immigration. Those obligations can pull in different directions. Our aim is to arrive at a balance between them which is in line with the realities of the modern world. I believe that the measures that I have announced today represent such a balance.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The Home Secretary began by reminding the House of Britain's long and honourable tradition of providing asylum for genuine refugees. I am sure that the whole House will be determined that our reputation as a refuge for the oppressed should not be destroyed, and that we should not lose the genuine benefits that we have from time to time enjoyed as a result of providing asylum for oppressed minorities.
Much of the Home Secretary's statement concerned the necessity of ensuring that those who apply for asylum as a means of avoiding immigration regulations should not be allowed to enter the country. No sensible person could disagree with that intention—not least because the interests of the ethnic minorities in Britain are damaged by such conduct. However, does the Home Secretary agree that it is equally important to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are not denied entry because of the obsession with keeping out bogus applicants? [Interruption.] If any Conservative Members below the Gangway want to argue against the contention that genuine asylum seekers should be allowed into the country, I hope that they will say so as the debate progresses.
The Home Secretary will expect me to agree—and I gladly give my agreement—to his intention to take the strongest possible action against corrupt agents, and also
168
his intention to increase the staff available for dealing with the work, although, clearly, we shall want to see the methods by which the work is to be dealt with, and the intended speedy procedures that the Home Secretary outlined.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of multiple applications, but in a parliamentary answer we were told that the Government has no idea how many multiple applications had been made. Can the right hon. Gentleman provide evidence to justify even considering the idea of fingerprinting—a proposal which many hon. Members, I hope and believe, on both sides of the House will instinctively find repulsive. For such a proposal even to be considered there would need to be a great deal of evidence of multiple applications, and I repeat that the Home Secretary's most recent answer on the subject was that he did not know how many there are or how many there have been.
If the proper balance between providing illegal entry and allowing necessary asylum is to be achieved, the Home Secretary will wish to answer a number of detailed questions. I shall ask him some of them this afternoon, on the understanding that we shall debate these matters in the not-too-distant future.
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's decision to extend rights of appeal to all asylum seekers in this country. I also welcome his decision to allow representation before immigration appeals tribunals. But we shall want to look with great care at the proposal that that representation and advice should be provided, not through legal aid or the green card system, but by extending the work of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. Can the Home Secretary tell us his intentions in making that change? Does he believe that by giving UKIAS the responsibility for the work he will be providing extra advice for those who need and deserve it, or is he simply cutting costs in a way that may result in advice of the right sort and advice from properly qualified people not being available?
Will the Home Secretary describe how his fast-track proposals will work in practice? He said that, in some cases, it would be clear at the outset that the applicant had no claim to protection. Will it be the adjudicator alone —a single individual—who will make that decision, and will that decision be subject to any appeal? On the whole subject of applications for asylum, may we be assured that they will be subject to judicial review? In many of the stories dealing with the subject which have recently appeared in newspapers—I suspect, preparing the House for the Home Secretary's statement today—it has been suggested that the law will specifically prevent legal review. May we have the Home Secretary's assurance that that will not be the case?
I know that the Home Secretary is anxious to convince the House that his proposals will in no way be biased by racial prejudice. Of course I accept his assurances on that point, but he will understand that our judgment must be made on the basis of the way in which the regulations work in practice; that is far more important than the Home Secretary's good intentions.
So that we may examine these matters, may we have a general assurance about the procedures by which the changes in all the arrangements governing asylum and immigration are to be made? At the moment, thanks to the European Community, the Home Secretary meets his colleagues at two meetings—in Schengen and Trevi—

169
which are described as private and which are in fact secret. Home Secretaries and Interior Ministers come to collective decisions for the entire Community and present those decisions, one by one, to their national Parliaments. Will the Home Secretary assure us that he will abandon that practice—it has been abandoned in Holland under the force of law—that he will report after his meetings with colleagues, and that he will enable the House to discuss his proposals before he agrees them with colleagues in Europe only to present them to the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?
Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has given a less than wholehearted welcome for the proposals but none the less there was some warmth in his remarks, I think. I agree with him that it is most important to ensure that the system operates effectively for genuine asylum seekers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about multiple applications. There have been some multiple applications and some court cases, and I will provide details of them. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that other countries are also experiencing such applications. In my talks with fellow Ministers in Germany and Holland, I have discovered that both countries have experienced multiple applications. Both use photographs and fingerprinting, and other countries, too, now use those techniques.
Perhaps unintentionally, the right hon. Gentleman cast a slur on UKIAS. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] I was generous enough to say "unintentionally". The right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps this was a method of reducing the independent and fair advice available to immigrants. That is certainly not the case.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the fast-track procedure. The procedure for the determination of all cases is as follows. First, the decision will be taken by an official of my Department, an official of the immigration department, as it is at the moment. Then there can be an appeal to an adjudicator under the existing system. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what we would envisage for fast-track cases. Some of them may be obvious. Some applicants from completely safe countries make bids for asylum. We have even had some applications from countries such as America and Canada, and those cases are dealt with very promptly. Other cases are not so obvious, but it may nevertheless be clear that the applications are from a safe country. We propose that, in instances where there is a manifest and clear case, the adjudicator should not allow a normal hearing.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about judicial review. I assure him that we are not removing judicial review. It cannot be removed by an Act of Parliament. Asylum seekers who feel aggrieved may ask for judicial review. Once the appellate system has been set up, there may well be far fewer judicial review cases, but that is not for me to decide. In deciding whether there should be judicial review, the courts may well say, "There is a process of determination and adjudication which we think is sufficient." There would, however, still be the opportunity to ask for judicial review.
On the right hon. Gentleman's question about racial bias, may I make it absolutely clear that there is no element of racism in the proposals? The procedures and measures apply equally to Africa, India, the Indian subcontinent
170
and Asia, just as they apply to eastern Europe, Bulgaria, Romania and Russia. I assure the House that there is no element of racial bias in the proposals.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an Opposition Supply day, with a heavy demand from hon. Members who wish to speak in both debates and that I have no opportunity to limit speeches I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.20 pm in the knowledge that there will be a debate on it later. I ask hon. Member to ask single questions and not to go into the matter in detail.
Mr. David Shaw: Further to his point about Dover, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the immigration staff there will be given further assistance and support? Will he also confirm that the ferry company personnel, who are responsible for exhaustively checking documents but who sometimes find it difficult to know whether a document is valid, will be given full support and guidance from his Department's staff to minimise the potential financial effects on ferry companies which are endeavouring to support the law but which find it difficult to do so when documents are confusing?
Mr. Baker: Yes, I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are prepared to give, and are giving, advice and assistance to ferry companies on this difficult matter, given that documentation can be fraudulent and disposed of easily by being thrown overboard if one wants to appear in the United Kingdom without any documentation.
Dover is an important point of entry, but all the boats arriving at Dover come from safe countries. We shall be giving clearer advice to the immigration officers at Dover and at other ports to ensure that asylum seekers can be returned to a safe country if that is what they come from —with the exception that I outlined in my statement—that is, unless the asylum seeker has a close relative here and it would be better for the asylum claim to be discussed in this country.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I realise that there has been a sharp increase in the number of people claiming asylum in the past two years, but does the Home Secretary acknowledge that during the first 10 years of the Conservative Administration 87 per cent. of those who claimed asylum received it? Does he further acknowledge that that was a high proportion and that it would be surprising if the proportion of those who are genuine asylum seekers is greatly different today?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he must at least approach this matter with much greater caution than his statement suggested? Does he acknowledge that a civilised country does not seek to balance fundamental rights and freedoms against immigration control, and that the genuineness of asylum applicants must be allowed to come through? Does he further recognise that there will be great concern about a number of his opaque statements today—about the curtailment of opportunities for litigation, about the accelerated decision making for cases that are allegedly manifestly unfounded, and, above all, about his decision to end legal aid?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman lives in an unreal world. At the beginning of the decade, applications for

171
asylum were running at about 3,000 per year and the hon. Gentleman said that about 87 per cent. were granted asylum—his figures are not quite right—but the fact is that we are now receiving 50,000 applications per year. Is he really saying that the Liberal party would allow 87 per cent. of those? I have been careful to ensure that genuine applications from political refugees should still be considered with great care and scrupulousness.
Throughout our history we have always welcomed people fleeing from persecution, torture and imprisonment, but we are now faced—not simply in this country but in every country in Europe—with a different flow altogether. We are faced with great migratory pressures resulting not from political measures and considerations but principally from economic considerations. I believe that that will be one of the great problems of the 1990s for the whole world.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was worried about the various measures that I have announced today. I have not announced any reduction of access to litigation. He could not have heard my remarks. I pointed out that we have provided the possibility of appeal for those who did not previously have the opportunity of such an appeal and will continue to provide generous assistance for applicants.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, without these measures, a serious social problem would develop in the United Kingdom, just as a serious problem is developing in Italy, Germany, France and other European countries? It is essential for us to have common sense procedures to protect the genuine refugee and to ensure racial harmony in the country as a whole.
Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. If asylum-seeking is used as a means of evading immigration control, with all that that means, social problems can be created. Indeed, the social problems in this area that exist among some of our partners in Europe are much greater than are our problems. Both parties in this country have worked hard at this problem over the last 30 years and put a high premium on racial harmony, fairness and equality in our society. That is paying off. Unfortunately, some European countries that have not given so much attention to the matter are finding that already there is unacceptable violence and tension. I believe that we have behaved responsibly. We must act in this way to ensure that the true refugee can find asylum here and that bogus applicants are sent back to where they came from.
Mr. Bernie Grant: It is clear that the Government are intent on using the numbers game, both in immigration matters and for refugee and asylum seekers, to create a racist backlash— [interruption.]—because that is going to happen. I accuse the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister of creating a racist backlash by using the numbers game. Is it a coincidence that, at the same time that Jacques Chirac, the Gaullist leader, talks about having an overdose of immigrants, the British Government begin thinking in terms of the numbers game?
Regarding legal representation for asylum seekers, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that UKIAS will be able to cope with the number of refugee representations that it will have, particularly in view of the situation surrounding the Kurdish question?
Mr. Baker: To answer the hon. Gentleman's last point first, we shall be increasing the grant to UKIAS very substantially indeed—my officials are already in discussions with it—and that will involve the recruitment of more staff by UKIAS.
In answering the hon. Gentleman's main point, I utterly reject his claim that this is a racist policy. If he can see no distinction between the number of applicants seeking asylum at the rate of 100 a week and 1,000 a week, with all the tensions and difficulties that that can create, he does not understand the situation and the problem that could arise in this country.
I reaffirm to the hon. Gentleman, because he is listened to in his community, that the policy I have announced today—and I hope that his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) does not agree with his remarks—does not distinguish on grounds of colour or race. It applies to asylum seekers, black or white, from wherever they come.
Sir Philip Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that providing housing and assistance to asylum seekers is putting a great strain on some London boroughs? Does he intend to seek powers to direct asylum seekers to housing outside Greater London while they are awaiting screening?
Mr. Baker: I do not think that we shall be able to do that. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. None the less, I accept the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. The number of asylum seekers is some 100,000 a week. A stream of dependants may wish to follow, so it may be an understatement of the actual number. They impose considerable strains on housing and other social service requirements. The extent to which the measure will restrain that flow will ease the pressures on local authorities.
Ms. Clare Short: It is my experience that there has been a growth in bogus applications in recent years, which has led to a hardening of the response to genuine applicants for political asylum. I blame the Home Department for the growth in bogus applications because of the increased delay and because the Department deals with corrupt agents whom it does not seek out, arrest and prosecute. I have had cause to bring to the attention of the Home Department three such agents who trade in human misery, rip off enormous sums of money from poor families, mislead them and often tangle up their cases. Will the Home Secretary give a firm assurance that his Department will give much greater priority to arresting and prosecuting the evil people who trade in misery, rather than the poor people who become tangled up with them?
Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Lady for what she has said and also for the information that she has passed to the Department. We investigate many such cases, but we require evidence. Some prosecutions have been mounted and have proved successful. As the hon. Lady knows, some unscrupulous agents operating in the United Kingdom will provide, for between £1,000 and £5,000, tortuous stories, bogus letters from home and bogus telegrams to try to show that the applicant has a case. In several instances we have found that the cases are totally bogus.

173
I assure the hon. Lady that we shall seek out and prosecute those cases. Police investigations are going on at the moment, and I hope that they will be fruitful.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many bogus asylum seekers are coming to Britain as part of a carefully planned racket, which is having a disastrous effect on the confidence of people in this country in the whole system? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), other hon. Members who represent London constituencies are concerned about the housing problems that could flow from that problem. Will my right hon. Friend therefore take that into account in framing the legislation?
Mr. Baker: The whole purpose of my proposals is to abate the flow of asylum seekers. That flow is not unique to our country but is happening throughout Europe, which represents an attractive area for people to live in. Great concern has been expressed by my counterparts, the Ministers of the Interior in Europe, because some of their borders are difficult to police, and whenever there is strife and trouble there is a possibility of more asylum seekers. Alas, some cases of political asylum are well founded because people are fleeing from persecution. But many other people are using asylum as a means of evading immigration control because they would simply prefer to live in Europe.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Having spent June muzzling dogs, the Home Secretary now wishes to spend July muzzling the rights of asylum seekers. Is not the crisis of the Government's own making? Why has the Home Secretary failed to act on the Home Affairs Select Committee's unanimous recommendation that more resources should be made available to the Home Office and Lunar house? Does he not realise that today's announcement of meagre extra resources will do nothing to end the current delay and will cause enormous hardship and misery to those caught up in this immigration mess? If a person is coming on a direct flight from Algiers to London, what is the safest country into which he or she can parachute before arriving in Britain?
Mr. Baker: When the hon. Gentleman reviews his remarks in Hansard tomorrow, I believe that he will consider them to be trivial and silly.
We have increased substantially the resources in the Home Office. On 26 April, I announced that we shall recruit 500 more civil servants for the immigration department and that is under way. We have taken additional office accommodation in Croydon, and, as a result of my announcement today, the Lord Chancellor will recruit further adjudicators. He recruited 30 last year and will probably recruit at least 50 or 60 this year because we want to speed up the process. There is no shortage of Government resources—this is extra money. Many safe countries lie between Algiers and this country.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these proposals in no way reduce or diminish rights to first asylum? Will he therefore agree that, although the proposals reduce the opportunities for fraudulent applications, they also consequently speed up the chances of the genuine asylum seeker?
Mr. Baker: I can certainly confirm that. The proposals in no way weaken the principle of first asylum in the first safe country. It is often easy to determine when there is a genuine case. A decision can be made in a matter of days, and in some cases it is.
Mr. William Ross: Does not the fact that so many people want to come to this country prove that, despite what some folk may say or think, the United Kingdom is still one of the most pleasant and agreeable countries in which to live? That is one reason why the people of Northern Ireland strain every nerve to stay in it.
Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that since so many nations, not least in eastern Europe, have moved towards democracy and the rule of law there is now great hope that other nations, including even those living under the most vile regimes, will move in the same direction so that the problem will diminish? That being so, does he agree that even genuine refugees should have the right to stay in this country only until their own countries become democratic and abide by the rule of law?
Mr. Baker: Quite a few refugees go back when their countries have calmed down, but many do not because they have become established here, they have jobs here, their children have been brought up here, they have often married here, and they have a right to stay. If they are given refugee status, they can apply for residence after four years and for naturalisation after seven. On the whole, they tend to stay; relatively few go back.
As for changes in totalitarian regimes, the figures for May were encouraging: there were virtually no applications for refugee status from Poland or Czechoslovakia, but there were still applications from Bulgaria and Romania because those regimes are still basically totalitarian and represent a threat to some of their citizens.
Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am wholly in favour of genuine refugees finding asylum in this country? Is he further aware that I am part English and part Huguenot? The Huguenots made a great contribution to the life of this country. Is he also aware that the people in my constituency, which is near that of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), welcome these arrangements as fair and sensible?
Mr. Baker: I am interested to learn of my hon. Friend's lineage. Clearly he comes from one immigrant refugee family that did not return to France. I very much agree with his sentiments.
The proposals that we have introduced today are a sane and sensible way of dealing with a unique problem which, unless we deal with it, will grow considerably in the next 10 years.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this negative policy can be justified or excused only if the countries of the developed world ensure that the economies of the underdeveloped world are helped to perform more satisfactorily and are relieved of the immense international debt foisted on them by us?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we direct large amounts of our aid to some of the most troubled countries of the world. For example, the extra

175
sums that we provided for the Horn of Africa during the past year showed what a troubled state that part of the world is in. A large number of asylum seekers from Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia are still applying to enter this country. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to support those economies and try to make them more viable. The prospect of economic development will hold many of these people in those countries. The disparities between the third world and western Europe are likely to remain for a long time. Therefore, the magnetism of Europe will exert a strong pull for a long time.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the timely good sense of his statement. With about 50,000 people and their families waiting to come here, a high proportion of whom are bogus, the statement will have the support of the overwhelming majority of the British people. Despite the criticisms of some Opposition Members, it is clear that, however much we may tighten up the rules and make them more efficient, the British nation remains one of the world's most fair-minded and tolerant countries. The hon. Members for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) should recognise that fact.
Mr. Baker: Many asylum seekers wish to come here and go through our procedures because they recognise that they will be fairly treated in the process of determination and fairly treated by our courts and our social security system. I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, but that does not mean that all third-world countries should regard Europe as the answer to their problems. There must he a re-establishment of balance in some parts of the world, otherwise the flow will continue.
Ms. Diane Abbott: I represent a part of London that from the turn of the century has offered a home to genuine refugees, whether they were fleeing from tsarist Russia or, as at the moment, from Somalia.
The Home Secretary has told us how he intends to criminalise people fleeing from war, torture and famine and how he intends to cut across due process. What support does he plan for communities such as those in Hackney which have welcomed genuine refugees and have faced housing and education problems as a result? He is criminalising refugees, but what will he do to help them?
Mr. Baker: Once again the hon. Lady does her cause no good by using extravagant words that make a travesty of the proposals. We already provide a great deal of assistance to refugees through the social security system. Many refugees are also housed, and many people who have been on the housing waiting list for a long time do not rejoice when they learn that a refugee who arrived a week before has been given housing before them.
Mr. Tim Janman: My right hon. Friend knows that I have long been urging him to take the sort of measures that he has announced today. I congratulate him on an excellent statement. I urge him completely to ignore the ridiculous, pathetic and, frankly, boring Opposition taunts. Does he agree that some of the people who will be most grateful for his measures are those who are already in this country and greatly resent those who seek to gain entry through what are in effect illegal and deceitful means?
Mr. Baker: This morning I spoke to a white Englishman who told me that he had married into a Pakistani family. He said that his relations in Pakistan greatly resented the extent to which people were abusing refugee status and trying to jump the queue when he was trying to get some of his relations in under our immigration laws. One hears about many such problems.
Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has given overall figures, which are certainly large, of the increase in refugee applications in the past three years, but he has given no breakdown of those figures. Does he agree that, particularly in the last year, a substantial number of refugees have fled from appallingly war-torn, civil war and famine-stricken areas such as Somalia, the Sudan and Ethiopia? If that is so, we still face a great problem, but it is wrong for the Home Secretary to give the impression that we are dealing simply with the problem of people who behave criminally and cheat. These people have genuine problems, and they need help.
Mr. Baker: We have a great deal of correspondence on the problems of the right hon. Gentleman's constituency and the large numbers of immigrants there. If the proposition is that the citizens of every country that is poor, underdeveloped or going through a bit of trouble should have a right to move en masse into western Europe, I do not believe that any country, or group of countries, could sustain that.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a breakdown of the figures. Of the 4,000 who came in May, 500 applications were from eastern Europe and China, 2,500 were from Africa, and 1,000 from the Indian subcontinent and Asia.
Dr. Ian Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the country will wholeheartedly reject the accusation of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) that these are racist measures? Does he further accept that British people, of whatever colour, will warmly welcome these proposals as a genuine attempt to strengthen the rights of political asylum, and that political asylum seekers will look forward to hearing more from the Government about attempts to track down those who cynically abuse asylum seekers for their own financial gains?
Mr. Baker: There are many bogus applicants, such as people whose identities change after the examination. For example, one Angolan claimed that he had been tortured and gave all the evidence, but, after six months, said that he came from Zaire and wanted to go back there. Many people in Britain will welcome what I have said today because it is a demonstration of the openness and fairness with which we shall be guided when dealing with this problem.
Mr. Max Madden: Is the Home Secretary aware that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was in Committee Room 12 this morning, and that he said that so long as war and famine existed there would be those who sought refuge, and that so long as blood-thirsty tyrannies existed there would be those who sought political asylum? Is he aware that the impression given by today's statement—I wonder what prompted him to make it today—is that he is helping

177
to create a fortress Europe, the door of which will be slammed shut in the face of those seeking refuge from war, famine and political tyranny?
What safeguards will there be to ensure that those seeking political asylum are allowed to register a claim? Will people be able to apply for political asylum after entry, and will applicants in those rare cases in which judicial review is granted be able to remain in the United Kingdom until a decision is reached?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asked whether people who make applications after they have entered the country will be allowed to remain. Of the 4,000 who applied in May —the pattern is roughly the same for the other months —about one third applied at airports and seaports and two thirds at the immigration offices in Croydon. That is to say, they entered the country as legitimate travellers—visitors, students and business people—and claimed refugee status when the time allowed for their stay had expired. In the adjudication process, there will have to be careful examination of whether the nature of a country has changed in the time that an applicant has been here, or whether he just likes the prospect of an extended stay.
Sir Timothy Raison: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the appeals system that he announced today will apply to all who land in this country and that it fully meets all our international convention obligations?
Mr. Baker: I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance on both points. Until today, about one third of asylum seekers had no access to the appellate system under the immigration procedures. That will now be ended, and everyone will have access. If people apply within the country, the process will be finished within the country, and adjudication will take place and a decision will be reached before they are removed, if the decision is that they should be removed.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that, despite what he said, there is bound to be concern among Labour Members that genuine cases could be harmed? We are aware that, for example, the then Tory Government treated those fleeing from Chile in 1973–74 in one way, but when the Labour Government took power they recognised the genuine refugees in a far more meaningful way.
As a former employee, and later chairman, of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, I welcome
178
the increased funding for it. I have every confidence in the organisation. While I recognise, and partly agree with, the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), about legal aid and feel that he was right to make them, I wonder whether the Secretary of State has consulted UKIAS about his announcement. Does it accept that it can take on the increased work load, bearing in mind the obvious difficulties?
Mr. Baker: I make it clear that Ministers do not influence decisions about which countries are safe or which regimes are politically unacceptable. The process of determination is in the hands of officials in my Department and I do not interfere with that. There is also the due process of appeal in the courts of law. Unintentionally the hon. Gentleman may have given the impression that there is some influence.
We are in discussion with UKIAS and I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. It is a good, respected and reliable organisation, and we shall be substantially increasing its grant so that it can increase its staff to take on the additional tasks that I have outlined today.
Mr. John Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the alarming tide of bogus asylum applications to which he has referred underlines the need to retain control of immigration policy as the prerogative of the British Government and the Westminster Parliament, and that those are not powers which can safely be delegated to the European Commission or the European Parliament?
Mr. Baker: Those powers are critical. I make it clear that the proposals that we have outlined today will be exercised by our Government because of our powers and responsibilities in the matter. I shall also be discussing with our partners in Europe their plans and proposals to see whether there are certain things that we can do together. For example, there is a proposal to exchange data so that we can see who are making multiple applications or applications in other countries as opposed to here. We shall be discussing such matters with our partners in Europe later this year.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will bear in mind those hon. Members who have not been called when we debate the matter. There are Home Office questions on Thursday, and I shall look with some sympathy on those who have not been called today if there are relevant questions on the Order Paper.

Points of Order
4.21 pm
Mrs. Joyce Quin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which should be of some concern to hon. Members and where there is a danger that the views of the House will be ignored.
Yesterday, the Government announced in a written parliamentary answer to a presumably planted question the details of the sell-off of the short-term division of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, despite the fact that the privatisation Bill has not completed its parliamentary proceedings and that this is a highly controversial matter about which many hon. Members have expressed concern, particularly because of their worries about the services that will be provided to British exporters by the preferred bidder, a Dutch company. Surely the Minister responsible should be prepared to come to the House and defend his views publicly and to answer as fully as possible the concerns and questions of hon. Members.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a Member of Parliament for the Cardiff area where all the staff of the division of ECGD that is being privatised work. Those people are shocked that their fate has been consigned by way of a written answer, that the decision has apparently been taken by the Government even though the legislation may come back to this place in the light of the fearful hammering that it received on Second Reading in another place, and that the decision is being made that Amsterdam is the proper place for deciding the fate of the financing and reinsuring of Britain's exports. I consider that Cardiff is a proper place for insuring Britain's exports and it is open to question whether the democratic process in this House and in the other place has yet resulted in that decision.
Therefore, under what rule, other than the rule that the Government believe that it will go to Amsterdam—it is all part of the deep laid plot for the British Government to go from clogs to clogs in three generations—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem to be entering into the arguments of the matter. I have had no intimation from the Government that a statement is to be made on this subject, but doubtless the fact that it has been raised from the Front Bench will be borne in mind. If a statement is required, I suggest that negotiations take place through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) first, as I was given notice of it.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has emerged today that the Secretary of State for Scotland was told at a private meeting on Tuesday 4 June of the impending closure of the Dalzell platemill. At the meeting, the right hon. Gentleman told British Steel that the closure was solely a matter for the company.
On the same day, the Prime Minister sent a letter of public support to the Dalzell shop stewards. Surely the House is entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State
180
for Scotland—or at least an intervention in Thursday's debate—explaining exactly why the Conservative party can say one thing publicly in Scotland, while at the same time selling the workers down the river by saying something else at a private meeting in London.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. An opportunity will arise on Thursday to probe the matter.
Mr. Tony Banks: I have two points of order, Mr. Speaker, but they are related.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think so.
Mr. Banks: In that case, I shall try one.
We have just heard a long statement from the Home Secretary in which many of us have a considerable constituency interest. It is most annoying for us to see copies of such statements being distributed in the Press Gallery when none are made available to us by the Vote Office. Those of us who have not been called find ourselves in double jeopardy, as we cannot even make our own remarks on the Home Secretary's statement because copies are not in the Vote Office.
My second point concerns procedure. When a Minister seeks permission to link two parliamentary questions, I assume that you, Mr. Speaker, can deny him that permission. It strikes me as entirely inappropriate for a Minister to link questions 6 and 18 when it is clear that question 18 will not be reached, and that certain assiduous Back Benchers will not be called as a result.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman himself is an assiduous Back Bencher, and he has asked two questions. I will answer the first.
I assume that copies of today's statement were embargoed until after it had been made. This is, however, an important point, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) might well put to the Procedure Committee. It has often occurred to me that it would benefit the House if copies were issued the day before statements were made, so that hon. Members could ask their questions against a background knowledge.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I asked this morning for a private notice question—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to mention such matters in the Chamber.
Mr. Hind: Have you, Mr. Speaker, received a request from the Department of Health for permission to make a statement on the licensing of the drug RU486? Many of my colleagues have noted from The Sunday Times and yesterday's Evening Standard—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I dealt with that point of order yesterday, when I told the hon. Gentleman that I had received no notice that the Government wished to make a statement on the subject. I have nothing more to add.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Today is an Opposition day, and hon. Members are taking time out of the debate.
Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to go over the ground of this afternoon's statement, but I should like to know

181
whether you have received a request for the Government to explain, by means of another statement, whether they have any powers to prevent the entry into the United Kingdom of an EEC national—M. Le Pen, who is due to address a conference in two days' time at the—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bogus point of order if I ever heard one.
Mr. Nellist: No, it is not.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to abuse the procedure.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I have tabled a ten-minute Bill dealing with the question of refugees and asylum-seekers, and, like other hon. Members, I am now being asked to respond to the Home Secretary's statement. I wish to reflect accurately what the Home Secretary said.
Given that copies were not available in the Vote Office —which has just confirmed that it had no idea when the statement was coming, although I have seen journalists brandishing copies—will you make the strongest possible representations to the Home Office? Will you tell the Home Office that, if a Minister makes a statement here and copies are given to members of the Press Gallery, that is fine, but hon. Members expect to have copies as well—at the same time, if not earlier?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a fair point. Hon. Members should be treated equally with members of the press—[Interruption.] Order. I am trying to be helpful.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your knowledge that the Scottish Grand Committee is not sitting this week because the Secretary of State for Scotland has to accompany the Queen on royal duties in Scotland. Do you think that the Secretary of State should be at the royal garden party on Thursday or at the House of Commons answering questions on the closure of the Dalzell works?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know what is happening in Scotland on Thursday.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), if Mr. Le Pen wishes to come to Britain and he is an EC national, I judge that he will have no problems. There is no point of order for me in that matter.
Mr. Jim Sillars: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises from your comments about the distribution of statements. I am not in a position to complain about that because minority parties and the Opposition Front Bench receive copies, so I am being objective. You said, Mr. Speaker, that in your view Back-Bench Members should be treated equally with the press. Perhaps you should reconsider that because there is a significant difference between us and the press in that we are elected to represent people.
Mr. Speaker: I do not quite understand the point. But I repeat that hon. Members should be able to ask their questions against a background of knowledge. It is particularly distasteful for Members of Parliament to be asked detailed questions by the press in the Lobby when they have not seen the statement.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I finish the point of order that I raised earlier? This place is, in a sense, the guardian of law and order in this country. I am asking for your ruling on how we seek to raise the fact that, given the nature of the individual concerned, there might be problems on Thursday with a noted racist such as Le Pen addressing a conference a few hundred yards from this building in which Sessional Orders pertain of which you are the guardian. Can something be done about it?
Mr. David Winnick: May I help on this point?
Mr. Speaker: I do not need help. The hon. Gentleman is not yet Mr. Speaker. This is a matter for the police, not for me.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    COMMUNITY CHARGE (DISQUALIFICATION FOR NON-PAYMENT)
    Mr. Michael Shersby, supported by Mr. John Wilkinson and Mr. Terry Dicks, presented a Bill to provide that a person who by 1st August 1991 has not paid to a charging authority the community charge owed by him in respect of the year ended 31st March 1991 shall be disqualified for a period of five years from elected membership of a charging authority or a precepting authority: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 196.]
    LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Bill Walker presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 relating to the transfer of licences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
  That the Matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
  That the Matter of fishing and fish farming in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  Question agreed to.

Ministers of the Crown (Financial Interests)
4.33 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent Ministers of the Crown from having outside financial interests; and for connected purposes.
I hope that the Government support the Bill because it will demonstrate that they are setting their face against the prevailing greed in the boardrooms of privatised companies and that they are setting an example. So far, they have done nothing about this.
The May edition of the monthly bulletin "Labour Research" drew attention to the fact that 56 Conservative Members—it was not quite accurate because the figure is 62—are members of the Lloyd's insurance club. The 62 include 15 Ministers, among whom are four Cabinet Ministers—the Secretaries of State for Energy, for Northern Ireland, for Scotland and for Wales. On Wednesday 29 May that information appeared in a diary column in the London Evening Standard and an anonymous junior Minister was asked to comment. He said:
"There's no conceivable conflict of interest. Names are non-working members of Lloyds."
In the past, "non-working" meant that it was usual for the names to receive their profit and loss account, called a bordereau, and regularly pick up fat cheques. But losses have been incurred, so the claim of no conflict of interest for Ministers clearly did not, does not and will not hold true.
The chairman of Lloyd's sent a letter dated 17 May to members of Lloyd's making clear his attempts to influence the Government to obtain massive tax concessions for this rich elite, who, I remind the House, have to pledge £250,000, as a minimum, to join the club. Apparently, the chairman had abandoned belief in the marketplace, the unique advantages of Lloyd's and the sturdy independence and judgment of Lloyd's members—all of which were advanced as reasons for special powers and privileges to be given in a Bill which was passed by the House in 1982, against the Labour party's opposition.
The letter stated:
"I have been pursuing with the Government for some time certain aspects of the tax arrangements for Names. I had a meeting with the Chancellor last week when I received a sympathetic hearing. We discussed both reserving and the extension of a relief proposed in the Budget to Names."
The letter continued:
"The benefit to Names of such a carry-back of relief is clear. Extending the period of carry-back from one year, as at present, to three would increase the amount of income against which relief could be sought and repayment claimed. It would increase the likelihood that losses at Lloyd's would be relieved in full."
That could amount to more than £100 million. That was the claim that the chairman was seeking by attempting to influence the Government. He concluded his letter by saying:
"When I met the Chancellor I put to him in some detail the case for the provision to apply to the underwriting losses of Names. I received, as I have said, a sympathetic hearing and I hope that I shall be able to report a successful outcome to you in my June address."
In case hon. Members think that Lloyd's is at a disadvantage, it should be made clear that Lloyd's underwriters are, in effect, entitled to the same relief' for a

185
trading loss as any other trader, including premiums of £3,000 a year for stop-loss policies which eradicate losses of more than £40,000.
The rules governing the conflict between Ministers' public duty and their private interests are set down in a confidential document called "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". A resume was sent to the Salmon royal commission on standards of conduct in public life, but curiously the commission did not include it as an appendix. The relevant section is paragraph 76 in the document issued by the former Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, but the principles set out were summed up as follows:
"Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties."
Paragraph 76, which is headed "'Names' at Lloyds", states:
"A Minister cannot properly continue to be a 'name' at Lloyds while holding office as Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of State for Trade … All Ministers are therefore required, on appointment whether to their first or to any subsequent Ministerial office, to obtain the permission of the Prime Minister before continuing a connection with Lloyds, however nominal, which they had established before appointment or establishing any such connection during their term of appointment."
Clearly, successive Prime Ministers have allowed the 15 Ministers to retain their holdings in Lloyd's after the Ministers had approached them under the rules.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill would require all Ministers to resign from Lloyd's. It may be argued that the Prime Minister's rules are adequate, but they are secret and we do not know how strictly they are applied. I have received many letters about the matter since it was raised in the House. One constituent said that he has been making a loss on the pools and if tax concessions are given to members of Lloyd's, he too deserves one.
I want to read one letter in particular which shows that the conflict of interests does not stop at the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The writer said:
"I would only add that, if such an approach can be justified by Lloyd's in respect of current Names, then one is entitled to ask why no such effort was made on behalf of victims of the PCW scandal … who had ultimately to bear the full brunt of Cameron-Webb's dishonesty, without receiving even an expression of sympathy, let alone any form of monetary contribution, from the Government.
The whole business stinks, the more especially as it looks very much as if the Names who are Ministers are taking advantage of their political offices for their private gain. In this context I cannot forget how different was this
186
Government's reaction to the Cameron-Webb affair, when the then Attorney-General not only refused to take any steps to have that criminal extradited from the United States but even threatened to enter a 'nolle prosequi' if any private person were to attempt to institute any proceedings against him."
I shall read another section of the letter in case anyone thinks that it was written by a left-wing critic of Lloyd's. The writer said:
"I am in no way a man of the far Left—I was, indeed, a Tory MP for a long time".
I leave it to the House to guess which one.
There is a long history of trying to prevent Government Ministers from legislating for their own benefit. Campbell-Bannerman made a statement in 1906, as did Neville Chamberlain in 1939 and Winston Churchill in 1952. Those statements followed conflicts of interests among Ministers.
My Bill would provide a remedy for the present conflict over Lloyds by requiring Ministers to divest themselves of membership of Lloyd's. It would incorporate the relevant rules as currently applied by the Prime Minister and would provide powers for him to extend prohibitions by the affirmative resolution. It would be public and certain and it would, I hope, ensure legally that conflicts of interest could not occur in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Ministers of the Crown (Financial Interests)

  MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (FINANCIAL INTERESTS)
  Mr. Bob Cryer accordingly presented a Bill to prevent Ministers of the Crown from having outside financial interests; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 199.]
  Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened to the ten-minute Bill presented by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I was interested in some of the evidence that he cited, especially the letters. I should like to research those letters a little further. As the hon. Gentleman read them out in the Chamber, should he allow them to be placed in the Library so that we can investigate them and find out who are the people involved?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is a debating point, and if the hon. Gentleman had wished to debate it, he should have raised it during the hon. Member's speech.

Opposition Day
  16TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Housing
    4.43 pm
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
    That this House notes the abysmal failure of the Government's housing policy which after 12 years has resulted in record mortgage levels, record homelessness, the collapse of the public and private rented sector and a crisis in the construction industry; and calls on the Government to put forward proposals for a mortgage rescue scheme, an emergency programme to deal with homelessness and a phased release of the capital receipts from the sale of council houses to fund a planned increase in housing investment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Gould: There is no mystery about housing in Britain. There is a growing housing crisis for two main and obvious reasons. First, we have failed to build enough houses and, secondly, the cost of housing has risen so fast that decent housing is now beyond the reach of a significant number of people. Those factors are a direct consequence of Government policy and there will be no improvement until there is a change of policy or, indeed, a change of Government.
    The facts can be stated simply. The number of houses built in the 1980s was the lowest in any peacetime decade in this century. The 1990s have started even less promisingly. Housing starts for 1990 totalled only 184,000 and few people doubt that there will be a still sharper fall this year.
    Mr. Conal Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I have only just started. I shall give way very sparingly in view of the short time available.
    The total figures are bad enough. However, the real pain is felt when we consider social and affordable housing. That is the sector where there has been the most damaging decline and where it hurts most. In 1978—the last year of the Labour Government—local authorities built 92,000 houses in England and Wales. That figure had fallen to a mere 13,000 by 1990 and it will fall still further this year. Indeed, it is the deliberate aim of Government policy—so we are told—that the figure should fall to zero very soon. Presumably, the intention is for the gap to be made up by housing associations and by the private sector. That has not happened.
    Housing associations completed a mere 8,873 homes for rent in 1989—that is a welcome contribution, but nowhere near the scale required. The private sector—after a period in the mid-1980s when, it must be said, it was not social but luxury housing that was built—also suffered a sharp decline. In fact, it is gripped by the severest recession for decades.
    The latest state of trade survey conducted in March and published in May by the Building Employers Confederation shows that the steep downward trend in output continues. The balance between those reporting higher and lower output has fallen for the ninth successive
    188
    quarter to minus 70 per cent. That is the lowest figure on record. The industry predicts that 150,000 jobs will be lost this year. Skills will be lost, never to return. Business failures are at record levels and they include long-established family firms.
    They are the facts about the supply of new housing. The facts about the cost of housing are no less powerful. Home owners were lured into home ownership by the boom, which was helped by the shortage of supply and they were then trapped by soaring interest rates. As a result, home ownership has become an impossible dream for many and an impossible nightmare for many more.
    The number of repossessions, which stood at 46,940 in the year to March, has doubled in a year and it is predicted to double again in the coming year. Few would quarrel with that prediction. A Bank of England study which was recently published shows that 784,000—or one in 12—loans are two months or more in arrears. It is not surprising that homelessness due to arrears increased by 58 per cent. in the first quarter of 1991, and it is a major factor in the increasing burden placed on local authorities.
    Tenants have found housing costs no easier to face. Private rents have risen sharply, reinforcing the evident truth that the private sector cannot meet the demand for affordable housing. Due to a deliberate Government decision, council rents have risen by an average of 12·3 per cent., although that average conceals much more extreme rises such as the successive rises imposed in Ealing.
    It must also be remembered that it was the unfairness of the burden placed by Government policy on the housing revenue account and, therefore, on the tenants and their rents which led the Tory councillors in West Oxfordshire to resign last year. The unfair pressure requiring some tenants to pay for the subsidies payable to others continues.
    Housing associations have also had to respond to high interest rates by raising rents. In 1990, new lets were at an average rent per week for a three-bedroomed house of between £46 and £54, beyond the reach of most low-income families. That was the conclusion of the joint report by the House-Builders Federation and the Association of District Councils entitled "Bridging the Affordability Gap in 1990". The report found that fewer than half all young people under the age of 30 could afford to buy their own homes and it called, not surprisingly and with our support, for 100,000 houses to be built each year for rent or shared ownership.
    With the supply of housing drying up and the costs of housing rising sharply, it is little wonder that homelessness is increasing rapidly. No fewer than 145,790 households, or almost 400,000 people, have been accepted as homeless in the past year—a doubling of the number with which the Tory Government began the decade. Some 12,170 homeless households are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at an average cost of £15,440 per annum. That figure was described in May by the Public Accounts Committee as "bad value for money". The average cost per year of building those families a new home would be just half the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation at £8,200.
    Mr. Steve Norris: On the topic of the availability of housing for families in need, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the 10 councils with

    189
    the highest number of vacant dwellings—incidentally also the 10 councils with the highest amount of unpaid rent arrears—are under Labour control?
    Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the Public Accounts Committee, he will find that by far the greatest culprits in the matter—I defend no one who has a high proportion of housing stock empty—are the Government. The Public Accounts Committee want to hear the truth of the matter about the 31,000 houses that are currently empty.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No.
    The position is worst in London. The report of Single Homeless in London estimates that 3,000 people are sleeping on London's streets. That is enough to make it difficult for even the most fastidious Minister to avoid stepping on them as he leaves the opera. The report puts the total of homeless in London—
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young)rose—
    Mr. Gould: I may give the Minister a chance to intervene a little later. The report puts the total of homeless in London—living in squats, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, in hostels and on the streets —at 52,500. The Salvation Army says that 75,000 people in London are what it describes as "visibly homeless". It says that the situation is as bad as it was in 1904.
    The facts are depressing and damning and they cannot be gainsaid. The Government's excuse is that demand for housing has risen as the baby boom of the 1960s has taken effect and as a higher divorce rate has split families. That makes the failure to prevent the fall in supply even more culpable.
    The facts are the record of a decade of failure of a Government who had the huge benefit of riches from the North sea, but who have ended the decade with the shameful spectacle of young people begging on our streets by day and sleeping on our streets by night. The facts are the record of a Government who proclaimed an economic miracle, but who failed to provide the most basic of human needs—a roof over one's head—for many of their citizens. The facts are the record of a Government who have provided great benefits to some via tax cuts, capital gains and salary increases—including those that we shall debate later today—but who have left hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of the most vulnerable people in our society in overcrowded slums or without homes at all. The facts are potent, but they conceal more than they tell.
    The official statistics measure only the statutory definition of homelessness; they do not tell the full story. They certainly do not tell the story of the individual tragedies which are now occurring on a huge scale. Surely Conservative Members cannot be unaware of the tragedies, such as the young families divided, the young mothers driven to despair and mental illness and the fathers who have lost their families and therefore their homes, and who end up, as in the case of one of my constituents, sleeping in a car for two years. How did that happen?
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I will press on for the time being.
    The first part of the answer lies in a fundamental mistake in Government economic policy. That assertion is hardly controversial any longer, as even Ministers now concede, in their more honest moments, that a huge consumer boom was unwisely unleashed on the basis of a surge in private sector credit which inflated property values and thereby created a new, though unstable, basis on which to construct a further edifice of credit. That tottering structure inevitably collapsed and the penal interest rates which were then put in place destroyed the private property market on which the Government had pinned all their hopes. Those who live by the market die by the market. Today's property market has killed not only the hopes of millions of families, but the illusions of the Government.
    Mistakes are one thing, but deliberate prejudices carried into policy are another. The greater part of our housing failures have arisen because we have been saddled with a Government driven not by common sense but by ideology.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: That is why we have had almost total reliance on the private market and when it failed, consumed by the very forces that it unleashed, the Government had nothing on which to fall back. That is why we have had the tunnel vision that meant a total and exclusive emphasis on home ownership. Ministers could not and still cannot conceive that, for many people, renting is the preferable or possibly the only option.
    Mr. Tracey rose—
    Mr. Gould: Many of those persuaded by the prospect of an endless property boom to buy their homes must now bitterly regret that choice.
    Ministers are still at it. They offer rent-into-mortgage schemes when the immediate need is to help with mortgage-into-rent schemes those for whom home ownership has become a short-cut to home loss.
    Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I will press on in the interests of the debate as a whole.
    The ideological tunnel vision has produced the blind spot on the need for social housing and especially the need for housing for rent. The free market ideologues were content for everyone to take his or her chance in the marketplace. If that meant treating the homeless as a commodity to be traded in the marketplace and paying others to deal with them, as Westminster has tried to do, so be it. If that meant that the market created victims, it was their fault, not the Government's. If it meant that Ministers had to step on the homeless as they left the opera, what was that but a demonstration that the policy was working, however many tiny hands may have been frozen?
    Sir George Young: No one who listened objectively to what I said last week about rough sleepers could have written the article to which the hon. Gentleman has

    191
    referred. It was a disgraceful, biased piece of journalism, ascribing to me views on rough sleepers which I have never held.
    Mr. Gould: If the Minister claims to have been misreported, I sympathise with him. I imagine that no one was more shocked than he by the insensitive statement he was reported as making. The nature of insensitive remarks is their power to cast a spotlight on the dark places of Ministers' minds and of Government policy. The spotlight recorded a contempt for the homeless and a total lack of understanding of their plight and the Government's contribution to it.
    The Government's attitude has led to a wholly irrational antipathy to public sector provision, with local authorities forbidden to spend their own money on housing and deliberately squeezed out by Government policy from any responsibility of meeting housing need. Ministers have learnt nothing from a decade of failure in that respect. Even those such as the Minister who have a reputation for more liberal views have been content to reinforce the ludicrous injunction against local authorities using their land, their money and their political will to meet a desperately required housing need.
    We have an ideologue in action. At the conference of the Institute of Housing only last week, the Minister was at it yet again, telling local authorities that they were not to provide new housing and that they would have to put housing contracts out to compulsory competitive tender.
    That heavy burden of ideology, which has so prejudiced our housing programme, brings me to the Secretary of State—or at least it would if he were present. The right hon. Gentleman is becoming the invisible man of the Department of the Environment—the ghost at the feast, or, in the case of housing, the ghost of famine. The right hon. Gentleman seems curiously reluctant to come to the Dispatch Box to defend what his Department is doing. It is true that he popped up only last week in a Liberal Supply day debate to do a spot of electioneering, but when it comes to the hard grind, the real responsibility and the true business of the Department—the council tax or the housing crisis—he is curiously not in evidence.
    Why is the right hon. Gentleman so shy and so unwilling to face the music? On housing, the reason is not hard to find. He is, after all, a man with a record—a man with previous form. In being sent to the Department of the Environment, and to housing in particular, he is required to return to the scene of the crime. It is not only us who say that; let us see what the House-Builders Federation said in the January issue of House Builder. Mr. Roger Humber, director of the House-Builders Federation, reviewed the 1980s in the light of the Secretary of State's reappointment. He said that it was
    "a decade of muddle and myth, of one step forwards, another sideways, followed by two backwards. And central to this muddle and myth was Michael Heseltine."
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: I have not finished this interesting article.
    Mr. Hind: After that?
    Mr. Gould: I make no promises.
    Mr. Humber continues:
    "Probably the most important contribution to undermining the proper purpose of planning was Heseltine's refusal to permit any strategic evaluation of housing requirements …
    192
    This was quite the most catastrophic stance any Minister could possibly have taken … the outcome of the Heseltine policy was not record levels of housebuilding; just the opposite … On average, new private sector housebuilding output was around 150,000 pa; exactly the same as in the 1970s. And public housing continued to fall."
    I am delighted that the Secretary of State has arrived just in time for the coup de grace. Mr Humber says:
    "The 1980s therefore was a decade of failure in housing policy".
    The Secretary of State
    "left us with a decade at the end of which we have to start trying to deal again with the same issues he refused to face … in 1852, Marx said that history does repeat itself. The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. We've had the tragedy: can we avoid the farce, now that he's back?"
    Mr. Gregory rose—
    Mr. Michael Latham rose—
    Mr. Hind rose—
    Mr. Gould: I am glad that the Secretary of State has so many ardent defenders.
    There can seldom have been a more savage indictment of the record of a Minister or Government, and that from a source—the House-Builders Federation— which, at the very least, is not a natural opponent of a Tory Government.
    Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: I shall not give way at the moment.
    The way out of this mess is to escape from the ideological dead-end in which the Government have trapped themselves. First, we must acknowledge that whatever the strengths of the market the provision of social and affordable housing is a community responsibility. The homeless are not only of concern to opera-goers but a blot on all our consciences.
    Sir Michael Neubert: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When a Minister has made a personal declaration that reported remarks attributed to him were untrue, and when it has been accepted by the Opposition's spokesman, is it in order or within the conventions of the House for that spokesman to continue to read from a prepared text and to prosecute the allegations that have been disclaimed?
    Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You heard the Minister's intervention. Not once did he deny that he used those words. What are all the complaints about? He may not like their interpretation, but he used those words about the homeless.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are a couple of hours to go and I hope to call as many hon. Members as possible who can refute, deny or agree with those allegations.
    Mr. Gould: I make the point again: the homeless are not only of concern to opera-goers but a blot on all our consciences. If a wealthy country cannot put roofs on the heads of its citizens, that is a failure of political analysis and will. Government intervention is necessary because, as all the survey evidence shows, the market will not provide the social housing that is desperately needed. It is a question not just of money but of things that do not cost

    193
    money, such as the availability of land. That is why we propose, for example, a new use class for land for social and affordable housing.
    Secondly, we should forget the ridiculous dividing line between public and private-sector providers. Those who need decent accommodation at affordable rents simply do not care whether the providers are politically correct in the view of the Secretary of State or anyone else. What they need are homes. Surely all the evidence shows that if we are to meet that need the public sector must be involved. It simply does not make sense to exclude its resources, expertise and political will. What matters is that houses are built, and as local authorities have up to £5 billion in capital receipts, why not, subject to suitable safeguards, let them spend part of it? The need is too great for us to worry about picking and choosing on ideological grounds between the various instruments that are available to us. We should use every instrument that is at our disposal. That means housing associations and the private sector but also local authorities.
    Mr. Robin Squire rose—
    Mr. Gould: I give way to my neighbour.
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my geographical neighbour. As the hon. Gentleman is, I hope, dealing with the private sector, will he stress his party's commitment and non-ideological approach by giving its attitude to the private sector? In particular, will he confirm for how long it has not been Labour party policy to offer private tenants the right to purchase?
    Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who will wind up the debate, made an excellent speech to the Institute of Housing in which he set out extremely interesting and imaginative policies on the private sector and how we shall treat private landlords. The effect of that will be to reverse the 80,000 per year loss of private rented accommodation from the housing stock. That is our objective.
    We should be considering the possibility of collaborative partnership arrangements between local authorities and the private sector. If borrowing to build houses to meet housing need is a good idea for the private sector, why is not the same borrowing of equal benefit if done by the public sector?
    Thirdly, we should not be too preoccupied with the lawyers' consent of tenure, and I speak as a person with legal training. Home ownership appeals to many people and will continue to do so, but there will always be others who prefer to rent, and there may be many more whose preferences, for family and financial reasons, may change from one part of their lives to another.
    Instead of trying to compress everyone into the same mould, why not work on providing as much flexibility as possible and on achieving the most level playing field between different forms of tenure? We should encourage building societies and housing associations to devise, as they would like to, mortgage-into-rent schemes, part-rent, part-buy schemes and shared ownership schemes and we should provide the funding arrangements to make that possible.
    Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No, I am about to finish.
    Above all, if we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, as we must be, we must build more houses. I call on the Government even now to put the unused resources, skills and capital to work—to release some of the money currently held by local authorities so that, with the help of the construction industry, they can build immediately 50,000 homes in a crash programme, so as to make a start on housing the homeless. That would be only a start, but a start already too long delayed.
    If the Minister will not commit himself to that simple, direct and humane step now, the homeless and all those whose housing needs are not met will, along with the rest of the country, draw only one conclusion: they need a Labour Government to provide them with the houses that they need. We shall do that job for them.
    5.11 pm
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `welcomes the policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government to put a decent home within the reach of every family by promoting owner occupation, by securing greater private sector investment in housing and by directing public expenditure effectively towards those people and areas that most need support.'.
    I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's housing strategy. I believe that our broad-based approach is right. We are maximising investment from all sources, not just the public sector. We are developing new forms of tenure, such as rent-to-mortgage and shared ownership, and new forms of social landlord, such as the housing action trusts. We are introducing new partnerships with the housing associations, and a new regime for private landlords. That approach is the right one.
    We want to work with the grain of people's aspirations and with the grain of market forces. The Government's approach is more likely to succeed than is the more narrowly based approach advocated by the Labour party, which leans more heavily on local authorities and public finance which might not be available. As we have just heard, that approach turns its back on some of the more radical conclusions that we are developing and would lose the possibility of contributions from institutional finance.
    The Labour party's approach has not changed over the years. There is an over-reliance on public expenditure, but this time it is based on public finance which will not be there. I ask the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who, as I understand it, has just given a commitment to enter a crash programme for building 50,000 extra homes, whether he has the authority of the shadow Chief Secretary in making that commitment.
    Mr. Gould: That commitment has been on the record for at least a year. The Minister made a statement about private institutional finance which had no basis in anything that I have said or in any document that the Labour party has produced. As I categorically stated the opposite, I invite him to withdraw his remark.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman should examine some of his party's proposals for the private rented sector. He will find it more difficult to raise respectable institutional funds for investment in the private rented sector if he adheres to his proposals for rent control. There is a direct trade-off. We want to maximise

    195
    the contribution that the private sector can make. We do not have the Labour party's dogmatic approach to the private sector.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the Minister give way?
    Sir George Young: No. This is a short debate and I want to make progress.
    Not only can the Government's approach promote better housing, it can help bring down some of the barriers in our society and eliminate some of the fault lines that demarcate too many of our inner-city areas. We all know of estates designed by people who do not have to live in them and occupied by people who do not want to live in them. We want to turn those estates round, with the help of the residents and of private funds. We want the yeast of home ownership to raise the standards on those estates and transform the lives of those who live there. I should like to say a word in a moment about housing action trusts, whose potential the Labour party discounts.
    The guilty men are not those accused in the hon. Gentleman's speech. They are local councils, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), that leave properties unlet while families wait in bed and breakfast, that leave rents uncollected and plead shortage of money for maintenance. In London, the 10 least efficient local authorities had not collected £135 million in rent by the end of March 1990, and on 1 April 1991 owned 21,200 empty properties. That compares with 12,000 families in bed and breakfast at the same time. None of those authorities was controlled by my party. All but one were controlled by the Labour party. Profligacy and inefficiency are the hallmark of Labour in government. It is no response for Labour Members to refer to properties owned by the Ministry of Defence. Those properties are needed as soldiers and their families return to this country from west Germany and the middle east.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Let us get the facts right. Committees of the House have pointed out that local authorities of all political complexions have specific problems with some empty properties and have suggested, rightly, that something be done about it, including Government action. We cite not Ministry of Defence properties, but those owned by the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, 16 per cent. of whose properties are empty. Many of those properties are kept empty for sale or demolition. I challenge the Minister to make those properties available for homeless people now.
    Sir George Young: Most of the properties are owned by the Ministry of Defence and are needed for the purposes that I have just described.
    Before I tackle the problems raised by the hon. Member for Dagenham, let me put them in focus. The total housing stock has increased by nearly 2 million since we came to office. The population has risen less fast, so there are now more homes per thousand of the population than when we started. In 1979 there were 377 dwellings per thousand of the population whereas in 1990 there were 406 dwellings per thousand.
    Professor Duncan MacLennan, in a report entitled "Affordable Housing in Europe" published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said:
    196
    "By international standards, Britain is well-housed. It has a well-developed and efficient set of private housing finance institutions and a complex, expensive set of government subsidy measures".
    Professor MacLennan outlines areas of concern to which I shall return, such as homelessness, affordability and the private rented sector, but he finished with the following warning:
    "one of the major realisations of the British Housing sector in the last two decades has been that a massive, monopolistic social housing provision can move rapidly from 'solution' to `problem'."
    I mentioned housing action trusts, which I believe are a solution that we can offer to estates such as those to which I referred. There is a growing gulf between the dogma of the Front-Bench Labour party spokesmen and the more realistic approach adopted by Labour councils in touch with reality. The Labour party is officially against housing action trusts. The housing spokesman is on the record as saying that he would wind up the Hull HAT and return it to the city council. That is an extraordinary commitment. The tenants have just voted two to one to leave Hull council control and to go to a housing action trust. The Labour party is for ever asking for local ballots on Government initiatives. It now proposes to overrule them when the results do not conform to its prejudices.
    Nor is it just Hull that backs our proposals for a HAT. The leadership in Liverpool—a regime which apparently has the full backing of the Labour party—is now actively investigating the feasibility of a HAT for its tower blocks. Other Labour-controlled local authorities are also recognising that a housing action trust may be the right solution for some of their estates. The Labour party is divided.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister not recognise in any way that much of the appalling misery of so many people —not only the homeless or near-homeless and families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but many of our constituents who have young children yet who have to live with their parents or their in-laws—is because since 1979 there has been an 85 per cent. reduction in local authority starts? What sort of dogma forces so many people to live in misery because the Government will not allow local authorities to do their rightful job?
    Sir George Young: That argument will not hold. The hon. Gentleman makes the same mistake as did the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, who referred to the reduction in local authority spending without mentioning the growing budget of the Housing Corporation. That budget is growing from £1·1 billion last year to £2 billion for 1993–94. One must put that fact on the table, too, and examine overall expenditure rather than focus on one part of the market.
    Mr. Tracey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It makes a pleasant change from the behaviour of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). My hon. Friend has been talking about public funds and public housing. Instead of going round the edge, will he answer the question: when will the Government do something to force the hands of local authorities that refuse to collect rents and that keep properties empty although people are homeless? It is a public disgrace. My hon. Friend spoke of £135 million in uncollected rents and he knows as well as

    197
    I do that in London alone there are tens of thousands of empty properties. We must get those properties back into use, because people are on the streets.
    Sir George Young: One way in which to deal with the problem that my hon. Friend has identified is to give more power to tenants and to enable them to take responsibility for their estates, which I suspect they would run more effectively and competently than many local authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering the matters that he has raised to see whether we can protect tenants from the incompetence of their local authority landlords.
    Housing action trusts are not just about public money. They represent a fresh approach to difficult-to-let estates by setting up a single-minded agency—not encumbered with other responsibilities, and with tenants on its board —which can bring in private funding, produce a five-year strategy for modernising the properties and improving the management, and then give tenants a choice as to who manages their homes thereafter. The tenants can go back to their former landlord if they want to.
    Mr. John Battle: I served on the Committee that considered the Bill under which the trusts were set up. The Government rejected an amendment that we tabled which would have allowed those houses to return to local authority control. Are not the hon. Gentleman's officials now going round the country informing local authorities that, after the period of the trust has elapsed, the tenancies will return to them? Has not the hon. Gentleman changed the terms of the offer?
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I have just said. The trusts will then give the tenants a choice as to who manages their homes. If the tenants want to go back to the local authority landlord at the end of the period, they will be free to do so. I suspect that many of them will prefer to buy their homes after they have been improved. They may prefer to choose a housing association to manage their homes or they may want to manage their homes themselves through an estate management board. The point is that, at the end of the day, the decision will rest with the tenants.
    Estate action is another policy that is relevant to those who live on difficult estates. Some 600 schemes up and down the country have been implemented, renovating 300,000 units, improving management, diversifying tenure, providing training opportunities and making the estates places where people want to live. In the past year, we have built on our success, increasing resources from £190 million to £268 million, of which £126 million will be available for new schemes. I shall shortly be inviting local authorities to bid for estate action resources next year. I wonder how many Labour Members acknowledge that as the contribution of a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir George Young: I shall give way once more, but then, in fairness to those who wish to speak in the debate, I must make some progress.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend has made a good point. He will be aware that in the new town of Skelmersdale, which has 25 Labour councillors, it took the Conservative-controlled district council to recognise the need of two of
    198
    the most run-down estates in Digmore and Tanhouse and produce imaginative estate action plans. The first of them has now been implemented. Before the estate action plan, there were 3,000 requests for transfers from the estate; now there is a waiting list of those who want to be housed on it. The second estate action plan, in Tanhouse, is also making good progress. That is a credit to my hon. Friend's Department and to imaginative Conservative housing policy.
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his glowing tribute to the work of my Department. I hope that local authorities will realise the potential of estate action and put in bids when we invite them for next year.
    Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir George Young: For the last time.
    Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware that my local authority, Kirklees, took a long time to be shamed into using the estate action programme. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary visited the area recently, he saw that the authority had not made such a good job of it. The authority is now saying that it is almost too much trouble to bother with estate action, thus condemning its tenants to a future without help. Is that not a disgrace?
    Sir George Young: I very much regret that the authority has taken that narrow approach. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I would like to take a further look to see how we can rescue the tenants from their plight.
    One strand of our efforts to improve the quality of life on run-down estates is an initiative, under the auspices of Professor Coleman, in which the impact of the physical redesign of such estates is tested. I am pleased to announce today the seventh scheme to be included in the experiment, which is on the Durham estate in Sandwell. Some £2·9 million of Government resources are being devoted to the scheme which will ensure the transformation of 261 homes.
    The hon. Member for Dagenham did not touch on the policy of large-scale voluntary transfer. That policy is releasing resources tied up in council housing, part of which can then be reinvested. Sixteen local authorities, none of them Labour, have balloted their tenants and subsequently transferred their stock to a housing association. That has brought in more than £1 billion of entirely private-sector finance. It has enabled repairs to be carried out more quickly than if the stock had remained in council ownership.
    Independent research into the results of the first transfers has revealed a high level of satisfaction with the new landlord and greater tenant participation in management. In the two years since the first transfer, the New Chiltern housing association has succeeded in reducing both rent arrears and the volume of empty dwellings. At the same time, part of the capital receipt has been used to finance a substantial new-build programme carried out by the association. That shows how local authorities, tenants, housing associations and private investors can come together to fund better homes and more homes without increasing public expenditure. It is an approach that Labour, with its slavish adherence to the drab policy of municipalisation, has so far rejected.
    Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir George Young: For the last, last time.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that housing associations deserve tremendous congratulations on the first class way in which they are now running a great deal of the country's private rented housing? Is my hon. Friend aware that housing associations take over property not only from councils? Not long ago, housing associations in my constituency took over a substantial number of properties that used to belong to British Coal. They have modernised the properties and are looking after tenants much better than the previous landlord. I should, therefore, like to put on record my appreciation of the housing associations concerned.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key point about resourcing housing associations, as opposed to local authorities, is that housing associations can go to the City. They can top up the resources that the Government make available to provide more units. A local authority cannot do that. The direction of funds in that way not only helps the housing association movement; it ensures that there are more houses for people who need them.
    I should like to press the Labour party on the question of capital receipts. Labour housing spokesmen seem to think that they can increase spending on housing, without incurring the displeasure of the shadow Chief Secretary, by spending capital receipts. That will not do. Capital receipts are used to reduce the level of debt. Under the new regime, we have allocated part of the spending power from those areas with receipts to those without receipts. If capital receipts are to be spent again, the money will have to be borrowed—as is the case with any spending commitment not covered by higher taxes—with the usual impact on interest rates and the PSBR.
    The key question in the debate on housing is not the rather narrow one that the hon. Member for Dagenham asked: how many rented houses can the local councils build? The debate should be much broader than that. We should ask ourselves how we can maximise total investment in housing of all tenures. The question does not revolve around public investment alone. As I have said, the housing associations are increasingly borrowing from the City to complement what we allocate. That does not score as public expenditure. Private builders are building low-cost homes on land owned by councils or on land secured by the exceptions policy.
    Home ownership is the ambition of most people, and we have enabled 1·5 million former local authority tenants to buy their homes. Our recent research has shown that 96 per cent. of them felt that, taking everything into account, they were pleased to have bought. Few of those people would have achieved that ambition if the Labour party had had its way. Of those who bought between 1985 and 1987, 90 per cent. carried out significant repairs and improvements.
    Not only has the policy helped those who bought; it has helped those who have not. The local authorities have been relieved of the burden of maintaining and managing these homes, and the amount spent on capital renovation and on management and maintenance of the remaining stock has increased. Spending on capital renovation increased from £150 per dwelling in 1980–81 to £450 this year—a real increase of more than 50 per cent. Spending on management and maintenance increased from less than
    200
    £300 per dwelling to £800 per dwelling—a real increase of 40 per cent. There is scope for promoting home ownership yet further, perhaps by building more properties for shared ownership—for those who can afford a council rent but cannot afford the full costs of home ownership.
    Mr. Allen McKay rose—
    Sir George Young: I give way for the last, last, last time.
    Mr. McKay: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—I had been waiting to intervene. My authority does everything that the Minister has been talking about. It uses every means to finance its housing but now, for the first time in its history, its housing policy is ruined. That is the result of the Government's policies. Furthermore, for the first time in its history, it now has homeless people.
    On home ownership, will the Minister consider a problem that is occurring in my area? I refer to the people who bought council houses but who can no longer afford them. Those people have found that they cannot get out and that there is nowhere for them to go. They have to rely on the local authority, which no longer has any houses for rent. Could not a scheme be introduced to allow local authorities to buy back such properties from those who can no longer afford them?
    Sir George Young: That brings me straight on to the problem of repossessions, which has already been referred to. It is untrue to claim that the Government are doing nothing to help those who face difficulties with their mortgage. In 1989–90, £350 million was paid in income support to help people who were eligible to pay their mortgage. There has been some comment, in the light of one case, that the system is too generous, rather than too tight.
    Nor do I accept the gloomy forecasts that are made of future repossessions. Over the past three years, people have had difficulty maintaining payments, as interest rates rose faster than their incomes. This put pressure on their budgets, leading in some cases to greater arrears. But, with base rates falling 3·5 per cent. in less than a year, and incomes for those in work rising by 4·5 per cent., that source of pressure is clearly reducing. Those who coped during the period of rising interest rates should be able to cope as they fall. I would, therefore, hope to see fewer repossessions because of that imbalance.
    The pressure in future may come from rising unemployment, but it is important to understand that redundancy or long-term illness no longer means the loss of a home. If there is an entitlement to income support, that will pay half the reasonable mortgage interest for the first 16 weeks and all the interest thereafter, including any interest on any arrears that have accrued during the 16 weeks. So if someone loses his or her job, claims income support, contacts his or her building society to put it in the picture, and then pays over the income support to the building society, the building society would be most unlikely to contemplate possession proceedings. So although I am, of course, concerned at the information coming through—there are many repossessions in the pipeline—the changing circumstances to which I have referred may mean that some forecasts are too gloomy.
    Other options are available to minimise the trauma of repossession. I understand that, through a housing association, Mole Valley council is offering shared

    201
    ownership to owner-occupiers who cannot afford the full cost, leaving them in their homes as part-owners, part-renters. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) may find that point relevant. Some building societies may be willing to allow owners to rent out their homes for a while or to roll up some interest until things improve. Surprisingly, only a minority of mortgage payers with repayments set annually have taken advantage of the chance to have their repayments reviewed to reflect the recent cuts in mortgage rates.
    I had intended to say something about the private rented sector and our plans for it but, out of respect to the many hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall skip that and turn finally to rough sleeping. In the past six months, we have witnessed in our capital city the most concerted and best resourced attempt ever to help rough sleepers. The front-line agencies, whose work I applaud, have in the first six months reduced by about half the number of people sleeping rough in central London. The programme of investing £96 million in direct access hostels and move-on accommodation is only one third of the way through—with about 1,000 of the planned 3,300 places available. The Bull-Ring, by Waterloo station, known as "cardboard city", is closed, with all of those who were sleeping there being offered alternative accommodation— although some have refused it.
    I recognise that we have some way to go. I am concerned about the numbers of people in Lincolns Inn Fields, but we have plans for more hostels nearby which should be open this autumn. I also welcome the help from the Department of Health, which is providing high-care hostels and outreach teams with medical skills to help those rough sleepers who suffer from mental illness and drug and alcohol problems. I am determined that the momentum we have built should be maintained and the policy seen through.
    I have recently spoken critically not of rough sleepers but of professional, aggressive beggars, who prey on passers-by, tourists in the west end and young homeless people, who, when arrested, turn out to have fixed addresses and substantial sums of money on them. That group would like us to confuse them with young vulnerable people with no homes. We must make sure that we do not.
    In conclusion, our policy is based not on a massive municipal expansion programme, but on diversity of provision, on encouraging the public sector to work closely with the private sector, on bringing in fresh funds to deal with the worst of the problems, and on offering choice and diversity to as many people as possible. Old prejudices and preconceptions must be overturned. The best local authorities are already working with housing associations, using their urban renewal powers and their planning powers, working up proposals for city challenge, estate action, priority estates projects, housing action trusts, large-scale voluntary transfer, and promoting rural trusts in our smaller villages. I ask the House to endorse that approach by voting for the amendment.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister was absolutely right: many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, so brief speeches would be appreciated by all of us.
    5.35 pm
    Mr. Keith Bradley: Thank you for calling me so early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an outrage that the Government should have sought to make a statement today, thus leaving less than an hour for Back-Bench Members to speak on this important topic. However, I shall be brief, as you have requested, Madam Deputy Speaker, because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this important debate.
    The motion encapsulates the Government's abject failure throughout the 12 years of their administration to provide a coherent and meaningful policy that would give everyone in this country the right to a decent home. Listening to the Minister's speech was like hearing an echo from the past. He simply rehearsed all the arguments that were advanced by one of his predecessors during the Second Reading of the Housing Act 1988. The Minister rehashed those earlier policies although any objective analysis and the panic measures that the Government have recently undertaken on homelessness prove that the Government have no real understanding of people's need and right to live in a decent home.
    In that Second Reading debate in 1987, the Government outlined what they viewed as their flagship policies for housing in the 1990s. The Government were proud of their Bill and its main initiatives, some of which the Minister referred to, such as the housing action trusts, the ability of local tenants to opt out of local authority control of housing, the market rent system and the introduction of assured tenancies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has already said, ably led by our spokesman on housing, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the Opposition Members who served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill made it clear then that the Government's policies had no relevance to people's needs and that they would not work.
    If we look at the way in which those policies have affected my city of Manchester during the past four years, we can see that we were right to oppose them and that we are right to say today that they still do not have any relevance to or meet the housing needs of cities such as Manchester. First, how many housing action trusts have been welcomed and introduced throughout the country? Very few. One of the first to be suggested in the first tranche of housing action trusts for Manchester was rejected out of hand by the people of Manchester.
    Secondly, how many council tenants in Manchester have requested a ballot because they want to leave local authority control, and how many ballots have taken place? There has been not one ballot and not a single request for one because the people of Manchester know that their landlord—the council—is trying to deliver a service and that the only reason that it cannot is that it has been starved of resources.
    Thirdly, in the Government's terms, have market rents in the private rented sector delivered a massive expansion in the number of homes that people can afford? Again, the answer is no because, although there has been an increase in the private rented sector in Manchester, it has been only

    203
    in the luxury private rented sector where rents are at levels that most people cannot afford. People can afford such rents only if they are rich or if the private landlord has ripped off the housing benefit system and tried to increase the rent at the expense of public subsidy. I welcome and applaud Manchester city council's initiative to drive out such landlords by saying, "We are not prepared to sanction the rent levels that those landlords are trying to charge on the back of housing benefit." The Government should condemn that practice also because that is not the way to create affordable rents in the private rented sector.
    The Minister wants us to consider public expenditure on housing in conjunction with allocations made to housing associations. More important, we must examine bids for resources made by councils such as Manchester for their housing investment programmes, because they clearly identify, both in the public and private sectors, the money that is needed to provide decent houses in their areas.
    An examination of the bid compared with the allocation finally granted shows that the Government have had no commitment to the provision of resources for decent housing in our cities. In Manchester, for example, £189 million was sought in 1988–89 and £29 million was allocated. In 1989–90, £210 million was sought and Manchester received only £19 million. There was an increase in 1990–91, because £100 million was sought and £52 million received. Even so, in that year, Manchester received only half of what it really needed to deal with its housing stock. In the current year, from a bid of £127 million, the city received £61 million.
    It is clear from the figures that the council has not been able to improve, modernise, install heating and so on for the houses that are required by Manchester families. The result is that we have a record number of homeless, with over 7,000 people in the city seeking their first decent home.
    We must examine the implications of that situation on the private sector and renovation grants. In the last year, the city of Manchester received an allocation from the Exchequer of £3·405 million, a 75 per cent. allocation, to enable the private sector to renovate its stock. Out of that sum must be funded disablement grants, to enable people with disabilities to adapt their homes, and so on. So in the last year, 1,250 applicants wanting about £8 million have had to get what they can from the paltry allocation of £3 million or a little over.
    With the rundown in the public and private sectors of housing, we are storing up problems for future generations. As our private stock of housing falls into disrepair, the people of the future will not have their housing needs met. We have heard enough about the rundown in the house building programme to know that in the future there will be greater demands on the public sector to house people, but homes will not be available for them.
    I have some suggestions for the way in which we, including the Labour party, should be examining the housing issue for the future. We can have a coherent housing policy only if we tackle root and branch the problem of housing finance and the ways in which, in the future, we fund the public and private sectors.
    I welcome the report published last week by the Rowntree trust, chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh, which advocated such a root and branch review of housing finance. Until we equalise subsidies between the different
    204
    sectors, and conduct a thorough examination of mortgage tax relief and the amount available through subsidy and benefits to the private rented sector, we shall not free the resources necessary to expand the different tenures in the housing market.
    That report rekindled a debate that has been going on for many years. I made a modest contribution to that debate over 12 years ago in a research project at York university with Professor Jonathon Bradshaw, in which we advocated the development of a universal housing allowance. In an article in Roof magazine entitled "Can a housing allowance work?" we examined the first stage of such an allowance, which was the integration of what was then supplementary benefit housing payments with rent rebates.
    We moved from there to look at the possibility of integrating all subsidies, whether in the owner-occupied sector through mortgage tax relief or through the public or private rented sectors, to see whether we could contribute modestly to a debate allowing for the easier transfer of people between and within tenures.
    We accept—I hope that the Labour party will examine this seriously; I appreciate that it could not be done overnight—that the phasing out of mortgage tax relief, if it became policy, would take many years. That was said by the Duke of Edinburgh's study. But unless we start heading in that direction, with a massive explosion in subsidy, £9 billion will be spent in the next couple of years on mortgage tax relief. That money would be better spent on providing decent housing.
    We must have a subsidy arrangement providing a housing allowance that can be cashed in to enable people to move into any form of tenure, at any stage, in the owner-occupied or rented sectors. Such a step would achieve greater mobility because people would not be locked into mortgages in areas from which they cannot move because of fluctuating house prices. Such a housing allowance would free the market and give people the opportunity to move and have different tenures at different times of their lives. They would do that when it suited them, instead of being financially penalised by having locked themselves into mortgages at an early stage.
    Bearing in mind the proposals of the Rowntree trust, I hope that the Government will take action along the lines that have been recommended. I feel sure that the Labour party will take the matter seriously, for unless we have a root and branch study of housing finance in Britain, and find ways to free resources to ensure the right of everyone to a decent home, we shall never make progress.
    We will tackle the problem of homelessness not by initiatives that resemble panic measures and not by examining incoherent policies, the long-term implications of which cannot be foreseen, but by accepting that a thorough examination of housing finance is the key to housing in the future. The next Labour Government will take the issue seriously because my hon. Friends and I appreciate, as the motion says, that the mark of a civilised society is the provision of decent homes for its people.
    If we do not put housing high on the political agenda, future generations will not forgive us. The citizens of Manchester understand that, and because they put housing high on the agenda, they will vote accordingly at the next general election.
    5.46 pm
    Mr. Douglas French: I am grateful for having been called early in this short debate and I wish at the outset to congratulate the Minister on the knowledgeable and constructive way in which he dealt with the subject. He is increasingly recognised among housing practitioners as a person who appreciates the difficulties that they are endeavouring to overcome, and I congratulate him on his efforts so far.
    I cannot say the same about the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who wove a tale of gloom and woe. I listened in vain to that part of his speech in which I thought he might produce some constructive proposals, but what little his remarks contained was unspecific and he did not answer any questions.
    The hon. Gentleman said that his party and others should forget the ridiculous dividing line between public and private providers. I shall concentrate on that initially, particularly the question of voluntary transfers, to which the Minister referred. Regrettably, there has been no significant example of a voluntary transfer to a pre-existing independent housing association. Twenty nine specially formed housing associations have been created for specific local authority areas, of which 16 have been successful at ballot while 13 have been unsuccessful. About 70,000 houses have been transferred so far. While I do not belittle that achievement, it is a smaller number than had been hoped for, and certainly fewer than the merits of such transfers justify.
    Where there has been a willing local authority and a willing housing association, often the stumbling block has been the way in which the campaign preceding a ballot has been undertaken. There are a number of examples of how entrenched interests against a transfer taking place have been ill-informed. Arguments have often been presented to tenants in a highly distorted way and tenants have been led to believe that penalties would ensue should they support a voluntary transfer. Believing in the argument that better the devil they know than the devil they do not know, tenants have accordingly voted against the proposed transfer.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities such as Kirklees, which is my authority, have taken an ideological view on that matter and, over the past four years, have lost about £12 million in housing development money because of their silly socialist principles?
    Mr. French: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Her council is one of many where opportunities to bring more resources into the sector have been missed or rejected for ideological reasons. My constituency of Gloucester has had a similar experience. The arguments deployed against transferring to an independent housing association were grossly distorted and ill-informed. One of the difficulties is that the prospective housing association is obliged to put forward a firm proposal, with reliable figures for the projection of future rents and an explanation of how the financial package will hold together. But those who wish to oppose the proposal can refute those figures without, in turn, having to demonstrate that what they say is correct. Although they may have criticised the prospect of increased rents and argued that the local authority could secure lower rent levels over a particular period, in the
    206
    event it may not prove to be the case. However, by the time that becomes evident the arguments against voluntary transfer have prevailed.
    The voluntary transfer to a local housing association —one that emerges from a local authority—is akin to a management buyout. It suits some people but does not necessarily suit everyone. However, those who are unwilling to go down that route seem to me to have another option. Self-governing trusts have been introduced in respect of hospitals and the equivalent in education is grant-maintained status. By the same token there is a sound argument for local authority housing departments becoming charitable trusts. Those who are persuaded towards trust status, whether they are in schools or hospitals, are attracted to the opportunity to provide better internal management, a more productive use of resources and a better capacity to deliver the service to consumers. Those who run the services have a better opportunity to find the right solutions to solve the problems facing them.
    That principle can easily be adapted to local authority housing departments. A charitable trust emerging from a local authority housing department would be the recipient of the local authority department's assets and liabilities, but the authority would continue to act as banker and would retain the debt profile serviced by the trust and secured on the properties. Like other trusts, the trust could appoint outsiders to manage it and inject private sector expertise into its operations.
    I do not claim to be the originator of that idea. Some housing practitioners have already put it forward and explained it far more eloquently than I have. However, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the principle carefully because it has great merits.
    Other examples of ingenious housing initiatives can be drawn from international experience. One such example is rather confusingly known as the correlation insurance indemnity. Anyone who mentions the word "insurance" in a housing debate is quickly shouted down, but I refer to the experience in New South Wales—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) laughs. It so happens that the housing profile in New South Wales is remarkably similar to the housing profile in a number of areas in this country. The housing department there has made an especially useful arrangement through the National Bank of Australia. Without going into the details of the system, which is complex, it boils down to a cost efficient way to obtain private finance to build substantially more houses than would otherwise be built through conventional methods. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that example as it could be adapted to the United Kingdom's experience.
    One of the difficulties has been to persuade financial institutions that housing associations are appropriate organisations in which to place funds. That was well illustrated three years ago, when North housing association endeavoured to raise money in the City. At that time, it said that the biggest two difficulties were the two words in its name—"north" and "housing"—which put off many institutions that might otherwise have been persuaded to lend money. It overcame that difficulty and convinced the financial institutions that it was a viable haven for their funds. However, housing associations have often failed to present their case effectively to financial institutions. Housing associations executives have often failed to distinguish between what the financial institutions

    207
    seek in terms of equity and where they would place fixed interest loans. One is suitable for risk and the other clearly is not. The packages put together by housing associations have not always recognised that.
    There is also an urgent need for housing associations to rethink how they present their accounts. Some hon. Members will know that they have a curious way of presenting them. It is largely misunderstood, or not understood at all, in the City and it puts many City institutions off. A little effort to reconsider the presentation of those accounts would go a long way.
    A viable rented sector needs willing landlords for whom renting is worth while, tenants who can afford to pay the rents, an arithmetic that stacks up, and a political framework with some continuity. Those are obvious requirements, but there are obstacles preventing their achievement. I refer in particular to housing benefit. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said that landlords—I am not sure whether he referred to "wicked" landlords but has perhaps done so on other occasions—were "ripping off" the housing benefit system. I do not believe that the blame rests exclusively with landlords. The housing benefit system does not operate as well as it might for two reasons. First, landlords and tenants cannot generally risk signing a contract until housing benefit is confirmed. Conversely, housing benefit officials often will not confirm the availability of housing benefit until the landlord and tenant have signed a contract. That is a Catch-22 situation which it should be possible to sort out. Again, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that problem.
    My second point relates to the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Withington. Sometimes landlords provide accommodation for people in receipt of housing benefit only to discover part way through the tenancy that the eligibility for housing benefit has ceased. The landlord has no means of knowing that until he is asked by the housing benefit office to refund some of the money paid on behalf of the tenant who is no longer eligible. That is a quick and sure way of discouraging landlords from offering accommodation to recipients of housing benefit. The procedure needs tightening up; if it is not improved people will fail to find accommodation that they need.
    Finally, I urge the Minister to take another look at circular 7/91 published on 10 May, in which he announed his intention to allow public subsidy to go into shared ownership schemes even when there is some restriction on the availability of staircasing. Before the circular was issued the right to full staircasing was a strict requirement but the circular modified that requirement. The message coming from the Housing Corporation seems to contradict the contents of the circular—a matter of particular concern to people in rural areas. I urge my hon. Friend to tidy up this incompatibility.
    6.1 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I believe that everyone should have the right to a decent and affordable home. It is a national disgrace that in 1991 thousands of people are sleeping on our streets, hundreds of thousands are registered as homeless and countless more are living in cramped and unhealthy accommodation.
    I accept that far more people now own their homes, but I cannot accept the cost at which that has been achieved. Government ideology, Government policy and the
    208
    legislative changes of the past decade are major contributory factors to the appalling state of the nation's housing stock. Britain's housing is in crisis. The immediate response should be the removal of restrictions on local government finance to allow the greater use of capital receipts for new build, maintenance and improvement. But that is not the whole answer, since many local authorities do not have large capital receipts or stocks of housing to sell.
    I should like some of the £23 billion that the Treasury has pocketed from the sale of council houses in the past 10 years to be reinvested in the housing market. Any Administration under our control would want substantially to increase direct public support for housing for people, however low their incomes. Our aim is to allow people maximum choice in how they house themselves and to gain maximum value for every pound of public money that we spend. This can be achieved by stimulating new investment to meet housing needs, by increasing the total amount of subsidy available and by dispensing it in a way that matches resources more closely to needs.
    We need to increase the money available for housing associations and local authorities to build, acquire, improve and maintain housing so as to provide for people on low incomes.
    We should introduce partnership housing, using a new and limited form of subsidy to enable a serious gap in the housing market to be filled—housing for people on middle incomes who for one reason or another prefer renting to buying. Measures such as these would need a new form of support, which we suggest would come from a housing cost relief, which will have the effect of making high rents more affordable and of enabling more people to cope with the difficult early years of buying a home.
    We hear a great deal about affordable housing, but what does it mean? What is affordable rented housing? There can be no precise definition of an affordable rent; each household has different incomes, needs, priorities and skills for coping with its budget. At the moment the country relies on housing benefit to implement affordable rents, but the steep withdrawal of that benefit with increasing income has a damaging effect on incentives for people on low incomes to increase their earnings.
    Ideally we should like a tax and social security system that shifts so much of the burden away from the low-paid that they can without hardship make a bigger contribution to their housing costs—
    Mr. Gregory rose—
    Mr. Fearn: I have no time to give way.
    We recognise that there would still be a need for a closely targeted housing benefit system, but we think that targeting could be less severe than it is now. Even a modest rate of withdrawal, at between 65p and 55p in the pound, should make life easier for many people.
    The pressures of the past 12 years have been in the direction of home ownership and the right to buy, but many people on average incomes would prefer to rent if rented accommodation were available and affordable. With the housing market in its present condition I understand that there is a discernible move away from buying and into renting.
    We see our proposals for housing cost relief and partnership housing as the only reasonable and economic way forward to encourage new housing for rent. Housing

    209
    cost relief would differ from housing benefit in three ways. It would apply to rent and mortgage payments above a certain level, say, £30 a week, and up to a ceiling of, say, £100 a week, with regional variations. It would cover only a proportion, perhaps 50 per cent., of the rent or the mortgage interest. The rate of withdrawal with increases in income would be gentle—probably about 20p in the pound. The threshold above which relief would be withdrawn would stand at about the median level of net income for a single earner: at the moment, about £150 a week.
    The introduction of such a housing cost relief would make possible the introduction of a new rented housing sector based on a lower subsidy than that applied to the provision of housing for low-income households. We call this new sector partnership housing. It would be based on a capital subsidy that would depend on market conditions of house prices relative to income. The level of subsidy would fall as land and house prices fell relative to income. The rent on a home costing £75,000 would be about £80 a week. Housing cost relief would reduce the cost to the tenant by up to £25 to a minimum of £55 a week. By this method we think that as many as 50 per cent. more dwellings could be provided through a partnership housing scheme, for a given amount of public spending.
    Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fearn: I have not given way so far, and I will not now.
    Thus far I have spoken only about homes for rent, but if we are true to our aims of maximising choice the option to buy a home must extend down the income scale. The right-to-buy policy has made that possible for some, but it applies only to people living in council housing and we are well aware that the supply of stock is dwindling. Housing cost relief will give people on modest incomes about twice as much help as they would receive from mortgage tax relief, which is a less effective way of helping people. Indeed, I believe that many of the parties in the House are thinking again about it.
    The ceiling of £30,000 is half the cost of an average home and because of its across-the-board nature it does not target public money where it is most needed.
    Another scheme with the potential to help people on modest incomes to buy their homes is shared ownership. We welcome the arrangements for that brought in by the Government—they are not dissimilar to our partnership housing proposals. Our system of housing cost relief will offer a great deal of help and make shared ownership possible for a wider range of people.
    The provision of housing will mean little if that housing is of poor quality or if it is not maintained adequately. Investment in maintenance and repair is essential, and it makes economic and social sense to ensure that there are enough funds to maintain the existing stock. To allow property to fall into disrepair and rack and ruin merely adds to the housing and homeless crises.
    The erosion of local authority responsibility for building control must have a detrimental effect and has caused hardship to many home buyers. Full responsibility for the inspection and approval of building works should be restored to local authorities. There must be a review of
    210
    all aspects of building regulations and codes of practice with a view to improving the long-term durability of construction and economy in the use of energy.
    We would promote the standards that are recommended in "Homes for the Future", which was published jointly by the Institute of Housing and the Royal Institute of British Architects, and would consider legislative backing for the essential standards in that document. I favour legislation to widen the definition of unfitness. That is relevant to the private rented sector in which conditions are often appalling. People who rent in the private sector are entitled to decent, good-quality accommodation.
    In 1989, we said that we would encourage local authorities to take the initiative in developing agency schemes to help improve and maintain privately owned housing stock. We have been pleased with developments since then at national and local level, although we share doubts as to whether the £3 million allocated by the Government is enough to keep those agencies going. While we welcome the funds allocated to inner-city projects for improving estates, we would like to see all councils being able to improve the quality of life on their estates and, where necessary, being able to redevelop.
    Another issue requiring attention is the number of empty properties under local government control. When waiting lists are long, that should not be tolerated. Many of the properties are empty because councils do not have the money to bring them up to standard. Others are empty because of mismanagement and inefficiency. Councils must find ways to turn over property between lettings at a much quicker rate. One way may be to involve the tenants, and I was pleased to hear the Minister speak about that. Tenants could carry out redecorating and minor repair work. More funds should be provided to enable local authorities to bring empty properties back on to the rent market, and a relaxation of capital controls could provide some such funds.
    We advocate a regular analysis of repairs that are required and those that have been carried out, and we want to see regular monitoring of performance with contractors expected to reach high standards of tenant satisfaction. For example, the Liberal Democrat-controlled council of Berwick has a four-year rolling programme for repairs using a number of small agencies. The condition of the council's stock and the efficiency of its programme was recently given an excellent report by the Audit Commission. Our councils are committed to tackling the deterioration in the private sector by running an efficient improvement grant system and by working with agencies and the voluntary sector to ensure that those in most need are getting the assistance that they require.
    The Government's improvement grant means test is far too restrictive, and we should like to see it removed for the disabled and the elderly. The elderly are particularly relevant because they disproportionately have homes which lack basic amenities and they cannot afford repair and maintenance.
    There is an obvious need for more direct investment of public money in the grants system. That would be imperative if the definition of unfitness were broadened and standards were strictly enforced. Enforcement is rather lax at the moment. However, when providing direct funding we must look at other ways of providing incentives to save and repair.
    Private sector tenants who do not have a repair obligation in their contracts are, of course, not entitled to

    211
    an improvement grant, yet the private rented sector contains some of the worst disrepair. We should tackle that by giving tenants the right, with local authority approval for works and cost, to call in contractors to carry out essential repairs. In that context I am sure that there is a role for agencies. The local authority would be responsible for payment in the first place, but would be entitled to register a land charge against the property until the cost had been paid. When the repairs had been completed the landlord would be entitled to a rent increase, but that would be paid to the council until the debt was discharged. We expect that most tenants would have the extra rent increase largely covered by housing benefit.
    Local authorities should have a statutory duty to ensure that housing, public health and fire regulations are observed in all multiple occupation premises and that properties with three or more households sharing essential living accommodation should be registered with the local authority. Properties not up to standard should be priority targets for acquisition by councils, housing associations and co-operatives and, where appropriate, we would use compulsory purchase orders.
    I spoke about empty Government properties, but there are more than 600,000 empty properties in the private sector. Thousands of people are sleeping rough or in inadequate, cramped accommodation and it is obscene that so many properties are allowed to lie empty and fall into disrepair. We are willing to find ways of giving owners greater incentives to bring their properties up to standard and back on to the market, but when a property is intentionally left vacant we are prepared to introduce a new mechanism by which local authorities can serve a notice of intention to let, with appropriate right of appeal. Then, if necessary, we will extend compulsory purchase powers to enable local authorities to buy private homes which, I repeat, are intentionally left vacant for a significant time.
    I have outlined some of the policies that should have been put in place during the past 12 years. The disaster area of housing has gone on for far too long. It should be tackled now.
    6.19 pm
    Mr. Hugo Summerson: I shall concentrate on housing action trusts, not because I want to, but because of the short time that is available. There is a proposed housing action trust in the borough of Waltham Forest in my constituency, and it is greatly welcomed. If the tenants vote in favour of the trust, it will cost about £160 million to £170 million, which is a considerable investment of public money. The trust would cover four estates in the borough: Chingford hall, Boundary road, Oliver close and Cathall.
    Boundary road is in my constituency and all four estates share the same characteristics. They are 1960s designed and built tower blocks and they are horrendous. It is dreadful to think that they could ever have been conceived, and it is appalling that they were so badly built and have been disgracefully managed. Tower blocks breed unemployment, despair and misery, and the sooner that they are taken down the better. The only people who will regret their passing are the criminal fraternity, who engage in stripping stolen cars, and the owners of pit bull terriers. I do not know where those people will go when the blocks
    212
    are demolished, but with any luck they will all make their way to Hammersmith. I am delighted to say that, if the housing action trust goes ahead, there will be tenants on the board, which will allow their voice to be heard. This is a great improvement over the housing action trust mark 1, which did not permit tenants any say in the running of their estates.
    Safeguards are built in for the tenants on, for example, rents, which will be frozen while the housing action trust is in operation. Once the tenants have moved to their new homes, the new rents will be set at levels similar to those for comparable council properties. Moreover, tenants will have the right to choose their own landlord. Once they have moved into their new homes, under the housing action trust, if tenants wish to keep the local authority as landlord, then they have the right to do so. If, on the other hand, they choose to have a housing association as their landlord, or if they choose to set up a tenants' co-operative so that they can run their homes themselves, or if they wish to exercise their right to buy, all these options are open to them. There is no question of privatising these estates—a slanderous and disgraceful suggestion that has been made by such bodies as the Socialist Workers party. I urge the tenants to take no notice of what these people say.
    There is no doubt but that this is the way forward. It is the way to deal with dreadful estates of this type. I hope that the tenants on such estates in the London borough of Waltham Forest will turn out in great numbers for the vote on 13 July. I hope that there will be a clear-cut, decisive vote.
    6.21 pm
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: The mark of a civilised society is that it is one in which people can expect to be decently housed and clothed, to have enough to eat and to have access to health care and to education for their children. Our society fails many people in a number of these respects, but nowhere more so than in housing. Every Member of Parliament representing an inner-city area has thousands of cases of human misery, ill health and broken families—all caused by overcrowding and the impossibility of getting somewhere decent to live. Furthermore, it is a cause of racial conflict. The Government put the squeeze on local authorities and refuse to let them have money for council house building, and so communities turn against each other and fight for the meagre resources that are left. The worst part of it is the loss of hope and the depression that come from 10 years of being on the waiting list and seeing no chance of a solution.
    Tower Hamlets is fairly typical of inner-city boroughs. It has over 1,000 families accepted as homeless. Many are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The money that goes on bed and breakfast represents millions of pounds down the drain because it provides no permanent solution. I have visited constituents in seedy bed-and-breakfast hotels in Paddington and Earl's Court. The conditions are appalling. In a room the size of a boxroom in an average semi-detached house, there are two beds, a mother and father and two children. There is no television or a fridge. There is a coffee table at which one person can eat while the others eat on their beds. The mother comes up a steep flight of stairs from a communal kitchen with one child in her arms and the other hanging off her skirts, carrying pots of boiling food. Not only are they in danger, but, as I know

    213
    from my experience as a teacher, these children will have no chance of healthy development. A child needs a place to move, to run and to stretch so as to develop mentally and physically, and there is no room for them to do so. These families in bed-and-breakfast hotels are condemned to a nightmare.
    According to the community charge office, Tower Hamlets has 4,000 empty and second homes, most in the private sector. In docklands 1,500 units—the minimum admitted by the London Docklands development corporation—are luxury homes that people cannot afford to buy. We need radical solutions. The right-to-buy money must be released and used to repair empty homes so that they can be used. All unused land in public ownership must be released so that prefabs can be put on it; then we could do something within months to accommodate the vast majority of homeless families. Privately owned homes that have been empty for years must be requisitioned and let by local authorities.
    The right to buy helped many people to purchase their own homes, but it has reduced the condition of public sector housing stock. In London, one fifth of the housing stock has been sold, three quarters of it houses with gardens, because they are what everybody wants to live in. That leaves only 15 per cent. of council tenants in houses with gardens. Therefore, the worst stock is that left in municipal control.
    In docklands, we had a great opportunity to solve the housing problems because vast areas of land were left unused. When so much land is left empty, it must be zoned so that a fair proportion of it goes for affordable housing. Instead, million of square feet of office space was built, half of which is empty, and millions more are to come although they are surplus to requirements. That is not the answer that we need, in Tower Hamlets or any other city centre.
    Most people dream of owning their own homes, but for many that dream has turned sour and has become a nightmare in these days of unemployment and rising interest rates. People come to me in desperation. They have bought their homes, but they cannot pay service charges, or a big repair has to be carried out, and they do not have the money for it. Bow county court deals with more repossession cases than any other court in London. A single person needs an income of £21,000 and a family needs an income of £26,000 to be a first-time buyer. That is no answer in an area such as Tower Hamlets, one of the poorest in the country.
    The sad evidence of the failure of the Government's policy of trying to put an end to council house building can be seen all round us in London—in the people living in the streets, in the crowded rooms of the seedy bed-and-breakfast hotels and in the queues of desperate people in the surgeries of every London Member of Parliament. As I have said many times, for my constituents and those in other urban areas, the only practical answer is more affordable housing built by municipal authorities. The Government can shake their head and proffer other methods, but that method took people out of the slums and gave them decent homes and it is the only one that will work in the future.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. David Nicholson: I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) said about housing conditions in her constituency and other inner cities. I remind her of what a former Labour council leader said about his council, Liverpool. Mr. Keva Coombes said:
    "Tenants get an appalling service, and they know that. I think probably the fundamental cause is, frankly, we've put the interests of the providers of the service, the workforce, above the interests of the tenants."
    How true that is of so many services provided in Liverpool.
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister was not able to develop his thoughts on reviving the private rented sector. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recall that he told me, in a written answer:
    "It is too early to assess the overall impact of the Act on private renting."—[Official Report, 14 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 541.]
    He was referring there to the Housing Act 1988. He pointed to some hopeful signs, but we still have a long way to go before we have a revived private rented sector. In contrast, in West Germany nearly half all homes are privately rented. In this country, there are some 600,000 empty private sector homes, many of which could be used to house the homeless. Unfortunately, previous restrictions have deterred such use.
    There are hopeful signs—for example, reports in the London borough of Islington published in October 1990 show that private landlords are renting up to 30 per cent. more homes than they were two years ago. But in my constituency and in other parts of the south-west, there is no substantial scope for reviving the private rented sector. We must look to local authorities, or more particularly housing associations, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows.
    I note that my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that the Government have reallocated capital away from areas with receipts to areas without receipts. I hope that the Government will constantly take into account local authorities' practice of keeping homes empty, not collecting the rent and not facilitating the sale of council homes. Hon. Members will recall that I have made those points before. For example, in most of the districts of the south-west, between 25 and 30 per cent. of council accommodation has been sold, whereas in parts of London less than 10 per cent. of a much larger council estate has been sold. I hope that the Government will not lean over backwards too far to help inner cities in that respect.
    An unpublished study of the housing situation and the consequences of council sales in my constituency said:
    "Family houses are more attractive to potential buyers than flats…This has clear implications for the housing section of Taunton Deane, as it displays a clear lack of available family accommodation which will either have to be met through an increased building programme, or through private rented sector property and reveals a problem which has arisen not solely, but perhaps largely as a result of the depletion of the housing stock through the promotion of the Right To Buy."
    I therefore welcome the suggestion made in a letter dated 24 April from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about the capital finance system. He said:
    "We shall keep the workings of this system under review and I do not rule out changes at some time".

    215
    I reiterate that some flexibility in the administration of the system would be welcome not only to me but to a number of my hon. Friends who represent local authorities which have handled their assets well.
    Finally, I wish to relate housing provision and home improvements to our present economic situation and to the needs in the coming year or so to try to revive that sector of our economy. The Building Employers Confederation, in which I declare an interest as an adviser [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will recall, I advocated these views before I became involved with the organisation and I should continue to advocate them were I not involved. It makes this point:
    "Housing output will have to be expanded in both the private and the public sectors, to meet market demand".
    It also says:
    "Capital receipts are an available source of funding for the Housing Corporation if Ministers do not wish local authorities to build. Now is a good time to get housing associations to increase output, because land and building prices are low and they can maximise 'bang for the buck'"—as builders call it—
    "at present. Rules preventing local authorities using their own land to pay for more building work should be relaxed."
    I note that when the economy was recovering from recession between 1981 and 1984 there was a significant increase in the amount of spending on home improvement grants. In the financial year 1981–82, £197 million was spent on home improvement grants. In 1983–84, when the economy was reviving, £911 million, nearly £1 billion, was spent on home improvement grants—a considerable increase at that time. I commend that to my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that he has recognised in correspondence with me the teething troubles in the system that was introduced last year and I hope that this opportunity will be taken to try to float that sector off the rocks on which it is at present.
    There is also the problem in my constituency, and I think in others, too, of owner-occupied homes which are in some difficulty because of non-traditional build. In Taunton—in the Galmington area—there are Woolaway houses which were built just after the war. They are not facing significant problems in terms of repair, but they are facing problems with regard to resale. As my constituent Mrs. Keitch says:
    "On the last sale the purchaser had an extensive structural survey carried out on the house which proved positive in confirming that it was well-constructed and well maintained, but the purchaser withdrew because of unfounded rumours and worries about resale problems."
    I have corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister about that and I hope that he will continue to attach importance to the problem which is causing blight in parts of my constituency and no doubt other constituencies, too. Widows or elderly people occupying such homes and wanting to move to smaller, more manageable properties would release substantial three and four-bedroom houses for families in my constituency and elsewhere who are in urgent need of such accommodation.
    I commend my hon. Friend's policies and I commend these points of concern to his attention.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. Terry Rooney: It is important when discussing housing to get away from the rhetoric of simply slagging off any Labour-controlled authority and blaming everything on municipalisation. We should
    216
    remember that many Tory-controlled councils are public-sector landlords to many people. I also despair at Tory Members—one of whom I am glad to see returning to the Chamber, the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth)—who spend their time here whingeing about their Labour-controlled authorities and then write to them asking for special treatment for people whom they see at their surgeries. That is despicable.
    It is important to remember that HIP allocations apply not simply to public sector schemes, but to new build, the modernisation of existing stock, the estate action programme allocation, statutory improvement grants, mortgages for council house buyers and support to housing associations.
    My authority in Bradford, which is a pleasant mix of inner-city and rural areas, has seen a 75 per cent. reduction during the past 10 years in its HIP allocation. In 1990–91 we saw an increse in expenditure on bed and breakfast from £20,00 to £200,000. For the first time, Bradford had a long-term bed-and-breakfast accomodation problem on its hands. Last year, 2,300 people were assessed as priority homeless. Because of the loss of housing stock during the past 12 years we were able to house only 975 of them and 1,200 people were left in bed-and-breakfast accommmodation. In addition, more than 4,000 families are trapped in flats waiting for houses that they cannot have because the majority of houses have been sold.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) said, bad housing affects education. We all know that substantial research has been done which shows that one of the major influences on children's educational achievement is their environment. Stress caused by poor accommodation leads to family break-up which in turn means that two units of accommodation are needed, adding to the problem. Such stress in turn makes demands on the health service. For far too long, the indirect consequences of the Government's housing strategy and the costs associated with it in other areas have never been brought together.
    Because of the ludicrous housing subsidy rules, we now have the poor subsidising the poor. In 1990, £8 million in housing subsidy was lost from the housing revenue account. This year that figure has risen to £10 million. That has produced a rent increase of £6·20 which means that housing benefit must be increased—a rising spiral in subsidy.
    In Bradford we have seen the rise of disreputable second mortgage companies which will advance money at extortionate rates of interest. At the first failure to pay they will go to the county court for a possession order.
    Last week, one of my constituents came to see me. She may have been foolish, but never mind that. She had taken out a second mortgage to the value of £19,000 and—having, perhaps, taken less than the best legal advice—had signed a document that would lead to her losing her home three years later. Meanwhile, her debt stands at £31,000. That is the legacy of the 1990s, when the present Government created the myth that it was possible to extract the equity from a property and thus dispense with all worries. Now all the chickens are coming home to roost.
    I will say little about the building societies. By and large, they are well intentioned; they have been led up the garden path by the new powers that they have been given, and now want to turn themselves into banks. We all know what that means.

    217
    What, then, is the solution? Both the Minister and Opposition Members have talked about housing strategy. I only wish that there were a housing strategy. We need a strategy that recognises all tenures and all agencies, and makes no excuse for bad management by local authorities, building societies or private landlords.
    We need a strategy that reflects market forces. Nine thousand people are on the waiting list in my local authority area, because they want low-cost public-sector housing. The market is there; when will supply match demand?
    In the past 10 years, the number of housing starts in West Yorkshire has fallen from 20,000 a year—both public and private—to 8,000. An indirect consequence of that pattern, which has been repeated across the country, is the fact that some 250,000 construction workers are now on the dole.
    We need that new strategy soon and we need similar strategies to deal with associated problems in, for instance, education and health.
    The Minister said that far too many people lived in estates that had been designed by people who did not live in them, and would not want to. Let me tell him that far too many local authorities' housing policies are being determined by civil servants who live in London, and are acquainted only with London problems. They have no conception of life outside the metropolis, because they venture further afield only on overseas trips.
    6.42 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: Nothing in the debate has suggested that the Government appreciate the seriousness of the housing problem. Indeed, everything that we have heard suggests that they are as complacent as ever. If nothing that my hon. Friends have said has had the desired effect, I should perhaps remind the Government that housing investment in this country has collapsed from 6 or 7 per cent. of gross domestic product to about 2 per cent.—far lower than the proportion spent in any comparable European or western country. We see the evidence on our streets, and also in the many reports that reveal the current decay in our housing stock.
    No one listening to the debate would gain the impression that the Government, or their supporters, were even aware of the reports by the Duke of Edinburgh, the Public Accounts Committee or the Select Committee on the Environment—or, indeed, of the report by the Association of District Councils, which seems to have had no impact on the Government, although the ADC is composed of their friends and supporters.
    Listening to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), no one would think that there was a housing problem in his constituency; yet Conservative councillors from that borough have asked me to try to persuade the Government to allow them to use capital receipts to replace housing costs in rural areas. I have received similar representations from other parts of the country. The Government are clearly prepared to ignore not only the Opposition but outside bodies. When will they start to listen to their supporters, who have also spelt out the problems?
    Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Soley: I would love to give way, but, if I did, I would be taking time away from the Minister. I have eight minutes and he has 10.
    The Minister implied that the Labour party had killed off the private rented sector. In 1979, when the Conservative Government were elected on the basis of their promise to revive that sector, it represented 14 per cent. of the rented market; now it represents 7 per cent.
    Mr. Summerson rose—
    Mr. Soley: I shall not give way, unless I do so at the Minister's expense.
    That market share is now declining further, except at the upper end of the market—and it is rising at that end only because house prices are currently frozen, and landlords are letting on a short-term basis. When the housing market starts to pick up again, those short lets will come to an end, and the housing problem will recur.
    As the Duke of Edinburgh's report has pointed out—and as I have pointed out for many years—the private rented sector has declined because of our system of housing finance. Only at the margins is that decline connected with the Rent Acts—as evidence from Northern Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere will show anyone who cares to examine the details.
    The Government have fallen back on another example—empty properties. As Labour has said for some time, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) has said tonight, when there is evidence that a landlord has not acted properly—whether that landlord is Labour or Tory, council or public housing association, or, indeed, private—we shall take steps to ensure that the property in question is transferred to a manager who can manage it, in the private sector if necessary.
    Let me remind the Government, however, that 16 per cent. of their houses—35,000 properties—are empty. If they have read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on the Environment, they will know that only 2·5 per cent. of local authority houses are empty. Even authorities with larger housing stocks usually have special reasons. Where that does not apply, I would suggest transfer.
    I shall issue a challenge to the Minister, which he may wish to meet when he replies to the debate. In the Government sector, 35,000 properties are empty—and I emphasise that most are not needed for defence purposes. One in five London police houses are empty; prison officers' houses have been left empty for up to 10 years. In Archway, Department of Transport properties are even now being auctioned off, while many Ministry of Defence houses are being kept empty for sale by auction. I challenge the Government to transfer those properties, here and now, to housing associations or local authorities. It is a question of, "Do it now—don't talk."
    Let me tell the Minister what really happened about housing action trusts. I understand why he does not know: historically, housing Ministers in the present Government have lasted for an average of six months. The present Minister was not involved at the time; I give him full credit for that. If he had been, he would not have said what he did say.
    In the Committee stage of the Housing Bill 1988, we argued against housing action trusts. We said that tenants would not be forced out of the council sector; we also saw problems involving rent-setting mechanisms and so forth.

    219
    Every one of the seven housing action trust areas identified by the Government voted them down. As a result of that pressure, and as a result of my taking groups of Members of Parliament to see the then Minister—the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier)—the Government began to shift their position. Now they are saying that tenants can go back to the council sector.
    Given that the tenants who voted the system down in the seven areas identified by the Government were not offered the special and favourable deals that are now being offered to Hull and Walthamstow, which I welcome, will the Minister now make the same offer to those tenants? They knew that they would be transferred. Furthermore, is he prepared to change the law, which, as it stands, is not commensurate with his offer?
    Let me say to the Minister what I have said to the Hull authority—I said it some time ago, and it is in writing. Those tenants will have the right to go back to either the local authority or another landlord of their own choosing; they need not go back to the local authority.
    Then there is the question of housing authorities. It is wonderful, is it not? Various hon. Members are falling in love with the housing association movement: terrific. I wish that it had been so throughout the 1980s, when the housing associations grant was cut time and again. Now they are only just getting back to where they were in the 1970s. What a damning indictment of the Government's policy.
    What else are the Government doing? One Minister —he is now Secretary of State for Health—promised to revive the co-ops. This year, the co-ops have had the lowest-ever allocation from the Housing Corporation—just 300 housing units. What a disastrous, incompetent measure.
    Let me make two points about ending transfers—and I address this to the hon. Member for Gloucester as well as to the Government. Can we have a guarantee that, whenever tenants are transferred, they will be given the money to take independent advice about the desirability of the deal? Some tenants have bought a pig in a poke. An example of that—it was not badly intentioned—is the Greater London council seaside homes where tenants ended up paying more than they were told that they would have to pay. It was the fault of the housing association in that it got its sums wrong, but that was not surprising in view of the circumstances of the deal. Those involved were not offered independent advice which might have warned them off. No one should be transferred without independent advice.
    I could make a success of a transfer if I were told that I could buy each unit for under £10,000, which is the maximum price for any house or flat in any total stock transfer that has taken place in Britain. Any fool could make a success of that. If one writes off all the debt, things can be improved. If it is such a good thing, why not do it for local authorities? The Minister says that we cannot have the capital receipts. He wants to do the equivalent of going home at night, finding that the roof is leaking and telling his family, "I am sorry, the roof needs to be repaired but we should pay off the mortgage." It is lunacy to use the money from capital receipts to pay off debts when there are so many homeless. It is also wicked. Therefore, the Government cannot use that excuse either.
    There is a campaign for rough sleepers. Homelessness is not just a London problem and it is nowhere near being solved. I welcome the units that the Government have
    220
    made available, but more homeless people will come to use them. They will come from Gloucester, Taunton, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. People will come from all over the place and the homelessness problem will continue to increase because, as the Duke of Edinburgh said, we have lost 1·9 million properties from the rented sector. The aggressive begging comes from the Government, begging for an excuse for policies that have failed the nation.
    6.51 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): This has been an instructive debate on an important subject, and I welcome some of the contributions, including the eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) for a housing action trust there. I hope that the tenants will take careful note of what he said. I was interested in the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) for encouraging voluntary transfer. I shall draw the attention of the Department of Social Security to his remarks on housing benefit. I should like him to clarify his concerns about the Housing Corporation's attitude to circular 7/91. Perhaps he will do so in a letter.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) made some powerful remarks about the revival of the private sector, the use of capital receipts and defective housing in his constituency. Almost all the other speeches were pleas for more money to be spent on council housing. Opposition Members ignored entirely the enormous resources that the Government are putting into the housing association movement. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) is a former employee of Manchester city council. Before he asks the Government to put more taxpayers' money into that city, he should do something about collecting the £15 million of rent arrears which were outstanding at the end of 1990. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) should ask why Tower Hamlets council had 1,758 empty council properties at 1 April 1990. Those were council properties built for council tenants. They were not built for policemen or hospital workers or for soldiers returning from abroad. They were meant for tenants and should be for tenants. They would be used by tenants if the Labour-controlled local authority did something about it.
    The debate has reminded the House how the Government's policies over the past 12 years have given Britain more and better housing than at any time in history. The policies have been based on expanding home ownership, which is the preferred choice of the vast majority of families and individuals. Home ownership is now at record levels and is expanding still further with the promotion of shared ownership schemes and other intiatives designed to bring owner-occupation within the reach of those for whom it was previously impossible.
    The Government's policies are also designed to improve choice and opportunity for tenants. They give all tenants more say in their own affairs. They target more resources where they are most needed and encourage the private landlord to play a bigger role in housing the homeless. The private landlord will have listened with interest to the reply of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). The hon. Member for Dagenham refused to say that the Labour party would

    221
    abandon its crazy policy of giving private tenants the right to buy. If ever there was a sure way of ensuring that the private rented sector remained largely dormant, it was that threat of confiscation.
    The debate has also provided an opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to mention the hugely increased resources that we are putting into housing associations via the Housing Corporation and by making it possible for housing associations to tap private finance for the benefit of tenants. All those positive steps have been resisted in one way or another by the Labour party's dogged determination to continue living in the past. For example, the rents-to-mortgages experiment is now successfully under way in Basildon and Milton Keynes. That initiative manages to promote home ownership and extend the rights of tenants. It is sad but not surprising that no Labour Member today had a word to say in favour of that scheme. As it took so many years of proven Conservative success and overwhelming tenant enthusiasm before the Labour party replaced its obstinate hostility to the right to buy with its present grudging acceptance, it will be many more years before it gives the rents-to-mortgages scheme an unqualified endorsement.
    The debate also reminded the House of what the Labour party would inflict on tenants and landlords if it ever got the chance. We have had the usual hostility to the private landlord, thinly disguised inside the Labour party's so-called new agenda for the private rented sector. That agenda has been drawn up carefully to prevent private landlords from providing for poorer tenants. The initiative of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, the pilot scheme under which housing associations are invited to bid for an opportunity to manage private property on behalf of landlords and to act as an intermediary between them and homeless families, is worth while. It would have done the Labour party some good if it had thought to give that a favourable mention.
    The trouble is that at the core of the Labour party's policy is a deep-seated desire to meet every housing need by throwing huge sums of money at local authorities. The Government utterly reject that approach. Never again should tenants face the dreary monopoly of no alternative to a local council landlord. It was the excessive dependence on local authorities as the monopoly provider of subsidised housing which led directly to the dreadful conditions still found on many council estates today. That policy was utterly rejected by the Government but is still supported by the Opposition. It has given us more than 5,000 empty houses in Labour-controlled Manchester—more than one property in 20 of the total council stock. That same policy left more than £26 million of uncollected rent from tenants in Labour-controlled Southwark, almost one third of the annual rent roll.
    Labour councils cannot be bothered to collect the rents that would pay for the improvements and maintenance that we want tenants to receive, but the Labour leadership is certainly not slow in promising to spend huge sums of taxpayers' money. Exactly how much it would spend remains shrouded in some obscurity. The promises that fall glibly from the lips of the hon. Member for Dagenham may not have been approved by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). When she was confronted with the ghastly reality that Labour's spending
    222
    commitments would require a basic rate of tax of 40p in the pound, the hon. Member for Derby, South back-pedalled furiously. The hon. Member for Dagenham told the House last year that a Labour Government would immediately set in train a scheme costing £1·85 billion as a solution to the homelessness problem. Was that commitment cleared with the hon. Member for Derby, South?
    Later in the year the hon. Member for Dagenham was at it again. He told the Chartered Builder magazine that over £8 billion was promised for construction, repair and maintenance. I doubt whether that was cleared with the hon. Member for Derby, South. Perhaps she is not such an avid reader of that magazine as I am. When we talk of £1·85 billion here and £3 billion there, we are talking about real money. Those spending pledges are either a hollow and cynical sham designed to buy votes from every pressure group that presents itself on Labour's door, or they represent a clear and unambiguous threat to every taxpayer in the country—an attempt to cripple taxpayers and wreck the economy.
    Liverpool is a supreme example of what Labour rule can do to a once proud and prosperous city. Of all the disasters caused by Labour's administration in Liverpool, its housing is supremely disgraceful. There are over 5,000 empty council properties—one in every 12 owned by the council. That is the worst record of any local authority in the country. There is 16 million of uncollected rent—more than a quarter of the total rent roll.
    However, hope exists for Liverpool's beleaguered tenants in the form of a housing action trust. Last week the city council voted to start negotiations. I warmly welcome that change of heart, but does the Labour party? Is it still firmly opposed to housing action trusts? Will it threaten Liverpool council as it threatened Hull council with the winding up of a housing action trust before it has even had a chance to get under way?
    On this crucial issue of housing action trusts, the Labour party leadership in Parliament is opposed to its whizzo new moderate Liverpool city council. So deep and rigid is the attachment of the Labour Front Bench to out-of-date dogma that it cannot utter a word in support of its councillors in Liverpool, who are belatedly attempting to redress some of the wrongs that were inflicted on them in the early 1980s.
    A year ago tomorrow, the House debated a Labour motion on housing. In that year, Labour has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. The same touchstones have been uncovered—a slavish and unquestioning enthusiasm for the local authority monopoly landlord, the same profound hostility to extensions of tenants' rights, the same resolute determination to stop the growth in the private sector. Those were the solutions of the 1960s. They were mistakes then; they are irrelevant now. The House should reject the motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 276.

    Division No. 197]

    [at 7.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley,N.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Allen, Graham

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Alton, David

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Battle, John

    223

    Beckett, Margaret

    Howells, Geraint

    Beith, A. J.

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Bellotti, David

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ingram, Adam

    Blair, Tony

    Janner, Greville

    Blunkett, David

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Boateng, Paul

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Boyes, Roland

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Bradley, Keith

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Kennedy, Charles

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Lambie, David

    Buckley, George J.

    Lamond, James

    Callaghan, Jim

    Leighton, Ron

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Lewis, Terry

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Litherland, Robert

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Livingstone, Ken

    Canavan, Dennis

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Carr, Michael

    Loyden, Eddie

    Cartwright, John

    McAllion, John

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Cohen, Harry

    McFall, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    McKelvey, William

    Corbett, Robin

    McLeish, Henry

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Maclennan, Robert

    Cousins, Jim

    McMaster, Gordon

    Crowther, Stan

    McWilliam, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Madden, Max

    Cummings, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Marek, Dr John

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Darling, Alistair

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Martlew, Eric

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

    Maxton, John

    Dewar, Donald

    Meale, Alan

    Dixon, Don

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dobson, Frank

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grlmsby)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Eadie, Alexander

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Eastham, Ken

    Morley, Elliot

    Edwards, Huw

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fatchett, Derek

    Mullin, Chris

    Fearn, Ronald

    Murphy, Paul

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Nellist, Dave

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

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fisher, Mark

    O'Brien, William

    Flynn, Paul

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Foster, Derek

    Patchett, Terry

    Foulkes, George

    Pendry, Tom

    Fraser, John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Prescott, John

    George, Bruce

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Randall, Stuart

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Redmond, Martin

    Gordon, Mildred

    Reid, Dr John

    Gould, Bryan

    Richardson, Jo

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Robertson, George

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Hain, Peter

    Rogers, Allan

    Hardy, Peter

    Rooker, Jeff

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Rooney, Terence

    Haynes, Frank

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Rowlands, Ted

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Salmond, Alex

    Hinchliffe, David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Home Robertson, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hood, Jimmy

    Short, Clare

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Sillars, Jim

    224

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

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

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson, Brian

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Worthington, Tony

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Vaz, Keith

    Wallace, James

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Walley, Joan

    Mr. Martyn Jones, and

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mr. Jack Thompson.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Day, Stephen

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Devlin, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Allason, Rupert

    Dicks, Terry

    Amess, David

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Amos, Alan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dover, Den

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Dykes, Hugh

    Ashby, David

    Eggar, Tim

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Atkins, Robert

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Atkinson, David

    Evennett, David

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Fallon, Michael

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Favell, Tony

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bellingham, Henry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Benyon, W.

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Franks, Cecil

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Freeman, Roger

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Fry, Peter

    Boswell, Tim

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bottomley, Peter

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Gill, Christopher

    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bowis, John

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brazier, Julian

    Gorst, John

    Bright, Graham

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

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

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Gregory, Conal

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grist, Ian

    Burns, Simon

    Ground, Patrick

    Burt, Alistair

    Grylls, Michael

    Butler, Chris

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butterfill, John

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hannam, John

    Cash, William

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

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Chope, Christopher

    Harris, David

    Churchill, Mr

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hayward, Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Conway, Derek

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hill, James

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Couchman, James

    Irvine, Michael

    Cran, James

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Janman, Tim

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jessel, Toby

    225

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Mudd, David

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Kilfedder, James

    Nelson, Anthony

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Knapman, Roger

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Norris, Steve

    Knowles, Michael

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Knox, David

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Latham, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Paice, James

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Lightbown, David

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Lord, Michael

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Powell, William (Corby)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Price, Sir David

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Rattan, Keith

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Madel, David

    Redwood, John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Maples, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Marland, Paul

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Marlow, Tony

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Mates, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Rost, Peter

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Rowe, Andrew

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Mills, Iain

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Moate, Roger

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Shersby, Michael

    226

    Sims, Roger

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Tracey, Richard

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Tredinnick, David

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Trippier, David

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Trotter, Neville

    Speed, Keith

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Viggers, Peter

    Squire, Robin

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walden, George

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ward, John

    Steen, Anthony

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stern, Michael

    Watts, John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wells, Bowen

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Whitney, Ray

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stokes, Sir John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Sumberg, David

    Wilkinson, John

    Summerson, Hugo

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Yeo, Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mr. Tom Sackville and

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mr. Timothy Wood.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government to put a decent home within the reach of every family by promoting owner occupation, by securing greater private sector investment in housing and by directing public expenditure effectively towards those people and areas that most need support.

Electricity and Gas Industries
7.13 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the abject failure of the Government to prevent unrestrained increases in the profits of the gas and electricity companies and in the pay and perks of their Directors; notes that these profits, which are being achieved at the expense of the customers, damage the long-term interests of the country and result from policies which promote energy sales rather than energy saving, harm the environment, add to the trade deficit and reduce investment in research and development; and calls upon the Government to introduce effective measures to protect the interests of customers and to use its powers as a major shareholder in National Power and PowerGen to block those policies which the Prime Minister has said he deplores.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Dobson: The past few months have exposed the Government's electricity privatisation for the squalid racket that it has become. It is a racket that has been conducted at the expense of taxpayers and of customers. I remind Conservative Members that the electricity companies' assets were built up from the bills paid by customers, yet they were sold off at a fraction of their real value. According to the books, those assets were worth £29 billion, but they were sold for a little more than £12 billion. The Government say that they do not accept those figures and that the audited accounts count for nothing—the only real value of the companies was what the stock exchange would pay.
When the regional electricity companies were sold in December, the Government put the part-paid shares on the market at 100p each and, before the end of the day's trading, they were trading at 160p, a loss to the taxpayer of £1·2 billion in two and a half hours. No profligate Labour council can compare with that.
Nothing daunted, in February the Secretary of State put National Power and PowerGen on the market, again at 100p for a part-paid share. By the end of the first day's trading, the shares were trading at 137p—a loss to the taxpayer of another £0·4 million.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is very concerned about losses to the taxpayer, but will he confirm that he stands by the pledge given by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) to The Times on 14 September 1989 that dividends would be taken from taxpayers without any recompense? Is that what the hon. Gentleman calls loss to the taxpayer—confiscation by the state?
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman can do no better than quote from the Tory party brief, of which, as usual, I managed to get a copy from the photocopier, he should not bother us.
Mr. Nicholls: Yes or no?
Mr. Dobson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be breathalysed so that we can get some sense out of him.
Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour party policy has been quoted to the hon. Gentleman, who owes the House an explanation. Will he say yes or no?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate.
Mr. Dobson: I owe the House nothing; the hon. Gentleman owes us an apology.
According to the Government's own figures, and according to the figures in the Financial Times, by 14 June this year shares in the regional electricity companies, which had gone on the market at 100p each, had at some stage traded at more than 200p. Some have fallen back since, but the Government sold the regional companies at a valuation that they have given to me—and I accept their figures for the sake of argument—of £5·2 billion. By 14 June the stock market valuation had increased to £7·4 billion, an increase of 44 per cent. During the same period, the stock market had risen by only 16 per cent.
National Power and PowerGen were sold by the Government at a valuation of £2·2 billion. They are now worth £2·7 billion on the stock market, an increase of 22 per cent. During the same period, the stock market as a whole rose by only 2·7 per cent. Those increases were at the expense of the taxpayer and were the result of the gross incompetence of the Secretary of State and, even more so, of the expensive collection of advisers from the City who advised him on the sale. In total, he has spent more than £500 million on City advice and underwriters' fees during the electricity privatisation process. If anyone dismisses that as an inconsiderable sum, I remind them that it is approximately the same amount as Lloyd's lost last year and about which there was much moaning and gnashing of teeth in the City. Of course, there was no moaning and gnashing of teeth about this £500 million because the City received it—it did not lose it.
Last year, prices to the consumers of domestic electricity were increased at a rate that was intended to be higher than the rate of inflation. As a result of the Government's incompetence, inflation soared, so the prices were not as high as inflation. However, this year, once again, prices for the domestic customer have been increased at a rate higher than the general rate of inflation.
The profits that have been announced over the past few weeks have been dramatically higher than the estimates that the Government made as recently as December last year. In the case of South Western Electricity, the profits were 48 per cent. up on the Government's estimate of December last year. What has maddened people most are the directors' pay increases which are so large that they beggar description. Since privatisation, there have been cuts in staff and further cuts are proposed. There have been cuts in research and development, and massive further cuts are proposed. There have already been cuts in training and further reductions are proposed. Coal and gas imports are being proceeded with at a rate that is becoming increasingly damaging to the balance of payments. All round the country, people are receiving reports of increasing interruptions to electricity supply. It is clear to everyone that the system of regulation is totally feeble.
All that I have described is a far cry from what the Tories promised. In their White Paper of February 1988,

229
they set out what they called "principles" governing electricity privatisation. In view of what has happened, the list looks like a sick joke. The first principle was
"Decisions … should be driven by the needs of the customer."
None of the customers who have written to me over the past few weeks has said that he needs the electricity bosses to get pay increases ranging from 50 per cent. to 200 per cent.
The White Paper went on to say:
"Competition is the best guarantee of customers' interests."
Perhaps the Tories should tell that to the domestic customers who still have to buy their electricity from a local monopoly because there is no competition for them and because only businesses can shop around.
Mr. Anthony Coombs rose—
Mr. Dobson: Business users have seen 15 per cent. reductions in the price of electricity to them, while domestic customers have seen their prices rise by more than 20 per cent.
Mr. Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No, I will not give way for the moment. The White Paper went on to say:
"All who work in the industry should be offered a direct stake in their future, new career opportunities".
The words "new career opportunities" must ring strangely in the ears of the 8,000 people from the industry who will lose their jobs as a result of rationalisation. The words will ring even more rottenly in the ears of the scientists at the central electricity research laboratory, one of the leading electrical laboratories in the world, which National Power intends to close because it is not doing stuff that is of immediate benefit to the shareholders. People throughout the country are disgusted by the pay rises that the directors of the companies are giving themselves. As I have already said, there is a combination of greed and opportunity. The directors have supplied the greed and the Government have supplied the opportunity.
It is no use the Prime Minister heaping blame on the directors. The Cabinet authorised the increases and knew what would happen. It is no good the Cabinet pretending that it had nothing to do with the increases and washing its hands of the matter. It is as though Pontius Pilate were about to become the patron saint of the Tory party.
Mr. Malcolm Moss: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm to the House that, under the regulatory pricing formula, the salary increases about which he has spoken cannot be passed on to the consumer? They must be found out of operational efficiency.
Mr. Dobson: I must confess that it is not at all clear to me that that is the case. That is certainly not the response that the newspapers and the rest of the media have got when they have approached Professor Littlechild, the regulator.
In the Government's own prospectus for all the electricity companies, it is clearly stated that directors' pay will be
"increased to levels which are more appropriate to a private sector company."
In other words, the directors will get massive increases. The Cabinet must have known that when it approved the
230
terms of the prospectus before the launch. It must have known when it approved the prospectus what had happened up to that point with salaries in British Telecom and British Gas. From when British Telecom was in public ownership until the point at which the Government approved the prospectus, the chairman's salary had risen by 550 per cent.—from £67,000 to £374,000. The salary of the chairman of British Gas, from when the industry was in public ownership until the point at which the prospectus was approved, had risen by 323 per cent.—from £68,000 to £220,000. Those facts must have been known to the Secretary of State and his colleagues when they approved the prospectus.
Ministers' knowledge would not have been based only on the experience of those companies. The Secretary of State was not satisfied with observing what had happened elsewhere. He sought advice from the City and, of course, the taxpayer had to pay for it. Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte advised him from 1989 until 1990 on salaries for the directors and senior executives of what were to become privately owned companies. I asked the Secretary of State to place that advice in the Library, but he refused today to do so because, he said, it was "confidential". I bet it is. If the advice was placed in the Library, it would reveal that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister knew all about the increases that the Prime Minister now deplores. For the Prime Minister to deplore in public what he has approved in private is sheer humbug. To do so on television is mega-humbug. It is no good for Tory Members to moan on about the increases and to say that they are shameful, extreme and should not have gone ahead. They voted for the privatisation and they knew what was happening because they knew, as well as I or any of my hon. Friends did, what had happened in the other privatised industries. It is too late for them to claim that they did not know.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: Which would the hon. Gentleman prefer—high salaries for chief executives and prices going down in real terms or low salaries for chief executives and prices going up in real terms, as happened under Labour?
Mr. Dobson: Over the period in question, both gas and electricity prices have gone up in real terms, so the hon. Gentleman does not offer me a proper choice.
All the Tories here today, especially members of the Government, knew what was happening. If they genuinely deplore the increases, the question that arises is what they are going to do about them. The answer appears to be nothing. When the matter was first raised with the Prime Minister, he told the House that he condemned the increases. He said that the Government could do nothing about them, even at National Power and PowerGen, where they own 40 per cent. of the shares. He said that they had said that
"the Government had no intention of using their shareholding."—[0fficial Report, 27 June 1991: Vol. 193, c. 856.]
That statement was not quite true and certainly was not the whole truth because the prospectus actually says:
"Her Majesty's Government does not intend to use its rights as an ordinary shareholder to intervene in the commercial decisions of National Power or PowerGen. It does not expect to vote its shareholdings on resolutions moved at general meetings although it retains the power to do so."

231
If the Government did not want the power to do so, they could have given up the power in the prospectus. It is no good their saying that that is not so.
Will the Secretary of State tell us whether, if another shareholder moves to block the increases at the annual general meeting, which I understand will be in September, the Government will sit on their hands? Will they show that their attitude to the increases is all words and no action? Will they perhaps remember that the people who are getting the increases are the very people who have benefited most from the massive income tax cuts at the higher levels over the past few years? Will the Government remember that they are the very people who, the Government think, should not pay national insurance on their income above £20,000? Will they think about that before deciding what to do at the annual general meeting?
Other people—admittedly, not many Conservative Members—claim that the increases are justified on the ground that they are the rate for the job. If the rate for the job of chief executive of PowerGen and National Power was right at £75,000 last year, how can it be right at £200,000 this year? These are not new and better people who have been specially recruited; it is the same old lot getting twice the money.
Sir Graham Day, the chairman of PowerGen, says that the increases are morally justified, but he is scarcely an objective judge. He has been a director of no fewer than four privatised companies. He has been chairman of three privatised companies and is still chairman of two of them. From his point of view, privatisation appears to be a game of musical chairs; every time the music stops he is sitting in the chair. In addition to being chairman of Cadbury Schweppes, of PowerGen and of the Rover Group and a director of British Aerospace, he is—God help us—on the national health service policy board. He believes that the increases are justified. No doubt he tells that to the nurses.
In an interview in the Daily Express in 1988—I always like people to give interviews to the Daily Express—Sir Graham said what he looked for in a good employee. No doubt he found it in Mr. Ed Wallis, the chief executive of PowerGen. He said that it is
"somebody who also tries to give a little more than he is paid for."
At £200,000 a year, Ed Wallis will have his work cut out satisfying Graham Day.
The directors of National Power and PowerGen, who have pocketed enormous increases, are responsible for running only two of the four companies that were created from the old Central Electricity Generating Board. The other companies are the National Grid Company and Nuclear Electric. Not only are those directors paying themselves more, but there are more directors. In 1988–89, the CEGB, running all four functions, had only 10 directors. At the latest count—it keeps increasing—the four successor companies had no fewer than 41 directors. In 1988–89, the CEGB's 10 directors, poor devils, managed on joint pay of £646,000. I have not been able to obtain the figures for the board members of Nuclear Electric, but before the new increases the directors of the other three companies that resulted from the break-up of the CEGB—National Power, PowerGen and the grid company—were getting £2 million between them, and I expect that after the current round of increases that total will rise to between £4 million and £5 million.
At the same time, those directors are urging pay restraint on staff and are keeping the staff's pay increases
232
down to less than 10 per cent. Many of the staff will find that galling. The employees of East Midlands Electricity will find it particularly galling. Hon. Members will recall the blizzards in the east midlands, when those staff performed heroically in dreadful, cold, vile conditions to restore the supply. Their pay increases will be kept below 10 per cent., but the directors, who sat in their warm, air-conditioned offices will award themselves about 50 per cent.
Mr. Simon Burns: Warm and air-conditioned? Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: No. If the hon. Gentleman cannot make a decent joke from a sedentary position, I am damned if I will let him stand up to do it.
The other regional companies all say that these big salary increases are justified because their profits have increased. When one asks why their profits have increased, they say that it is because the cost of coal has fallen and because they had higher sales in a bad winter. Those are the economics of the madhouse: a director is paid more because of bad weather. We have heard much about cold weather payments, but the idea of somebody doubling his salary as a cold weather payment is preposterous. With all this interest in the weather, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can see why PowerGen is sponsoring the weather forecast.
We can expect every regional electricity company to increase top salaries by about 50 per cent. Compared with the enormous increases of National Power and PowerGen, a 50 per cent. increase is beginning to seem moderate, but it will not seem so to the 6 million pensioners and poor families who cannot afford to keep warm in winter—even in an average winter—because gas and electricity cost too much. It will not seem reasonable to the growing number of people who are out of work, to people in the private sector who are taking pay cuts to help keep their firms afloat, to people whose homes are being repossesed because they cannot pay their mortgage or to people who cannot pay massively increased rents.
The salary of the chairman of British Gas has increased by 66 per cent. from £220,000 to £370,000. Last year, gas prices increased by 14 per cent. and profits and directors' pay increased. It would appear that the attitude of the bosses of British Gas to customers is "Pay up and shut up." They seem to have changed the motto from "Tell Sid" to "Sod Sid".
Who will stick up for the customer? I hope that the Secretary of State will not say that it will be the Office of Electricity Regulation. This year, despite the falling cost of coal and other costs, OFFER nodded through domestic price increases of more than 10 per cent., despite the Government's target for inflation to fall to 5 or 6 per cent. That was a good increase for the electricity companies, but people tell me that it was not the regulator's fault. They say that poor Professor Littlechild had to accept the formula that the Government had given him and that OFFER had to accept the increases. If that is true, it seems to me, if I may use an elderly phrase, that the Government have set up an OFFER that cannot refuse.
What we want is an OFFER that can refuse. My doubts about the regulatory system are not confined to the system: I have doubts about Professor Littlechild, the regulator. His friends tell me that he invented the system that he is running, so he has something to answer for. From most of his public pronouncements and documents

233
he seems to be more of an ideologue than a public servant. He seems to be one of those people, rather like Ministers, who recite the words "Competition is good for customers" and think that once they have said that everything is settled. The only problem is that competition has been good for moderate-sized business customers who have been able to shop around, but domestic customers cannot shop around and continue to be faced with a local monopoly that is shoving up its prices far quicker and higher than its costs.
The regulators for the electricity, gas, water and telecom industries are not working well enough and most people recognise that they need to be substantially improved. We have been promised improvements in the Prime Minister's citizens charter. If the documents leaked to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) are correct—they usually are—it does not appear that the citizens charter will strike fear into the hearts of the directors of those utilities.
I understand from other sources that the Department of Energy has said in the review that it does not want changes to be made because it is satisfied with the regulatory system already in place. All that I can say is that if it is satisfied with that, it will be satisfied with anything. Almost everybody in the country and in the business realises that there are things wrong with the regulatory system. It is far too feeble and is not doing the job that is necessary.
Mr. Richard Page: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is convinced that his party will win the next general election. I hope that in the tail of his speech he will come to the Labour party's policy. I understand that part of that policy is to renationalise the grid. How much does the hon. Gentleman think that that will cost and how soon after the general election will it occur? Will he elucidate Labour party policy for us?
Mr. Dobson: I hope that if the hon. Gentleman waits a "page" or two he will be satisfied.
One of the problems about everybody's legitimate concern about top pay is that it has covered up many other developments which have been revealed in the interim results and which will damage the country and the customers. National Power has made it clear that it is about to make savage cuts in research and development spending. The central electricity research laboratories are threatened with closure. The company said in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that it would no longer carry out research into what it described as national problems. If National Power will not carry out research on national problems, who will? If no one in this country does research on those major problems, the research that we—
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Is this another priority commitment?
Mr. Dobson: We now have someone apparently so cloth-eared that he can predict what we will say.
If the research is not done here, it will be done in Germany, Sweden, France and the United States, and we shall have to buy the equipment that we need from those countries instead of making it here.
National Power has also said that it wants to burn gas, whatever effect that may have on our limited gas reserves.
234
The company recognises that those reserves are not enough, so it is already setting about importing more gas from Norway, whatever impact that may have on our balance of payments. National Power says that importing foreign coal is a "central plank" of its fuel strategy, whatever its impact may be on the balance of payments and on Britain's coal industry.
National Power has also said that it intends to burn orimulsion, which is undoubtedly the filthiest fuel in the world. Why will it do that? It will do all those things because they are in the short-term interests of the people running the company and in what those people believe to be the short-term, popular interests of the shareholders. That is their first and only consideration. They do not consider the long-term interests of customers or of this country.
We believe that privatisation is a shambles. We can amply demonstrate that it has damaged the interests of customers. It has outraged most people by the levels of pay given to its bosses. We do not believe that most people are satisfied with the profits accrued so rapidly—profits which are so much greater than those which the Secretary of State was responsible for predicting in December. We do not believe that the great experiment is succeeding, or that the electricity industry should have been subjected to a giant experiment. We believe that the people working in the industry deserve the minimum of change and disturbance, if they are to be allowed to do their work. We have said all along that we will bring the National Grid Company—[Interruption]—back into public ownership. [HON. MEMBERS: "A priority."] It will be a high priority, I assure hon. Members.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman will give way to me, I shall continue.
We will bring the grid company back into public ownership and give it additional duties and powers. For a start, it will have a duty to maintain security of supply—a duty that no one has at present—and a duty to consider the impact of the industry on the balance of payments, on the environment and on our fuel reserves. We shall also change the rules for the regional electricity companies and oblige them under their licences to invest some of the profits in energy conservation and efficiency.
The system that the Government have established encourages more and more sales of electricity. Almost everyone apart from the Government recognises that energy saving, not energy sales, must be the priority for the future and that is the priority that the industry will have after the next general election, when we implement our policy.
Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to ask whether it is in order for the Labour Front-Bench spokesman to say that he would give the House an idea of how much it would cost to buy back the industry and then totally fail to do so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Let us get on with the debate.
7.46 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"congratulates the Government on continuing with its successful policy of privatising nationalised industries; notes the recent successful privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Great Britain; and welcomes the benefits that privatisation of the electricity and gas industries has brought and will bring to consumers, taxpayers and employees.".
It is less than six months since the House held a debate on electricity privatization—at the Opposition's instigation—under the shadow of the then imminent Gulf War. The privatisation has now been completed with outstanding success.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has expressed great indignation about a great many related issues, which I will deal with in due course, without anywhere acknowledging or seeming to recognise that the points that he raises are dwarfed in importance by the continuing impact of privatisation, which is already serving the interests of customers, the taxpayer and employees far more effectively than any form of Government intervention.
Let me refer the House again to the principles underlying the privatisation of the gas and electricity industries, and the transformations that they have already brought about within the energy market.
First, for the customer, privatisation has introduced guaranteed standards of performance. Only yesterday, guaranteed standards for electricity were introduced. Offer—the Office of Electricity Regulation—has set standards for restoring supplies after faults, repairing company fuses, providing a meter and many other services. If those standards are not met, the electricity consumer is entitled to compensation. Domestic customers can get £10 if an appointment is not kept and £20 if supply is not restored on target. The regulator has made it clear that he will examine standards of service when he resets the price formulae.
For gas, the resetting of the price formula will shortly be accompanied by a package of standards of service. I expect those to include obtaining a supply, continuity of supply, meter reading, billing and appointments. The setting of those standards will be a significant step forward in customers' rights.
If customers are not served properly by privatised utilities, for the first time there is a proper means of independent redress. We have set up independent regulators. They have extensive powers to put matters right. If the existing terms of the licence are not strong enough, the regulators can refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. New, tougher licensing conditions can he created where they are needed.
Not only are standards of service set and guaranteed but prices are kept down by regulation.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Secretary of State said that all this was happening for the first time. Will he take it from me that the East Midlands electricity board introduced guaranteed service standards, with refunds, back in 1985?
Mr. Wakeham: This is the first time that such standards have been set right across the industry, and the important point is that the regulators will be independent of the industries.
236
Since privatisation, domestic gas prices have fallen by 11 per cent. in real terms and standing charges by 20 per cent. in real terms. Price control provides a strong incentive to efficiency. It has been remarkably successful in producing efficiencies in gas supply which have enabled British Gas to increase its profits as well as to pass the benefit of real price reductions to the consumer. As a result, for the future, the price formula is being tightened still further. From next year, British Gas must meet the price target of RPI minus 5 rather than RPI minus 2. Restraining profits, as the Opposition's motion advocates, is a recipe for inefficiency.
Electricity prices for domestic consumers have fallen by about 2·5 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. What a contrast to the position under Labour, when prices rose by 22 per cent. in real terms—up 2 per cent. every six weeks. In future, regulations will protect consumers from unjustifiable increases. For a three-year period, prices are regulated by reference to the retail prices index.
Mr. Burns: I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend, but may I check that I heard him aright? Did he really say that electricity prices for domestic users have fallen by 2·5 per cent. over the past seven years whereas under the Labour Government they increased by 22 per cent. in real terms, and that pensioners, the disabled, those on low incomes and the unemployed faced price increases in their electricity bills every six weeks?
Mr. Wakeham: That is correct. My hon. Friend is listening very carefully to what I am saying, and I am grateful to him for it.
Of course, competition is the best guarantee of customer service, efficiency and keen pricing, so we have taken steps to ensure that competition is introduced wherever possible in the electricity industry. Already competition is working for the customer. Thousands of industrial and commercial companies have had to pay lower prices for electricity. Professor Littlechild said in his director general's report for 1990 that some customers had achieved as much as 15 per cent. savings as a result of competition. Competition in generation will keep the costs of electricity down in the future as new generating projects come forward.
It would be nonsense to return to the days of nationalisation when Governments intervened in an arbitrary fashion, when customers had no real means of redress and when it was not even worth complaining. Now we have real incentives for efficiency and customer service. That is why the privatised industries are leading the way. That is why we want to extend such benefits to the public sector through the citizens charter.
Those are the benefits for the customer. For the taxpayer, the privatisation of the electricity industry will raise proceeds of more than £14 billion. The privatisation of gas raised proceeds of £8 billion. Given that the Labour party's policy proposals imply increases in public expenditure of some £35 billion, the proceeds from privatisation should not be dismissed by them in such cavalier fashion.
Growing profits brought about by efficiencies unlocked by privatisation, even at a time of falling real prices, mean greater tax receipts for the Treasury. It is nonsense to say that growing profits damage the long-term interests of the country; growing profits are needed to finance the requirements for capital investment to maintain and

237
expand the electricity and gas supply systems. In addition, the taxpayer is no longer left to finance a poor record of mismanaged investment in massive projects, not finished on time or to cost, and poor profitability.
Improving prospects, rising share prices, cost-cutting and greater efficiency in all the companies should be welcomed. They represent a clear gain to the nation in contrast to the old order of rising prices to consumers with no means of redress, and very little incentive for improved efficiency. Those were very real costs and burdens on the nation.
What are the benefits for employees? For the first time they are able to own a real stake in their industries. They were also able to participate directly in the benefits of the flotation itself. Ninety-eight per cent. of employees in the electricity industry took up shares. Four and a half years after privatisation, 87 per cent. of employees of British Gas hold shares in their company. Those employees have much to fear from the return of a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has made it clear that shareholders in privatised industries would be punished by a Labour Government.
For the future, under our policies employees can participate in the growing success and growth in their companies through share save schemes.
Mr. Jack Thompson: What would the Secretary of State say to the 250 employees at a power station in my constituency who now face redundancy? What about their share in the industry? Their jobs have gone, and the few shares that they may have bought before they realised that there was a prospect of losing their jobs will not keep them for the rest of their lives.
Mr. Wakeham: Everyone is unhappy about anyone who is made redundant, in whichever part of the country it may be. A whole range of overmanning problems and inefficiencies existed and privatisation has been directed to try to improve matters. One regrets redundancies for whatever purpose. I know that the companies concerned are seeking to do what they have to do by voluntary means if at all possible, although that is strictly a matter for them.
Mr. Peter Hardy: On the same point, is the Secretary of State aware that, before the Electricity Bill was presented to the House, I asked his predecessor whether it was not clear that privatisation was liable to result in redundancies and a reduction in the size of the labour force in the electricity supply industry? The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said in the House that, so far from there being redundancies, privatisation would lead to more employment in the industry. That hardly bears out the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. Wakeham: An efficient electricity industry producing low-cost electricity is an important factor in our industrial growth, and will certainly improve the number of jobs.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: My right hon. Friend rightly emphasised the improvements in efficiency, competitiveness and accountability that privatisation has brought with it. He also mentioned the benefits to the taxpayer as a result of privatisation proceeds. My right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Holborn and St.
238
Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the shadow Secretary of State for Energy, say that a high priority of any future Labour Government would be to spend money on renationalising the national grid. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of asking the hon. Gentleman again what that would cost? Last week, Labour's spending policies were costed at an extra £35 billion—15p on the lowest rate of income tax—and renationalisation costs were not included in that. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says that renationalisation is a high priority, so he should tell us what the effects of that policy would be.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that the Labour party's proposals were costed at some £35 billion extra. That is worth repeating because it is important that people in Britain should know what the Labour party's policies imply. Moreover, that figure does not include the cost of renationalisations conducted under those policies. Having said that, I think that the most serious question about the renationalisation of the national grid is how the grid would operate in relation to the private sector part of the industry—the part that the Labour party does not intend to renationalise, if I understand its policies correctly. I think that we would find that many of the inefficiencies inherent in the old system would be brought back by the bureaucrats who would then be running the national grid. That is a serious matter.
In the past few years, the services offered by these privatised industries to customers have been transformed. There are now guaranteed standards of service, backed up through our regulatory regime by tough financial penalties for failure to meet them.
When Labour was in office, no such guarantees existed: customers were subjected to unaccountable, inefficient and unregulated monopolies. Little wonder, then, that disconnections for debt in both industries have plummeted to half the intolerable level we inherited from Labour.
On every count—prices, services, standards, disconnections, investment—the privatised record beats the nationalised record hands down. That is the background against which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has criticised the recently reported board pay levels.
Let me state clearly our policy on directors' pay. The Government's view is that salaries should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate. Most companies in the private sector have a remuneration committee consisting of non-executive directors. It is their task to determine the pay of the chief executive and senior directors.
The same now applies to the companies we have privatised. The current salary levels are a matter for those companies. Government approval was not sought—nor was it required.
The first point is that increasing directors' salaries has no effect on prices to consumers. The price formula is intended to exert downward pressure on costs. It does that by regulating prices without regard to any subsequent increase in costs which, like directors' salaries, are within the control of the company.
It is not for the Government to second-guess the views of the companies. But that does not mean we should not express a view about salary levels. We have done so. The Government believe that it is essential that pay at all levels reflects the economic facts of life and the importance of beating inflation. The rate at which salary levels for

239
directors in privatised companies move to private sector levels needs to be moderated to take this into account. Directors need to exercise both leadership and restraint.
Secondly, the salary levels are not out of line for companies of comparable size. The companies themselves have pointed out that British Gas ranks amongst the six largest and most profitable United Kingdom companies, whereas the chairman's basic salary ranks 38th in a survey of the United Kingdom's top companies. Similarly, PowerGen ranks 60th in the United Kingdom list of top companies and the chief executive's pay is ranked 97th.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: None of us wants to go in for spurious statistics. However, referring to the link that Sir Graham Day has made between the pay of the chief executive of PowerGen and that company's ranking in the FT100 index, does my right hon. Friend really accept the balderdash that running a privatised monopoly is as difficult as running an industry such as GKN or any other company that has to withstand the heat of the day and losing money? If we are arguing that the position of the privatised monopolies is the same as that of a company that has to earn its money the hard way, we are on hard and stony ground.
Mr. Wakeham: It is not for the Government to second-guess the salaries that companies pay—[Interruption.] I have expressed my views about some of the salary levels and the rate of increase and would simply add that it is not correct to say that PowerGen is a monopoly—
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is 85 per cent. a monopoly.
Mr. Wakeham: It is nothing approaching that—it is more like 30 per cent. A good many other companies are in the business.
Mr. Dobson: I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government do not want to second-guess the companies, but if that is of no consequence to the Government, why did they spend taxpayers' money on getting advice from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte about the salaries that should be paid to those people?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman has not read the report and does not know what is in it, I do not know whether he knows that that is the position—
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Wakeham: I am not prepared to refer off the cuff to a report that I told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras earlier that I was not prepared to reveal to the House.
Mr. Simon Hughes: In two consecutive sentences the Secretary of State has said that he is unhappy about the increases that have been awarded—paradoxically, to the executive directors by the non-executive directors and to the non-executive directors by the executive directors; and that their relative pay was lower given their importance in the British industrial sector. That does not lead us to any clear conclusion. Is it his view that the increases should be reduced before the annual general meetings, and what is he going to do about it? The Chancellor invited the heads of the banks to see
240
him because they were over-charging. Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the heads of the privatised industries to see him so that he can tell them to reduce their salaries?
Mr. Wakeham: The important point is that the salary increases—and it is the increases of which I disapprove—do not affect the price to the consumer—[Interruption.] That is an important point. It is absolutely right.
The purpose of privatising the industries was to allow the directors and shareholders to make those decisions. The public interest is protected by the regulator because of the price of the product. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the Government to intervene in such cases. We have no grounds on which to intervene in the case of the companies that are 100 per cent. privatised because we have no shares. We retain a 40 per cent. shareholding in National Power and PowerGen. We made our position quite clear in the prospectus. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras read it out correctly. I am amazed that he thinks that breaking our word would be a small matter. That view reflects more on a potential Labour Government than on anything else. The Government do not accept that it is a small matter to break our word.
Mr. Dobson: Just to clarify a point about the next Labour Government, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government's own prospectus makes it clear that, on entering Government, Her Majesty's Opposition intend to appoint directors and to exercise the powers of a 40 per cent. shareholder?
Mr. Wakeham: If that should ever arise, I strongly suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes legal advice on his powers as a shareholder and on the way in which he should operate. If he does, he will find that he has to operate within certain constraints. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider such matters carefully.
Mr. Christopher Hawkins rose—
Mr. Wakeham: I shall give way, but this will be the last time.
Mr. Hawkins: If the Government do not intend long term to exercise the shareholders' duties of restraint in such matters, should they not consider relinquishing their shares so that others can fulfil those duties and act as a restraint? There is something exceedingly curious about the British. When really high incomes are paid to pop singers, tennis players, top footballers and television presenters, that does not seem to worry the British; but as soon as somebody in industry starts to earn a high salary, there are screams and shouts of abuse. That is an odd priority for a nation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the pay levels that are objectionable as much as the speed of the increases, their timing and the example that is being set to workers at a time when many other people are losing their jobs? Does he agree that the scale, timing and example are beyond belief?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend heard what I said, and what he has said is not very different—although I have not expressed any views about pop stars and tennis players.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the consumers' interest—we are here to represent the consumers, as we no longer run the companies—is better served when directors are paid a market salary, as they can now be paid under

241
privatisation, than was the case under nationalisation, when the salaries were set by Parliament so low that the best people could not be recruited?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only are the people not the same, but they are not doing the same job. Indeed, they are doing extremely different jobs and a number of them have been recruited in the market—
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose—
Mr. Wakeham: I said that I had given way for the last time.
What is the Labour party's position on this matter? Its most recent policy review document, "Opportunity Britain", gives the distinct impression that the private sector has nothing to fear from the unlikely prospect of a Labour Government. It states that,
"more than ever before British industry now needs a long-term commitment from Government, but not in the form of indiscriminate subsidies or second guessing industry".
That was only three months ago, but, as we have seen today, those words are at best hollow and at worst totally misleading.
The reality of Labour's policy is distinctly different from the rhetoric, for what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has done today—in sharp contradiction of his party's policy statement—is to propose a series of policies precisely to second-guess successful British industries by seeking to control pay and profits and to interfere in the decisions of management.
Indeed, I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is aware of the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking. But, as is often the case, as soon as Labour's policy is challenged, it falls apart at the seams. Labour Members' policy on industry has not changed. They think they know better than industry how industry should be run, in spite of all the evidence since the second world war that that is not so.
That is true of the issue of pay, about which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made great play. On that subject, too, Labour's divided and muddled position lacks credibility. How would Labour Members seek to control pay? The answer is not clear. Their party leader believes that the trade unions can simply be persuaded to moderate their pay claims at the same time as a minimum wage is introduced.
"If you're a Government that acts in a way that stimulates the economy properly … the moderation of wage claims is something a Government can really ask for",
he says. But as the leader of one big union admitted, any idea that the unions could be so persuaded is "deranged".
The truth is that Labour's plans for a minimum wage would, at the same time as destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs, lead to a pay explosion throughout the economy. Labour would have no way of controlling it without resorting to the sort of statutory controls that failed dismally in the 1970s.
That is precisely what Labour offers—a return to the corporatism that should have died its death during the winter of discontent, a return to pay policies and credit controls and a return to the failures of nationalisation, red
242
tape and bureaucratic interference. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras let the cat out of the bag. Labour has not changed, and never will.
Unlike our opponents, we believe in free enterprise and in the private sector. Our privatisation programme—now being copied throughout the world—has transformed vast sectors of British industry, bringing extensive benefits to customers, to the taxpayer and to the employees of those industries. Throughout the rest of the 1990s it will continue to do so.
I commend the amendment to the House.
8.13 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am glad to have this opportunity to put a point to the Secretary of State that I would have raised had he given way to me a few moments ago. While he clearly disapproves of the colossal increases that members of senior management of the electricity companies have received, he defends those increases. Indeed, he spent several minutes of his speech defending them.
It is clear that the Secretary of State and his Department have become impotent in the dealings with privatised industries. That being so, one wonders why we need a Secretary of State for Energy. He spoke at length about the inefficiency of those industries when they were in the public sector. Is he suggesting that those who were running them at that time were inefficient because their salaries were fixed by Government? In other words, is he suggesting that they did not do their best in their jobs because they were not satisfied with their salaries?
Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest, for example, that Sir Walter Marshall was inefficient because he was dissatisfied with his salary? Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that Mr. Baker and Mr. Wallis were members of the teams who were running the so-called inefficient electricity industry of those days? Are we to believe that the new people, because of their much higher salaries, will work that much harder?
Either deliberately or inadvertently, the Secretary of State did not comment on what is likely to happen as a result of the decisions that are currently being made by the new, highly paid executives who are responsible to no one, not even to the right hon. Gentleman and his Department. Is he aware that those decisions will have a great bearing on the energy needs and supplies of the country? For example, their decisions will result in thousands of miners being thrown out of work and the sterilisation of millions of tonnes of British coal because British Coal is unable at present to meet foreign competition.
Mr. Baker, with his £200,000 a year salary, said recently that he intends to import 50 per cent. of the coal he needs. If that happens, our mining industry—as a result of decisions taken by people who are not democratically responsible to anyone—will be wiped out. Not only will thousands of jobs go, but, more importantly, our ability to meet our energy needs in the future will also disappear. Once our millions of tonnes of coal have been sterilised, that resource will never be retrieved.
After the medium term, perhaps after the longer term, we shall be at the mercy of supplies from abroad. For how long will their prices remain low? Supplies of gas and oil are finite and while we are using—in my view, wasting

243
—gas for the generation of electricity and sterilising our coal, we must consider what we shall do to meet our energy needs in the very long term.
In a few moments from now, contracts will probably be agreed between British Coal and the electricity supply industry. Those contracts will involve the use of much smaller tonnages of coal than are now being used. If that is so, the coal industry will be so run down that only a dozen pits and 10,000 to 12,000 men will be left. An industry of that size will never again be able to meet the demands of the electricity supply industry. Is that wise policy? The effect on the balance of payments will show that it cannot be wise policy but simply to meet short-term market fluctuations or political dogma.
The Government say that if—God forbid—they win the next election, which is unlikely, they will privatise the coal industry. I hope that the Minister will answer these questions seriously. Does the Secretary of State or any of his colleagues really believe that, once they have slaughtered and butchered the coal industry, right down to the decisions by Mr. Baker and Mr. Wallis, the industry will be saleable? If British Coal cannot meet competition and win contracts now, what chance has a small private coal industry? Who will want to buy it? That is the problem facing the Government.
I regret, and I believe that the country will live to regret, the decisions taken, simply on a commercial basis, to wipe out what this country has always been privileged to have—a major source of energy supplied by coal. The action to wipe out that energy supply is nothing short of criminal. I hope that the Government have at least some control or persuasive powers over the negotiations to take place shortly. I hope that they will be based not purely on commercial factors but on security of supply. That is a major aspect and if we do not bear that in mind the country will regret the day that the Government implemented that foolish policy.
8.22 pm
Mr. John Hannam: This is another of Labour's groan and grumble half days. Give them a few headlines showing success by private industry and away we go with a whingeing and whining debate. It usually starts with the prospectus and launch of a newly privatised company. If the share price is right and the issue is successful, we hear cries of foul on the basis that the public has been denied the right return. If the issue flops because the share price has been set too high, we hear the same yells of derision. Luckily the Government have been so successful with their privatisations that the flops have not occurred. Labour Members cannot have it both ways.
The next stage of the groan and grumble campaign occurs when the new companies produce extremely satisfactory results at the end of their year's trading. Labour Members then squeal that the consumer is being ripped off. They would like to see poor results at the end of the first year so that they could point to the failure of privatisation.
The privatisation programme has brought higher standards from the private sector into the energy supply industry. The results show in improved profitability, lower prices in real terms and the introduction of competition. In the past five years, electricity and gas prices have fallen in real terms for industrial and domestic consumers. As my
244
right hon. Friend said, what a contrast with Labour's record in the 1970s, when electricity prices rose by 2 per cent. every six weeks.
The Opposition motion refers to the Government paying more regard to the sale than the saving of energy. Although GDP has increased by 25 per cent. in real terms under this Government, energy consumption has remained virtually unchanged. Privatisation has put a downward pressure on prices under the regulatory regime and brought greater efficiency, greater flexibility in energy generation and greater consumer protection. For example, British Gas, which announced record profits of £ 1·3 billion despite bringing down gas tariff prices by some 14 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, has now brought gas costs down to about the lowest level in the whole of Europe.
Why has there been such a dramatic improvement? Since privatisation, British Gas has attracted a million new customers and productivity has leapt from 160 to 221 customers for each employee. Investment has dramatically increased. Last year, capital expenditure rose by over 50 per cent. to £1·2 billion. That amount was close to the total profits announced by that company and represents future security of supply for the British people.
The one element that has been lacking in the gas sector is competition, but a 90 per cent. limit has now been set on the sale of North sea gas to British Gas. It enables producers like Agas, BP, Mobil and Quadrant to supply gas to industrial customers in competition with British Gas. The role of Ofgas, the regulator of British Gas, has been steadily strengthened thanks to the diligence and perseverance of James McKinnon, its chairman. His new pricing structure means that domestic charges should fall by 5 per cent. a year over the next five years, with a further fall of 15 per cent. over the following five years. I look to Mr. McKinnon to devise a consumer repayment system on similar lines to those drawn up by the electricity regulator. He must also sort out the problem of the British Gas contract price increase of 30 per cent. for some of the United Kingdom's industrial users of gas, whom we want to enter electricity generation. I have great confidence in Mr. McKinnon and his ability to find a solution to that problem.
I am convinced that the electricity privatisation will be the biggest and most successful of all the Government's privatisations. The four new companies and 12 regional companies have all produced immensely popular flotations, followed by higher-than-expected profits in their first year. It is a success story and it should not be decried by the Labour party. Increased sales due to the colder spring and apprehension last year about the Gulf war have resulted in better-than-expected yields in the first year's profits. It is anticipated that, as the competiton in the electricity market hots up, with independent generators coming forward, downward pressure on prices will also increase.
It should be made clear that, under the price mechanism control written into the regime, the large pay increases that are causing such a stir cannot be passed on to the consumer. Consumers of electricity can benefit from a unique set of compensation payments available as from yesterday if the electricity companies fail to fulfil their obligations. They will receive £10 if an appointment on a specific day is broken; £20 if, within 24 hours of a fault occurring the supply is not restored; £20 if a meter is not supplied within five days of an order; and £10 if supply is

245
interrupted through the fault of the company and is not restored within four hours. Other compensation payments are also available.
All those measures add up to an era of increased protection for consumers of gas and electricity, a new and environmentally protective supply and use of energy, and a reduction in costs. I forecast that during the next decade the new companies will produce even better results. They will be reflected not necessarily in higher profits but in higher investment and lower prices.
As for the recent spate of huge salary increases in the newly privatised industry, I asked for information from the Library on the relative position of those salaries compared to the salaries of heads of similar sized companies. The Guardian list shows that they are obviously still on the low side.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned research going to Germany, so I asked for comparisons with equivalent chief executives abroad. Recently produced figures show that the executives in leading power generating companies in Germany still earn, on average, up to 50 per cent. more that Mr. Baker of National Power. The average pay of the seven-person executive body of the VEW generating plant in Dortmund is £213,000. In STEAG of Essen the average pay of the five-person executive body is £216,000; and the chief executive of Florida Power and Light in the United States earns £395,000. As The Independent quoted on 5 June
"British bosses lag in pay stakes despite big rises".
These examples give a slightly clearer picture of the pay levels of our chief executives than do the statements by the Opposition spokesman. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that in this time of recession the improvements in their salary levels should have been phased in over a longer period, but I expect that the same row would have erupted among the Opposition even if that had occurred.
I reject the Opposition motion, which shows that the Labour party still does not have much clue about the workings of industry. All that Opposition Members want to do is to try to score short-term party political points. I urge the House to reject the motion.
8.31 pm
Mr. John McAllion: It is part of the survival plan of this Government to try to choose the moment of the next general election when their prospects of winning it are at their highest. That has involved them in trying to create an image that can be sold to the voters. Part of the image-making process has involved trying to persuade voters that the Tories can create a fairer Britain—an opportunity Britain, a phrase that they borrowed from somewhere else—and a Britain of decent public services and of equal citizens led by citizen John himself. The Prime Minister has even boasted that he will deliver what the communists have been struggling unsuccessfully to achieve for more than 100 years: the classless society.
We now know the sort of classless society that the Prime Minister had in mind. It is a society in which the bosses of the privatised industries, from National Power and PowerGen through British Telecom to British Gas, have awarded themselves five and six-figure salary
246
increases—£50,000 here, £150,000 there and £160,000 in one case. Those are merely the increases in salary; the salaries themselves are much higher again—in the case of the chief executive of British Gas, £370,000 a year. We are expected to accept that these increases are fair, even though we know that these are the same men who have thrown thousands of their own workers on to the dole and told them to get by on £41·40 a week dole money and, if they cannot find a job within a year, on £39·65 income support. The Prime Minister, who claims to believe in the classless society, is the same Prime Minister who condones this sort of grotesque inequality and unfairness.
One of the excuses trotted out in defence of the privatised bosses' pay hikes is that the increases are necessary to raise the salaries to a level appropriate for a private sector company. On breakfast television this morning a spokesman for the Institute of Directors with all due solemnity assured anyone watching at that time of the morning that the average company director of a private sector company earns just £40,000 a year. He said that the sort of increases that the privatised bosses were awarding themselves were not typical of the private sector. So becoming a private sector company cannot in itself explain why at National Power the boss had to award himself £50,000 over and above the £85,000 that he was already receiving. Nor does it explain why the boss at PowerGen had to award himself another £124,000 over and above the £76,000 that he was already earning. It certainly does not explain the extra £150,000 awarded to the chief of British Gas, which was already a private company when he was earning £220,000 last year.
So there must be some other explanation for these huge hikes in salary. The spokesman for the Institute of Directors stumbled on this morning, trying to patch together some sort of defence. He said that being in the private sector meant running greater risks, which in turn deserved higher rewards. He gave a few examples, mentioning that the new bosses can now be declared bankrupt, which they could not be before. But then, all the directors who are paid only £40,000 a year can be declared bankrupt. The argument does not stand up or justify people awarding themselves an extra £150,000 a year.
On went the spokesman as best he could, trying to defend the indefensible. He said that these directors can now go to gaol: they could not before. Some might argue that they should go to gaol for having awarded themselves such huge salary increases, but if they do not commit fraud or break the law, for which they should go to gaol anyway, where is the risk? How many bosses are there behind bars in Britain, banged up because they took risks in the free market? That shows the complete nonsense of the argument and it exposes the useless arguments in defence of these increases that we have heard from Conservative Members.
The truth is that these greedy bosses are using privatisation to cash in and to line their own pockets. No one, least of all Tory Members, should be at all surprised by that development. Tory Members have blindly supported, for more than a decade, a philosophy based on the pursuit of financial gain. I can well remember being told by Tory Members that there was no such thing as society, that the good Samaritan was a sap and that it is all about, "What I want at a time when I want it and at the place I want it." That was their creed and it has now become the creed of their creation, the privatised bosses.

247
It was those same Ministers who, under the spell of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), created the very situation which they and the Prime Minister now condemn but do nothing about. That would be laughable were it not so tragic for the rest of us.
We are told that profit-related pay goes some way to explaining how all this has come about. When the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) introduced profit-related pay in one of his early Budgets he claimed that it was designed to achieve a level of pay that would enable workers to be priced into jobs instead of being priced out of them. He warned that in a free economy it is the responsibility of employers and management to control industry's costs, and its wage costs in particular. He went on to warn that there can be no excuse for failure to discharge that responsibility—yet failing to discharge it is precisely what these privatised bosses have done. They have put themselves first with no thought of the impact on the cost structure of their industries.
These huge pay hikes are bound to bring about a deep sense of unfairness among the workers in the electricity industry and elsewhere in the economy. If workers are told that they have to accept lower pay rises to keep their pay increases as low as or even lower than the rate of inflation, they will look up and see the bosses awarding themselves increases sometimes of 20 times the rate of inflation. How can anyone tell them to accept that as fair? It will not work. The workers will rightly conclude that what is good enough for the bosses should be good enough for them, too.
These huge increases will achieve a wages spiral—massive rises at the top will create a demand for similar rises all the way down to the shop floor. What chance is there of economic recovery or of pulling out of the recession if we are all paying ourselves more than we produce, just like the privatised bosses in the electricity industry do?
Privatisation was recently described as selling people what they already own at less than its true value. In other words, it was a con, a rip-off and a fraud perpetrated on the people of this country. So, too, are the pay increases that these privatised bosses have awarded themselves. They are a disgrace, and so are the Prime Minister and the Government to have allowed them to get away with it.
8.39 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: This is Labour's choice of debate on its Supply day and the public might be forgiven for thinking that the Opposition might have taken the opportunity to praise the work force in the electricity supply industry for their tremendous and remarkable efforts in the past three years to turn an industry under state control into three important and profitable privatised industries. The Opposition could have welcomed the price reductions for electricity and gas and the injection of competition into generation. Some 20 new schemes have already been put forward and there are great hopes for renewables and combined heat and power. They could also have congratulated the National Grid Company on its expert handling of the pooling of prices which the Opposition said would not work. It is working brilliantly. They could have congratulated the 12 regional electricity companies and the two generating companies on exceeding the profit forecasts that were set out in their prospectuses.
248
The Opposition denigrated the efforts of all those who work in the power industries. They dismissed price reductions as fairly irrelevant and whipped themselves into a fury of sham indignation about the salaries of a few key managers and directors while totally ignoring the benefits of privatisation to the consumer. They did that because of misplaced allegiance to the dogma of nationalisation.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman says that everyone in the electricity industry should take credit for what the hon. Gentleman regards as the transformation of the industry. Why did only the directors receive a 12·5 per cent. bonus on privatisation? None of the staff received such a bonus.
Mr. Moss: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the staff participated in the shareholding at the time of privatisation. The percentages are 95 for gas, 98 for the regional electricity companies and 98 for the generating companies. Those people will have benefited from the share profits and high dividends.
The Opposition confirmed that a Labour Government would give high priority to the renationalisation of the national grid. Obviously, that is to be Labour's vehicle for controlling and dominating the electricity supply industry. The grid controls the pricing pool and distribution and would give Labour Ministers maximum opportunity to interfere at will. That is Labour's hidden agenda and no doubt we shall see more of it.
Labour's interventionist policy is tantamount to blackmail and seeks to bring the regional electricity companies and the generating companies into line with what Labour thinks is best for industry. It is a knife at the jugular vein of the electricity supply industry. We were not told the time over which such events would take place, and we were certainly not told about the costs. How are shareholders in the regional electricity companies to be compensated for the proportion of their shareholding in the national grid company? The motion refers to,
"unrestrained increases in the profits … pay and perks of … Directors".
There are three essential questions about the salary increases. First, are the structure and operational objectives of the privatised companies and the two generating companies different from when they made up the CEGB? The answer is yes, because they are now competing with each other, with nuclear electricity and with the newcomers in the generating industry. They have new responsibilities to shareholders and have to contend with a regulatory framework which seeks to protect consumer interests. They are not the same commercial operations as before.
Secondly, are the jobs of the senior managers materially different? The answer is yes. Their performance now is ultimately measured by the City institutions, the regulatory authority and the director general. That measurement is precise and is devastatingly effective, as many managing directors have found to their cost. Decision-making is fully exposed to public scrutiny because the evidence of decisions is shown in yearly accounts and balance sheets. Senior management is also scrutinised by the regulatory authority in terms of the quality of customer service and on environmental matters, which are now extremely important.
Thirdly, are not National Power and PowerGen among the top 100 largest companies in the United Kingdom economy, and does not that inevitably mean that they will have to pay the United Kingdom market price for quality

249
labour at managing director or any other level? I reiterate the evidence quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). The Guardian of 13 June compared the salaries of the managing directors of National Power and PowerGen with the salaries in the United Kingdom's major companies. The results were surprising. The salaries quoted for the managing directors of National Power and PowerGen are tiny compared with some of the salaries being paid to the captains of industry.
The director general of the CBI said that the executive pay of the leading private power generators in Germany is, on average, 50 per cent. more than the salaries paid to the managing directors of Britain's two generating companies.
Further evidence on executive pay parity is contained in the table produced by P-E International which shows that United Kingdom executive pay ranks seventh in the 11 European countries that were measured, even when adjusted for the relative cost of living. It was 10th in the league table on absolute figures. Switzerland was on top followed by Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom. That evidence shows that pay in the energy industry is not excessive when measured against other executive pay in the United Kingdom, against other energy utilities in Europe and against average executive pay in the EC countries.
I understand that Labour is in favour of the single market and convergence of salaries and wages. Would it oppose a convergence of salaries for top executives to bring them into line with our European competitors? The pay rises came to light as a result of the publication of preliminary results for the year ending 31 March 1991. The salaries have already been paid. The decisions about increases—labelled insensitive and embarrassing by some Opposition Members—were taken in the previous financial year, that is, before 31 March 1990. With hindsight, that can be seen as an attempt at equalisation with salaries in comparable United Kingdom industries of similar size. The gap must be made up. We can question the phasing, but if these men were to be replaced tomorrow salary levels of the current order would have to be offered to attract the right calibre of applicant.
The Opposition accuse the Government of promoting these large increases as the price for compliance with the privatisation process. That overlooks the benefit of privatisation not only to consumers but to shareholders. Privatisation raised £12 billion for the taxpayer—£8 billion from the regional electricity companies and about £4·3 billion from the two generating companies. It reduced Government subsidies and reduced any requirement on the PSBR in future years. By holding back 40 per cent. of the privatisation of the generating companies the Government will be able to benefit the taxpayer as a result of the growth of future profits.
As I have said, employee share ownership is high and has led to strong motivation of the work force to bring about the significant changes of the past few years. Profits are good for employees, shareholders and taxpayers. The year-end accounts that have just been published for PowerGen show that this year PowerGen will pay £92·5 million in corporation tax. The taxpayer would not like to lose that money, which would be available for investment. The report and account goes on to say:
250
"The capital programme includes the two CCGT power stations at Killingholme and at Rye House."
The Opposition opposed the private Bill on Killingholme all the way. These cost approximately £290 million and £240 million respectively at current price levels. The company is already committed to flue gas desulphurisation refitting at Ratcliffe at a cost of £250 million.
"In addition, PowerGen is investing significant sums at existing major power stations in order to secure their continued profit-making potential for the future."
We then come to the crux of the report, where it says:
"It is expected that this substantial expenditure will be financed from internal resources".
There we have another advantage of privatisation. This is money not from the taxpayer or from the Government. This capital investment is made as a result of profits.
The utilities are regulated for consumer protection on a scale hitherto never envisaged. Just one example of the impact of the director general can be seen in the case of gas. Mr. McKinnon of Ofgas has negotiated for the coming year a change in the RPI minus X formula for pricing, which will mean approximately 15 per cent. lower prices over the next five years. The accusation that the directors general are toothless is misplaced. Labour's motion is misguided and prompted by outmoded conceptions of state control and interference in industry. Shareholders in the privatised state industries have been warned: beware the Labour hidden agenda.
8.51 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I will take up two of the invitations extended by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss). I pay tribute to the staff of the two industries concerned which supply us with a crucial element of our national economy. Secondly, it is right to acknowledge that the cost of electricity and gas to the domestic consumer has gone down.
The hour and a half of the debate so far has largely been a dialogue of the deaf. The Government have pretended that there is nothing wrong with their new model privatised gas and electricity industries and the Labour party has protested that there is nothing right about them. Neither is right. When the Bills that privatised the two industries went through the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was the spokesman for our party. We have argued a consistent position throughout the decade of debate on privatisation. It is that the Government's proposals would not achieve real competition, although we were not opposed to the privatisation of either industry. We regarded proper competition in a privatised industry as an acceptable way forward because it would give consumers power and benefits.
However, what has gone wrong has manifested the weakness of the non-competitive element of what are now private monopolies, as has been mentioned before, and not private sector competing companies, apart from a few exceptions. Our argument was that if we were to go down the road of privatisation, it could be done in certain sectors on a trial basis to test the market and, secondly, it should be done while giving far greater powers to the consumer and ensuring greater regulation thereafter. After half a decade or more of privatised gas, and a year or so of privatised electricity, our predictions have been proved right.

251
There have been technically unrestrained increases in both profits and pay. They are not restrained by the regulatory process, although prices are. Of itself, that is not a problem, and restraint mechanisms might introduce problems. The Labour party's two proposals for controlling profits—price capping and a special lump sum tax—have major flaws. Price capping has an environmental disadvantage because by encouraging the use of energy by reducing prices artificially, one discourages conservation. A special lump sum tax offends against the regulations and the legislation that brought the industries into operation, as the Secretary of State pointed out. I should be interested to know how any Labour spokesman thinks that it would be possible to have a new form of lump sum tax without getting into difficulties over large-scale compensation for the shareholders.
A more topical and provocative recent issue is the scale of the pay increases awarded to senior executives. The Government are not being consistent on this. The hon. Members for Cambridgeshire, North-East and for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) were so keen to defend the industries that they failed to recognise the major criticism of these recent pay increases. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made that criticism, but have failed to say what they will do about it. The criticism is not that these industries may have to pay people a high price to be competitive with the private sector, nor that they may have to pay a high price to be competitive with industries in Europe. I accept both those arguments. The criticism is that it is not possible to justify paying such large sudden increases at a time when the policy of the country and of those industries is to urge on their staff restraint in pay increases of between 10 and 6 per cent., when those people start off at a lower wage.
It is unacceptable and it should not be possible for people who are already at the top of their industry's income levels to award themselves whopping increases just because, they believe, it is justified by comparisons with Europe or the rest of the private sector. What offends is the level and speed of the increases at a time when we are in a recession and, as the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) said, jobs will suffer directly in these industries. I fail to understand how these people can look the employees whom they sack in the face when they have awarded themselves such massive pay increases.
Furthermore, it is unacceptable for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to say that nothing can be done. This may not be the most accurate of parallels, but it serves. If the Government can call in the heads of banks, entirely privately, to tell them that the way that their policies are impinging on other people is unacceptable, then they can surely call in the heads of companies in which they have a 40 per cent. shareholding to tell them that such pay increases are unacceptable.
As I said in my intervention to the Secretary of State, it is a pretty clear exercise in backscratching when the non-executive directors award the executive directors their salary increases, the executive directors award the non-executive directors their salary increases and they are advised by consultants who are appointed by the directors, so they cannot claim that they are getting independent consultative advice, especially when the advisers get a large fee for their consultancy and the advice is that salaries should be increased considerably. That does not wash.
The Labour party talks about the damage caused to the long-term interests of the country and the harming of the
252
environment, and the industry has only begun to do what it should. It has begun to consider that energy efficiency measures are part of the remit of the regulator. It should now extend that remit to include energy conservation requirements in the gas and electricity industries. At the moment, the shareholders' interests appear to be given far greater priority than the interests of energy efficiency and conservation. We recommend that both those matters are put in the cost indices which the regulator has to establish when regulating the industry.
The argument about the increase to the trade deficit is not as clear as the Labour party suggests. I understand the argument that it has a direct impact on the coal industry. That is clear and I know that that is the genesis of the argument. But the reality is that if prices are kept down, the price to manufacturing industry goes down, therefore, the price of manufactured products such as steel goes down, the ability to export increases and the trade balance is affected beneficially rather than disadvantageously. That argument is not entirely clear. In addition, an extra tariff on fuel imports would offend against GATT and the European energy charter which we in the House debated only a couple of weeks ago and appeared, on an all-party basis, to support.
Lastly, I want to propose some suggestions for making the privatised industries more effectively responsive to the consumer interest. We must protect those on low incomes far better than we are. That means the abolition of standing charges and legislation to prevent those unjustified cut-offs which still happen. I give but one example of a disabled pensioner whose supply was disconnected and was told that it would cost £50 for it to be restored with no proof that he was the cause of the problem which caused the local electricity board, in this case in London, to disconnect the supply.
The best way to keep down bills for people on low incomes is to encourage energy efficiency and conservation to ensure that their homes do not need so much heating and are not cold and damp, and so on. It is part of a comprehensive environmental policy. Moreover, the rip-offs that private owners often impose on their tenants are unjustifiable.
Secondly, the directors general should have their terms of reference widened to include non-monopoly services such as wiring and equipment fitting. Thirdly, as has been recommended over many years but nothing has happened, we should not just take the statistics of the industry as being the statistics which determine exactly how many complaints are being made. That needs to be independently monitored.
Lastly, a point made clearly by all objective commentators, regulation is a secretive process. The regulator is not accountable in any of these cases. If we are to have effective regulation of privatised industries, we must give the regulator some power and the consumer and the consumers' representatives some teeth. At the moment, the so-called free-market industries give the consumer very little power.
9.1 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: This is an interesting and important debate because we are talking about an essential element for the society in

253
which we live. Profit should not be a dirty word because without profit nothing is created. There is no money to invest unless there is a profit from labour and from capital.
The privatisation of the monopolies has yielded many benefits for Britain. Some £12 billion or more has been available from the people's money to invest in the health service, education, roads and many other important things in Britain. In freeing those companies from direct state control they have been able to borrow money instead of its being part of the public sector borrowing requirement. The companies have been able to do essential and necessary things while the money has been free to use.
One of the problems of the argument that we as Conservatives have with socialists is that sometimes comments on salaries are made more from the politics of envy and malice than of common sense and justice. Many people say that if people earn more than they do it is not right or decent. We will always have people who invent something or do things which enable them to become hugely successful and we should honour them for that, whether it is the Alan Sugars of this world, who build companies such as Amstrad from nothing, making themselves worth £200 million or £300 million, or anyone else. No one in his right mind should have any argument with that. Creating with vision something from nothing is something that we should all support. Such people create real wealth, hope and opportunity for everyone.
Some people, however, have not created the companies that they run; they have merely been taken on board as managers to do a decent job. I make no secret of the fact that, had I been in charge, I would not have privatised the water industry, which strikes me as the classic example of an absolute monopoly. Unless we are willing to carry a bucket 10 miles and back, none of us can go anywhere else for our water. The same applies to the electricity and gas industries. Some of the arguments that are currently being advanced show not that the directors are underpaid, but that they lack an understanding of the real world.
Many of those directors were happy to jog along on £40,000, £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 a year before. If people believe that, on privatisation, those same directors will rush off to other companies unless they are paid another £250,000 or £350,000, they will believe anything. Not only this country, but the whole world, experiences industrial and employment problems. Would those men really rush off to America, France and Germany because they thought that they would not be paid another £250,000 a year?
Of course, entrepreneurs must be paid. Those who are genuinely able to create growth must be paid for it. But let us consider what has happened. Between 1930 and 1950, company directors expected to earn between seven and 10 times more than their average employee; between 1950 and 1980, they expected to earn between 12 and 20 times more than that employee. Suddenly—perhaps because of the influence of a few mad entrepreneurs in America—chief executives are expecting to earn between 40 and 70 times more than their average employees.
If that were backed up by productivity, it would seem worth while. Between 1980 and 1990, however, the productivity of some of those great men—without whom industry would supposedly crumble—has risen by 150 per cent., while their salaries have risen by 320 per cent. I
254
believe that it should be the other way round. I believe in the creation of wealth. That is why I mentioned Alan Sugar of Amstrad, who is worth every penny of the millions that he has made: after all, he created the company. Why do people imagine that they should be paid exorbitant sums without producing exorbitantly good results?
I accept that, for some of those people, it all becomes a macho business. They do it more for the ego and the status than for reasons of greed. There are, of course, the Sir Ralph Halperns of this world; they are good at some things, but, whatever else Sir Ralph did five times a night, he was not creating profits. With his £1 million-a-year income, he produced a company that is now almost bankrupt.
Those who lead businesses should create something before they receive their rewards, on a basis of the earnings per share on the capital employed and the creation of genuine prosperity. They should not think merely of being able to increase prices and get away with it.
I suggest three things, not just for privatised industries, but as an amendment to the Companies Act 1989 which should apply to all executive directors. First, the salaries of executive directors should have to be agreed by all the shareholders at an annual general meeting and they should be explained before they are passed. Secondly, non-executive directors who form part of the remuneration committees should be appointed for six years on a non-extendable basis so that they would be truly non-executive and truly independent. Thirdly, directors' contracts should run for three years. They should not be rolling contracts so that if they are sacked because of inefficiency they run off with £1 million so that it might be worth being sacked instead of running the company.
If we did that, and directors were worth their money, they would easily be able to find other jobs and so would cost more than the mediocre people who run many of our businesses today. It is not a way of cutting salaries but of cutting down to size people who think that, because they are lucky enough to be running privatised monopolies or other companies and the money looks so good, they should have their hand in the till. That is the way to increase productivity, prosperity and capitalism, not some of the seedy things that go on now.
9.11 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: The previous two speakers have given the House some useful information. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly drew attention to the need for transparency of power and capacity in the regulator. Experience makes it clear that that is the case. When we were discussing this in Committee, in regard to both gas and electricity, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and some of my hon. Friends emphasised that point. I agree also with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). He has demonstrated that there is little regard for efficiency or the principles that once inspired the Conservative party. It is an outrage that the Government have used the word "successful" twice in the amendment.
Mr. Morgan: They do not believe it.
Mr. Hardy: Of course, they do not believe it. No one in Britain in his right mind believes it.

255
I have mentioned before, but it is worth mentioning again, that last year I took part in a major debate in Budapest on the economy of eastern Europe. The European Conservative group, led by Conservative Members, presented a paper that urged the east Europeans to privatise all their assets. As an example they quoted British Gas. The document said that, after substantial costs had been incurred, the British Government received £1·74 billion from the sale of British Gas. The Conservative group said that, because of the money received from the sale, Britain was helped enormously and there was greater capacity to invest. It urged eastern Europe to do the same.
I spoke in the debate immediately after them and pointed out that we had sold British Gas for one tenth of what it was worth and that the figure quoted in the document was one tenth of the asset value of British Gas. I said that I would not argue about the merits of privatisation or suggest that everything should be under state control because I believe in a mixed economy. However, I said that I did not think that British Gas was a sensible example to offer eastern Europe.
Mr. Peter Rost: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hardy: No. I intend to be brief.
Interestingly, I was followed in that debate by the leader of the German equivalent of the Confederation of British Industry. That gentleman said that he had no objection to privatisation in principle, but that if the public asset was sold for markedly less than its true worth, it was a corrupt act. That was not my view—it was the view of the right wing. It was the view of the intelligent business men in Germany. I wish that the Government's economic motivation matched that which has been displayed by the growth and investment in Germany in recent years.
Instead, the position in Britain is scandalous. There is complete disregard for the fact that 20 million people are on or below the poverty line. How do they feel when they see these obscene examples? How do the captains of the wealth-producing industries feel when they see the burdens heaped on their shoulders by the pricing policies adopted by these public monopolies?
Steel has been mentioned. Under this Administration, thousands of jobs have been wiped out in my area. Our remaining industry is special steels. Investment has taken place and we have the finest plant in Europe, skilled and highly motivated work forces and traditional markets, but all that is imperilled by appalling electricity price increases.
Mr. MacKenzie and others involved in the steel industry and other heavy-energy using industries have been to see the Minister with responsibility in this matter. I took representatives of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation to see the Minister to complain about the fact that the imposition of the latest round of price increases threatened markets and the continuation of and achievements in that vital industry.
No regard is paid to manufacturing industry. It is about time the Government began to understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) that this lot, highly paid as they are, are making us dependent on imported coal, of which there is no security of supply. This lot are determined to wipe out the British coal industry and make us dependent on overseas sources which will take us to the
256
cleaners when we have wiped out our industry. This lot are completely unconcerned about the fact that, before the 1990s are over, the balance of payments implications will involve about £1 billion.
We are already in a grievous and devastating economic position. The Government must go down in history as evil in their results, stupid in their approach and utterly amoral in their character.
9.17 pm
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: The Labour party's motion is interesting as much for what it leaves out as for what it includes. For example, there is no mention of British Telecom. Not long ago, the Labour party warned us that, if that industry were privatised, those without telephones would face bleak prospects, prices would rise faster than inflation, people in rural areas would not have access to the system and there would be a reduction in the number of call boxes. There were also horror stories about engineers being electrocuted as a result of people attaching non-BT equipment to the system.
What is the reality? The number of telephone lines has increased by 20 per cent., 4 million more people now have telephones, prices have fallen by 20 per cent. in real terms, people in rural areas now get telephones faster than ever before and the number of call boxes has increased by 11,000.
Mrs. Llin Golding: The hon. Gentleman is speaking in the wrong debate.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady says that I am speaking in the wrong debate. I suggest that she read the Government's amendment and recall that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) gave a great diatribe about the steel industry. The Government's amendment says that this House
"congratulates the Government on continuing with its successful policy of privatising nationalised industries".
British Telecom is a privatised national industry. To continue with my points, no one has been electrocuted as a result of the installation of non-BT equipment.
The hon. Member for Wentworth told us about how awful things were in the steel industry. He said that it was in a terrible state and that what the Government were doing to the coal industry would damage our balance of payments. Under the Labour Government's tutelage, the British steel industry was the world's largest loss maker and our iron and steel trade faced a chronic deficit. Now, British Steel is one of the most successful steel manufacturers in the world—admittedly in difficult world conditions at the moment. For the first time in many years, we export far more iron and steel than we import. That is a great success.
Mr. Morgan: Tell us about Lloyd's of London.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman asks me to tell him about Lloyd's of London. What would he like me to tell him? Perhaps he could be more specific. There is deafening silence.
I remind the Opposition of their attitude to British Telecom and to the steel industry because it shows the reality of Labour. Labour always supports the status quo and it always opposes change, especially if it harms the interests of their friends in the public sector unions.

257
One of the main advantages of privatisation for all companies—whether or not they are utilities or semi-monopolies—is that they have the freedom to raise capital. It is worth reminding the House of what used to happen when state-run industries had to wait in the Treasury queue behind other deserving causes such as the national health service when they wanted to raise capital. The Opposition are fond of complaining about crumbling sewers, dirty beaches and polluted rivers, but that situation arose under the system of state ownership when the water industry did not have the freedom to raise its own capital on the free market. Now the water industry is at least able to raise money on the open market and to make record investment in cleaning up our rivers and beaches and restoring sewers.
A factor that is equally important as the freedom to raise capital in the privatised industries is the freedom from political interference. The Opposition want me to deal specifically with the electricity industry, so it is worth reminding ourselves of what used to happen in the electricity industry. The British electricity industry was forced to buy expensive United Kingdom coal, which protected the British coal industry. That resulted in an unproductive industry, with low-paid miners doing a difficult and dangerous job, mining uneconomic coal to produce over-priced electricity. That, in turn, resulted in job losses throughout industry because industry paid more for electricity than it should have paid.
In addition, politicians made a mess of the nuclear programme which is as classic a case of disaster caused by political meddling and interference as one could hope to find. In 1965, it was decided, for political reasons, to go ahead with advanced gas-cooled reactors instead of the cheaper, off-the-shelf, American-made pressurised water reactors, which was the technology chosen by the French. That decision was shrouded in secrecy, but the outcome was that a small, relatively weak United Kingdom consortium was chosen to build a reactor that was far more complex and expensive than the American option. By the early 1970s, all of the five AGRs which had been commissioned were in deep trouble. Even now, Dungeness operates at only a fraction of its planned output. In 1974, as a result of that debacle, Arthur Hawkins, the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, called it a catastrophe and said that it must never be repeated. He argued for the purchase of the American PWRs, but what happened? He was overruled by politicians who decided to go ahead with yet another over-engineered design for the SHGWR, which was later abandoned on safety grounds after many costs had been incurred.
After all that waste, PWRs were ordered in 1979. So, the dreams of scientists, technocrats and politicians ended as 40 years of gigantic waste of talent and resources, and, after all that, United States reactors were ordered. What could that talent and those resources have achieved if directed elsewhere in the economy where they could have been best deployed and had they been directed by the market rather than by politicians? How much better would the industry have performed if it had not been lumbered with high-cost electricity in those years as a result of ill-thought-out and politically inspired nuclear programmes and as a result of the protection given to the
258
United Kingdom coal industry which enabled it to sell high-cost coal to the generators who had no choice but to buy it?
It is fair to say that, although the utilities have been privatised, especially coal and gas, they do not operate in a complete market environment. They are semi-monopolies, which is precisely why the Government introduced regulation. Most people would agree that the regulation is a great advance on the old system. In the water industry, for example, the water providers' role and the pollution control role have been separated very successfully with the creation of the National Rivers Authority. The NRA is now taking aggressive action against polluters which was never taken when it was the responsibility of the state-run water boards to control pollution.
In the gas and electricity industries, regulators have powers to look into efficiency and into any excess profits that are made when agreeing to the prices that the utilities want to charge. Surely that is the point. If the regulators feel that top salaries are an unjustified burden or that they arise as a result of excess profits, they can act in their capacity to limit prices. That is why the regulators' role is extremely important. If salaries are justified in terms of the performance of the executives, there is no problem. If the salaries represent inefficiency, exploitation or excessive profits, the regulator has the power to limit the price rises in the utilities.
Some Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Wentworth, seemed to feel that high payments were immoral. I believe that the hon. Member for Wentworth actually used the word "immoral". Would he use that word about the very large sums earned by many well-known Labour supporters, such as Glenda Jackson, who is standing as a Labour candidate? I could quote many more examples. I cannot take seriously Labour's claim—
Mr. Dobson: There are many cinemas available.
Mr. Oppenheim: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene? If he does, he may go ahead.
Mr. Dobson: The unique feature about the next Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Highgate is that, when she appears at a cinema, people have a choice of cinema to attend.
Mr. Oppenheim: I do not know whether that was meant to be funny.
The hon. Member for Wentworth said that high payments were per se immoral. All I was trying to point out was that there was an element of hypocrisy because so many prominent Labour supporters earn vast sums for doing far less productive jobs than the captains of industry do. I cannot take seriously Labour's claim that we have not introduced enough competition into the system and that high salaries are due to that lack of competition when Labour has opposed every attempt by the Government to introduce more competition into the utilities.
The problem is that Labour has not yet realised that privatisation is far better for industry and for consumers than is nationalisation, even though Labour's socialist colleagues in New Zealand, Australia, Sweden and even, to an extent, France—not to mention the former socialist countries in the eastern bloc—have embraced privatisation. That means that only Labour, Cuba and North

259
Korea are still in the anti-privatisation camp—the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and Kim Il Sung.
Labour Members are too prone to forget that the Government get a large share of the profits of privatised companies in tax and dividends. The privatised companies pay far more now to the Government than they did as nationalised industries when Labour was in power. I ask the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras how many hospitals and schools Labour would have to close without that money. How many hospitals and schools would Labour have to close to fund its expensive renationalisation programme? The hon. Gentleman said that, under a future Labour Government, the renationalisation of the grid would be a high priority. A priority is born, and I was privileged to be present at its birth. Where does a "high" priority come in the order of priorities, relative to an absolute priority or a top priority? If the hon. Gentleman can tell me what the difference is, I shall happily give way. Again, there is a deafening silence.
At the root of the Opposition's attitude is their desire to meddle with and control industry. The arrogance of Opposition spokesmen in that respect is breathtaking. Few of them have had any experience of business—I except the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who presided over Jaguar in its darkest days of state ownership—but, despite that, they seek to preach to successful industrialists and to tell them what to do, as they did in the 1970s.
I would take Labour Members' concern about salaries more seriously if they expressed more concern about salaries in the public sector. In the past few years, Derbyshire county council has appointed no fewer than two ex-Labour councillors and an ex-Labour Member of Parliament to jobs that pay more than £40,000 a year. The brother of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the chairman of Derbyshire Labour party, has been appointed by the county council to a well-paid job as a minder for Japanese business men, despite the fact that he was sacked for corruption by the county council under a previous regime. His wife also has a well-paid job in the county council's public relations department—a service that it needs. Such jobs for the boys are far more damaging than paying executives the market wage that industries need to pay to keep them.
9.30 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I shall return to the subject—the privatised electricity and gas industries—which has little to do with Derbyshire county council.
A measure to privatise the electricity industry in Northern Ireland is going through its parliamentary stages. All the parties in Northern Ireland, apart from the almost non-existent Conservative party, oppose electricity privatisation, yet despite that consensus the Government are continuing with the measure. If there is one part of the kingdom where consensus should be observed, it is Northern Ireland. That measure should be dropped.
I have little time to develop the points that I should like to make, but I wish to mention the flotation of shares in East Midlands Electricity, which coincided with disastrous weather conditions. Those weather conditions and the
260
flotation of East Midlands Electricity produced important political consequences that have not yet been considered by the Government.
Early on 8 December, there was a 14-hour severe blizzard and ice accretion throughout the east midlands, including the constituency of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). It spread from Chesterfield in the north to past Coventry in the south. For an average of 34 hours, 815,000 customers, or some 2 million people, lost supplies, and many lost supplies for much longer. A week later, 14,500 customers were still without supplies.
On the third day of that emergency, East Midlands Electricity was floated. At that time, 300,000 customers still had no electricity. What was the impact of that emergency on the flotation? How did it affect the value of shares? Amazingly, it seems to have had no impact. That may be explained by the fact that the emergency was kept quiet by the Government so that people would not understand the difficulty that East Midlands Electricity was facing at its birth. No state of emergency was declared. People clearly needed a state of emergency to be declared, whereby the Government would recognise their plight.
By contrast, when there were gales in the south of England in 1987 the Minister immediately came to the Dispatch Box to explain that, because of the emergency, Bellwin moneys would be available to help local authorities to handle the crisis. Nothing like that happened at the flotation of shares in East Midlands Electricity.
The company has now produced a report on the blizzard. It makes various suggestions for technical improvements and talks of providing better communications, but it fails to raise the question why the Government did not declare at the time that a serious emergency had occurred.
The Department of Energy or the Select Committee on Energy should now investigate the matter. Clearly people were not given the emergency provisions and services that would have been available if the Government had tried to tackle the emergency by working hand in glove with East Midlands Electricity plc.
9.36 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: It is a pleasure to wind up the debate, because this may be our last opportunity in this Parliament—which has been my first Parliament—to discuss what is perhaps the biggest set of measures that it has had the chance to consider.
The process of privatisation, on which we are looking back, can be said to have started in November 1987—or even earlier, in the 1987 Conservative election manifesto. In legislative terms it is three and a half years since the publication of the White Paper, the paving debate, Second Reading and so on. We now have a useful opportunity to judge whether privatisation has been the roaring success described in the Government amendment or the mess that the Opposition believe it to be.
It is fair to say that the Government used to regard electricity privatisation as the jewel in the crown of the four years of this Parliament. In the light of the Prime Minister's recent expression of concern about the top people's salaries and the perks in the electricity and gas industries, we ask the Government why the Conservatives' jewel in the crown of this Parliament has gradually become a rescue job, as it did in 1989, when the previous Secretary of State resigned and the present Secretary of State—who

261
is not now in the Chamber—had to take his place. Then, from being a rescue job, why did it become the national scandal that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State evidently now think it is, judging by their attacks on its consequences, such as the way in which the gravy train has been milked by those at the top, and the disparity between the deal given to consumers and taxpayers and that given to those running the industry?
When the present Secretary of State took over in 1989 the patient was looking very sick indeed. The right hon. Gentleman came in as the company doctor for the Government's legislation. One could say that the patient was suffering from pylons. The right hon. Gentleman took a couple of months to review the situation; then he made some changes in the legislation. If I list those changes, hon. Members will see why the present legislation is almost unrecognisable compared with what was originally proposed.
First, the right hon. Gentleman decided to take the nuclear side of the industry out of the privatisation altogether. Secondly, he cancelled the three pressurised water reactors which were in the programme but which had not yet been started. Thirdly, he delayed everything by six months.
The fourth decision was to change the whole basis of the pool arrangements, and the fifth was to sell PowerGen and National Power together instead of separately. The sixth was to retain 40 per cent. of those two companies in the public sector. The seventh change, which was perhaps not intended at the time, was that the Government managed to lose the chairmen of National Power and PowerGen in the process.
Those were fairly substantial changes and one must admit that they at least enabled the Secretary of State to take the next step forward and actually float the industries. By that time, however, there had been a severe loss of confidence, as a result of which fact the Secretary of State had to underprice the shares and overdose on perks to get them away. With the run-up to the Gulf war and privatisation running almost concurrently—with a dreadful inevitability—he decided that flotation would proceed but with a massive extension of the perks that we have come to expect from Conservative privatisations.
Just think what the Government did to ensure that the shares got away which the Government had not done in previous privatisations. They made multiple share ownership legal for the first time. People could apply, as many Tory Members did, on their own behalf, on their spouse's behalf—on behalf of Karen and Darren, grandma and grandpa and anyone else living in the same house as them. One could apply on behalf of six or seven people. Notwithstanding the fact that all those people were effectively one electricity consumer, all of them could enjoy the perk of a reduction in their next electricity bill: there could be six or seven reductions in one electricity bill. What an invitation that would have been to the former hon. Member for Ynys MÔn. If he had still been in the House, as he was at the time of the British Telecom flotation, he would have had no difficulty at all with the proposition. Many hon. Members took advantage of it. Many Tory Members will probably be able to pay for the next election campaign and for the school fees for the four
262
children on whose behalf they probably applied out of the profits from the underpricing of the shares, for which they themselves had voted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said that when he put the proposition to the leader of the German equivalent of the CBI at a conference, that gentleman said that it was a corrupt act for the Government deliberately to vote for the underpricing of assets of which they were to dispose. Knowing the strong leanings of the German equivalent of the CBI towards ensuring that the taxpayer gets a good deal—and taxpayers must get a good deal if the House is to be able to hold its head high on matters affecting the disposal of public assets—I could not put it better.
Having decided to allow people to apply on behalf of their children and anyone else living in their house and to receive perks for all of them, the Government decided to extend to them another perk that had never been offered before: people could sell the shares straight away without waiting for the second and third call and still keep the original perk. People were told, "Even if you are no longer a shareholder a year hence, you will still get money deducted from your electrictiy bill provided that you took part in the flotation." Previously, the Government had said, "Obviously you must keep the shares. You cannot expect to have money deducted from your electricity bill a year after you have disposed of your shares for the first-day profit." But so keen was the Secretary of State to get electricity shares away that he allowed people to buy and sell—to engage in staging—but still to get money off their electricity bills.
Is it any wonder, in that gravy-train atmosphere—an atmosphere in which multiple-share applications were legalised for the first time—that top people started to realise that the gravy train does not stop with the Secretary of State but could benefit them? It is no use the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State wringing their hands in this curious ineffectual manner at the way in which top people's salaries have rocketed. It is not so much a matter of shutting the stable door after the horses have been stolen. It is more a matter of the Prime Minister looking at the stable door, having removed the latch and lock himself, and wondering why it is swinging back and forth on its hinges while the distant sound of galloping is heard in the next field or the next county, bemoaning the fact that the top people have got away with the pay and extra perks.
An example has already been cited but it has not perhaps been put in its true context. The chairman of British Gas has had his salary increased in a remarkable way, not only in terms of the actual percentage increases that he has received. We know what a reliable organ The Sun is and, if it happens to be attacking something that a Conservative Government have done, its reports are probably true. The Sun reported that the chairman had received £28,000-worth of perks in the form of goods and work carried out at his house in Bournemouth. A British Gas workman's van had been parked outside his new house in Bournemouth for over a month before somebody finally twigged what was going on and blew the whistle by telling The Sun, which then found out that he had had £28,000-worth of free central heating, tumble dryers and other things. British Gas has lamely attempted to recover the position by saying that many British Gas employees are allowed to try out British Gas products and that that

263
is one of the ways in which employees become involved in the firm. It appears, however, that the chairman is allowed to try out all British Gas's products—all at the same time.
Surely that is not necessary to provide an incentive to senior management who were doing exactly the same job before privatisation. It is an obscenity and an example of the way in which the gravy-train atmosphere has permeated the electricity and gas industries since privatisation. After all, if it is thought necessary to give £28,000-worth of perks to the chairman of British Gas to provide him with an incentive, how would one give an incentive to the chairman of the water and sewage companies?
Are we saying that we should give similar incentives to Treasury Ministers and that if they managed to price the shares of the electricity industry correctly or to get their public expenditure forecasts right we would let them off income tax for a year? Not only would the Queen and the Prince of Wales not pay income tax—the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in the same position. That is not a principle that we should like to see established, but it is exactly what the Government have engineered for the electricity and gas industries.
Perhaps we should have asked the Secretary of State for Energy whether he would have been willing to take a pay cut or to accept a bonus if he had correctly priced the shares that he sold in the electricity industry. If we had done so, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be leaving the House even sooner than he intends because he would be able to pay attention to far more exciting things, such as being a name again at Lloyd's, where such problems never arise. That would be a way of trying to provide the right hon. Gentleman with an incentive to price the shares correctly so that the taxpayer would get a reasonable bargain. If the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to do that, come the tolling of the liberty bell of democracy at the next election, the Government who will be formed by my right hon. and hon. Friends most certainly will.
9.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cohn Moynihan): I welcome the opportunity that has been presented by this debate and am delighted, in Opposition time, to set out the success of the privatisation programme. The Opposition lost the argument in the last debate on this subject on 16 January and they have lost it again tonight. Consumers, taxpayers and employees are not gullible. They will have seen through the rhetoric that the Opposition have used once again and instead they will listen to the facts, which are not as portrayed by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). They are as follows.
Fact one—the Opposition said that we would never be able to privatise the electricity industry before the election, but we did and it has been a resounding success.
Fact two—we were told that we would not be able to inject competition into the electricity industry, but we have. Competition in generating is growing all the time and it is competition, not Whitehall intervention, that is the best guarantee of efficiency and of ensuring that customers receive good service.
Fact three—consumers are benefiting: prices are controlled and they have new rights and independent
264
regulators to look after their interests. The privatised industries are leading the way in consumer rights which we look to the citizens charter further to promote.
Fact four—share ownership is at a record level. Eleven million people now own shares—25 per cent. of the adult population. It is a clear recognition of the public's desire to share in the success of privatisation.
Fact five—the taxpayer has benefited from privatisation. Not only has there been a direct benefit in terms of the proceeds that have been realised, but privatisation has unlocked efficiency. Nationalised industries overall have had a poor record on profits, investment, productivity and industrial relations. They had combined borrowings of £2·5 billion in 1979. Growing profits mean a growing contribution to the national wealth.
Contrast that with the way in which matters would be on the basis of the contributions under Labour. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that he would renationalise the National Grid Company and give it all sorts of duties. He said that a Labour Government would use their shareholding in National Power and PowerGen to influence—though many of my hon. Friends would say "interfere in"—the running of their businesses. He also said that he would take steps on board pay.
What would that policy mean in practice? It would mean that once again a Labour Government would try to interfere in the running of a business about which they knew nothing. They would interfere in a company that is best left in the hands of those who are skilled at running it and who are accountable to their shareholders for its performance. Once again, the industry would be subject to the dead hand of Whitehall, stifling innovation and interfering in the proper operation of the market.
Electricity prices—in that context the comments of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) were rich— which rose by the equivalent of 2 per cent. every six weeks under Labour, would have to go up again to pay for the costly mistakes that would be made. All the benefits of the improvement in performance would be lost, and to no good purpose. Opposition Members have no coherent strategy on how to respond to privatisation. They have simply come before the House again tonight wanting to turn the clock back and repeat all the mistakes of nationalisation and state intervention.
They do not even understand the workings of the electricity market. Still less do they understand the workings of the financial markets. They continue, as we heard tonight—including from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who again is laughing, a mask of insecurity behind his ignorance of financial matters—[Interruption.] Once again he makes simplistic comparisons between assets and proceeds. Opposition Members' weekly cultivation of friends in the City, if they have any, has not resulted in the facts of the financial markets being imparted to the hon. Gentleman.
That being so, I will help the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with some figures. It is instructive to see how tonight he arrives at the loss of £29 billion. It changes by £1 billion virtually daily; but, then, so does the cost of the programme of any future Labour Government. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras aggregates, for example, the values of the various privatised companies, in some cases stretching back nearly to the beginning of the 1980s, on an irrelevant replacement cost basis, taking no account of major changes that have occurred in the companies since, and then he compares them with today's

265
market value. By those extraordinary means he arrives at a waste of £27 billion, and then apparently adds £3 billion to give the round figure of £30 billion.
Of course the reality is that the value of a business is nothing more or less than what a prospective purchaser would be prepared to pay for it. Current cost accounting simply measures the replacement cost of assets, some of which may hold little interest for a purchaser, and it is certainly not the amount the taxpayer paid for those assets. So the hon. Gentleman has again conducted a totally futile exercise.
The value of industries such as electricity is based principally on expectations of future earnings. Only by a wholly unjustified increase in prices could the Government have boosted earnings sufficiently to be able to sell the industry for a sum anywhere near the current cost evaluation.
As for the other comparison, with stock market valuations, that the hon. Gentleman made tonight, the shares are rising faster than the overall index of shares. The rising share values of privatised companies since the sale reflect the growth of confidence in the benefits of privatisation as they feed through, including renationalisation and other moves to greater efficiency which improve their prospects.
The value of British Gas, for example, has increased by nearly 80 per cent. on the stock market in the past five years, despite the fact that prices were falling in real terms under the price control formula throughout that period. An even tougher formula, starting next year, is acknowledged to be an extremely demanding target, yet the company still believes that it will be able to increase its dividends, underpinning figure share performance.
Improving prospects, rising share prices, cost-cutting and greater efficiency in all those companies should be welcomed. They represent a clear gain to the nation in contrast to the old order of rising prices to consumers with no means of redress, and little incentive for improved efficiency. Those were real costs and burdens on the nation, as opposed to the wholly fictitious £30 billion conjured up by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
It is remarkable that Labour Members should even mention disconnections. Under a Labour Government in the late 1970s the level of disconnections was substantially higher than at present. Those worst hit were pensioners and the poor, and Opposition Members laughed when we debated the importance of reducing the number of disconnections. The Government have attached importance to introducing a code of practice on disconnections, designed to safeguard the least well off. It provides that no pensioner's household may be cut off during the winter months and, since the introduction of the code of practice, disconnections have fallen to their lowest levels since records began.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined clearly the benefits of privatisation as opposed to nationalisation, renationalisation or extended state control. In the 1990s there will be a renewed emphasis on quality of life issues, such as a higher standard of living, a secure and diverse energy supply with improved safety measures, and higher environmental standards. Increasing competition will remain the most effective pressure on
266
companies to deliver those objectives, act efficiently and provide customers with the service that they deserve. On that matter I agree fully with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark).
The regulators in the recently privatised industry will set tight and improved standards of service, which will be well publicised so that consumers can assess the standard of service that they can reasonably expect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) stated, we live in a generation in which everyone is a consumer, and consumer protection and choice are increasingly at the centre of policy-making in Europe. We are consumers not only in shops but when we travel to work and from the moment we arrive home. We expect standards and performance from every item and service that we purchase. Contracts that should spell out guaranteed standards of service, penalties for failure, and means of redress and complaint go hand in hand with a free market economy and an enterprise culture based on competition.
On 2 July 1991 the House of Commons should not be the place for Labour-inspired weary debates in which every contribution by Opposition Members harks back to the days of socialism and state intervention. It is clear from the debate that salaries should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate. It is not for the Government to second-guess remuneration. It is not intervention to question whether recent increases meet that test. All levels of pay should take account of the economic facts of life and the importance of beating inflation. Directors must show leadership, and moving to private sector levels should be moderate.
The manufacturing industry has evolved from the traditional two-tier management-work force structure—the us and them syndrome—which often undermines the effects of industrial relations by creating artificial barriers between management and work force. Those barriers are based on privilege and separation. Today, a team approach dominates in the manufacturing industry. The new style of management has contributed much to loosening the grip of the unions when the Government's industrial relations legislation has given management and the work force the tools to work as a team. However, with that new approach has come responsibility to lead by example, win respect, urge moderation in pay demands in a time of recession, and exercise restraint. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was correct to say that he did not believe that excessive salary increases are right. That remains our view. Undoubtedly top directors in the newly privatised companies need motivation, but not, as The Times correctly stated, superleague salaries overnight.
The Government's position is clear: our privatisation programme has been good news for the taxpayer, good news for the consumer and good news for the employee. It is a shame that the Opposition still cling to the socialist principles of interference and deny the benefits of privatisation.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House Divided: Ayes 176, Noes 246.

Division No. 1981

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Ashton, Joe

Allen, Graham

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

267

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Janner, Greville

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Battle, John

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Beckett, Margaret

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Beith, A. J.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Bellotti, David

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

Kirkwood, Archy

Bermingham, Gerald

Lambie, David

Blunkett, David

Lamond, James

Boateng, Paul

Leighton, Ron

Boyes, Roland

Lewis, Terry

Bradley, Keith

Litherland, Robert

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Livingstone, Ken

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Loyden, Eddie

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

McAllion, John

Buckley, George J.

McAvoy, Thomas

Callaghan, Jim

Macdonald, Calum A.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McFall, John

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

McKelvey, William

Canavan, Dennis

McLeish, Henry

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

McMaster, Gordon

Cartwright, John

McWilliam, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Madden, Max

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Cohen, Harry

Marek, Dr John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Corbett, Robin

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Martlew, Eric

Cousins, Jim

Maxton, John

Crowther, Stan

Meacher, Michael

Cryer, Bob

Meale, Alan

Cummings, John

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Cunningham, Dr John

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Dalyell, Tam

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Darling, Alistair

Morgan, Rhodri

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Morley, Elliot

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

Mowlam, Marjorie

Dewar, Donald

Mullin, Chris

Dixon, Don

Murphy, Paul

Dobson, Frank

Nellist, Dave

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Dunnachie, Jimmy

O'Brien, William

Eadie, Alexander

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Edwards, Huw

Patchett, Terry

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Pendry, Tom

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Pike, Peter L.

Fatchett, Derek

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Faulds, Andrew

Prescott, John

Fearn, Ronald

Primarolo, Dawn

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Radice, Giles

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

Randall, Stuart

Fisher, Mark

Redmond, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Reid, Dr John

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Richardson, Jo

Foster, Derek

Robinson, Geoffrey

Foulkes, George

Rogers, Allan

Fraser, John

Rooker, Jeff

Fyfe, Maria

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Rowlands, Ted

Golding, Mrs Llin

Sedgemore, Brian

Gordon, Mildred

Sheerman, Barry

Gould, Bryan

Short, Clare

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Skinner, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

Hain, Peter

Snape, Peter

Hardy, Peter

Soley, Clive

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Spearing, Nigel

Hinchliffe, David

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Straw, Jack

Home Robertson, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hood, Jimmy

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

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Howells, Geraint

Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Vaz, Keith

Ingram, Adam

Wallace, James

268

Walley, Joan

Worthington, Tony

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wray, Jimmy

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Wilson, Brian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Winnick, David

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mr. Ken Eastham.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Evennett, David

Aitken, Jonathan

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fallon, Michael

Amess, David

Farr, Sir John

Amos, Alan

Favell, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Fookes, Dame Janet

Ashby, David

Forman, Nigel

Aspinwall, Jack

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Atkins, Robert

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Atkinson, David

Fox, Sir Marcus

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Franks, Cecil

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Freeman, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Bendall, Vivian

Fry, Peter

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Benyon, W.

Gill, Christopher

Bevan, David Gilroy

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Goodlad, Alastair

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bottomley, Peter

Gregory, Conal

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)

Ground, Patrick

Bowis, John

Grylls, Michael

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hague, William

Brazier, Julian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

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

Hannam, John

Browne, John (Winchester)

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

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Harris, David

Buck, Sir Antony

Haselhurst, Alan

Budgen, Nicholas

Hawkins, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Hayward, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Butler, Chris

Hill, James

Butterfill, John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Irvine, Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Irving, Sir Charles

Carttiss, Michael

Jack, Michael

Cash, William

Jessel, Toby

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Chapman, Sydney

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Chope, Christopher

Kilfedder, James

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Colvin, Michael

Knapman, Roger

Conway, Derek

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knowles, Michael

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Knox, David

Cormack, Patrick

Latham, Michael

Couchman, James

Lee, John (Pendle)

Cran, James

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lightbown, David

Day, Stephen

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Devlin, Tim

Lord, Michael

Dickens, Geoffrey

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Dicks, Terry

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Dorrell, Stephen

McCrindle, Sir Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Dover, Den

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Durant, Sir Anthony

Madel, David

Eggar, Tim

Malins, Humfrey

Emery, Sir Peter

Maples, John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Marland, Paul

269

Marlow, Tony

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Maude, Hon Francis

Speed, Keith

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Squire, Robin

Miller, Sir Hal

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mills, Iain

Steen, Anthony

Miscampbell, Norman

Stern, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stevens, Lewis

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Morrison, Sir Charles

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Moss, Malcolm

Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Stokes, Sir John

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Sumberg, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Nicholls, Patrick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Norris, Steve

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Page, Richard

Temple-Morris, Peter

Paice, James

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Patnick, Irvine

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Thurnham, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pawsey, James

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tracey, Richard

Powell, William (Corby)

Tredinnick, David

Price, Sir David

Trippier, David

Raffan, Keith

Twinn, Dr Ian

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Redwood, John

Viggers, Peter

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Riddick, Graham

Ward, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Watts, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wheeler, Sir John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Whitney, Ray

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Widdecombe, Ann

Rost, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Rowe, Andrew

Wilkinson, John

Sackville, Hon Tom

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Winterton, Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wood, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Shelton, Sir William

Yeo, Tim

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Shersby, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Sims, Roger

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on continuing with its successful policy of privatising nationalised industries; notes the recent successful privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Great Britain; and welcomes the benefits that privatisation of the electricity and gas industries has brought and will bring to consumers, taxpayers and employees.

Electricity and Gas Industries

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Severn Bridges Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day
  Severn Bridges Bill
  As amended (in the Select Committee and on re-committal in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Severn Bridges Bill
    Clause 5

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO LEVY TOLLS
      10.14 pm
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 18 at end insert
      `after consultations with relevant local authorities in England and Wales'.
      The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities before raising tolls on the new bridges. It highlights the role of English and Welsh local authorities with regard to the new bridge and the tolling regime. At this stage, we do not know precisely what those local authorities will be. The Secretary of State for Wales has said that there will be a new local authority unitary structure in Wales and we assume, therefore, also on the other side of the Bristol channel.
      But whatever structure there might be, it is the view of local authorities in Wales and England that the need for a second Severn crossing is unquestionable. We have put up for too long with enormous congestion on the existing Severn bridge. We know that the economic impact of a second Severn crossing on the Welsh economy will be considerable.
      In Gwent alone, where the second Severn crossing will end up, 9·3 per cent. of the people are out of work. The European link is vital to Wales and the second Severn crossing will constitute what is known in Europe as the E30. The second bridge will also have considerable significance with regard to the general transport infrastructure throughout south Wales.
      Studies by the standing conference of local authorities in south Wales show that during the past two years, because of the problems of congestion on the present bridge, some 2,000 jobs have been lost in the county of Gwent alone.
      However, the amendment is basically about tolls and their level. The impact of tolls and their level on the local economy is considerable. When we consider that the whole of the tolling regime on the present bridge is equivalent in financial terms to what Gwent receives from the regional selective assistance grant, the regional enterprise grant and the European regional development fund we realise what a significant impact tolls can have on the economy of Gwent and south Wales.
      It is interesting that Tyne and Wear county council—before it was abolished—recently studied the tolling regime on the Tyne tunnel corridor and it came to the conclusion that, in comparison with other areas within its remit, the Tyne tunnel corridor was detrimental to other areas which had no tolls.
      One aspect of the amendment which was touched on in Committee on several occasions was the level of debt on the existing bridge which, if written off, could reduce tolls on the new bridges by 1995 by about 20 per cent. There were many arguments in Committee about whether the

      271
      Government would be prepared to write off the debt on the bridge and, in so doing, reduce the tolls on the two bridges when the new regime came into operation.
      Only yesterday, during transport questions, an hon. Member asked the Minister for Roads and Traffic what the tolling regime would be on the Humber bridge, which has been compared with the Severn bridge on more than one occasion. The Minister replied that the Government were considering the whole question of the debt on the Humber bridge with a view to writing off at least a portion of it and, in so doing, reducing the general level of tolls on the Humber bridge. I sincerely hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government's decision to write off some of the debt on the Humber bridge is relevant to the Severn bridge.
      In our view, the local inquiries that have been held, by law, three times since the opening of the existing bridge —in 1979, 1984 and 1989—were a good idea. Local circumstances were taken into account; the local economy was monitored; and the CBI, the AA, the RAC, the Road Haulage Association and many other bodies gave evidence to the inspector about the impact of increased toll levels on the existing bridge and the south Wales economy.
      In Committee, the Government decided not to support the continuation of local inquiries under the new Severn bridge regime. We believe that, now that the Government have turned down that idea, the widest possible consultation should take place between the relevant local authorities—on both the English and the Welsh sides—when the Secretary of State is considering whether to increase toll levels on both bridges. That would be a good gesture and it would also provide the Government with a valuable source of information.
      I hope that, as well as telling us whether he considers consultation important, the Minister will say something about the information about the Humber bridge that we were given yesterday.
      Mr. Robert Adley: First, let me declare an interest: my brother-in-law, Mr. Micky Pople, is a partner in the English Stones fisheries, which has the salmon netting rights under one of the pillars of the bridge.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke of the need to consult the relevant local authorities. The Opposition have tabled an amendment about policing services, and another about compensation for concessionaires. I wish to put it on record that my brother-in-law and his friends have had to spend many months, and much of their own money, fighting for compensation. Now, finally, they have been granted compensation, but without legal costs. I feel that that is wrong, and I have used this opportunity to state their case.
      Dr. Kim Howells: Whatever is decided this evening, it should be said that many of us in Wales welcome the bridge. At last people are getting on with building the thing.
      We all agree that many of the haulage firms are doing splendid work in taking the products of Wales across to markets in England and on the continent. Nevertheless, many of us fear that, for a long time to come, the unit costs of those products will continue to be inflated by the expense caused by traffic jams, and by the present system of road transport and the way in which vehicles currently have to use the bridge. Surely the Government should be
      272
      as concerned about other forms of transport infrastructure, in conjunction with the bridge, as they are about the building of the bridge itself.
      This bridge will stand as a great tribute to engineering in the 20th century; but will Wales be able to provide other such tributes? Will we, for example, have a road-rail infrastructure that begins to reflect the true cost—and it is an enormous cost—of road transport as it takes our products towards England and into the continent?
      The hidden costs of road transport are enormous. Not only are we now contemplating building a great piece of engineering, and a great monument to our love of road transport; we are, or should be, seriously considering how Wales can best be served by a road-rail link with the channel tunnel, the English markets and the economic market in general. Alongside the marvellous structure across the Severn I should like to see another structure, perhaps a series of loading bays or depots where there might be an interaction between road and rail transport. We might see the sort of experiments that are currently taking place in Germany, where we would contemplate not only a bridge but the means of taking away from the roads much of the heavy traffic and putting it on to rail. In that way the second crossing would not become as congested and damaged in 15 or 20 years as the present bridge has become. No matter how brilliant our planners or engineers may be, we are all fallible. We tend to get projections wrong. In a sense, we should be planning for safety to ensure that there is back-up for the second crossing. I hope to see Wales flourish. I hope that the transformation of our economy will continue so that in the future a great diversity of products will come from Wales.
      We are on the periphery of Europe. Our unit costs are important if we are to take advantage of the great new opportunities of the single market and, more importantly, if we are to tap the potential of the expanding markets in southern and eastern Europe. Wales is vulnerable in that respect. If our transport infrastructure is not right now, we will pay for it in decades to come. We must plan that far ahead. Will the Minister consider carefully the idea that the great vision of a second crossing should be accompanied by another vision—a dream form of rail transport that works alongside the roads for the betterment of Wales and a better future for us all?
      Mr. Den Dover: I was the Chairman of the Select Committee which considered this bridge. Having lived in Wales and used the Severn bridge for many years some 15 or 20 years ago, I was amazed that the cost of the original building work and the enormous cost of repairs —£70 million or £80 million in recent years—can all be repaid by the joint venture firm, Laing-Entrepose, which is the concessionaire, from the tolls that will be levied on the opening of the new bridge, the tolls on the existing bridge and the handover back to the Department. Therefore, I am delighted that there is no need to write off any debt, which the Select Committee on Transport proposed six or seven years ago when I was a member of it. Write-off is needed on the Humber bridge, which does not have the same usage and cannot recover its debt.
      I am delighted that vehicles of all sorts using the Severn bridge are able to pay tolls that are adequate to pay for the original building, the repair work and the construction of the new bridge. Therefore, I see no reason for public inquiries or detailed lengthy consultations with local

      273
      authorities. The users in both England and Wales and the Welsh people will benefit enormously from the new facility.
      I reject the amendment. The toll regime in the Bill is more than adequate and we will see a first-class facility in use as early as possible without any delays caused by public inquiries.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I support the amendment. It is essential that local authorities are consulted, but the process need not take long. The second Severn crossing is essential and it should be completed in the shortest possible time. However, we need some consultation with local authorities. I agree with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who spoke of the need to improve the rail infrastructure at the same time. If, in recent years, we have managed to bring about a rail-road crossing on the Britannia bridge across the Menai straits, surely we should have the wit and imagination to provide road and rail crossings at the point of the new bridge. The project should be more ambitious than is envisaged.
      We believe that local authorities should be consulted. The present tolls are a tax on Welsh business, and that fact should be taken into account. I do not entirely agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) about tolls. For those who cross the bridge frequently, they are excessive. The bridge is a lifeline for Welsh industry and tourism, so we must be careful about what we do.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Peter Fry: Until I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), I had not intended to take part in the debate. I, too, was a member of the Select Committee on Transport which considered toll crossings. I am amazed that any Opposition Member wants to talk about the Humber bridge, let alone in conjunction with the Severn crossing, given that that is a feasible project which will pay its way, as opposed to one which was designed purely to win a certain by-election some 25 years ago.
      The Severn crossing is intended to bring Wales closer to England. As for the Humber bridge, both parts of Humberside were taken over and want to go back into Lincolnshire as fast as they can, because they do not like the way in which they have been joined.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not follow the path suggested by the hon. Member for Torfaen. No other scheme should be compared to the Humber bridge. Frankly, I do not think that it should have been built in the first place. The proposed bridge is needed for the good of the Welsh economy.
      The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) stressed the importance of a rail connection. We want to encourage the movement of more goods by rail. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport declared that to be his policy. Let us be honest about this—whatever we do in the next few years, most freight will continue to go by road. If the Welsh economy is to expand, it will increasingly need goods to be transported on lorries across the Severn. Any attempt to delay the building of the bridge, and anything that
      274
      introduces more public discussion and means that it will take longer for the bridge to be built, is detrimental to the Welsh economy. I am slightly surprised that the Opposition put forward such views.
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who chaired the Select Committee so expeditiously. The House should be grateful to him and to his colleagues on the Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend that the existing Severn bridge is already a great success and that the new bridge will bring great benefits to the Welsh economy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) referred to rail freight. I remind the House that there will be a rail freight terminal in Cardiff to ship freight through the channel tunnel—that is a commitment for 1993—and the rail freight that will be shipped from south Wales will be able to come through the existing tunnel underneath the Severn.
      Mr. Livsey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that speedy links with the channel tunnel depend on electrification of the south Wales line? Is it correct that the present Severn tunnel will not accommodate an electrification scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? It could have an adverse impact on the future of business in south Wales.
      Mr. Freeman: Rail freight shipment does not need electrified lines and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, a considerable amount of freight will be collected and hauled through the tunnel by diesel and then electric locos from the terminals in London. Although speed is important for freight, it is not as important as it is for passenger traffic. I understand that the Great Western railway can be electrified as and when it is appropriate to electrify it, all the way from London to Swansea and Cardiff.
      Mr. Adley: The Minister has raised the question of the Great Western railway—and where would we be without it? So, may I ask him for about the one hundred and seventeenth time to reconsider the line from Reading to Ashford via Guildford and Redhill about which—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are dealing with the Severn bridge.
      Mr. Adley: The Minister referred to rail traffic crossing the Severn bridge on its way to the channel tunnel. That is precisely the line—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Ashford.
      Mr. Adley: To get to the line to which the Minister referred it is necessary to travel by rail via Ashford.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The same could be said about travelling from Inverness.
      Mr. Adley: The Minister referred to the channel tunnel and to traffic from south Wales. I hope that I am not abusing the House by referring to the line that the Minister has just mentioned. Will he please reconsider the utilisation of the line which was built in the previous

      275
      century specifically to take traffic to the channel tunnel and which was not closed down by Dr. Beeching who said that one day the tunnel would be built?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not see what that has to do with the amendment.
      Mr. Freeman: I feared that I should be shunted up that line. I have already had a tutorial from my hon. Friend, and I am sure that I shall have many more, on the value of a west-about-route around London to carry freight.
      The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) raised a number of issues—
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister say a little more about what he mentioned before the intervention of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley)? He said that there would be a road-rail interchange for freight traffic crossing the Severn bridge and that it would be located in Cardiff. Is that what he said? If so, where in Cardiff will that interchange be located and when will the official public announcement of investment by British Rail or by others take place?
      Mr. Freeman: A few days ago the Minister for Roads and Traffic made a statement about the terminal in Cardiff. I am happy to repeat that for all combined transport—that is, freight that is collected by road for onward trans-shipment by rail—British Rail will have a terminal in Cardiff for 1993. I am not familiar with the sidings in Cardiff, but I imagine that British Rail will use and enhance the existing facilities in Cardiff. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman specifying exactly where in Cardiff it will be.
      Mr. Peter Snape: If Speedlink is to close in Wales next week as is Speedlink in England, how much more freight will come across the new and old bridge—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment deals with consultations in respect of the levying of tolls. What has that to do with—
      Mr. Snape: If you stop interrupting for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall tell you. It is no good interrupting the rest of us if you allow the Minister to proceed. I am asking the Minister whether, as Speedlink in Wales is closing and as most of the traffic presently carried by rail will cross the new and old Severn bridge, how much will that cost the taxpayer in both countries?
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the consequence of the closure of Speedlink. Well over half of the volume of freight will continue to be carried by train, but some will be lost. British Rail has not disguised that fact. About 6 million tonnes in total will be hauled in the first year from the nine terminals. I cannot give him the estimate for Cardiff, but I shall write to him.
      When the hon. Member for Torfaen proposed the amendment, which I urge the House to resist, he argued —and I agree—that the need for the bridge was unquestionable because it would double the capacity for road traffic between England and Wales.
      The principle of tolling was accepted by a Labour Government about 25 years ago when the first Severn bridge was constructed. The hon. Member for Torfaen rightly argued or postulated that if the debt were written off after consultation with the local authorities—we are
      276
      talking about £120 million—tolls could be reduced during the period between commencement of construction of the second bridge and the opening of it, and thereafter. There would, however, be a loss to the Exchequer of about £120 million—£62 million initially and then the balance with interest at 6 per cent. in real terms at the end of the tolling period. That is a matter of judgment, and the Government have decided that the receipt of £120 million to the Exchequer, albeit involving higher tolls than would otherwise be levied, is justified. The decision will allow the money to be recycled in the form of public expenditure. I cannot give a commitment on where the money will be spent or on what mode of transport, but it will be used for the benefit of the taxpayer.
      I have been asked specific questions about the Humber bridge. Even in 1995, assuming that the tolls for cars, for example, are indexed to the rate of inflation on the Humber bridge, the one-way tolls will still be greater than those on the Severn bridge. The tolls for cars will be £2·10 on the Humber bridge, one way, and £1·90 on the Severn bridge. The same is true for two-axle heavy goods vehicles. In 1995, the tolls will be £8·60 on the Humber bridge and £5·70 on the Severn bridge. The Humber bridge is an exception, as it were. Even in 1995, the tolls will be higher on that bridge under the assumptions that I have outlined.
      My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic did not suggest that there was a proposal to write off all the debt on the Humber bridge. In due course details will emerge of the debt that must remain that will be serviced by tolls. At that stage it will be possible to draw an exact comparison between the Severn bridge, with £120 million not written off, and the Humber bridge.
      The hon. Members for Torfaen and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) argued that there should be local public inquiries. There are three categories of toll increase. The first is the stepped increase on the existing bridge between next year, when I hope that construction will start, and 1995. The schedule is provided for in the Bill, and I believe that no public inquiries are necessary. Parliament will make a decision. Secondly, the increasing of the tolls, once the second bridge is completed, will be limited to the retail prices index each year. That is provided for in the Bill, and there is no need for a local public inquiry. Thirdly, there are the four exceptional events that we discussed in Committee: exceptional cases if there were a change in legislation; a major change in the tax regimé; the European investment bank withdrawing its loan; or dispute over the title to the land over which the bridge was built. If a toll increase were needed in such an event, the Government would ask the House to pass an affirmative order.
      With those reasoned arguments, as I consider them to be, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Murphy: An answer given yesterday during transport questions suggested that the Government's position on debts on estuarial crossings had altered considerably. Until yesterday, the Government had consistently resisted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Transport that the debts should be written off. It seems that yesterday there was a significant change in their position. Even if we are talking of only part of the debt in respect of the Humber bridge, and even though that crossing is an exceptional case, it seems that the Government's principle has been broken. We say that there is a case for reconsidering the debt on the Severn

      277
      bridge so that tolls can be reduced. That would mean that, when the two Severn bridges are in operation, tolls will not have an adverse impact on the economy of south Wales.
      The consultations to which the hon. Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) referred will not delay the construction of the second bridge. As the Minister knows, they would relate to the four exceptional events to which he referred in his reply, and well after the bridge has been built.
      If there are exceptional reasons why the Secretary of State should increase the tolls, as the law stands, public inquiries can be held, as they have been on three separate
      278
      occasions. Although the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965 said that the principle of tolling should be accepted, it laid down the principle of local public inquiries. The Government say that a debate on an order in the House is sufficient to reflect local points. We believe that it is insufficient for the House simply to debate a small order late at night, perhaps for only an hour, because that is not the same as proper consultation involving local authorities and the other bodies that have been mentioned.
      I do not see why the Government cannot accept the amendment, which would enable the local community to be involved, would place the spotlight on the local economy and would do nothing but good for the new bridges.
      Amendment negatived.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 34, after 'services', insert `, including policing services,'.
      This is a probing amendment which follows debates in Committee on the relationship between the concessionaires, the Secretary of State and the police authorities.
      As the House is aware, Avon and Somerset constabulary is responsible for the policing arrangements of the existing bridge. It is proposed that the Gwent police force will look after the new Severn crossing. We are concerned, and I know that Gwent county council is concerned, about the extra cost of policing the new Severn crossing. The chief constable says that it would require at least nine constables and three sergeants, eight traffic patrol constables, six civilian force control room operators, one motorway patrol car, one unit beat car, one unit base station at Chepstow, one motorway console and force control room and the upgrading of two police stations. In total, a manpower cost of an extra £400,000 a year and other resource requirements amounting to £350,00 a year would fall on the relatively small police force in Gwent.
      It is feared, given the present position of local government finance and as poll tax capping will apply to all Welsh local authorities from next year, that if Gwent county council were to input that extra cost there could be implications for poll tax payers in Gwent.
      To that end, in July 1990, Gwent county council wrote to the Home Office asking whether any special arrangements will be made to fund the extra responsibilities that will fall on the Gwent police force. In reply, a Home Office official said:
      "As the responsibility for policing the bridge was requested by the Chief Constable, it seems reasonable that the cost should fall to Gwent Police Authority."
      That is highly unreasonable. The extra costs that will fall on Gwent police, especially the manpower costs, should be met by the Home Office. People in Gwent are concerned that all the extra money that will be spent on policing the new bridge will have detrimental implications for policing the county's towns and villages.
      I hope that when the Minister of State, Welsh Office replies he will reinforce the point that was made in Committee by the Minister for Roads and Traffic that special arrangements will be made and that the poll tax payers of Gwent will not have to pay more to police the second Severn crossing.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I repeat the assurance that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic gave in Committee that the additional responsibilities for policing will be taken into account for public expenditure purposes. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason to change the normal rules for meeting policing costs for the scheme, and I cannot agree to do so.
      The hon. Gentleman is one step ahead of me in that he appears to have fairly precise figures for the cost of policing the new bridge. I am not as advantaged as he is. I am told that the cost of policing the new bridge—and, indeed, the existing bridge—cannot be separated from costs incurred in normal policing not just of the bridges but of the approach roads. Be that as it may, the policing of the highways will be carried out in the normal way under the normal arrangements and there is certainly no
      280
      need for any special provision in the Bill, just as no such provision is made in the Severn Bridge Tolls Act 1965 or the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988.
      The costs of policing the new bridge and its approach roads will be met in exactly the same way as those for the existing bridge and for every other stretch of motorway and trunk road. If the authorities concerned feel that they will be put to additional policing costs as a result of the Bill, they will no doubt voice those concerns to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: In a welcome moment of frankness, the Minister confessed that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) was one step ahead of the Government in his knowledge of the bridge.
      Wales has always regarded the Severn bridge as a mixed blessing and has been rightly cynical about its financing. It was the poet Harri Webb who said of the opening of the Severn bridge, with Wales and England linked for the first time,

      "Two lands at last connected

      Across the Severn wide

      But all the tolls collected

      Upon the English side."

      Although every sensible person welcomed the bridge, it has proved a mixed blessing in every possible way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) pointed out, there are great advantages in improving the communications system but, sadly, in this case, the effects of the improved communications have been felt in the heart of the country, not at the edges of the communications system. The advantages have flown towards centres of commerce in the west and south-east of England. With the coming of the bridge, many firms that had previously served only Wales found that they could base their headquarters in England and so both serve the west of England and continue to serve Wales, albeit from the other side.
      There have been gains and losses. The true story of the Severn bridge is not that it was inadequate in the short term but that it was shaken into early senility by lorries. The number of lorries using it increased far more rapidly than expected. The original cost of the bridge was not £62 million, as suggested, but about £14 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "£11."] It was £11 million for the Severn bridge and £14 million for the two bridges—the Wye and the Severn—and work in the surrounding areas. The costs increased because of the state of the bridge and because no controls were placed on the lorries crossing the bridge, many of them overloaded, which caused the problems with which we are still dealing today. Even today, only three of the lanes are open.
      The Gwent police have long had a sense of grievance against the Government. For many years, supported by the police committee, the local people and the chief constable, they have demanded an increase in their numbers. All six hon. Members representing Gwent constituencies have presented their case, asking for the full complement of police in Gwent. Each year, the complement has been denied by the Government.
      There can be no question but that the Bill will place an increased burden on the Gwent police. We are told that the Government will be "taking the matter into account." We are all familiar with that phrase. We have heard it many times from Governments making settlements to local

      281
      authorities, and it often means that the decision is invisible in the final total amount allocated to an authority—in this case Gwent—and that there is no increase in that total.
      Like all my hon. Friends, I strongly support the amendment. The new bridge and the increased policing that will be required will be an increased burden on the poll tax payers of Gwent and will mean that Gwent police will have less time to deal with their other important functions of keeping up their splendid record and splendid crime clear-up rate.
      Mr. Murphy: With one exception, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said. The exception is in relation to Mr. Harri Webb, whose poetry is better than his politics. Some years ago, he tried to become the Member for Parliament for my constituency and, happily, failed.
      The Minister has not reassured us because we are talking about an extra £750,000—£0·75 million—over and above the present cost of policing the county of Gwent. The second Severn bridge is a novel venture which will involve a lot of extra cost. As my hon. Friend has said, we do not want that extra money to come out of the Gwent police authority's budget for ordinary policing costs. I hope that the reassurances that we will be given in the weeks and months to come will be much firmer than those given by the Minister of State this evening.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I do not think that I can take matters much further except to agree with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about Harri Webb's poetic errors. This time round, the toll plaza will be on the Welsh side.
      I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Gwent police and its duties in respect of the new bridge, but I remind him that it is expected that the Avon police force will continue to maintain the motorway leading up to the existing bridge and, on the Department's behalf, will maintain the new approach roads on the Avon side.
      Mr. Murphy: The Avon and Somerset constabulary will be policing a smaller bridge with an authority that is double the size of that in Gwent.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I can only repeat the assurance that was given in Committee.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 19

      TERMINATION OF CONCESSION AGREEMENT
      Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 12, line 16, at end insert—
      `(1A) If the concession agreement is rendered unworkable as a result of any change in legislation, and the concession agreement is thereby terminated, no compensation shall be payable by the Secretary of State to the concessionaire.'.
      The amendment seeks to remove the obligation on the Government of the day to hold an unlimited liability to underwrite the private company that is proposing to build the second Severn crossing. I shall not repeat the arguments about the inadequacies of the current Severn crossing or the importance of having a second crossing that can provide communication links across the Severn, but it is important to put on record the fact that the Government have made assumptions about transport
      282
      policy and especially about the amount of freight traffic that will be carried on roads in the future. Furthermore, they have built those assumptions into the concessionary agreement that they are proposing to make with the private company. That agreement sets tolls for the crossing over a specified period so that the company can meet its obligations to its financiers and, presumably, make a profit. Those assumptions, and the ability of the company to recoup the money that it had invested, could be adversely affected by an incoming Government—I hope a Labour Government—with an environmentally friendly transport policy seeking to shift road traffic on to the railways.
      11 pm
      In notes provided in Committee on the concessionary agreement, hon. Members were informed that the agreement could become invalid, with the possibility, first, of compensation being paid to the private company and, secondly, of the Government of the day becoming liable to accept all the debts and running costs of the company under certain circumstances. That might happen if the Bill was amended, if an undertaking was given to a third party during the measure's passage through Parliament or if a change occurred in United Kingdom or EC legislation which had a substantial effect on the second Severn crossing company, such as the introduction of legislation which shifted freight transport from road to rail.
      Reference was also made to a possible change in the tax regime which had a material effect on the second crossing. For example, a future Government, of whichever party, might deem it necessary to introduce a new tax regime designed to discourage excessive road traffic. That change might have an effect on the ability of the company to raise the necessary tolls to cover its costs.
      At our first Committee sitting, I asked the Minister whether a change in tax regime on an environmental basis to encourage traffic from road to rail would represent a breach of the concessionary agreement and leave the Government of the day open to a claim for compensation by the company. I also asked whether the introduction of legislation which had the effect of shifting freight from road to rail would represent such a breach.
      Those are important issues. All political parties pledge themselves to improving, and accept that excessive road traffic is detrimental to, the environment. It seems crazy, therefore, that the Government should give undertakings to a private company which would protect that company from legislation that might be introduced by a future Government to protect the environment.
      In Committee, the Minister circulated to Members his response to a number of questions that had been asked. If, whatever the cause, less traffic used the second crossing, the company's initial response would, no doubt, be to apply for an increase in tolls. If the Government of the day refused to allow that increase, the question would arise, according to the Minister, whether the concession was still viable and whether, within the permitted time, the company could recoup its investments and liabilities. If the company deemed that it could not do so, the concessionary agreement would be terminated immediately unless the Government of the day decided to meet the additional costs of the second Severn river crossing. If they failed to meet those additional costs, the entire liability of the second Severn river crossing—the debt, running costs,

      283
      management and everything for which the company was liable as a direct result of sponsoring the crossing—would automatically become the Government's liability.
      I disagree with that principle. It is not for the Government to commit this nation, particularly south Wales and the Avon and Wiltshire area, to suffer heavy road transport in perpetuity by locking us into an agreement which it is too expensive, or the concessions do not allow us, to get out of. If the Government believed in their ideology of a free market, they would say to the company, "This is the basis on which, as a private company on the open market, you take on a second Severn river crossing. If you fail to meet your costs and make your profits, that is your hardship as a private company." It is wrong for the Government totally to underwrtie those costs. It is also unacceptable that the Government should seek to undermine possible future legislation to protect the environment.
      The amendment would make it crystal clear that no compensation would be payable by the Secretary of State to the second Severn river crossing company should such circumstances arise as a result of a change in legislation instituted by this House or the EC.
      Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) has said in her important contribution.
      It is fair to say that we are already in that possible new environment. In one of those U-turns that the Government have been making since the former Prime Minister left office and Ministers have felt freer to introduce new initiatives, the Secretary of State for Transport said that he now believes in revitalising and regenerating the railways and pushing more freight from the roads to the railways.
      Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more enlightening if the Minister would tell us exactly where the rail freight depot is to go in south Wales? That would make the issue much clearer.
      Mr. Morgan: Yes. Since we raised that point earlier, and as a result of the previous amendment on policing, the Avon and Somerset CID and the Gwent CID are now searching Cardiff to discover the whereabouts of the new freight depot.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I understand that the new depot will be at Pengam, but the Department has already promised to write.
      Mr. Morgan: That is undoubtedly the best place for a road-rail interchange in south Wales, and I am grateful for the information.
      If the Secretary of State for Transport meant what he said in his speech to the 1990 Conservative party conference, and has now become a believer in the railways, and if that is now part of the Government's policy, is the would-be concessionaire, GTM-Laing, already looking to the Government to underwrite what might happen when the Secretary of State gets round to transforming his speech into policies? The concessionaires are already negotiating with the Department of Transport for a change in the terms of the concession on the ground that if the Government are thinking of shifting so much freight transport from the roads to rail—by subsidy, by regulation and by policy—they will need such a change.
      Mr. Snape: Is my hon. Friend aware that whatever the Secretary of State says is merely so much rhetoric? The Government's policy is quite the reverse. Traffic is being transferred within the next week from rail to road. The amendment merely seeks guidance from the Government on whether their rhetoric will ever be translated into action to move freight from the roads to rail.
      Mr. Morgan: I agree that the Government have led the country in that direction over the past 12 years. Now we are being told—not in the House of Commons, however —that the programme is to be put into reverse, and that there will be an attempt to revitalise the railway sector. If so, are the Government actively re-examining the terms of the concession; or have the concessionaires decided that the Secretary of State's major speech, reversing 12 years of Government policy, is just so much wind and they do not need to worry about it? In that case, what did the speech mean?
      If the concessionaires have raised these questions with the Minister, in what way might the concession be altered to cover the underwriting in respect of future changes once the bridge is built? Will there be a smaller second Severn crossing because of the Government's change of policy in favour of rail? Would the bridge still be viable then?
      The Secretary of State has not discussed these matters in the House, but I hope that the Minister of State will be frank with us and will tell us what the Government have in mind in the context of this Bill.
      Mr. Dover: It ill becomes the supporters of the amendment to say that this is one of the bases on which the agreement could be terminated. Why do not they look at the other three grounds on which it could be terminated? The concessionaires have negotiated, in lengthy discussions with the Government and the Department, exactly the terms for any termination of the contract; and it is irresponsible to table such an amendment at this late stage. A slight movement of freight from road to rail will only mean that the time over which the tolls will be collected will be slightly extended. That will be to the detriment of the people of Wales who travel by road. There is enough elasticity in the agreement already and it is stupid to expect to be able suddenly to renegotiate in the House the grounds on which the agreement could be terminated.
      There is a solid agreement. We should think ourselves fortunate that these companies have stuck out their necks to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds over decades and taken on a high degree of risk. Knowing as I do the integrity of the firms, I should be most surprised if they had come to the Department and accused it of changing the goalposts. We should chuck out the amendment forthwith.
      Mr. Livsey: I strongly support the amendment so eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo). Who are we to say what the demands on the road system will be in the next century? I forecast that the M4 will be jammed with traffic by the year 2000. Between Swindon and London it already is. This plan will filter more and more traffic on to the M4. The alternative, of an efficient and fast rail freight and rail passenger service, will become an absolute necessity for the country. The hon. Member for Bristol, South said that we must not give the concessionaires a blank cheque. Modes of transport will change and trains will become a great deal faster than vehicles using the M4 or the new Severn bridge.

      285
      Rail will become much more attractive for goods and passengers and will be far more environmentally friendly. We need the safeguards in the amendment and are right to be forward looking.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Snape: The amendment's aims are clear, contrary to what the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) said in his astonishing speech. If the Secretary of State's rhetoric means anything, the Government, who we hope will not be in office for much longer, intend to transfer freight from road to rail. In two interventions I have said that within the next week there will be a substantial transfer of freight the other way because of the closure of the Speedlink network.
      The amendment seeks to establish whether the concessionaires will have a financial claim on this or any successor Government and whether the Secretary of State's rhetoric will be translated into reality. We confidently expect to form the next Government and we shall take action on the environment and see that the under-utilised rail network is boosted by the transfer of freight from road to rail.
      The amendment asks a simple question: if the happy situation outlined by the Secretary of State comes to pass, will the concessionaires have any fiscal claim on this or any other Government? Will the agreement tie the hands of this or any future Government so that if we try more sensibly to use the rail facilities compensation will have to be paid to the concessionaires? I cannot understand the complaints of the hon. Member for Chorley. He is an expert in these matters and some of us remember his distinguished service on the Greater London council.
      We seek to ascertain whether the taxpayer will be liable to pay the concessionaires a not inconsiderable sum if the environmental transfer that all hon. Members appear to want is a reasonable proposition. We did not get much of an answer in Committee and I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government are serious about transferring freight. If they are, how much will it cost the taxpayer under the terms of the agreement?
      Mr. Freeman: The amendment can be seen as abrogating the concession agreement before construction starts. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) did not touch on that, but it was raised in Committee. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that a Labour Government would not cancel the bridge or seek to abrogate the concession agreement after Royal Assent of the Bill. He said that the compensation, which is currently about £20 million—the amount spent by the concessionaires on preparing designs and other studies—would be payable by the Government if they abrogated the agreement. He felt that that would make it undesirable to cancel the concession agreement.
      The hon. Lady asked what the liabilities of the Government would be if the bridge had been constructed, and a change in the legislative ground rules had a substantial effect on the viability of the bridge and the concession were terminated. In Committee, I spelt out clearly the conditions for exceptional increases in tolls, and one was a major change in legislation that had a substantial effect on the viability of the operation. I cannot speculate as to whether our proposed Bill to privatise
      286
      British Rail and allow free access to all rail tracks by private sector freight operators will have that effect. It depends on when the Bill is presented, and what the effects of it will be.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it plain that he understands that 90 per cent. of freight is carried by road and 10 per cent. by rail. Irrespective of the short-term implications of converting wagon load Speedlink traffic into train load, which makes good, sound commercial sense—a logic that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East understands and accepts—it will lose a modest proportion of previous wagon load traffic that should be collected by road and taken to a rail head for transhipment by train load long distances—which is where rail road has the competitive advantage.
      Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Freeman: I do not intend to delay the House long.
      Mr. Snape: Nor do I, but I do not wish the Minister to mislead the House. Road has the advantage because, to quote that well-used cliche, there is not a level playing field. The road haulage business does not pay its true costs, as the Minister knows. The Government insist that rail freight breaks even, taking one year with another, so there is a transfer of freight from rail to road. We still want an answer as to whether, under the terms of the concession, a sensible implementation of the policy that the Government supposedly advocate, as the Opposition do, would breach that agreement. If it does, how much will that cost the taxpayer?
      Mr. Freeman: I tried to answer that point. I said that as and when primary legislation is laid before the House to permit free access to the tracks of British Rail and other rail owners and operators, a judgment will have to be made. I shall not speculate as to whether that will be classified as a major change in the ground rules, permitting the concessionaire to ask for an increase in tolls. It is impossible to speculate because that will be a matter for the next Parliament.
      However, I can spell out the procedure. There would be an application to increase the tolls, which would come before the House on an affirmative order. If that were not passed by the House, the concession would terminate, and the Government would have to take over the assets—the bridge—and the liabilities. The hon. Lady may be concerned about that, and her amendment, which I advise the House to resist, implies that there is some doubt about the taking over of the liabilities. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is most anxious to bring the private sector into building the road and rail infrastructure, will not be able to tap those funds from the private sector if the amendment were passed.
      The amendment would cloud the ability of any Government to raise much-needed finance from the private sector. It is a risky business building such projects as the Severn bridge, the Dartford to Thurrock crossing or the Birmingham northern relief road. Construction and maintenance costs get out of hand, the traffic might not materialise. If the House were to change the legislative ground rules, it would only be right that, if the concession terminates, the Government should take over not only assets but the liabilities.
      Ms. Primarolo: I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 12 of the notes that he circulated in Committee. In addition to taking over the liabilities and the running of the bridge, which we understand because it is an extension of the M4 motorway and it would be difficult to cross the river Severn without the bridge, he said:
      "SRC would be contractually entitled to a certain degree of compensation for its adverse financial effects."
      I read that to mean over and above taking on the liabilities, and that is what I was specifically asking about.
      Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can enlighten the hon. Lady. There may be a lack of clarity in the note. It means that if there is a change in the legislative ground rules and the concessionaire's financial calculations go awry and he seeks some form of financial compensation, that would come principally from an increase in the tolls. That is how the concessionaire would seek to correct the situation. That is what is meant by compensation. If the House refused to agree to the increase in tolls and as a practical matter that meant that the concession therefore terminated, the Government would take over the bridge and the liabilities and continue to toll.
      Ms. Primarolo: In that case, the Minister is saying that the House would have no option but to accept the company's application for an increased toll if it applied to us on the basis that it needed an increased toll because changes in the Government's transport policy had adversely affected its ability to raise the finance necessary. If we refused that toll and a reduction of the concession was not feasible, we would be liable for compensation. That is what the Minister says in the note. Therefore, we have no choice but to agree to the toll increase if the company says that our legislation has adversely affected its ability to run the bridge viably.
      Mr. Freeman: If the House in its wisdom rejected the affirmative order and the concession terminated, the Government would take over the bridge, its assets and liabilities, and presumably manage and toll it until the liabilities had been discharged. That does not represent damages paid out in cash to the concessionaire, if that is what the hon. Lady thinks. It is the Government taking over the bridge, standing in the shoes of the concessionaire and then managing its completion.
      Mr. Morgan: The Minister made blood-curdling threats about possible effects on the policies of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his hopes as part of Labour's transport policy to have joint ventures with the private sector. But he did not answer my question about what the speech made by the Secretary of State for Transport means with regard to this concession. Is it that the concessionaires do not believe a word that the Secretary of State for Transport said when he announced this great reversal of years of policy favouring road over rail to a policy favouring rail over road, or do they think that it does mean something, in which case it has a bearing on the way in which they see their concession and the legislative environment which now must be in prospect if the Secretary of State's speech means anything? That is a public announcement by the Minister's Government, not by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. What does it mean for this concession?
      Mr. Freeman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has had a chance to read my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. He talked in part about future legislation and I shall not speculate on whether that would represent a substantial change in the ground rules. I hope that with those reasoned explanations the House will resist the amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Freeman.]
      11.29 pm
      Mr. Murphy: The Opposition welcome the crossing, because of the problems of the present bridge and because of its vital significance to Wales's economy in particular; it is, after all, our economic lifeline. None the less, I think that the Minister should take note of what has been said this evening, because of the importance of the bridge in the context of a much wider transport policy. What happens to railways, to motorways, to roads generally and to the Severn bridge is interlinked, and is a significant aspect of both the Welsh economy and the Welsh people's quality of life.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) pointed out, this is a novel adventure—a unique combination of private and public sector money. That is why, in Committee, we considered various vital safeguards. We examined the question of tolls, the debt problem, public inquiries and local consultation; we considered the future of the staff who are involved with the existing Severn bridge, and the environmental impact on both the English and the Welsh sides.
      The Bill will now go to the other place, where it will be considered—as it was in the House of Commons—by a special Select Committee. We hope that the Committee will look again at those safeguards, and will consider some of the doubts that we have expressed with a view to improving the Welsh economy and quality of life.
      We believe that this move is right for the Welsh economy; but we also believe that any mistakes now could cost millions in the future.
      11.31 pm
      Mr. Michael Stern: Like the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), I believe that the Bill is generally welcomed. As he recognised, however, it will affect both sides of the Bristol channel, and, in particular, traffic patterns in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope).
      In Committee, the Government gave a number of undertakings that were very welcome to my constituents. Especially welcome was the commitment that the Department of Transport would give all possible assistance to the eventual construction of the much-needed all-directions interchange at Hallen. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out a minor error that I made in Committee. I said, on the basis of information that I had received, that the proposed interchange would be entirely within my constituency; in fact, it also affects that of my right hon. Friend.
      My constituents still fear that, even following the construction of the desired interchange, there will be a considerable increase in traffic affecting the western end of my constituency. I hope that my right hon. and learned

      289
      Friend the Secretary of State will extend the undertaking that he has already given, and that the Department will not only facilitate the construction of the interchange but—perhaps more important—consider alternate traffic patterns to avert what will otherwise be a great increase in traffic in Avonmouth and its surroundings owing to the industrial development that will inevitably result from the Bill.
      11.33 pm
      Mr. Livsey: My party strongly supports the building of the second Severn crossing. However, some of what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has said about traffic congestion should be noted. We need an integrated transport system, involving both roads and rail. The crossing should form part of the building bricks of a truly integrated system, bringing rail much more to the fore.
      I hope that in the future, when we see the growth in road traffic in particular, and the effect that it will have on our environment, we shall have much more enlightened policies, which will encourage investment in rail as well as roads. Cost-benefit analysis should be applied to rail investment, just as it is to road investment.
      11.34 pm
      Sir John Cope: I also welcome the construction of the second Severn bridge. However, I hope that the House will realise that many of my constituents who live in the area will suffer a great deal as a result of the building of the bridge because of the approach roads which go through, particularly, the parish of Pilning and Severn Beach.
      I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister and the Department for the help that they have given in trying to alleviate the inevitably difficult consequences of the building of the approach roads and the bridge. I hope that, as the Minister said in Committee, they will continue to be as helpful as possible in alleviating the conditions that are brought about by the bridge.
      In Committee, which the Social and Liberal Democrats did not attend, some Labour Members were dubious about the idea of tolls and some said that they were against them. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have never said that they would do away with tolls or reduce them substantially. On the contrary, as with the previous
      290
      Labour Government, they seem to support the continuation of tolls. Some Back-Bench Members who have advocated doing away with tolls should not be allowed to get away with it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

      BUILDING SOCIETIES
      That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Continuance of section 41) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]
      Question agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on the motions on agriculture to approve the statutory instruments.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

      AGRICULTURE
      That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1339), dated 6th June 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
      That the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1338), dated 6th June 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
      That the draft Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
      That the draft Farm Woodland (Variation) Scheme 1991, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved —[Mr. Patnick.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      RATES OF DUTY ON MINERAL OILS
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4822/91, relating to rates of excise duty on mineral oils.—[Mr. Patnick.]
      Question agreed to.

Land Trespass (Avon)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
11.36 pm
Mr. Jack Aspinwall: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate, and I know that I am supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) who could not be here. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) in his place, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on the award of a well-deserved OBE.
I have had a great deal of help and support in preparing for the debate from the National Farmers Union, Kingswood borough council and Wansdyke district council. I am pleased that I have an opportunity to bring before the House examples of the distress, heartache, fear and intimidation that have been present in the Avon county area, particularly in my constituency of Wansdyke. Those problems have intensified during the past few weeks. In the area overall there have been nearly 3,000 hippies. I use that word for want of a better one, since my constituents have variously described them in more colourful language.
Last Saturday I went to see the aftermath of a hippie visitation in the beautiful village of Carlingcott, near Peasedown St. John. After travelling through the picturesque countryside to get to the village, I passed many farms and premises literally under siege. Entrances to land had been blocked with rubbish skips and farm equipment and there were earth and stone embankments across farm gates, all imposing a scar on the countryside.
Such action is generated by fear of entry of the hippies and the resulting filth and depredation left behind after their departure. The fields at Carlingcott were churned up and there were burnt-out cars, mounds of rubbish and the remains of human and animal excreta from over 2,000 people and many animals. The farmer who rented the land has lost his grass keep and the work required on the site to reinstate it is expensive. This is just one incident in many.
Wansdyke district council has partly cleaned up the roads around the village and the people of Carlingcott and a wide surrounding area have breathed a sigh of relief, having suffered a great deal of noise, intimidation and intrusion into their normally peaceful lives.
Another site in my constituency, at Charmy Down near Bath, was invaded by hippies. A similar process took place, commencing on Wednesday 29 May. The Charmy Down incident was perhaps more serious, in that human and animal pollution affected a water catchment area which partly supplied Bath, and Wessex Water was reported as having diverted the flow of springs from a reservoir in order to prevent contamination. In both areas, there were reports of theft, intimidation, damage and loud noise, which all added to the inconvenience to, and total misery of, my constituents, making normal life impossible.
I come to the core of the problem—how the law operates to deal with hippies who, unauthorised, occupy sites and exploit the law to the last minute, causing huge expense not only to private landowners and farmers but to taxpayers and community charge payers. The cost is hundreds of thousands of pounds and the effectiveness of
292
the police to deal with crime is considerably weakened, because of the extra commitments imposed on them by the hippies.
There appear to be two ways of removing people from sites where an intrusion has taken place. The first is for the landowner to apply to a court for an order of possession. The second is for the police to deal with the problem under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986.
The process to take effective, immediate action to remove hippies is a legal minefield. The hippies have an extremely good intelligence service, and the site at Carlingcott, near Peasedown St. John, is a good example. Carlingcott was originally occupied by a small number of hippies who sounded out the local scene and then there was an influx of others on to the land. It was certainly known that this legally knowledgable group, who used citizen band radios and mobile telephones and mobile fax machines, carried out a well-planned operation. In the end, it became extremely difficult to enforce the law.
Land may be identified which is the subject of a legal dispute or a complexity of byelaws and regulations. Before legal action can be initiated, extensive research may be required into byelaws, local acts and ancient charters. That all has a delaying effect on the legal process. The landowner may go to considerable expense, only to find that on the appointed day, when the bailiffs go in to evict, the hippies simply move to another site and cause similar problems somewhere else. It is impossible to get, from a group of people who live on the edge of, or above, the law, recompense for physical damage or financial loss incurred.
Section 39 of the Public Order Act gives the police the power to deal with trespassers. It must be remembered, though, that the Act does not place the police under a duty to act; it only gives them a power to direct trespassers to leave land and arrest them if they fail to do so without reasonable excuse as soon as it is reasonably practicable.
The effect is that up to 3,000 people can congregate on a site, and the police need hundreds of officers and equipment to deal with the problem. If large numbers of hippies decide that they will not move, it is an impossible situation. If, for example, 1,000 men were arrested, hundreds of women and many children would be left on the site. A duty of care would be placed on the local authorities to deal with the attendant problem of the women, children and animals.
If the men decided to plead not guilty before a court, it is likely that under the Bail Act 1976 they would be bailed and merely sent back to the site, and the trouble would continue. That cannot be allowed to continue, and there has to be a change in the law even to allow a court or a judge to visit a site and to deal swiftly with the law-breakers before large numbers of people can gather. The special procedures also take valuable time and need speeding up.
I welcome the review of section 39. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) asked the Home Secretary in a parliamentary question whether he had completed his evaluation of section 39. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement on 22 May 1991, but the problem remains and the Act fails to deal with it at its roots. All that has happened is that the powers have been defined in writing and a leaflet has been published which outlines the civil remedies open to landowners. However, that does nothing to alter the position.

293
I now deal with what has become a major problem in the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled county of Avon—the failure of the county council to take positive steps to remove hippies, travellers, gipsies or whatever one calls the various groups of itinerants. The county has a duty of care to all the people who live in it. Many long-suffering residents and community charge payers are subject to a massive intrusion into their lives because the county council refuses to take action as a landowner to remove the itinerants from its land. I agree that the county council has not provided the necessary number of sites under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, but there is no reason why people should be subject to difficulties because of the county council's failure to act.
The hippies have different needs from those of the gipsies and tinkers whose requirements under the Caravan Sites Act are small supervised units. It cannot be beyond the bounds of possibility for the Home Office and the Departments of the Environment and Social Security to get together to consider ways and means of providing transit sites for people who could be termed hippies or travellers, who move around for part of the year and who cause tremendous problems. It should be possible to find sites away from human habitation, where proper sanitary facilities can be provided and where there will be no inconvenience to local people.
It is right that sites should be provided for the group of people known as gipsies, but it is unrealistic to believe that the occupiers of those sites can forcibly be integrated into communities of people who also have rights and who wish merely to enjoy their homes and their lives peaceably.
The duties imposed on the police and the costs involved place the police in an impossible position. I congratulate the Avon and Somerset constabulary on the way in which it has dealt with many difficult situations, taking great care to avoid confrontation which would not be to the benefit of the public but, at the same time, using whatever powers are available to it to alleviate a series of difficult incidents.
The basic problem is that of large numbers of people gathering in an uncontrolled way. There are people who live on the edge of the law and who intimidate others. The problem must be solved because innocent people should not have to bear legal costs or the costs of damage to their land and property which, in many cases, is long standing. Sanctions should be imposed, perhaps on social security benefits: no readiness for work and no co-operation mean no girocheque. There should be sanctions to prevent a large number of vehicles gathering, which would eventually become uncontrollable. Sites should be provided for pop festivals in remote parts of the country to enable young people to enjoy themselves in proper conditions with adequate facilities.
There should be a speeding up of the legal process to stop the huge waste of the resources of the police, local councils and private landowners that is created by the activities of hippies. Much can be achieved if only the difficulties that have been experienced by my constituents and other law-abiding citizens are recognised and urgent action is taken. Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 is not effective and consequently will not solve the extreme social problem that I have outlined.
Consideration should be given to imposing a duty on the police to act. Designation is not the answer. If such a
294
duty is imposed, powers should be given to local authorities to deal with the matters that arise, such as the towing away of vehicles and caravans, the welfare of women, children and animals and the storage and disposal of chattels. People should not have an imposition placed upon them that seriously damages their quality of life.
Sir John Cope: I support my hon. Friend in all that he is saying, including his strictures on the failure of Avon county council. I am sure that he is aware that section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 is especially difficult to interpret when common land is involved. There have been the most appalling invasions of Sodbury common in recent years, and it is difficult to express the consequences for the local inhabitants. We know that the law is broken, and the problem is how to enforce it. We need a task force comprised of the police and local authority employees that is capable of dealing with the invasions and tackling the many belligerent people who gather on the occasions that my hon. Friend has described.
Mr. Aspinwall: My right hon. Friend has outlined the serious problems in his constituency. It is unfortunate that the action that ensues is apparently slow and ponderous. Although the police have powers under section 39, those powers are used unevenly. The decision whether to act is a matter of discretion for the chief constable whose force is involved. The present state of affairs cannot continue. I know that my right hon. Friend's constituents have suffered deeply as a result of the influx of large numbers of people, many of whom are intent on causing a great deal of inconvenience and trouble.
11.52 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I take it that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) has the leave of the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) and that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to participate in the debate.
Mr. Hayward: I wish to intervene only briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) has taken the opportunity to raise matters of concern for hon. Members who represent Avon constituencies. I thank him for his comments about me.
On the border of our constituencies, as my hon. Friend well knows, is an area that is known as Firework farm. The property is owned by Avon county council, and it flatly refuses to take action to evict the people who are currently on the site. That highlights the problems that are faced by our constituents—law-abiding citizens who wish to go about their day-to-day lives unhindered by others. At present, they have virtually to nail down all their possessions. They cannot leave their houses unattended for fear that their property will be removed from washing lines, along with their front doors and the contents of their garages. It is important that the county council is encouraged to take action as and where appropriate in support of the ordinary law-abiding citizen.
I echo my hon. Friend's comments about the police, who face an appallingly difficult task. I recently witnessed the problems that they face at Firework farm. I arrived in

295
the middle of a police operation in which officers were trying to arrest individuals who were believed to have stolen property from local residents. The police do a good job in the circumstances, but the law and the actions of others are not always as supportive as they might be.
11.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) on his success in raising a sensitive issue. Trespass always gives rise to strong feelings, and I know that during the weeks of the summer solstice, especially, there are many areas, including my hon. Friend's constituency, that experience an influx of travellers and hippies. That can be distressing and troublesome to local residents. My hon. Friend described the situation graphically, and he had powerful support from my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward).
Section 39, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke referred, was conceived during the passage of the Public Order Bill in response to the mass invasions of land in and around Stonehenge in the summer of 1986. Although the matter at issue is the use of section 39, it must be seen in context. It is one of a number of remedies that are available to landowners for dealing with trespass on land by those who intend to stay there. The majority of cases of trespass are resolved, as they should be, either informally or in the civil courts. Trespass on land is a civil tort rather than a criminal offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke referred to the Caravan Sites Act 1968, which has an important role to play. It places a duty on local authorities to provide official sites for gipsies, hippies or people of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin, in their area. Once a local authority has become designated under the Act, it has a quick-acting criminal law power through the magistrates courts to move gipsies, hippies or other travelling folk from an unauthorised site, whether it be owned privately or by the local authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke suggested that short-stay sites for hippies should be provided. That is a constructive idea, but such provision should be made not by the Home Office or the Department of the Environment but by local authorities, which must also provide gipsy sites in their area.
Section 39 gives the police the discretionary power to direct trespassers to leave land only where trespassers have entered the land as trespassers and have the common purpose of residing there, where the occupier, or someone on his behalf, has asked them to leave, where any of the trespassers has been threatening or abusive to the occupier, where they have caused damage or where they have brought 12 or more vehicles on to the land. The section does not make trespass a criminal offence, but it is an offence for a trespasser not to leave the land after a direction has been given or, having left, to return as a trespasser within three months.
Section 39 is not a substitute for normal civil procedures, nor should local authorities see it as a means of evading their statutory duty to provide official sites. It provides a limited criminal sanction to deal with aggravated trespass.
296
In October 1989, the then Home Secretary announced a public evaluation of section 39 to see how its relatively new powers were working. The Home Office received 30 representations from a range of gipsy or traveller groups, local authorities and their associations and representatives of landowners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke said, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced his conclusions on 22 May this year. He concluded that more needed to be done to secure better understanding by all interested parties of the way in which the law should operate but that no change in the law was necessary.
At the same time as my right hon. Friend made his announcement, Home Office guidance was issued to the police on the application of section 39 and a leaflet was published in plain English setting out for landowners the main provisions of the law on trespass of land. A copy was placed in the Library. Additionally, it was announced that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would continue to maintain the pressure on local authorities to meet their statutory duty to provide adequate numbers of sites for gipsies and travellers. The provision of sites is a vital factor in reducing the problem of trespass and in enabling the police to take the quick action that my hon. Friend is seeking.
Section 39 was intended to strike a careful balance between providing a quick and effective means of returning land to the occupier where there is aggravated trespass and not allowing the harassment of well-behaved gipsies for whom no official site provision has been made. Our review showed that there were no major gaps or weaknesses in the legislation, but that some confusion had arisen over the circumstances in which section 39 could and could not be used. The measures taken following our review of section 39, to which I have referred, should do much to remove that confusion and will, I believe, help landowners to find the most suitable remedy available to them in their particular circumstances.
The guidance to the police aims to provide a clear understanding of the matters that the police can be expected to take into account in deciding whether to give a direction to trespassers to leave land. The criteria include the consequences of giving a direction to leave to which my hon. Friend referred. For example, there might be further trespass nearby because of the lack of official sites. There is no virtue in shifting a problem from one back yard into a neighbouring back yard. They also include the consequences of not giving a direction to leave—for example, further damage or threatening behaviour or the disorder that might occur. The public order consequences of their actions are rightly to be taken into account by the police. Also to be considered are the personal circumstances of the trespassers. For example, there might be those whose well-being could be affected by an immediate move. There have been complaints about pregnant women or sick people being peremptorily removed, although that is not, I think, a factor in the sort of cases to which my hon. Friend referred. The criteria are not exhaustive and there will be local circumstances to be taken into account.
I must emphasise that, despite the issue of guidance, the decision whether to issue a direction to leave the land remains an operational one for the police. Despite what my hon. Friend has said, I do not believe that the decision how and where to use the powers that the law rightly gives

297
them can be taken out of their hands. The senior officer at the scene will take his decision in the light of all the circumstances in each particular case.
I come now to the application of section 39 in the Avon area, I know that the area has a seasonal influx of large groups of travellers who arrive to attend pop festivals and to celebrate, in their own way, the summer solstice. I understand from the chief constable of Avon and Somerset that section 39 has been used on a number of occasions and has worked well. I am told that in recent months it has been used successfully to deal with occupations of travellers at Doynton, Mangotsfield and Radstock. Once the police had issued a direction to leave, the travellers moved on without any undue delay.
My hon. Friend implied that section 39 lacks teeth because it cannot be applied where there is no authorised occupier. However, the main purpose of the section is to give back to the occupier the use of land on which trespassers are residing. If there is a nuisance from noise or pollution, as in some of the cases to which my hon. Friend referred, it can be dealt with by the local authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If there is criminality—and I am talking not about simple trespass but about damage and about the kind of activities that my hon. Friend had in mind—the criminal law will, of course, bite.
In the case of unoccupied common land, mentioned in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, I understand that action can be taken under the Commons Registration Act 1965 and that local authorities designated under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 can use the powers that they obtain under that Act to move gipsies, travellers and trespassers from such land. But the designation must be in place before they can do so. I believe that none of the local authorities in the Avon and Somerset police force area is designated under the 1968 Act and they may wish to reconsider—I put it no higher
298
than that—the advantages of designation. Having heard what my hon. Friends have said, I believe that it is something to which close attention should be paid.
I do not pretend that section 39, even when seen as one of the range of remedies provided by the law to deal with the problems of trespass, will always work to the satisfaction of all parties. I can, however, say with some assurance that, since its introduction in 1986, section 39 has often proved an effective and useful addition to the legal remedies available. I am confident that the recent actions taken by the Home Office following our review of section 39 will be found helpful.
In conclusion, I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that several different and sometimes conflicting considerations have to be brought together when approaching the problems of trespass on land. Of course, gipsies, travelling folk and hippies, separately and collectively, have a responsibility to avoid creating a nuisance. Local authorities, crucially, have a duty to provide sites under the Caravan Sites Act. Landowners have their rights under the civil law. The police have a duty to exercise reasonably the discretion given them in the circumstances set out in section 39.
The Government, I believe, have set a framework of civil and criminal law within which most continuing disputes arising from trespass can be resolved and which strikes a reasonable balance between the interests concerned. I am afraid that not all the mercifully short-term problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke referred can effectively be dealt with in those terms—although the criminal acts that he described certainly can be as not all anti-social behaviour can be amenable to the law. However, I have no doubt that where there is damage and abuse, such as he has described, the courts can provide a remedy if the perpetrators can be properly identified.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Twelve o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Piracy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and by location, the number of incidents of piracy at sea involving United Kingdom merchant seafarers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Shipowners, flag states and coastal states are encouraged to report incidents of piracy to the International Maritime Organisation. When we are advised of incidents involving British ships we report them to the International Maritime Organisation. However, it is not mandatory to report incidents of piracy so records may be incomplete. Nor is it possible to identify from the reports that are made if British seafarers serving on foreign flag vessels were victims of piracy. The reports made to the International Maritime Organisation indicate that since 1984 there were 11 incidents of piracy involving British ships:

  Year

  Number

  Location

  1984

  2

  Singapore (2)

  1985

  1

  Singapore

  1987

  6

  Singapore (4)

  Indonesia

  India

  1988

  1

  Brazil

  1989

  1

  Sri Lanka

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and by location, the number of United Kingdom merchant seafarers who have been(a) killed, (b) injured and (c) reported missing after attacks of piracy on the high seas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No British seafarer serving on a British ship has been reported killed or missing as the result of an act of piracy in recent years. Information regarding injuries or about British seafarers serving on foreign flag vessels is not available.

  International Maritime Bureau
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last had discussions with officials of the International Maritime Bureau; what was discussed; when he next expects to have discussions with officials from the International Maritime Bureau; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have not met the International Maritime Bureau and have no plans to do so.

  British Rail (Inflammable Goods)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss measures to ensure that the inquiry into the derailment of a freight train carrying inflammable goods at Bradford on Tone on 16 May proceeds with expedition and the steps which will be taken to ensure that hon. Members are notified of any preliminary conclusion from this inquiry as soon as possible.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Rail is carrying out an internal inquiry into this derailment. It will send a full report to the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate, which is also holding a technical investigation into the accident. BR reports, and those of investigations under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, are not normally published, but I have asked the chief inspecting officer to let me know the conclusions of the investigations. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Northolt Airport
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans for the use of Northolt airport by civil aircraft.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  RAF Northolt is used by both military and civil aircraft. There are no plans to alter this arrangement.

  Passenger Safety
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends taking following the Clapham rail crash to ensure that the safety lessons learnt in one section of the transport world are passed on to other travel modes.

  Mr. Freeman
  We shall continue to ensure that accidents are thoroughly investigated and that any wider lessons are identified and applied across the modes.

  Flight Delays, London-Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on any delays caused by Madrid air controllers to flights between London and Gibraltar that can be attributed to non-operational reasons.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am not aware of any such delays.

  Ferries (Safety)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research there is available to his Department into passenger safety on ferries; and which of these receive funds from Government.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The Secretary of State sponsored a comprehensive research programme in 1988 aimed at enhancing the survivability standards of roll on/roll off passenger ferries. The initial phase of that programme was completed last year. Copies of the reports were sent to interested parties and a report giving an overview of the whole programme was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Government-funded research has also been undertaken in recent years to study the effect of damage to roll on/roll

  85
  off passenger ferries in shallow waters, to investigate the evacuation of passengers from roll on/roll off passenger ships and to produce a risk analysis.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give(a) the total number of ferries using British ports, (b) those over 10 years old and (c) those over 25 years old for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: Figures for 1990–91 for roll on/roll off passenger ferries using United Kingdom ports are set out below. Figures for earlier years are not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  1990

  1991

  Over 10 years old

  185

  189

  Over 25 years old

  8

  9

  Total

  113

  110

  1 Figure includes vessels over 25 years old.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reported shipping accidents there were(a) in British waters and (b) involving British ships; and if he will give the number and percentage of those involving ferries for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The statistics maintained do not distinguish between shipping accidents in United Kingdom and non-United Kingdom territorial waters.

  (b) The number of reported accidents worldwide involving United Kingdom registered merchant vessels over 100 gross tonnes for the period 1981 to 1990 is:

  Year

  Number of United Kingdom vessel accidents

  1981

  430

  1982

  413

  1983

  284

  1984

  269

  1985

  237

  1986

  188

  1987

  152

  1988

  190

  1989

  210

  1990

  183

  The number of reported accidents involving United Kingdom registered passenger and/or cargo ro-ro ferries worldwide for 1989 and 1990 (the only years for which figures are readily obtainable) is:

  1989

  1990

  Number of ro-ro ferry accidents

  42

  44

  Number of United Kingdom vessel accidents

  210

  183

  Percentage of United Kingdom vessel accidents

  20·00

  24·04

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the Government risk analysis figures for United Kingdom ferry travel for(a) collisions involving a ferry, (b) a collision induced capsize, (c) flooding and (d) ferry fires for each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of accidents on United Kingdom
  86
  passenger ferries recorded in a recent risk analysis study for the period 1 January 1978 to 30 April 1988 was as follows:

  (a) four collisions; 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1987

  (b) one collision leading to capsize; 1982

  (c) one flooding; 1987, and

  (d) seven serious fires; 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983 (two) and 1988 (two).

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The following topics are expected to be the subject of television campaigns in the current financial year:

  Child road safety

  Drinking and driving

  The following other topics are expected to be the subject of campaigns costing over £100,000 in the current financial year:

  Transport and the environment

  Coastguard advice for users of coastal waters

  Road Traffic Act

  "Safety on the Move" exhibition programme.

ENERGY

  British Coal
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the British Coal complaint to the European Commission on the dumping of coal in the Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is for the European Commission to consider British Coal's complaint and take action if necessary. The Commission has not, at this stage, reached a decision on whether to launch a formal investigation.

  Coopers and Lybrand
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library details of the advice he received from Coopers and Lybrand between July 1989 and April 1990 on salaries appropriate for the privatised electricity industry.

  Mr. Wakeham
  No. Advice given to the Secretary of State is confidential.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Race Relations (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will extend legal aid to discrimination cases involving race relations; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Legal advice and assistance from a solicitor is available under the green form scheme,
  87
  subject to the normal financial conditions, where there is no reasonable expectation of an applicant obtaining help from an alternative source such as a trade union or the Commission for Racial Equality.

  In addition, where civil remedies are sought under the Race Relations Act 1976, legal aid is available for legal representation in county court proceedings, under the normal conditions.

  Maguire Judgment
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will arrange for a copy of the Maguire judgment to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The Attorney-General
  The approved transcript of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Maguire case is not yet available. I will cause copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament as soon as it is received.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Capital Flows
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide the latest available information on inward and outward capital flows between the United Kingdom and other EC member states and the United Kingdom and north America for each year from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Maples
  Information by country on direct investment abroad by United Kingdom companies and by overseas companies in the United Kingdom is given in tables 5 and 9 of CSO Bulletin 33/91 "Overseas Direct Investment 1989". Figures for earlier years are given in the "Business Monitor MA4 (Overseas Transactions)". Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Some additional information on capital transactions with countries and institutions of the European Community is given in the published annual Pink Books on the United Kingdom balance of payments and is available from the CSO databank, both of which are available in the Library.

  Advertising Agencies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which advertising agencies were on the Central Office of Information approved list in 1986; which have been added in each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement on how the system works.

  Mr. Maples
  The Central Office of Information does not keep a list of approved advertising agencies. Advertising agencies are appointed to work for Government following competitions between agencies nominated by the Advisory Committee on Advertising. The advisory committee is an independent group of media and marketing professionals appointed to advise on the nomination of suitable advertising agencies for Government work.

  Woolwich Tax Model
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which day or days, in any hearing, counsel for the Inland Revenue challenged the Woolwich tax model of the effects of regulations 3 and 11 (1985).

  Mr. Maples
  The Inland Revenue's response, challenging the conclusions of the Woolwich building society based on its hypothetical tax model, was set out in affidavits which were in evidence in all the courts up to the House of Lords.

THE ARTS

  Provincial Amateur Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will list the provincial amateur orchestras encouraged by his Department.

  Mr. Renton
  Last year no fewer than 132 amateur orchestras, as listed, received support from the English regional arts associations and the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils.

  Support for amateur orchestras by the regional arts associations and the Scottish and Welsh Arts Councils is usually through the payment of the fees of professionals working with the orchestras. Some organisations pay support directly to the orchestras; others channel the support through independently constituted bodies like the Welsh Amateur Music Federation.

  I have listed the orchestras supported in this way by the original funding agency.

  Scottish Arts Council

  Dundee Orchestral Society

  Edinburgh Symphony Orchestra

  Glasgow Chamber Orchestra

  Glasgow Orchestral Society

  Helensburgh Orchestral Society

  Kirkaldy Orchestral Society

  Meadows Chamber Orchestra, Edinburgh

  Perth Orchestral Society

  St. James Orchestra, Paisley

  Welsh Arts Council

  Abergavenny Orchestra

  City of Cardiff Symphony Orchestra

  Philomusica of Aberystwyth

  St. Mary's Orchestra, Monmouth

  University College (Cardiff) Choir and Orchestra

  University College of North Wales (Bangor) Orchestra

  Eastern Arts

  Bedfordshire Orchestral Society

  Bushey Symphony Orchestra

  Cambridge Philharmonic

  Cambridge University Music Society

  Essex Symphony Orchestra

  Hatfield Philharmonic Orchestra

  Haverhill Sinfonia

  Hertford Symphony Orchestra

  Hitchin Concert Orchestra

  Huntingdonshire Philharmonic

  Ipswich Orchestra Society

  Luton Symphony Orchestra

  Norwich Philharmonic

  Peterborough Philharmonic

  Southend Symphony Orchestra

  Watford Philharmonic Society

  Welwyn Garden City Music Society

  Wolsey Chamber Orchestra, Ipswich

  89
  East Midlands Arts

  Chesterfield Symphony Orchestra

  Northampton Symphony Orchestra

  Nottingham Symphony Orchestra

  Rutland Sinfonia

  Greater London Arts

  Chelsea Opera Group

  Collegium Musicum of London

  Croydon Philharmonic Society

  Ealing Symphony Orchestra

  Ernest Read Symphony Orchestra

  Forest Philharmonic Society

  Kensington Symphony Orchestra

  Royal Orchestral Society for Amateur Music

  Salomon Orchestra

  Tallis Chamber Orchestra Society

  Westminster Philharmonic Orchestra

  Wimbledon Symphony Orchestra

  Lincolnshire and Humberside Arts

  Hull Philharmonic Orchestra

  Lincoln Symphony Orchestra

  Stamford Chamber Orchestra

  Merseyside Arts

  Liverpool Mozart Orchestra

  Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral Concerts Society

  Northern Arts

  Darlington Orchestra

  Durham Sinfonia

  New Tyneside Orchestral Society

  West Lakeland Orchestra Society

  Westmorland Orchestra

  North West Arts

  Blackburn Sinfonia

  Haffner Orchestra, Lancaster

  Oldham Symphony Orchestra

  Wilmslow Symphony Orchestra

  Southern Arts

  Abingdon and District Music Society

  Aylesbury Orchestral Society

  Basingstoke Symphony Orchestra

  City of Southampton Orchestra

  Havant and District Orchestral Society

  Henley Symphony Orchestra

  Isle of Wight Symphony Orchestra

  Milton Keynes Sinfonia

  Newbury Symphony Orchestra

  Oxford Symphony Orchestra

  Petersfield Orchestra

  RAE Symphony Orchestra, Farnborough

  Reading Symphony Orchestra

  Winchester Music Club

  Windsor and Maidenhead Symphony Orchestra

  Woodstock Music Society Wycombe Sinfonia

  South East Arts

  Canterbury Orchestra

  Claud Powell Concerts Society, Guildford

  Dartford Symphony Orchestra

  Eastbourne Symphony Orchestra

  Epsom Symphony Orchestra

  Folkestone and Hythe Orchestral Society

  Jupiter Chamber Orchestra, Haywards Heath

  Maidstone Orchestral Society

  Mid Sussex Sinfonia

  Oare String Orchestra

  Redhill Society of Instrumentalists

  Rochester Arts Orchestra

  Sevenoaks Symphony Orchestra

  Surrey Philarmonic Society

  Tunbridge Wells Symphony Orchestra

  University of Kent Orchestra

  Woking Mozart Players

  90

  Woking Symphony Orchestra

  North West Arts

  Bath Symphony Orchestra

  Bristol Opera Company

  Cheltenham Philharmonic Orchestra

  Cornwall Youth Percussion Ensemble

  Devon Opera

  Dorset Philharmonic Society

  Duchy Opera

  East Cornwall Bach Festival

  Exeter Musical Society

  Exmouth Choral and Orchestral Society

  Glastonbury Music Co-operative

  Gloucester Opera

  Gloucestershire Symphony Orchestra

  Keynsham Orchestra

  New Stroud Orchestra

  Plymouth Symphony Orchestra

  Somerset County Orchestra

  Somerset Opera Group

  Wedmore Opera

  West Midlands Arts

  Birmingham Philharmonic Orchestra

  Leamington Chamber Orchestra

  Sutton Coldfield Chamber Orchestra

  Warwickshire Symphony Orchestra

  Yorkshire Arts

  Airedale Symphony Orchestra, Shipley

  Guildhall Orchestra, York

  Halifax Orchestral Society

  Harrogate Chamber Orchestra

  Huddersfield Philharmonic Society

  Settle Orchestra

  Sheffield Philharmonic Orchestra

  Sinfonia of Leeds

  Slaithwaite Philharmonic Orchestra

  Todmorden Orchestra

  York Symphony Orchestra

  British Library
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on the progress of the new British Library building at St. Pancras.

  Mr. Renton
  I am happy to announce the timely completion of the first of a number of major handover targets which will be taking place over the next 18 months at St. Pancras. Basement 4, the deepest of the book storage basements, is essentially ready for occupation by the British Library. This achievement reflects great credit on PSA services and its design and construction teams as well as on all those who are associated with the construction of this magnificent building. The project is thus on schedule and the present prediction is that it will be completed within budget.

ENVIRONMENT

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that local authorities have adequate resources to compile registers on contaminated land sites.

  Mr. Baldry
  The estimated costs of compiling registers of land which may be contaminated will be taken into consideration in the local authority finance settlement for 1992–93.

  Integrated Pollution Control
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effect on pollution of the decision to delay the implementation of the new system of integrated pollution control under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  Integrated pollution control was introduced by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, for which Royal Assent had originally been expected by July 1990. In the event, there was some slippage in the legislative process, mainly as a result of extended consideration at Committee stage in this House, and Royal Assent was not obtained until November.

  When it became apparent that Royal Assent would be later than had been anticipated, we announced that implementation of the IPC system, originally planned for 2 January 1991, would be delayed to allow an adequate period for consultation with interested parties and the public on guidance notes and regulations to be issued.

  My right hon. Friend has made no estimate of the effect that this slight delay in implementation has had on pollution; IPC came into operation on 1 April 1991, and all the prescribed processes will be phased into the system over the next five years.

  Catalytic Reductions
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to establish a selective catalytic reduction system in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  Selective catalytic reduction is one of a number of techniques for reducing emissions of nitrogen oxide from combustion plant, and guidance to inspectors from the chief inspector, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution suggests that it is one of the abatement options which operators of large combustion plant should consider.

  Permanent dwellings completed: London Borough of Tower Hamlets1

  (number of dwellings)

  Private sector

  Local authority

  Housing associations and other public sector5

  All dwellings

  Tower Hamlets2

  Greater London Council 3 4

  1961

  19

  251

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  1962

  13

  278

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  1963

  3

  446

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  1964

  14

  469

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  1965

  26

  271

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  1966

  12

  355

  489

  0

  856

  1967

  12

  359

  767

  48

  1,186

  1968

  20

  911

  1,209

  5

  2,145

  1969

  14

  905

  1,024

  8

  1,951

  1970

  23

  869

  811

  11

  1,714

  1971

  43

  361

  708

  15

  1,127

  1972

  113

  708

  610

  4

  1,435

  1973

  56

  249

  425

  52

  782

  1974

  111

  575

  704

  1

  1,391

  1975

  6

  225

  787

  0

  1,018

  1976

  16

  286

  682

  0

  984

  1977

  3

  1,267

  598

  2

  1,870

  1978

  0

  203

  726

  0

  929

  1979

  0

  280

  424

  0

  704

  1980

  0

  405

  509

  0

  914

  1981

  0

  376

  504

  0

  880

  1982

  43

  35

  239

  0

  317

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of hazardous and toxic waste is(a) produced and (b) processed by each member country of the EC.

  Mr. Baldry
  There are at present no reliable figures on the production and processing of hazardous and toxic waste in member states of the EC. However, authoritative figures should be available in the future. EC directive 91/156 requires the competent authority or authorities of member states to draw up waste management plans indicating, among other things, the type, quantity and origin of waste to be recovered or disposed of; any special arrangements for particular wastes; and suitable disposal sites or installations. The directive will come into force on 1 April 1993. In addition, the statistical office of the European Communities (EUROSTAT) is undertaking a study on waste statistics as part of its current four-year work programme. It is estimated that in 1989–90 the United Kingdom generated between 2 and 2·5 million tonnes of special waste—the United Kingdom definition of hazardous and toxic waste—which were disposed of outside the premises of production.

  Housing, Tower Hamlets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many housing units were built in Tower Hamlets each year from 1961 to 1990 by(a) boroughs, (b) London-wide authorities, (c) housing associations, (d) other public sector and (e) the private sector.

  Mr. Yeo
  The London borough of Tower Hamlets has not sent the Department any statistical returns about housebuilding in its area since 1984. The available information is shown in the table.
  93

  Private sector

  Local authority

  Housing associations and other public sector5

  All dwellings

  Tower Hamlets2

  Greater London Council3 4

  1983

  0

  31

  402

  0

  433

  19846

  146

  0

  69

  0

  ֵ

  1985

  ֵ

  ֵ

  85

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1986

  ֵ

  ֵ

  0

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1987

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1988

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1989

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1990

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  ֵ

  1 The London borough of Tower Hamlets was established in 1965. It comprised the metropolitan boroughs of Bethnal Green, Poplar and Stepney. Figures for total housing completions in these three boroughs are shown for the period 1961 to 1965.

  2 Figures show number of dwellings completed by the authority and some of these may have been outside the borough.

  3 Completions by London county council (ie prior to 1966) are not available by area of building.

  4 The Greater London council was established in 1965 and abolished in 1986.

  5Prior to 1980 housing association and other public sector completions in the borough are not available separately. The figures have not been shown separately after that date as the local authority has reported nil activity under both headings.

  6 Private sector, borough and other public sector information covers ten months of the year only.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the management of sheltered leasehold housing.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since 1 January we have received 15 letters from hon. Members and five from leaseholders themselves. These have dealt with various matters relating to the management of sheltered housing; the most common issue has been the freeholder's selection of managing agents.

  Retirement Leaseholders
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the National Alliance of Retirement Leaseholders; and what points were discussed.

  Mr. Yeo
  I with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) met representatives of the National Alliance of Private Retirement Leaseholders on 15 May. We discussed the management of sheltered accommodation, and, in particular, problems arising from the appointment of managing agents by the landlord and the feasibility of giving leaseholders a right to appoint managers themselves.

  Politically Restricted Posts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people currently hold politically restricted posts as defined by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department does not collect this information. I understand, however, that there are in the region of 35,000 politically restricted posts in the local government service in England.

  South Park School, Lincoln
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his decision to call in the planning application submitted on behalf of Lincolnshire county council for the erection of dwellings at South Park school, Lincoln, application No. LHO4/0219/91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Secretary of State has not called in this application. On 20 June the Department's east midlands regional office issued an article 14 direction preventing the county council from granting itself deemed consent for this proposal without special authorisation. This was done to enable the Secretary of State to examine the proposal in detail before deciding whether or not to call it in for his own determination.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that mentally handicapped adults and children moving into a local authority area shall carry with them a sum of money for local authority grant purposes taken from the area they have left and transferred to their new local authority in the year after they have moved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: In cases where a local authority has responsibility for such persons, financial arrangements resulting from moves to another area are a matter for the authorities concerned. A local authority's standard assessment will reflect, in due course, changes which influence the cost of providing a standard level of social services, including those for people with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will show for each local authority(a) the budgeted increase or reduction in financial reserves for 1990–91 and 1991–92, expressed both in million pounds and pounds per adult, using the appropriate figure for relevant population and (b) political control in each of the above financial years.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: I have today arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many inland waterways have been designated as safe for swimming by Her Majesty's Government under the European Commission bathing water directive.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The criteria set for the identification of bathing waters in the EC directive are the number of bathers using the waters, and the provision of facilities such as car parks, toilets and changing facilities. No inland waters meet the definition of bathing water in the directive or the criteria for identification developed since the adoption of the directive.

  Local Authority Usable Receipts
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate for local authority usable receipts in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: I have made no estimate of local authority usable capital receipts for 1992–93. Local authorities have been asked to provide forecasts for 1991–92 and an estimate based on the available returns will be made shortly. I will provide this information as soon as it is available.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to promote the recycling of household waste.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend is bringing into force the duty on waste collection authorities to produce 96
  recycling plans on 1 August 1991. Authorities are being asked to submit their plans to him in draft by 1 August 1992.

  We will be sending a copy of waste management paper No. 28 on recycling to all local authorities next week. The paper provides guidance on preparing recycling strategies and drawing up recycling plans. It will be available through HMSO.

  We will also start consultation on our proposals for recycling credits next week. Copies of the consultation paper and the waste management paper will be placed in the Library.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Portugal and Luxembourg
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, columns 390–91, if he will make a statement on the available data on volumes of exports for (a) Portugal and (b) Luxembourg.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department is not aware of any publication which provides export volume figures for Portugal or Luxembourg on an internationally comparable basis.

  Eurostats calculates the volume series for member countries for internal Commission use, but they do not show Luxembourg separately because its trade figures are combined with Belgium.

  European Community
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sources of statistical data on trade figures of other EC member countries are available to his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The following sources of trade statistics for EC member countries are available to the Department: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the statistical office of the European Communities, the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the national statistics of each member country.

  Link Initiative
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much public funding was originally earmarked for the Link initiative when it was launched in 1986; how much was provided in the estimates for that and for each succeeding financial year; on which votes these estimates have been carried; how much has been disbursed on each such vote in each such financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply to this question on Link funding and expenditure, although the question as put cannot be answered without disproportionate cost. When the Link initiative was announced on 10 December 1986 by the then Prime Minister, the Government contribution was to be £210 million spread over five years. This assumed a roughly linear build-up to a steady-state Government funding target of £85 million per annum; the agreed planning figures for Departments are shown in table A. The first five programmes were announced in
  97
  February 1988, and currently there are 28 programmes in existence; the Government commitment to them is £175 million, and table B shows the funding commitment of individual Departments to programmes.

  Table C shows expenditure to date, which significantly lags work under way because participants are very slow in submitting claims for reimbursement. The total spent will be approximately double the Government expenditure by virtue of industry's own expenditure. There are now over 150 projects under way and nearly 100 more approved, at a total value of around £150 million. After a slow start, Link is now making good progress.

  Table A

  Link

  Department targets

  1992–93 £ million

  1988–89 to 1992–93 £ million

  DTI

  25

  62·5

  DES (Research Councils)

  25

  62·5

  MoD

  15

  36·0

  DEn

  5

  12·0

  MAFF

  4

  9·5

  DoE

  2

  5·0

  DTp

  1

  2·5

  DH

  1

  2·5

  SO, WO, NIO

  7

  17·0

  Table C

  Link

  £000

  Departmental spend (FY)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total

  DTI

  50·6

  1,767·1

  3,543·5

  5,361·2

  DES (research councils)

  117·8

  783·5

  3,186·9

  4,088·2

  MoD

  —

  —

  —

  18·1

  DEn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  MAFF

  —

  10·0

  166·6

  176·6

  DoE

  30–0

  43·8

  6·5

  80·3

  DTp

  —

  —

  24·1

  24·1

  DH

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SO, WO, NIO

  —

  —

  0·2

  0·2

  (SOAFD)

  TOTAL

  198·4

  2,604·4

  6,927·8

  9,748·7

  Industrial Design
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans for new legislation on industrial design.

  Mr. Leigh
  New legislation on the protection of industrial design came into force on 1 August 1989 as part of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, when the Government introduced a wholly new kind of protection in the form of an unregistered design right. Some changes were also made to the existing registered design system. The European Commission is currently examining the question of design protection with a view to issuing a consultative document.

  Trade Marks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has for action in relation to trade marks infringements;

  (2) what plans he has to update the Trade Marks Act 1938.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government's proposals for updating the law on trade marks, including the provisions concerning infringement of trade marks, were set out in
  98

  Department targets

  1992–93 £ million

  1988–89 to 1992–93 £ million

  TOTAL

  85

  1210

  1 Rounded.

  Table B

  Link

  Departmental commitment (June '91)

  £ million1

  DTI

  92·2

  DES (research councils)+

  59·9+

  MoD

  3·7

  DEn

  3·0

  MAFF

  9·4

  DoE

  0·8

  DTp

  4·1

  DH

  1·8

  SO, WO, NIO

  0·4

  TOTAL

  1175·0

  1 Rounded.

  + SERC £51·8 million, AFRC £3·6 million, MRC £1·5 million, NERC £3·0 million. the White Paper, "Reform of Trade Marks Law" (Cm. 1203), which was published last September. As stated in the White Paper, legislation to implement these proposals will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Pharmaceutical Patents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his most recent response to representations from the pharmaceutical industry for extension of its patent rights in the bracket of 10 to 20 years.

  Mr. Leigh
  On 12 June I confirmed to European Standing Committee B that the Government support the EC Commission's proposal to give supplementary protection certificates to patented medicinal products but with a maximum extension of five years and a limit of 13 years on the resulting effective protection.

  Dangerous Animals
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many children aged under 16 years were(a) injured and (b) killed by (i) dogs and (ii) other animals in 1990.
  99
  Mr. Leigh
  National estimates for numbers of injured children under 16 for 1988, the last year for which figures are available, are as follows:

  Number

  Injuries from dog bites

  56,000

  Injuries involving other animals

  34,000

  Egypt
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance has been given by Her Majesty's Government to British companies since 1987 seeking contracts in Egypt.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The full range of DTI export services is available to British companies wishing to do business in Egypt. ECGD cover for short-term business (up to 180 days) is available subject to payments being secured by an irrevocable letter of credit.

  Units of Measurement
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation on phasing out the use of imperial units following the adoption of the 1989 amendment to the units of measurement directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Having considered the replies to my Department's consultation paper, I intend to amend the legislation on the units of measurement authorised for use in the United Kingdom, generally taking maximum advantage of the transitional arrangements in the directive, and accordingly to:

  (i) cease to authorise after 31 December 1994, imperial units used for economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes except for the units used for the purposes set out in (ii) and (iii);

  (ii) cease to authorise after 31 December 1999:

  (a) the pound and ounce for goods sold loose from bulk;

  (b) the pint and fluid ounce for beer, cider, waters, lemonades and fruit juices in returnable containers;

  (c) the fathom for marine navigation; and

  (d) the therm for gas supply;

  (iii) authorise the continued use, without time limit, of:

  (a)the mile, yard, foot and inch for road traffic signs and related distances and speed measurement;

  (b) the pint for dispensing draught beer and cider and for milk in returnable containers;

  (c) the troy ounce for transactions in precious metals; and

  (d) the acre for land registration purposes.

  Metric units will continue to be authorised for use in the United Kingdom for economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes.

  Changes to other legislation which refers to imperial units of measurement will be a matter for the Government Departments and other bodies responsible for that legislation.

  Defence Industries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communication his Department ha .s had with local authorities concerning the application of the European Community's Stride programme on the possibilities for conversion or technological reorientation of regional defence industries.
  100
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: At the moment, the details of the allocation of Stride money in the United Kingdom are still being agreed with the European Commission. Once this is finalised, the possible use of Stride for regional projects such as the reorientation of defence industries, will be discussed in the programme committee on which local authorities will be represented.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of projects sponsored by the European Community's Sprint programme in the United Kingdom; how many companies and organisations are presently receiving support; and what assessment he has made of the benefit to the United Kingdom economy of the Sprint initiative.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: Sprint aims to stimulate technology transfer within the European Community. The programme has been in operation for six years. Over 100 United Kingdom companies and organisations are actively involved in Sprint, more than any other EC country. It is too early to judge the full benefits to the United Kingdom economy, but already over 260 agreements to transfer technology have been signed. United Kingdom companies are involved in a significant number of those agreements.

  Output Prices
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in the prices of output since October 1990 in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Germany.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 25 June 1991]: I have been asked to reply.

  Between 1990 quarter 3 and 1991 quarter 1 the implied deflator of United Kingdom GDP rose by 2¼ per cent. and the implied deflator of GNP in Germany rose by 1 per cent. Both these figures are measured at market prices. The implied deflator of GDP measures the prices of the net output of total goods and services in the economy. Figures based on GNP have been used for Germany because they are the most comparable available.

WALES

  Blind Students
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what arrangements are being made by his Department to ensure that examination papers for the GCSE are available in Braille;

  (2) what is his Department's policy on ensuring that blind and partially sighted students have adequate access to the examination process.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for administering the examination process rests with individual examining boards. The joint council for the GCSE have issued guidance common to all examing groups to deal with pupils with disabilities such as a visual impairment. The Welsh Joint Education Committee issues GCSE and A-level papers in Braille when requested.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that adults with learning difficulties in Wales are given adequate opportunities for employment training.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for ensuring appropriate provision under employment training now rests with training and enterprise councils (TECs). All TECs are required to address the need of adults with learning difficulties in their corporate and business plans. The additional resources for employment training announced on 19 June 1991 will be targeted on people with special training needs, in particular those with literacy and numeracy difficulties. In addition negotiations are taking place with two TECs in Wales to pilot centres to encourage trainees to improve basic literacy and numeracy and promote the use of City and Guilds Certificates in word power and number power.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Wrongful Imprisonment
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the criteria by which he determines what level of compensation to pay to people who have been wrongfully imprisoned; and whether he has any plans to alter these criteria.

  Mr. John Patten
  When my right hon. Friend has determined that payment of compensation following a wrongful conviction is justified, the amount to be paid is assessed by an independent assessor. The assessor applies principles analogous to those governing the assessment of damages for civil wrongs.

  The assessment takes account of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss arising from the conviction and/or loss of liberty, including matters such as damage to character or reputation, hardship (including mental suffering) and inconvenience, loss of earnings and future earning capacity, legal costs, and other additional expenses arising in consequence of detention including expenses incurred by the immediate family

  We have no plans at present to amend these arrangements.

  Taxi Drivers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will outline the procedures used by the Metropolitan police to vet taxi drivers, describe the offences for which licenses are refused and outline the appeals procedure open to the driver; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Applicants for cab drivers' licences are required to declare any previous convictions to the Public Carriage Office of the Metropolitan police. Appliations are checked against the national collection of criminal records. In considering whether or not to grant a licence regard is paid to the seriousness of any offences and to how long ago they were committed. A right of appeal against the refusal of a licence is contained in section 17 of the Transport Act 1985.

  Police Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation is required to implement the police national computer network, the new criminal record system or the integration of police criminal information systems in general; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The need for legislation is one of the matters which is considered in preparing the case for new national information services for the police. It is presently being considered in relation to both a police national network and a new national criminal records system and would need to be examined in any proposal for the integration of police criminal information systems.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category found in the wanted and missing persons index of the police national computer; and whether he can include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Category

  Current

  Wanted

  33,192

  Fails to Appear

  36,544

  Suspect

  21

  Impending Prosecution

  77

  Deserter

  1,367

  Locate

  51,582

  Missing

  2,460

  Found

  15

  Absconder—from care

  484

  —from hospital

  81

  —from detention

  4

  —from youth custody

  112

  —from prison

  1,140

  —from remand

  11

  —from school

  36

  Recall —from detention

  0

  —from youth custody

  2

  —from prison

  319

  Figures on the minimum and maximum size of each category over the past year are not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many subject access requests were made under the Data Protection Act 1984 to the Metropolitan police for each year since 1987; and what proportion were made to criminal records.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that the number of subject access requests made to the Metropolitan police in each year since 1987 was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987

  23

  1988

  423

  1989

  1,131

  1990

  1,647

  11991

  399

  1 March.

  Statistics are not kept on the proportion of requests which relate to criminal records, but it is estimated that the vast majority of requests were for this purpose.

  The vast majority sought access to criminal names.
  103
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each index of the police national computer; and whether he can include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each index over the last year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Intex

  Current size

  Vehicle owners

  39,017,200

  Stolen vehicles

  547,332

  Chassis-engine numbers

  914,274

  Wanted/missing persons

  131,948

  Cross reference

  706,363

  Disqualified drivers

  382,298

  Convictions

  3,827,885

  Criminal names

  5,783,622

  Fingerprints

  4,270,292

  Crime pattern analysis

  110,059

  Extremists crime index

  1,152

  Major investigations

  330,939

  Information on the minimum and maximum size of each index over the last year has not been collected because of other essential work on preparing the database for its transfer to the new police national computer.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has as to the number of accesses made to the police national computer by each constabulary in Great Britain over the last year; and whether he can give the proportion of access requests made to the vehicle indexes of the police national computer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Force

  Numbers of transactions for the year up to May 1991

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Avon and Somerset

  994,287

  64·8

  Bedfordshire

  398,709

  70·1

  British Transport Police

  161,730

  43·1

  Cambridgeshire

  388,925

  64·0

  Central

  159,990

  52·9

  Cheshire

  440,291

  60·2

  City of London

  99,339

  64·6

  Cleveland

  357,058

  60·7

  Cumbria

  386,831

  62·8

  Derbyshire

  463,873

  68·4

  Devon and Cornwall

  783,853

  61·1

  Dorset

  515,411

  59·2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  106,396

  54·6

  Durham

  362,429

  55·4

  Dyfed-Powys

  223,378

  52·1

  Essex

  859,664

  60·1

  Fife

  140,848

  48·7

  Gloucestershire

  343,580

  68·1

  Grampian

  290,132

  54·0

  Greater Manchester

  2,436,529

  60·6

  Guernsey

  16,491

  6·5

  Gwent

  232,584

  51·5

  Hampshire

  908,148

  60·0

  Hertfordshire

  451,152

  64·7

  Humberside

  548,998

  60·2

  Isle of Man

  10,234

  28·4

  Jersey

  35,232

  5·4

  Kent

  1,139,038

  64·1

  Lancashire

  1,172,783

  57·2

  Leicestershire

  432,221

  64·3

  Lincolnshire

  288,829

  62·8

  104

  Force

  Numbers of transactions for the year up to May 1991

  Proportion of transactions made to vehicle indices

  Lothian and Borders

  680,544

  62·3

  Merseyside

  935,499

  55·8

  Metropolitan

  7,773,109

  49·1

  Norfolk

  392,824

  67·1

  North Wales

  346,732

  45·1

  North Yorkshire

  489,871

  69·4

  Northamptonshire

  345,864

  69·2

  Northern

  200,871

  51 2

  Northumbria

  1,124,897

  70·5

  Nottinghamshire

  670,482

  75·4

  South Wales

  895,957

  62·6

  South Yorkshire

  706,531

  73·9

  Staffordshire

  448,699

  59·8

  Strathclyde

  1,341,243

  39·2

  Suffolk

  323,544

  61·2

  Surrey

  370,469

  62·2

  Sussex

  784,633

  53·3

  Tayside

  216,105

  47·6

  Thames Valley

  892,968

  60·8

  Warwickshire

  255,512

  73·8

  West Mercia

  333,871

  56·4

  West Midlands

  1,608,881

  65·4

  West Yorkshire

  1,180,234

  59·3

  Wiltshire

  299,116

  67·6

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics he has as to the number of subject access requests made to criminal records held by the Metropolitan police or the police national computer that have been made for vetting purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No statistics are available on this matter as applicants seeking subject access do not have to give reasons for their requests.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the last year; and whether he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The total number of accesses to each of the indices of the police national computer in the year to 31 May 1991 was as follows:

  Index

  Number of accesses

  1.

  Stolen and Suspect Vehicles

  22,771,400

  2.

  Vehicle Owners

  3.

  Chassis/Engine Numbers

  4.

  Fingerprints

  194,074

  5.

  Fingerprints (Scenes of Crime)

  13,021

  6.

  Criminal Names1

  2,017,903

  7.

  Wanted/Missing Persons

  2,144,1(13

  8.

  Disqualified Drivers

  725,448

  9.

  Convictions

  956,352

  10.

  Major Investigations

  1,302

  11.

  Crime Pattern Analysis

  296,535

  There have also been the following joint accesses:

  Number

  To indices 6 and 92

  2,017,903

  To indices 6, 7 and 9

  1,534,343

  To indices 6, 7, 8 and 9

  8,460,357

  To indices 4, 6 and 9

  606,569

  105

  1 The figure for the year to June 1990 was 1,996,349 and not 1,094,072 as incorrectly given on 19 July 1990 at column 664.

  2 All access to the criminal names index will in addition automatically generate information from the convictions application.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of each category found in the stolen and suspect vehicle index of the police national computer; and whether he can include in these statistics an indication of the minimum and maximum size of each category in the index over the year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information requested is as follows:

  Category

  Current

  Confirmed lost or obtained by deception

  437,847

  Lost or stolen

  447,634

  Obtained by deception

  18

  Found

  31,712

  Removed

  16,764

  Street to street

  152

  Repossessed by finance company

  0

  Suspect

  42

  Police vehicle

  3,037

  Blocked

  6,980

  Information

  20,486

  Seen

  8,021

  Information on the minimum and maximum of each category over the last year has not been collected because of other essential work on preparing the database for transfer to the new police national computer.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many subject access requests were made under the Data Protection Act 1984 to the police national computer for each year since 1987; and what proportion were made to the criminal names index.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1987

  82

  1988

  2,628

  1989

  8,758

  1990

  13,848

  11991

  8,413

  1 31 May.

  Nearly all were made of the criminal names index, save in 1987 when the proportion was under 50 per cent.

  Passport Offices
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when the decision was taken to send passport applications from Peterborough to Belfast;

  (2) how many unopened letters are there on a daily basis at each of the passport offices;

  (3) how many unopened passport applications there are at the Peterborough office.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  These questions have been passed to the chief executive of the United Kingdom Passport Agency who will reply shortly. A copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Police Station, Rutland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on his Department's funding for the building of the new police station in Oakham, Rutland; and when it is scheduled to be completed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that work on the new police station at Oakham began in April and is expected to be completed in October 1992 at a cost of £1,125,000. This expenditure will be eligible for Home Office grant of 51 per cent.

  Race Relations Act
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward legislation to extend the provisions of the Race Relations Act to all areas of governmental and regulatory activity, including the immigration, police and prison services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Section 75 of the Race Relations Act 1976 states that the provisions of the Act as a whole apply to actions done by Ministers and Government Departments, and to actions done on their behalf, in the same way as they apply to the actions of a private person. It is for the courts to decide how the provisions should be interpreted.

  If an on-duty police officer treats a person improperly on the grounds of that person's colour, race, nationality, or ethnic or national origin, he is committing an offence of racially discriminatory behaviour and can be disciplined under paragraph 9 of the police discipline code, which is set out in schedule 1 to the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985.

  The Commission for Racial Equality has recently launched a review of the 1976 Act; we will, of course, consider any recommendations which come out of the review, but at present we have no plans for legislation.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests he has received this year from local authorities for guidance on the enforcement of Sunday trading legislation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Between I January and 27 June this year inclusive we received, either directly or via hon. Members, 31 letters from local authorities about Sunday trading. Two of these specifically requested guidance on the enforcement of the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950.

  Boundary Commission
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the terms of reference for the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England, fourth general review; what is its timetable; and what is its progress to date.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Boundary Commission for England is carrying out its fourth general review of constituencies under the provisions of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. Under the Act, it is required to
  107
  submit reports on all the constituencies in England to the Secretary of State not less than 10 nor more than 15 years after the submission of the previous such reports. The Commission is therefore required to report between February 1993 and February 1998.

  Since the start of the review, in February, the Commission has obtained ward electorates from the 1991 electoral register. These have been updated to take account of ward changes up to 1 April. A list giving the electorate for each ward has been placed in the Library.

  Later this month, the Commission will be considering its provisional recommendations for Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset; these will be published later this year.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list biographical details of each member of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is as follows: The chairman of the Commission is the Speaker of the House of Commons.

  The deputy chairman is Sir John Knox. He was called to the Bar in 1953, became a QC in 1979, and was appointed a judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court in 1985. He is also a member of the Lord Chancellor's Law Reform Committee.

  Miss Sheila Cameron QC was called to the Bar in 1957 and became a QC in 1983. She is a deputy High Court judge, recorder, and vicar-general of the province of Canterbury and a member of the parliamentary, planning and local government Bar.

  Mr. David Macklin CBE is a former chief executive of Devon county council and has also held local government posts in Derbyshire and Lincolnshire.

EMPLOYMENT

  Disability and Employment
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what response has been made to the recommendations of the Employment Select Committee's first report of Session 1990–91 on disability and employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on 15 January to express his pleasure at the participation of the Committee in the consultative process, to say that the Committee's comments will be given full consideration along with all others received and to commit himself to keeping the Committee informed on progress on all the issues they raised.

  My right hon. and learned Friend wrote again on 17 April, to inform the Committee of the decision about the future development of the specialist services for people with disabilities which are provided by the Employment Services and to say that he believed that the changes which he announced would help to meet the concerns about disablement resettlement officers (DROs) expressed in the Committee's report.

  The Committee will continue to be informed of appropriate decisions in line with the Secretary of State's commitment.

  Earnings, Scotland
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 10 June,Official Report, column 435–38; if he will provide the same information given in percentage form in terms of the absolute number of employees affected in each category.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is not available.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Miscampbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YOP, YTS and youth training places were available in Lancashire for each year since 1978 to 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is given in the following table. Information prior to 1985–86 is not readily available.

  Youth training

  Number of agreed places in Lancashire

  At 31 March

  Number

  1986

  7,100

  1987

  11,400

  1988

  15,800

  1989

  15,000

  1990

  13,900

  Note: All figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Source: SPECTRUM.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that adults with learning difficulties are given adequate opportunities for employment training.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils are required to set out in their business plans how they intend to offer suitable training to people with special needs, including learning difficulties. These plans form the basis of their contract with the Department. Those people joining employment training from the Government's guarantee and aim groups for long-term unemployed people will include substantial numbers of people with special training needs.

  On 19 June the Secretary of State announced a package of measures including an additional £35 million for employment training, in particular to support training for people with special needs.

  Disability Advisory Council
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will announce the membership of the new National Advisory Council on the Employment. of People with Disabilities.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has appointed 12 new members and reappointed four existing members to the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities for a period of three years from 1 July 1991. The chairman of the council is Mr. Alan Smith MBE, FIPM, FBIM, FinstD. His appointment runs until 31 December 1992, and has not been affected by the new appointments.
  109
  The members of the council are:

  Members appointed after consultation with organisations representing employers

  Mr. P. T. G. Hobbs MA (Oxon), FIPM, FlnstD.

  Mr. R. C. Spoor OBE, RD, DCL, (Hon), DL, FCA

  Mr. A. Wild BA (Hons), MIPM

  Members appointed after consultation with organisations representing workers

  Mr. W. Anderson BSc (Econ), FLA

  Mr. R. D. Exell

  Mr. P. E. Gallant BSc, ARCS, C Chem, FRSC

  Other Members

  Ms. C. M. Ashton BSc (Hons)

  Mr. I. Bruce BSocSc, FBIM

  Mr. J. Denholm

  Dr. A. Fingret MBBS, MFOM

  Mr. P. Large MBE, CBE

  Mr. P. MacDonald

  Mr. W. H. Massie OBE

  Dr. C. N. Morton CEng, MICE, MIPM

  Mr. T. V. F. Pape BSc

  Ms. S. Scott-Parker BA

  The council has always provided valuable advice and assistance on issues concerning the employment and training of people with disabilities and I am sure that with the new membership it will continue to do so.

  Textiles and Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what measures he intends to take to encourage the creation of alternative employment for textile and footwear workers who have been made redundant, with particular reference to the east midlands;

  (2) what measures he intends to take to reverse the employment trends that have occurred in the textile and footwear industry since 1979.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: It is the private sector that will create alternative employment for textile and footwear workers made redundant in the east midlands or elsewhere. The work force in employment in the east midlands rose by 263,000 in the period March 1983 to December 1990.

  The Department supports a number of initiatives in the textile and footwear industries aimed at increasing skill levels, meeting skill shortages, and strengthening the industries' ability to export.

  The full range of services and facilities of the Department, the employment service, and the training and enterprise councils is available to assist employees who lose their jobs in the textile and footwear industry and other industries to find, and train for, alternative employment.

  Maternity beds and special care baby cots per thousand births by District Health Authority of occurrence, National Health Service hospitals, England 1989–90

  Total maternity beds

  Special care baby cots not in maternity wards

  Regional/District Health Authority

  Live births (thousands)

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  Northern RHA

  38·95

  1,058

  27·2

  262

  6·7

  Hartlepool

  1·80

  52

  28·9

  15

  8·3

  North Tees

  2·27

  74

  32·6

  19

  8·4

  South Tees

  4·58

  92

  20·1

  20

  4·4

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will remind all Ministers of the requirement that with all ministerial replies to Members' letters, a copy of the Minister's letter must always be enclosed.

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to write to Ministers' offices.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 2 July.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning 1 had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  University Funding
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet Sir Edward Parkes, chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, to discuss university funding.

  The Prime Minister
  I have told the CVCP that I am ready to meet them in due course to discuss their proposals for achieving the desired expansion of higher education with greater efficiency.

  Information Bulletin
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the parliamentary assemblies of the Council of Europe and the assembly of the Western European Union which has been sent to him.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

HEALTH

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many maternity beds are available in each district health authority per 1,000 births;

  (2) what is the number of special care baby cots in each district health authority per 1,000 births.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is given in the following table. It should be noted that some health authorities provide special care facilities for neonates within maternity units. In these cases the cots are not counted separately and are therefore not included in the table.
  111

  Total maternity beds

  Special care baby cots not in maternity wards

  Regional/District Health Authority

  Live births (thousands)

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  East Cumbria

  2·09

  58

  27·8

  15

  7·2

  South Cumbria

  1·89

  59

  31·2

  10

  5·2

  West Cumbria

  1·65

  51

  30·9

  10

  6·1

  Darlington

  1·41

  41

  29·1

  13

  9·6

  Durham

  1·74

  52

  29·9

  10

  5·7

  North West Durham

  1·00

  30

  30·1

  8

  8·0

  South West Durham

  1·92

  62

  32·3

  10

  5·2

  Northumberland

  3·11

  91

  29·3

  18

  5·8

  Gateshead

  2·01

  60

  29·8

  14

  7·0

  Newcastle

  5·25

  125

  23·8

  45

  8·5

  North Tyneside

  1·93

  57

  29·5

  15

  7·8

  South Tyneside

  1·99

  54

  27·1

  14

  7·0

  Sunderland

  4·31

  102

  23·7

  26

  6·0

  Yorkshire RHA

  49·61

  1,252

  25·2

  280

  5·6

  Hull

  4·07

  76

  18·7

  24

  5·9

  East Yorkshire

  2·40

  63

  26·3

  10

  4·2

  Grimsby

  3·05

  70

  22·9

  18

  5·9

  Scunthorpe

  1·91

  48

  25·1

  10

  5·2

  Northallerton

  1·31

  36

  27·5

  10

  7·7

  York

  3·23

  82

  25·4

  10

  3·1

  Scarborough

  1·83

  45

  24·6

  10

  5·6

  Harrogate

  1·70

  43

  25·3

  13

  7·7

  Bradford

  5·95

  176

  29·6

  32

  5·4

  Airedale

  2·18

  65

  29·8

  14

  6·4

  Calderdale

  2·47

  78

  31·6

  18

  7·3

  Huddersfield

  2·76

  62

  22·5

  18

  6·5

  Dewsbury

  2·59

  60

  23·1

  18

  6·9

  Leeds Western

  4·62

  112

  24·2

  16

  3·5

  Leeds Eastern

  5·04

  119

  23·6

  30

  6·0

  Wakefield

  2·08

  58

  27·9

  14

  6·7

  Pontefract

  2·43

  60

  24·7

  15

  6·2

  Trent RHA

  57·69

  1,344

  23·3

  302

  5·2

  North Derbyshire

  2·83

  86

  30·4

  16

  5·7

  Southern Derbyshire

  5·07

  94

  18·5

  24

  4·7

  Leicestershire

  10·62

  250

  23·5

  41

  3·9

  North Lincolnshire

  2·83

  62

  21·9

  15

  5·3

  South Lincolnshire

  3·20

  83

  26·0

  23

  7·2

  Bassetlaw

  1·10

  30

  27·2

  8

  7·3

  Central Nottinghamshire

  3·44

  86

  25·0

  23

  6·7

  Nottingham

  10·87

  251

  23·1

  45

  4·1

  Barnsley

  2·56

  52

  20·3

  13

  5·1

  Doncaster

  4·44

  101

  22·7

  24

  5·4

  Rotherham

  3·18

  67

  21·1

  15

  4·7

  Sheffield

  7·56

  182

  24·1

  55

  7·3

  East Anglian RHA

  26·40

  613

  23·2

  132

  5·0

  Cambridge

  4·16

  94

  22·6

  24

  5·8

  Peterborough

  3·44

  92

  26·8

  18

  5·2

  West Suffolk

  3·02

  87

  28·8

  12

  4·0

  East Suffolk

  3·83

  95

  24·8

  20

  5·2

  Norwich

  5·10

  91

  17·9

  22

  4·3

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  2·31

  54

  23·4

  16

  6·9

  West Norfolk and Wisbech

  2·28

  59

  25·9

  12

  5·3

  Huntingdon

  2·27

  40

  17·6

  8

  3·6

  North West Thames RHA

  40·07

  846

  21·1

  249

  6·2

  North Bedfordshire

  2·34

  45

  19·2

  14

  6·0

  South Bedfordshire

  4·54

  93

  20·5

  26

  5·7

  North Hertfordshire

  3·10

  66

  21·3

  13

  4·2

  East Hertfordshire

  2·36

  53

  22·4

  14

  6·0

  North West Hertfordshire

  2·32

  42

  18·1

  12

  5·2

  South West Hertfordshire

  3·15

  48

  15·2

  20

  6·4

  Barnet

  3·07

  73

  23·8

  26

  8·5

  Harrow

  3·13

  75

  24·0

  24

  7·7

  Hillingdon

  3·08

  51

  16·6

  22

  7·1

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  4·04

  92

  22·8

  23

  5·7

  Ealing

  2·14

  55

  25·7

  10

  4·7

  Riverside

  2·04

  54

  26·4

  15

  7·3

  Parkside

  4·75

  98

  20·6

  30

  6·3

  North East Thames RHA

  57·13

  1,241

  21·7

  291

  5·1

  Basildon and Thurrock

  4·47

  116

  26·0

  21

  4·7

  Mid Essex

  3·85

  75

  19·5

  21

  5·6

  112 113

  Total maternity beds

  Special care baby cots not in maternity wards

  Regional/District Health Authority

  Live births (thousands)

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  North East Essex

  3·78

  75

  19·8

  18

  4·8

  West Essex

  3·03

  76

  25·1

  16

  5·3

  Southend

  3·90

  85

  21·8

  16

  4·1

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  4·86

  107

  22·0

  27

  5·5

  Hampstead

  2·34

  64

  27·4

  18

  7·7

  Bloomsbury

  3·28

  78

  23·8

  23

  7·0

  Islington

  2·76

  70

  25·4

  20

  7·3

  City and Hackney

  3·76

  75

  19·9

  21

  5·6

  Newham

  3·96

  68

  17·2

  18

  4·6

  Tower Hamlets

  3·38

  77

  22·8

  12

  3·6

  Enfield

  3·51

  74

  21·1

  10

  2·8

  Haringey

  2·86

  69

  24·2

  18

  6·3

  Redbridge

  3·20

  72

  22·5

  18

  5·6

  Waltham Forest

  4·20

  61

  14·5

  14

  3·3

  South East Thames RHA

  50·23

  1,070

  21·3

  278

  5·5

  Brighton

  3·69

  49

  13·3

  24

  6·5

  Eastbourne

  1·75

  52

  29·8

  12

  6·9

  Hastings

  1·78

  35

  19·7

  12

  6·7

  South East Kent

  3·38

  79

  23·4

  19

  5·6

  Canterbury and Thanet

  3·74

  94

  25·1

  22

  5·9

  Dartford and Gravesham

  3·21

  77

  24·0

  14

  4·4

  Maidstone

  2·51

  47

  18·7

  10

  4·0

  Medway

  4·61

  79

  17·1

  20

  4·3

  Tunbridge Wells

  2·84

  60

  21·1

  17

  6·0

  Bexley

  3·54

  81

  22·9

  14

  4·0

  Greenwich

  3·37

  69

  20·5

  20

  5·9

  Bromley

  3·50

  78

  22·3

  15

  4·3

  West Lambeth

  3·43

  89

  25·9

  20

  5·8

  Camberwell

  4·04

  88

  21·8

  21

  5·2

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  4·86

  92

  18·9

  38

  7·8

  South West Thames RHA

  34·78

  705

  20·3

  189

  5·4

  North West Surrey

  2·83

  75

  26·5

  15

  5·5

  West Surrey and North East Hampshire

  2·36

  54

  22·9

  12

  5·1

  South West Surrey

  2·13

  44

  20·6

  14

  6·6

  Mid Surrey

  1·90

  50

  26·3

  14

  7·4

  East Surrey

  2·32

  39

  16·8

  11

  4·7

  Chichester

  2·11

  43

  20·4

  10

  4·7

  Mid Downs

  3·83

  59

  15·4

  19

  5·0

  Worthing

  2·47

  37

  15·0

  9

  3·6

  Croydon

  4·19

  64

  15·3

  20

  4·8

  Kingston and Esher

  2·38

  63

  26·4

  13

  5·4

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  1·57

  31

  19·8

  8

  5·1

  Wandsworth

  3·35

  75

  22·4

  19

  5·7

  Merton and Sutton

  3·34

  69

  20·7

  25

  7·5

  Wessex RHA

  37·09

  1,032

  27·8

  183

  4·9

  East Dorset

  4·65

  206

  44·3

  28

  6·0

  West Dorset

  1·96

  56

  28·5

  15

  7·5

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6·92

  196

  28·3

  25

  3·6

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  5·94

  141

  23·7

  22

  3·7

  Winchester

  2·73

  57

  20·9

  16

  5·9

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  2·54

  46

  18·1

  14

  5·5

  Salisbury

  2·16

  55

  25·4

  14

  6·5

  Swindon

  3·72

  95

  25·5

  19

  5·1

  Bath

  5·14

  145

  28·2

  21

  4·1

  Isle of Wight

  1·32

  36

  27·2

  9

  6·8

  Oxford RHA

  34·18

  691

  20·2

  183

  5·3

  East Berkshire

  4·92

  106

  21·6

  27

  5·5

  West Berkshire

  5·41

  96

  17·7

  28

  5·2

  Aylesbury Vale

  2·12

  49

  23·2

  13

  6·1

  Wycombe

  3·13

  54

  17·3

  16

  5·2

  Milton Keynes

  3·14

  59

  18·8

  21

  6·7

  Kettering

  3·41

  54

  15·8

  16

  4·7

  Northampton

  42·1

  66

  15·7

  27

  6·4

  Oxfordshire

  7·84

  207

  26·4

  35

  4·4

  South Western RHA

  40·25

  902

  22·4

  168

  4·2

  114 115

  Total maternity beds

  Special care baby cots not in maternity wards

  Regional/District Health Authority

  Live births (thousands)

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  Average daily number

  Number per 1,000 births

  Bristol and Weston

  5·55

  121

  21·8

  32

  5·8

  Southmead

  5·88

  106

  18·0

  30

  5·1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  4·33

  109

  25·2

  20

  4·6

  Exeter

  3·71

  80

  21·6

  27

  7·3

  North Devon

  1·71

  39

  22·8

  2

  1·2

  Plymouth

  5·45

  121

  22·2

  24

  4·4

  Torbay

  2·40

  57

  23·8

  1

  0·4

  Cheltenham

  2·42

  55

  22·7

  12

  5·0

  Gloucester

  3·93

  88

  22·4

  20

  5·1

  Somerset

  4·87

  127

  26·1

  0

  0·0

  West Midlands RHA

  74·35

  1,626

  21·9

  387

  5·2

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  2·88

  50

  17·4

  12

  4·2

  Herefordshire

  1·95

  35

  17·9

  12

  6·1

  Kidderminster and District

  0·35

  24

  68·8

  0

  0·0

  Worcester and District

  2·79

  63

  22·6

  12

  4·3

  Shropshire

  5·33

  137

  25·7

  22

  4·1

  Mid Staffordshire

  2·57

  60

  23·3

  12

  4·7

  North Staffordshire

  6·71

  165

  24·6

  30

  4·5

  South East Staffordshire

  3·18

  55

  17·3

  15

  4·7

  Rugby

  1·08

  24

  22·2

  8

  7·4

  North Warwickshire

  2·94

  71

  24·1

  20

  6·8

  South Warwickshire

  2·16

  53

  24·6

  15

  6·9

  Central Birmingham

  4·62

  109

  23·6

  30

  6·5

  North Birmingham

  3·61

  88

  24·4

  22

  6·1

  South Birmingham

  2·64

  54

  20·5

  14

  5·1

  West Birmingham

  4·20

  76

  18·1

  23

  5·5

  Coventry

  4·93

  119

  24·1

  29

  5·9

  Dudley

  4·33

  92

  21·3

  18

  4·2

  Sandwell

  3·19

  64

  20·1

  14

  4·4

  Solihull

  6·59

  109

  16·6

  38

  5·8

  Walsall

  3·39

  66

  19·5

  21

  6·1

  Wolverhampton

  4·93

  111

  22·5

  20

  4·1

  Mersey RHA

  32·18

  711

  22·1

  172

  5·3

  Chester

  4·14

  89

  21·5

  20

  4·8

  Crewe

  2·92

  53

  18·1

  15

  5·1

  Macclesfield

  1·36

  24

  17·7

  10

  7·4

  Warrington

  3·11

  60

  19·3

  15

  4·8

  Liverpool

  7·14

  164

  23·0

  37

  5·2

  St Helens and Knowsley

  3·60

  99

  27·5

  20

  5·6

  Southport and Formby

  1·29

  35

  27·1

  11

  8·5

  South Sefton

  4·09

  84

  20·5

  20

  4·9

  Wirral

  4·52

  102

  22·6

  24

  5·3

  North Western RHA

  58·04

  1,454

  25·1

  334

  5·8

  Lancaster

  1·91

  48

  25·1

  16

  8·4

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  3·54

  93

  26·3

  18

  5·1

  Preston

  4·55

  89

  19·6

  20

  4·4

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  3·82

  115

  30·1

  20

  5·2

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  2·97

  65

  21·9

  17

  5·7

  West Lancashire

  1·32

  34

  25·7

  9

  6·8

  Chorley and South Ribble

  0·24

  25

  105·9

  0

  0·0

  Bolton

  4·28

  104

  24·3

  21

  4·9

  Bury

  2·50

  68

  27·2

  16

  6·4

  North Manchester

  2·64

  60

  22·7

  18

  6·8

  Central Manchester

  3·99

  114

  28·6

  41

  10·3

  South Manchester

  4·78

  119

  24·9

  28

  5·9

  Oldham

  3·25

  85

  26·2

  16

  5·0

  Rochdale

  2·26

  52

  23·0

  15

  6·6

  Salford

  3·67

  79

  21·5

  18

  4·9

  Stockport

  4·13

  94

  22·7

  20

  4·9

  Tameside and Glossop

  3·21

  82

  25·5

  19

  5·9

  Trafford

  1·17

  38

  32·4

  8

  6·8

  Wigan

  3·81

  88

  23·1

  14

  3·7

  Sickle-cell Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority, and by district health authority, the facilities provided for(a) sickle-cell
  116
  counselling, (b) sickle-cell opportunist screening, (c) sickle-cell ante-natal screening and (d) sickle-cell post-natal screening.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Menopause
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to undertake a national survey to determine the numbers of women who suffer unpleasant symptoms during the menopause; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. It is the experience of clinicians working in this field that about a quarter of women will have no menopausal symptoms, about half will have some symptoms, and the remainder will have symptoms severe enough to require medical treatment.

  Birth Statistics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for 1990 for the residents of(a) England and (b) each NHS region and district within England (i) the number of live births, (ii) the percentage of live births with unstated birthweight, (iii) the number of live births with stated birthweight and (iv) the percentages of these which were under 1000g, 1000g to 1499g, 1500g to 1999g, 2000g to 2499g, 2500g to 2999g, 3000g to 3499g, 3500g to 3999g and 4000g and above.

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

  Brook Hospital
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings Ministers have had with local campaigners concerning the Brook hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I met my hon. Friend and local campaigners on 14 February.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to local authorities in respect of services they provide for people with a mental handicap and the role of specialist mental handicap nurses in the provision of such services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department recently issued for consultation a draft circular giving specific guidance to local authorities on services for people with learning disabilities (mental handicap) together with a parallel draft health circular on the role of the NHS in providing health care for this client group. There is a long-term requirement for trained mental handicap nurses and we are currently considering with professional and other interests how nurses' skills and experience can best be made available in the new pattern of services.

  Elderly People
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether under the terms of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, elderly people will be(a) given the opportunity to contribute to and comment on any care plan drawn up for them, (b) entitled to the help of an advocate if so desired to comment and contribute to any care plan drawn up for them and (c) offered a choice of services within the care plan.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In both the policy guidance and the forthcoming practice guidance on care management and assessment, strong emphasis is given to enabling 118
  potential users of services of all ages to participate in the assessment process and to contribute to their care plan, with any points of difference between the assessor and the user being recorded. Local authorities will also be encouraged in the practice guidance to encourage advocacy support where people are unable to speak for themselves and have no other friend or relative to speak on their behalf.

  The promotion of choice and independence underlies the whole community care reform programme. The assessment and care management process will encourage choice, with assessors providing information on services available across both the statutory and independent sectors.

  Hepatitis B
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the estimated cost of inoculating all children of school age against the hepatitis B virus.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No accurate assessment exists of the cost of this proposal.

  NHS Facilities (Gedling)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional medical facilities in the national health service have been made available to the residents of the Gedling constituency during the last 10 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. D. H. White, chairman of the Nottingham health authority, for details.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Government's response to the report of the Health Select Committee on waiting lists.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's response to the first report of the Select Committee on Health (Session 1990–91) ("Public Expenditure on Health Services: Waiting Lists") (HC 429) is being laid before the House today as Cm. 1586. Copies are available in the Vote Office. It will be published by HMSO in due course.

  Medical Services Committees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will issue a circular to family health services authorities advising them of the importance of seeking the views of local medical committees prior to appointing medical services committees; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the proportion of overseas qualified doctors on medical services committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1974 (S.I. 1974 No. 455) provide that local medical committees shall appoint the medical members of medical service committees and that if dissatisfied with the appointment of the lay chairman, they may require the family health services authority to refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Information is not available centrally on the representation on medical service
  119
  committees of doctors qualified overseas. Guidance on the constitution of service committees and the appointment of members was included in letters FPCL190/90 and FPCL(W)83/90 issued to health authorities in September 1990. Copies of the letters have been placed in the Library.

  Doctors (EC Employment)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements within the European Community relating to the employment within the Community of overseas qualified doctors who have the status of British citizens and who are fully registered medical practitioners in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are aware of the difficulties that British citizens who are fully registered and hold overseas qualifications may experience in gaining access to employment in other member states. The European Commission has only recently provided information on each member state's arrangements for recognising overseas qualifications and we have not properly assessed them yet. The arrangements are currently being discussed in Brussels as part of an initiative by the Commission to examine the difficulties associated with recognition of overseas qualifications. We are represented at the discussions.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make representations in the EC Council of Ministers for the equal treatment in Community law of all British citizens who are fully registered medical practitioners in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All British citizens have the right to establish themselves in any country of the Community. The main difference in the treatment of British citizens which relates to my responsibilities concerns medical practitioners who are fully registered but hold non-EC qualifications and the recognition of these qualifications by other member states. We are aware that Community citizens holding qualifications obtained outside the Community which are recognised in one state may experience difficulty in persuading other member states to accept them. However, the European Commission has begun an assessment of member states' arrangements for recognition of non-EC qualifications held by EC nationals. We are involved in the current discussions between member states on this complex issue.

  Special Diets
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that children and other patients who are required to follow a dairy and egg-free diet should be able to obtain the products they require under prescription; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not the function of the NHS to provide food products on prescription. We recognise that in some cases GPs may consider their active intervention is necessary to help patients keep to medically recommended diets. In such cases, GPs may prescribe from a range of specially manufactured food products recommended by the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances. These include products designed for the 120
  treatment of patients with lactose intolerance or whole protein intolerance and patients who have to follow a low protein diet.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the MENCAP report on day services, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister responsible for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department recently issued for consultation a draft circular on social care for people with learning disabilities supported by an annex giving draft guidance on the development of day services. Mencap was consulted during the preparation of these documents, and we shall take account of its latest report, and any additional documents from Mencap and others with an interest, when preparing the final version of the guidance.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give figures for the charges made for the collection of blood and blood products by each regional transfusion centre;

  (2) what guidance has been issued on the pricing of blood products.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No charge is made for blood which is freely donated by our volunteer donors. From 1 April it is our policy that regional transfusion centres (RTCs) should recover the cost of collecting, processing and transporting blood by levying handling charges on the user hospitals. Within this general policy it is for the regional transfusion centres, following consultation with the users to determine an appropriate structure for handling charges to recover their operating costs. Information about these individual arrangements is not held centrally.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of the national blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We greatly appreciate the efforts of the national blood transfusion service (NBTS) and the altruism of our voluntary and unpaid donors for maintaining adequate blood supplies in this country. The last major change in the national blood transfusion service was the establishment in 1989 of the national directorate to co-ordinate the activities of the regional transfusion centres in relation to national policies and strategies for the blood supply. Organisation of the national blood transfusion service is kept under review.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Ambulance Council working party on the problems of lay serving ambulance staff; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have accepted the recommendations made by a working party set up by the Department to consider the problems of long-serving ambulance men and women and officials will be writing shortly to interested parties about implementation.

  Heart Pacemakers
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the practice of charging bereaved relatives of patients who have died a fee for the removal, by a doctor at the hospital, of a heart pacemaker prior to cremation is customary throughout the United Kingdom;

  (2) what provision exists under the national health service for the removal of pacemakers from the bodies of patients who have died while in hospital;

  (3) under what authority doctors at Sandwell general hospital, West Bromwich, charge bereaved relatives a fixed fee for the removal of pacemakers from the bodies of patients who have died at the hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 18 June 1991]: Central guidance on the removal of pacemakers from people who have died in hospital was issued in 1983 through Health Notice (83)6, a copy of which is available in the Library. The intention is that the health authority should meet the cost and that in no circumstances should bereaved relatives be charged. I understand that Sandwell health authority has reimbursed the relatives who were charged, and has apologised to them for the unnecessary distress caused by its action.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason his Department is not paying severe disability premium to Mr. D. Wilkes of Perry Barr, Birmingham, awarded by the social security appeal tribunal on 8 January 1991, Ref. 401: 33475.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The severe disability premium is not being paid to Mr. Wilkes because the chief adjudication officer is appealing to the social security commissioner against the social security appeal tribunal's decision. Under regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payment) Regulations 1987 the award is not implemented pending the outcome of this appeal.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason his Department is not paying disability premium from 11 April 1988 to Miss M. Hunt of Perry Barr, Birmingham, awarded by the social security appeal tribunal on 8 January 1991, Ref. 401: 33209.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The severe disability premium is not being paid to Miss Hunt because the chief adjudication officer is appealing to the social security commissioner against the social security appeal tribunal's decision. Under regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payment) Regulations 1987 the award is not being implemented pending the outcome of this appeal.

  Benefit Cheques
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to change the arrangements so that claimants can more easily cash benefit girocheques for more than £75.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The arrangements for encashment of girocheques are matters for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the financial amount deducted from pensioners in hospital longer than six weeks, for the last year for which figures are available; and what steps he is prepared to take to review this policy.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Most social security benefits, including retirement pensions and invalidity pensions, are reduced after the beneficiary has been in hospital for more than six weeks. The current reductions are £10·40 a week for those with dependants and £20·80 a week for those without dependants. A further reduction is made after the beneficiary has been in hospital for more than 52 weeks. At that stage, the benefit of those with dependants is reduced by a further £10·40, making £20·80 in all, and the benefit of those without dependants is reduced to the personal requirements rate of £10·40.

  These provisions are based on the view that state funds should not make double provision for the same needs. As the national health service provides free maintenance as well as free treatment, maintenance benefits, also paid out of state funds, should not be paid in full indefinitely.

  The policy on benefits paid to hospital in-patients was reviewed in 1987 as part of the social security review and we have no current plans to conduct a further review.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for 1981 and for the latest available date through child benefit payments the numbers of(a) children and (b) children in lone parent households in Greenwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham.

  Mr. Jack
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that information relating to child benefit is available only on a national basis and cannot be given for particular areas.

  Non-Public Information
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the titles of guidance and procedural manuals produced for his Department's offices, other than local offices, which are not available to the public, and (b) in each case the reason for them not being available publicly.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department produces a large number of formal and informal guidance and procedural documents for its staff on a wide range of subjects. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Philippines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance Her Majesty's Government are giving to the people of the Philippines following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have made grants totalling almost £100,000 to two United Kingdom-based voluntary agencies. Our embassy is discussing with the Government of the Philippines their appeal of 27 June to identify what further help we can give locally.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Animal Welfare
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking at the intergovernmental conference on political union to protect the welfare of animals.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The United Kingdom has proposed that the conference makes a declaration, noting that Community legislation on a wide range of subjects can affect the welfare of animals and calling on the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament to ensure that the Community, when taking any action which affects animals, pays full regard to their welfare requirements and their status as sentient beings.

  Croatia and Slovenia
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government support the endeavours of Croatia and Slovenia to seek independence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our western partners have consistently made clear our preference for a single Yugoslav political entity, and have called on all Yugoslav republics to avoid unilateral actions which may jeopardise negotiations to secure a new basis for Yugoslav unity. But this cannot be brought about by force. We are opposed to intimidation or coercion of democratically elected Governments in Slovenia and Croatia, as elsewhere.

  Albania
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will establish a United Kingdom mission in Albania; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to establish a resident British mission in Albania.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the provision of know-how or similar funding for Albania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no plans to extend the know-how fund to Albania.

  Philippines
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what services are provided by Thomas Cook (Philippines) Inc. to the British embassy in Manila; whether these arrangements involve payments by United Kingdom citizens to Thomas Cook (Philippines) Inc. in respect of visa applications; whether any Filipino citizens applying for entry visas to the United Kingdom have been advised by the embassy to seek the assistance of Thomas Cook (Philippines) Inc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British embassy in Manila has no official agreement with Thomas Cook (Philippines) Inc. to provide services either for officially funded travel or as a conduit for visa applications.
  124
  Thomas Cook is one of over 300 travel and shipping agents permitted to lodge visa applications at the embassy. Any charge they make for their services is a matter for the company and not the British Government.

  Inquiries are occasionally received asking whether attendance in person is necessary to obtain a visa. Frequent travellers are advised that their applications can be submitted through a recognised travel agent, but the British embassy does not encourage the specific use of Thomas Cook or any other individual travel agent.

  Weapons (Iraq)
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts the United Kingdom is making to deal with Iraq's remaining nuclear, chemical, biological weapon and missile capabilities.

  Mr. Hurd
  We took a prominent part in the establishment under Security Council resolution 687 of the special commission to ensure that Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile capabilities are destroyed.

  We continue to take an active role in supporting the special commission's work. We have made available: a senior British expert on chemical and biological defence matters to serve as a full-time member of the commission; three British experts for the first chemical weapons inspection in Iraq; an RAF explosives expert as adviser to the first ballistic missile inspection; one United Kingdom expert for the second IAEA inspection and two or more to take part in the third inspection. We have offered up to six inspectors to take part in the first biological weapons inspection and we intend to reinforce our embassy in Bahrain to liaise with the special commission's field office there.

  We have also provided information on Iraq's weapons capabilities as well as minor items of equipment and RAF transport facilities, plus eight Land-Rovers and trailers. Further specialised equipment and support will be provided at an initial cost of up to £1 million, as stated in the answer of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' on 19 June to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). The facilities at the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down will be used to analyse samples taken by the inspection teams.

  We shall continue to support the special commission in carrying out its mandate, and encourage others to do likewise. It is important that Iraq should not be allowed to retain or redevelop these weapons of mass destruction.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have been assisted by the British embassy in Kuwait since it reopened to return to the United Kingdom for medical treatment following injuries sustained in clearing mines or other war-related explosives.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 24 June 1991]: None.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Offshore Islands
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many offshore islands are inhabited and what their population is.

  Mr. Hanley
  The latest available information is from the 1991 census of population taken on 21 April. The results are being collated for inclusion in a preliminary report to be published around the end of July. I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library when the information is available.

  Public Order Offences
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the prosecutions under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 for incitement to(a) religious and (b) racial hatred, indicating the outcome in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 26 June 1991]: I understand that no persons have been prosecuted under part III of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what would be the cost in 1991–92 of increasing the basic retirement pension by £5 per week for a single pensioner and £8 a week for a married couple, assuming similar increases in linked benefits and in income-related benefits for pensioners, giving figures(a) gross and (b) net of tax revenues and savings in other benefits.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 27 June 1991]: The gross cost in Northern Ireland of increasing the weekly basic retirement pension by £5 a week for a single pensioner and £8 a week for a married couple, assuming similar increases in linked benefits and in income-related benefits for all those receiving these increases, is £69·3 million. Net of income tax, the figure would be £64·8 million. A reliable estimate is not available of the cost, if those in receipt of a linked benefit but not the pensioner premium, did not receive a similar increase in their income-related benefit.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the clearing house arrangements under the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Fallon
  As part of a package of measures to contain the costs of the assisted places scheme within the resources available, my right hon. and learned Friend has reluctantly decided that the proposed scheme for the redistribution of vacant places under clearing house arrangements, notified to schools earlier, cannot go ahead this year. The Government remain committed to the assisted places scheme and some 27,000 children are expected to have places under the scheme in the coming year.

  Braille Exam Papers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what funds he makes available to examining boards to produce examination papers in Braille.

  Mr. Eggar
  None. The examining bodies cover the cost of producing papers in Braille by making a small addition to the examination entry fees of all candidates—whose fees are met, in the case of candidates from maintained schools, by the local education authorities.

  South Park School, Lincoln
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the procedures by which he will decide whether to approve an application by Lincolnshire county council to reopen for educational purposes the former South Park school in Lincoln.

  Mr. Fallon
  If Lincolnshire county council wishes to establish a new school in the premises of the former South Park school, it will have to publish proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980. In considering whether to approve such proposals, my right hon. and learned Friend would take account of all relevant factors, including any objections to the proposals.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out his reasons for turning down the proposal to establish a voluntary-aided city technology college on the site of the former South Park school, Lincoln.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has never been asked formally to consider a proposal to establish a voluntary aided school with city technology college characteristics in Lincoln.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek a report from Lincolnshire county council on the possible future use of the school playing fields adjacent to the site of the former South Park school, Lincoln; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The disposal of surplus local authority land is a matter for the local authority concerned and the Secretary of State for the Environment. A planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation already issued in draft for consultation asks local authorities to review longer-term educational and community need before deciding on disposal of school playing fields.

  Student Costs
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at primary and secondary schools in Cornwall and per student in further education colleges in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures in 1978–79 at constant prices.

  Mr. Fallon
  In 1988–89, the latest year for which information on actual spending is available, net institutional expenditure per pupil in Cornwall was £1,010 in nursery and primary schools, £1,525 in secondary schools and £3,615 per student in further education. In
  127
  1978–79 net institutional expenditure per pupil in Cornwall was £325 in nursery and primary schools and £490 in secondary schools. At 1988–89 prices this represents some £710 and £1,085 respectively. Figures for net institutional expenditure per further education student in 1978–79 are not available.

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the allocation of ministerial responsibilities within his Department; if he has any plans to review these; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to review the allocation of ministerial responsibilities in my Department. The present allocation works well.

  Local Authority Members
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evidence he has relating to the average number of hours per week devoted to public duties by members of Scottish local authorities; what plans he has to seek evidence of this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Research commissioned by the Widdicombe committee of inquiry into the conduct of local authority business was based on average hours per month rather than per week. This indicated that in 1976 and in 1985 regional and islands councillors spent on average 129 hours per month on council duties. The equivalent figures for district councillors were 92 hours per month in 1976 and 93 hours per month in 1985.

  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to update that research.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has plans to review the allowances or expenses paid to local authority councillors in Scotland for(a) remuneration, (b) recompense for lost salaries or wages, (c) subsistence allowance and (d) travelling expenses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  A new system of remuneration for councillors came into effect on 1 April 1991. Under the new arrangements, financial loss allowance is no longer available for councillors. The system will be reviewed after it has been in operation for about a year. In the interim my right hon. Friend intends to make regulations for Scotland which will counter abuse of the special responsibility allowance element of the new scheme which has been drawn to his attention.

  The arrangements for travel and subsistence allowances are unchanged. Rates of all allowances will continue to be reviewed on a regular basis.

  Local Government Services
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to subject any further local government services to compulsory competitive tendering; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The Government are looking at ways of extending the range of local authority services 128
  subject to compulsory competitive tendering. Consultants have been appointed to examine and report on the technical feasibility of extending the legislative requirements for competitive tendering to the provision of professional services. Local government will be consulted about any proposals which emerge.

  Johnstone Health Clinic
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of the Johnstone health clinic.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have nothing to add at this time to the answer that I gave the hon. Member on 13 February at column 454–55.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of each political adviser working in the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  One special adviser is employed in the Scottish Office, Mr. Alan Young.

  Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures have been taken to enhance security at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley in the last six months; what further proposals will be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The measures taken recently have been

  — Security sub-committee established in January

  — Report produced in February on improvements to be carried out

  — Access to service corridors restricted from February

  — All Staff sent a memorandum in February

  — Meetings with Strathclyde police on crime prevention in May

  — Each induction programme for new staff includes security session with local police

  — Discussions with firm of security consultants during May

  — Extra digital locks fitted to a number of internal and external doors

  — Video cameras recording 24-hour period in respect of car park

  — Full-time car park attendant appointed

  — An extra portering round during evenings

  Further measures in the process of being implemented are

  — Staff identification system to be introduced in July

  — Alarms for all doors leading to fire escapes to be fitted

  — Locks for additional external doors

  — Formal instruction to staff that misuse of fire doors is a disciplinary offence

  — Further exhortation to staff to be vigilant at all times

  These measures build on a range of security improvements which the local management has initiated over the past two years. The position is being kept under constant review and further steps will be taken if appropriate. The health board has assured me that all practical measures are being taken to ensure the security of patients, visitors and staff without being excessively restrictive.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review the annuality principle applied to local government finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  No.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was raised by local authorities in Scotland in 1990–91 using their discretionary powers to raise £5 per head of adult population, in areas where there is a single tier of principal local authority, and £2·50 per head of adult population, in areas where there are two administrative tiers; and if he has made any assumptions for the likely yield under this power for 1991–92.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: In terms of section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, as amended by schedule 1 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, Scottish local authorities have a discretionary power to incur expenditure not exceeding the product of a 2p rate based on 1988–89 rate poundage.

  Information about the extent of such expenditure is not held centrally.

  Elderslie Hospital
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held with Argyll and Clyde health board concerning the development of Elderslie hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Argyll and Clyde health board has submitted to my Department proposals which will enable the young handicapped patients residing in Elderslie hospital to live as normal a life as possible in a community environment. On 12 June I announced that the sum of £12·4 million is to be made available to Scotland's health boards in bridging finance to develop and expand care in the community in conjunction with local authorities. Argyll and Clyde health board have been allocated £764,000 over a three-year period to enable them to implement immediately their plans for fully supported community units for the young residents of Elderslie.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes in the incidence of unemployment have taken place in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) the Greenock travel-to-work area in each of the past 30 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is available on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary.

  HIV Tests
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the cost to the Scottish Office of financing the HIV ante-natal named testing study in Edinburgh and Dundee from 31 August 1990 to 31 March 1991; and what efforts were made to secure alternative funding for the study from 31 March 1991;
  130
  (2) if he will set out the reasons for ceasing to fund the HIV ante-natal named screening study in Edinburgh and Dundee on 31 March;

  (3) if he will set out the Government's policy towards HIV named testing studies of the sort carried out in Edinburgh and Dundee ante-natal units.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This study began in December 1988 and received financial support from the Medical Research Council up to 31 August 1990. The Scottish Office provided £55,000 to support the study for a further seven months up to the end of March 1991 in order to maximise the benefits of the information which had been collected and to enable a reliable assessment to be made of HIV prevalence among pregnant women in Edinburgh and Dundee. The information collected in the study is now being analysed and a report is expected to be published in the autumn.

  There are no plans for further named surveys of this kind to be conducted in Scotland, but I understand that the Medical Research Council has agreed to fund a further study in Edinburgh and Dundee, involving anonymised testing both of women attending ante-natal clinics and of women having termination of pregnancy. This study is expected to begin in September.

  Agency Status
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his Department under the "next steps" initiative; and whether he has identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 3 June 1991]: Three executive agencies have so far been established under the next steps initiative from within my responsibilities: the Registers of Scotland, Historic Scotland and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. I announced the candidature of the agricultural scientific services of the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department for agency status on Tuesday 16 April 1991 and further candidates will be brought forward in due course.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many abortions were performed in Scotland in the first 12 months of operation of the Abortion Act 1967 and in the latest year for which figures are available; and under what statutory grounds these abortions were performed.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 28 June 1991]: The information requested on terminations under the Abortion Act 1967 is as follows:

  1 April 1968 to 31 March 1969

  1990 (calendar year)

  Risk to life of woman

  110

  36

  Risk of injury to health of woman

  1,892

  9,962

  Risk to health of existing children

  126

  95

  Risk of abnormality of foetus

  110

  99

  Emergency to save life of woman

  3

  —

  Emergency to prevent injury to health of woman

  3

  —

  Total

  2,244

  10,192

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: My Department has proposals to mount television information campaigns in 1991–92 on road safety and crime prevention. Planned campaigns costing £100,000 or more are proposed on fire prevention, children's hearings and right to buy. Detailed campaign planning, including media to be used, has yet to be decided on these topics.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Knacker Industry
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to draw up a code of practice to ensure the continuity of derogations from EEC regulations in respect of the knacker industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  A derogation in the directive on the disposal of animal waste (90/667 EEC), which we fought hard to achieve, permits the knacker industry to continue to sell petfood, at least until the end of 1995. In the meantime, proposals will be considered by the European Community by the end of 1992 in relation to the controls which might secure the longer-term future of this trade. Our officials are, therefore, currently reviewing with the knacker trade existing control measures.

  EC Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations in the EC Council of Ministers to remove the bar on payment of EC grants to farmers following late claims, and to replace the present rule with a discretion exercisable by himself; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have every sympathy with the efforts of the hon. Member on behalf of his constituents. He will be aware that we make every effort to ensure that our administration of EC schemes is sensitive to farmers' practical concerns, consistent with effectively addressing the risk of fraud. It is, however, important that there is comparability of treatment between producers in different member states and strictly applied Community-wide rules regarding claims received after the closing dates for the suckler cow premium scheme and the sheep annual premium scheme are necessary to ensure this. Giving a general discretion to the various national authorities responsible for administering these schemes to accept or reject late claims would undermine this important principle.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will revert to the previously established lower safety level for dioxin.

  Mr. Maclean
  No safety limit was set prior to the work recently carried out for the World Health Organisation which established a provisional tolerable daily intake of dioxins.
  132
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of municipal and private incinerators where he has conducted tests for dioxins in England on(a) agricultural land or (b) products; what proportions these are of the total number of incinerators in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Dioxin levels have been measured in milk collected from farms in the vicinity of two of the four high-temperature chemical waste incinerators situated in England and Wales. The preliminary results fall within the range of background levels found in other industrial areas.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up a public inquiry into the dioxin levels in milk in the Bolsover area.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 1 July 1991.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the maximum tolerable concentration of dioxins in nanogrammes per kilogramme of milk prior to its level being set at 0·7 nanogrammes.

  Mr. Gummer
  No prior figure was set.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) of 26 June, if he will list the names and positions of the scientific and medical experts which calculated the maximum tolerable concentration of dioxins in milk; whether they were members of any Government advisory committees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The chairman of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) was consulted about the calculation of the maximum tolerable concentration of dioxins in milk and agreed the tolerance level set. The full set of results from the dioxins survey will be considered by the COT before publication later this year. In order to deal quickly with the enhanced levels of dioxins found in the milk from two farms in Derbyshire an expert scientific and medical team from my Department and the Department of Health was assembled to make the detailed calculations which were based on recommendations made in December 1990 by a WHO expert group.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay compensation to those who have had their livelihood adversely affected as a result of the dioxin levels in the milk supply in the Bolsover area.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have every sympathy with the two farmers whose milk can no longer go for human consumption and my staff are giving all the help they can. As for compensation, the established principle which applies in such circumstances is that it is the polluter who should pay.

DEFENCE

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints in respect of racial abuse or harassment have been made against military personnel in each of the past three years.
  133
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We do not maintain central records of all complaints of racial abuse or harassment. The MOD is aware, however, of four complaints in both 1988 and 1989, three in 1990 and one in 1991, so far.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to appoint a liaison officer to deal with concerns and complaints from communities in the highlands and islands on the subject of low-flying military aircraft.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department plans to establish three RAF regional community relations officers in southern Scotland and the Borders, the Lake District and in Wales on a trial basis. If the scheme is successful, we will consider whether to extend it to other areas.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if advertising for volunteers to join the Territorial Army has been discontinued.

  Mr. Tom King
  No.

  Scottish Units
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the record of recruitment and retention of service personnel in units based in Scotland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Recruitment in Scotland to all the services in 1989–90, the last full year for which data are available, was 11·6 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. The only relevant data on retention relate to the Scottish division, where the rate is marginally below that for the Army as a whole.

  Rosyth
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he has held with the local authorities concerned about the economic consequences of the closure of the Rosyth royal naval base.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have received a number of representations from the local authorities. I met representatives of Fife regional council, Dunfermline district council and the trade unions earlier this year.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to visit Rosyth naval dockyard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Defence Industry
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he has taken in his consideration of "Options for Change" of the continuing need for a British defence manufacturing capability.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Industrial considerations are among the factors being taken into account.

  Naval Bases
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the options he is considering concerning the future of the royal naval bases to allow full consultation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We will consult the trade unions in the usual way once we have proposals to make, but we are not yet in that position.

  Trident
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress of the Trident programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Trident programme continues to progress to time and within budget towards its in-service date of the mid-1990s.

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the timetable for withdrawal of British troops from duties of protecting Kurdish refugees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes).

  Soviet Forces (Nuclear Warheads)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear warheads the Soviet armed forces have at their disposal.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Soviet armed forces are estimated to have in excess of 25,000 nuclear warheads at their disposal.

  Surplus Land
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review Ministry of Defence landholdings with a view to returning surplus land to community use.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is this Government's policy that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary for defence purposes; we continually seek opportunities for rationalisation and the release of land surplus to our requirements. In order to ensure the best return is achieved for the taxpayer it is our normal practice to offer surplus land for sale on the open market.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the extended use of military helicopters for civilian duties including use as air ambulances.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of representations have been received.

  RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge.
  135
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  On 17 May the United States Air Force announced its intention to withdraw from RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge by September 1993. The Ministry of Defence is examining options for the possible future use of the stations. No decisions have yet been taken.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish an account of the operational record of the Royal Air Force in the Gulf conflict; and what information he has on what such reports are being published by other allied participating countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Air Chief Marshal Sir Patrick Hine's dispatch on Operation Granby was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office as a supplement to the London Gazette on 29 June. I have no information on whether other coalition countries will be publishing official reports of their role in the conflict.

  German Minister of Defence
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his German counterpart; and what aspects of future defence arrangements were discussed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend last met Dr. Stoltenberg at the Eurogroup conference held in Washington on 24 and 25 June, which considered various themes concerning the future of the NATO alliance under the headings: "New Security Challenges and the Future Role of the Alliance", "Future Force Structures and the Arms Control Process" and "NATO's Strategy: Political Guidance, Alliance Policy and Concepts".

  Regiments
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which regiments will be disbanded under the Government's latest proposals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 4 June, consultations are taking place within the Army on its future structure. It would not be appropriate to comment on the future of individual units while that process is under way.

  Range Safety Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish the detailed criteria for the granting of range safety certificates for full-bore ranges in disused quarry sites;

  (2) what changes there have been in the criteria for the assessment of range safety certificates in the last three years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The criteria against which range safety certificates for civilian ranges are issued are the same as those for MOD ranges. There are no plans to publish the criteria, which have not been changed in the last three years.

  Search-and-Rescue Operations
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has completed his consideration of the contractorisation of search-and-rescue operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of the "Options for Change" review of the future size and shape of the armed forces, the Ministry of Defence is currently studying the provision of military SAR. A decision on the contractorisation of part of the military SAR task will be taken after this work has been completed.

  Army Manpower
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the need for redeployment measures in the light of his recent announcement of a reduction in Army personnel.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume that my hon. Friend's question relates to resettlement provision for those Army personnel who might be made redundant as a result of reductions in the strength of the Army. Those made redundant will have access to the same resettlement support as is provided to those leaving the services at the end of a normal engagement or commission. They will receive advice and counselling, and will also receive up to 28 days' training to equip them with new skills or assist them in transferring their existing skills to the civilian job market. In addition they will be able to obtain assistance with job finding from the Army Resettlement Employment Liaison Cell, or from the Officers Association or the Regular Forces Employment Association, both of which receive funding from the MOD.

  Defence Estimates
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the Statement on the Defence Estimates; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991 will be published on 9 July.

  Arab Industrial Organisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the British military attaché in Cairo has met the director of the Arab Industrial Organisation in Egypt this year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not our normal practice to discuss the duties of military personnel attached to our posts overseas.

  Wyre Forest
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for the use of the facility at Drakelow lane in Wyre Forest; and what is the annual cost of maintaining this facility.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has no further use for its site at Drakelow, Wolverley and negotiations for its sale are currently in progress. No annual maintenance costs are being incurred; part of the site is let and producing rent.

  Options for Change
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been taken on the implementation of "Options for Change" in the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have identified a number of measures needed to ensure the most effective use of the resources available for defence.

  Subject to the usual consultation with the trade unions we have decided to close RAF Hullavington and No. 7 Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton starting in April 1992, and RAF Abingdon by May 1993. The RAF
  138
  elementary flying training school will be relocated from RAF Swinderby to RAF Topcliffe in July 1993. We have also decided that it should additionally be possible to close RAF West Raynham at some future date. No. 16 and No. 58 Squadrons, RAF Regiment, will be disbanded on 1 April 1992, and No. 63 Squadron RAF Regiment will be disbanded on 1 October 1992. These changes are part of the move towards smaller, better equipped, properly trained and housed and well-motivated armed forces announced by my right hon. Friend on 25 July 1990. Further announcements on the implementation of "Options for Change" in the RAF will be made as decisions are taken.

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

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon
Jennifer Hilton, having been created Baroness Hilton of Eggardon, of Eggardon in the County of Dorset, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness David and the Lord Richard, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Leconfield and Egremont Lord Leconfield and Egremont— Took the Oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
2.48 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the judges and staff at Chester County Court, Chester Crown Court and Rhyl County Court on Friday 5th July 1991. Accordingly, as these arrangements were made before it was known that the House would be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday 5th July.

Scottish Salmon Farming Industry
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the difficulties of the Scottish salmon farming industry and what plans they have to assist this industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the industry's current difficulties and we are working closely with it to secure the future of salmon farming in the United Kingdom. This is not an area where the Government can act unilaterally; we have to work through the European Community. We have already raised the matter with the Commission and we hope to have a further meeting with it shortly.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply although it does not appear to be totally satisfactory in view of the assurances that have been given in various parts of the country. What attitude will the Minister adopt at the meeting on 8th July, which I understand is a council meeting? Will he vigorously press for a tariff to be levied under the anti-dumping arrangements, which the EC committee has already confirmed, to help this hard pressed industry? We must bear in mind the fact that because of Norwegian dumping the United States has already imposed a tariff of 26 per cent. whereas the EC has proposed a tariff of 11 per cent.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that there is a meeting of the fisheries council on 8th July; though this matter comes under the heading not of fisheries but of competition. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will talk to the responsible commissioner on that day in Strasbourg and will make known to the Commission the strong views held by the Government and the industry. The future of any dumping procedure is for the industry to tackle. We are urging the industry to build up evidence that can be produced for the Commission.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that the problem that is confronting the Scottish salmon farming industry at the moment is the massive dumping of Norwegian salmon? Last year the Norwegians produced 160,000 tonnes of salmon of which 60 per cent. was exported to the European Community. It is that factor that is causing the closure of some of the fish farms in Scotland. Is the Minister also aware that an anti-dumping levy was proposed in order to safeguard the Scottish salmon farming industry, but that the Commission turned it down? What was the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards that levy and what have they done further to safeguard this industry?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the Commission proposed that levy but was not supported in the Council of Ministers by other member states. Our position has always been plain. Where dumping is proven, we would like the Commission to make proposals for change. However, we must seek the agreement of other member states on this issue. We shall continue to help the industry and ask the industry to produce evidence. At the end of the previous dumping negotiations, the Norwegians promised to bring forward a freezing down programme. That was successful during the course of 1990 but half-way through 1991 that arrangement seems to be breaking down.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, do the Government need to obtain any more information from the industry? Last August the Commission decided that there was undoubted dumping by Norwegian salmon fisheries. It then produced the idea of an 11.4 per cent. levy. Rather weakly, it did not seem to push that proposal hard enough with the other countries and therefore about 6,000 very valuable jobs in deeply rural Scotland are at risk. Does the noble Lord agree that the Government should do rather more and push the Commission in order to have a proper levy established?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we are helping the industry. We are pushing the Commission and I have met the Norwegian ambassador to impress on him the dire state of the Scottish salmon farming industry. Beyond that, at this stage there is not very much more that we can do.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the dumping of Norwegian salmon affects not only the salmon farming industry but also the

895
livelihood of coastal netsmen and some people around the rivers and along our coasts? Can the Minister assure us that the salmon that is so dumped upon us is produced to the same standards of healthfulness and quality as is the salmon produced around our coasts by our own farms, and our wild fish?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have not received any representations from coastal netsmen so I presume that they are not suffering in the same way. The quality of the fish coming from a salmon farm compared with wild fish is a matter of taste, which is for the individual to decide.
Lord Jeffreys: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the great anxiety among game fishers and salmon farmers about the over-fishing of sand eels in the North Sea? If so, what representations are being made about it to the EC?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am aware of the position on sand eels. My noble friend will know that we have banned fishing for sand eels in Shetland. A lot of research is being carried out on the problems of salmon, which includes a study of sand eels.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, many distinguished veterinarians regard the practice of salmon farming as inherently cruel. Do the Government have a view on that particular difficulty?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, salmon farming is a young industry. It has to develop and work out what is best for the long-term viability of the industry. Over the course of the past few years new vaccines have been and continue to be introduced so as to increase the welfare of the salmon, and there is now lower stocking density in the nets.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, do I gather from the tone of my noble friend's reply that when the Government have the additional information they will consider working actively in the interests of Scottish salmon and point out that many other Community countries, whose views may well weigh against us, do not have a salmon problem and therefore are not in the picture?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the North Atlantic salmon is one of God's wildest creatures? Does he consider that to keep it in a cage is an inhumane practice at a time when most of the emphasis seems to be on getting animals out of cages?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am no great expert on the welfare of farmed salmon. I understand that in the early years the wild salmon will also shoal as they do in the nets in a farm.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in 1989 it was apparent that the Norwegian Government had accepted the fact that there was dumping? Do the Government consider it appropriate that this time they should abide by the agreements that they make with the Commission so that this situation will not arise again?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. I understand that the Norwegian industry has reached agreement for a short-term loan facility of about £145 million to freeze up to 40,000 tonnes of fish this year. That will be an extension of the 1989 scheme that worked so successfully during the course of 1990. We must see whether or not it will have entirely the same effect.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that subsidisation of the Norwegian industry is massive compared with the help that was received on the start-up of ours? Can he tell the House what additional information he requires, since the Commission accepted that there was dumping as late as August 1990?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the industry will have to bring forward firm evidence that there has been dumping, particularly in France and Germany. It is well aware of that and is working towards finding it.

Motor Cycle Helmets: EC Policy
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make representations to the other member states of the European Community to ensure the speedy adoption of legislation to enforce the wearing of helmets by motor cyclists throughout the Community.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, all member countries have already adopted legislation requiring motor cyclists to wear helmets, although in some countries the requirement does not extend to moped riders.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that one of the biggest problems is to ensure that places such as the Greek islands implement the legislation? Is he aware of the extent of brain injuries to holidaymakers caused by motor cycle accidents? Such accidents are traumatic for the families concerned. Is he further aware that great expense can be incurred by families arising from injuries which often entail long-term disability and pose a great problem for our National Health Service?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are well aware of the kind of injuries that can occur as a result of motor cycle accidents where people have not worn helmets. We were the first country in the EC to make compulsory the wearing of helmets. That was way back in 1973. It has undoubtedly proved a great success. Implementation of the law on the Greek islands can only be a matter for the Greeks themselves.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that reaching agreement on what the law ought to be is an interesting but rather useless exercise? The fear is that that is exactly what we might experience in the Common Market. Is it not therefore desirable that

897
special efforts be made to reach agreement on the implementation, not of some difficult or complicated matter, but of such an obvious necessity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I do not know what resources the Greeks, for example, put into implementing the legislation. It is important that having signed up to a deal all countries should implement it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that standards of implementation of such a measure vary? If he is of that view, will the Government consider pursuing the matter with the Commission in order to obtain some data-based information on the enforcement of the law? If there are substantial breaches, will the Government try to persuade the Commission to take effective action to restrain such breaches in the future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is no doubt possible for the Commission to look into enforcement of laws in member states. I shall certainly see that attention is drawn to the noble Lord's remarks.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while there is a difficulty of implementation and enforcement, much depends on the individual response of those who motor cycle outside the United Kingdom? Does the Foreign Office, or any other government agency, give notice of Community legislation to those who travel abroad and advise that they should wear helmets when they ride motorbikes, wherever they may be?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware that any information is given to motor cyclists who travel abroad. The problem arises from the hiring of motor cycles when people are abroad rather than from those who travel abroad on their own bikes.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what my noble friend suggests, and what other noble Lords seem to endorse, is consistent not with a federal super state but, far worse, with a unitary super state? Does he agree that in federal nations such as the United States and Australia every state is totally free to decide its own policy on such matters as seat belts, crash helmets, speed limits and the age at which driving licences can be acquired? As we are not yet—thank God!—part of a super state, is it not the case that every nation has the right to decide its own policy on the matter without interference from outside bodies?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we consider each Commission proposal on road safety on its merit. and potential benefits. In order to avoid a piecemeal approach we are encouraging the production of a strategy. At the last Transport Council it was agreed to set up a high level working group to produce such a strategy.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is absolutely right in what he states? It is a classic
898
example to which the principles of government, supposedly leading to the principle of subsidiarity, should apply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that is right, yes.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my question goes in a somewhat different direction from the last two. Does the noble Lord consider that if we can score a success on this issue and improve implementation throughout Europe, the Government will have made amends to some extent for their stand in Europe where they oppose the banning of tobacco advertising and the placing of a warning on cigarette packets?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, banning of tobacco advertising is a very different matter. I understand that it is proposed by those who operate state monopolies in Europe and who do not wish to see competition.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it not the responsibility of citizens of the United Kingdom who travel abroad and who intend to ride a motor bike to wear a crash helmet? They are used to doing so in this country. Should they not also carry out the procedure abroad?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is the responsibility of citizens of this country who travel abroad to obey the laws of the country to which they go. If that law means that they have to wear a crash helmet when riding a motor cycle, so they should.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether or not it is very expensive to bring back from Europe someone who has suffered a brain injury? Does he agree that it costs about £13,000? That can break some families financially. Can such information be made available to motor cyclists travelling abroad with the advice that they take their helmets with them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot honestly endorse the figure which the noble Baroness suggests. Nor do I believe that I am able to find out that information. The National Health Service in this country has to treat people whether they have obeyed or disobeyed the law.

Africa: Food Aid
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve the international response to famine in Africa.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, in addition to the substantial multilateral and bilateral aid we have given, on 9th June we and the German Government launched a joint initiative to improve and support the way the United Nations responds to

899
humanitarian disasters and emergencies including those in Africa. On 29th June the European Council endorsed our ideas.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that there is desperate urgency in a situation where the world programme shows that up to 30 million people in Africa face starvation? Perhaps the Minister will answer two questions. First, will he state the amount of food pledged by Her Majesty's Government and the EC, and how much of that food aid has been delivered and distributed? In view of the need for co-ordination of responses from non-governmental organisations, donor governments and the UN, why are Her Majesty's Government opposing the re-establishment of the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa? As the noble Earl knows, it was set up in 1984 and did a very good job. It was withdrawn in 1986 on the basis that it would be re-established should the need arise. Does the Minister agree that the need now arises?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, since last September, in response to the present crisis, the UK has provided £122 million, including our contributions to the Community actions. That includes 220,000 tonnes of food. Almost 180,000 tonnes of that has been directed to the Horn of Africa where we are the second largest bilateral food aid donor after the United States. If other countries were to follow our example, perhaps the terrible situation to which the noble Baroness refers would be alleviated a great deal more quickly. In response to the noble Baroness's second point, as I said in the debate on Africa, we do not rule out the revival of the emergency operations unit in Africa, but we must avoid duplication.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa, to which my noble friend refers, did a first class job in 1984–85 during the crisis there? Some 30 million men, women and children in Africa are on the verge of starvation. Is there not the strongest possible case for re-establishing the office for emergency operations? Will the noble Earl give an assurance to the House that he will speak to his right honourable friend so that Her Majesty's Government can bring immediate pressure to re-establish the office? That is essential if those people's lives are to be saved. Such numbers represent over half the population of Britain with a problem far beyond anything that we in this country have experienced.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that the Office for Emergency Operations worked well for co-ordination in 1984–86. The noble Lord and the Government are also in agreement that we need to improve co-ordination to get supplies and aid out to Africa. What is in question is whether the Office for Emergency Operations is the right vehicle, given the initiative that my right honourable friend has already launched.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that emergency famine relief is only one half of the equation? The other half is to encourage people in these countries to grow their own food. Will my noble friend inform the House what proportion of overseas aid, both unilaterally and bilaterally through the EC, goes towards that purpose?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, since 1982 the total British aid to Africa has amounted to £4.5 billion. That is a substantial sum of money. About 25 per cent. of the UK bilateral aid to Africa goes to agriculture and related activities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that notwithstanding the endeavours of Her Majesty's Government, the people of this country are seeing in newspapers and on television probably the most horrific scenes that they have witnessed in their entire lives? Since Question Time began, approximately 1,000 children have starved to death in Africa. Therefore is it not time that our Government, who have done a great deal, should make it their top priority within the EC and the United Nations to ensure that the rest of the world supports us in our endeavours to end the horror of people starving at the rate of thousands per day? When that is overcome, will they carry on their endeavours to ensure that it never happens again?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we are at one with the noble Lord in wishing to see a speedy solution to this difficult problem. We are the second largest bilateral food aid donor to the Horn of Africa. If other countries followed our example, the solution would be arrived at much quicker.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister say whether food supplies can get through to the southern Sudan, which is one of the areas affected, and whether co-operation is forthcoming from the Khartoum Government?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It is all very well wishing to give food; but unless one can deliver the aid, one cannot implement one's wishes. There are certain difficulties in some parts of Africa.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, can my noble friend assure the House that certain difficulties are not caused by this country trying to bring political pressure to bear on the Sudan? Is it not also true that although food sometimes arrives there, the distribution is extremely difficult for that country? It is far the largest country in the African continent.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has tabled a Question on this issue. I should hate to pre-empt him, although I should be happy to do so if the House would approve.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister answer a question that I asked? Can he say how much of the food that has been pledged has been distributed? There is clearly a problem of slow delivery which is exacerbating the difficulties in the countries affected.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not have the precise breakdown for which the noble Baroness asks. I believe that I gave it in our debate on the subject, but I shall endeavour to ascertain the latest situation.

Japanese Knotweed
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in combating the spread of Japanese knotweed in the United Kingdom.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, considerable research on this subject has already been undertaken. The Welsh Development Agency commissioned a major study by consultants, completed last year, about the status and control of Japanese knotweed in Wales. The study makes several suggestions about controlling knotweed including local surveys, education, the production of guidelines for practical control and the investigation of the potential for biological control.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which is not very different from that which I received two years ago. What co-operation are we receiving from our European partners? Furthermore, what effect does this nine foot pest have on SSSIs? I understand that flora are being greatly affected by this pest.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the CAB International Institute of Biological Control and a firm of UK consultants have made a joint application with the institutes in Ireland and Germany for EC funding to investigate the potential for biological control. It is a very difficult plant to eliminate. However, the National Trust in North Devon has been undertaking a control programme for a number of years and chemical and physical means of control have proved successful in a number of national nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.45 p.m. my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will, with the leave of the House, make a Statement on asylum.

School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 6,
Schedule 2.
—(Lord Cavendish of Furness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Medical Qualifications (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
3.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Arrangements for the carrying on of certain activities]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, after ("company") insert (", being a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 and beneficially owned as to 95% or more of the shares by United Kingdom citizens resident in the United Kingdom and, so far as it is not owned by individuals, by a company or companies which are themselves so registered and owned,").
The noble Lord said: Before explaining my amendment I shall leave a short interval for those Members of the Committee who are not interested in the debate and who, no doubt, will not participate in its conclusion. I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Kennet. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 9 which are consequential upon Amendment No. 1 for reasons that I shall explain.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that on Second Reading Members gave approval to the principle of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill. In summary, that principle is that the Government will continue ownership of the establishments in question and will contract out to third parties the production of the product. The establishments are those which at present produce our nuclear warheads for all purposes; for example, Polaris. They will in future be entrusted with the production of nuclear warheads for the Trident programme.
The first general point that I wish to reiterate is that we are dealing with a most important industry. We are not dealing with an establishment that makes some kind of toy but one that produces nuclear warheads for our strategic defence. The activities that it is proposed to contract out to third parties are spelt out in Clause 1(2). It states:

903
"any activities connected with the development, production or maintenance of nuclear devices or research into such devices or their effects".
That is the provision with which the prime contractor must deal. Immediately we ask ourselves: who will be the prime contractor? There is no doubt that the prime contractor will carry a heavy responsibility for the future defence of this country.
My amendments are directed to the ownership of the company or consortium which will be the prime contractor for this purpose. We debated that question on Second Reading. When pressed the Minister gave what I thought to be a somewhat ambiguous reply. I do not quote the noble Earl's words because they are in the Official Report but I do not believe that I misinterpret what he said. He said that the prime requirement of a contractor should be security, that the Government should be satisfied that the prime contractor has sufficient security and provisions for security to allow it to take on that task. On that, we have no quarrel with the Government whatever; we endorse that.
He went on to say:
"Secondly, we shall not rule out any company on grounds of nationality in itself. However, given AWE's close co-operation with the US, it is more likely that US companies will meet our rigorous security requirements than companies from other countries".—[Official Report, 14/6/91; col. 1313.]
That was the point which we reached on Second Reading. We believe that that is not a sufficient assurance. The amendments which I move address themselves to that problem.
The ownership of the prime contractor is of fundamental importance. It is not just a question of whether the prime contractor meets the security requirements laid down by the present Government. If there is foreign ownership of any substantial nature in the prime contractor, in our view that could lead to leakage of information about the manufacture of our nuclear warheads and, indeed, about our research into the effect of those warheads.
There is also a general principle, which I shall state as clearly as I can, that in our view the prime contractor should be of UK origin with UK citizenship and owned by UK residents. I do not believe that it is in the interests of this country that our nuclear warheads should be manufactured by a consortium or company which is to any substantial extent in foreign ownership.
I understand that the Government have very rigorous security requirements and, as I said, I accept that. I understand that, for example, the French have equally rigorous security requirements. After all, they have been manufacturing nuclear warheads for the past 30 years. There is no reason to suppose that the French industry is not equally security conscious. It is possible that a French company may wish to participate in the prime contract which the Government are to let.
I use the example of France because that is the nearest one which comes to mind. Members of the Committee can easily imagine other countries which are either manufacturers of nuclear warheads in their own right or which have aspirations to manufacturing
904
nuclear warheads. They could, by one means or another, gain access to technology by virtue of having a large shareholding in the prime contractor.
I recognise one point which the noble Earl made on Second Reading; namely, that we have a very close relationship with the United States in the technology of those warheads. Whether they are of wholly British design or partly British and partly US design is a matter which we have debated previously at Question Time. I understand that the final version which the noble Earl is able to give is that the warheads are of British design but they draw on US technology. Therefore, there must be a relationship with the United States. After all, the warheads will probably be tested in the United States when made. There can easily be a contractual relationship with the United States and with US firms which have the technology without necessarily inviting those firms into the ownership of the prime contractor.
Perhaps I may refer now to the amendments which I am to move. Amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure that the prime contractor initially should be a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 and beneficially owned as to 95 per cent. or more of the shares by United Kingdom citizens resident in the UK. In other words, it looks through the initial consortium to the parents, grandparents and great grandparents to make sure that there is no foreign ownership beyond 5 per cent. coming in by stealth. Amendment No. 4 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 1.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that, even if a prime contractor in the initial stage is 95 per cent. UK owned, that principle is enshrined for the future, since, if at the initial stage it is 95 per cent. UK owned, there is a possibility that one of the UK companies or UK-owned companies —because they need not necessarily be owned entirely by UK citizens—may well be taken over. In our view that should trigger a retirement of the contract and the Secretary of State should take it back.
In an exchange of correspondence which we have had in The Times and which your Lordships may have read, the noble Earl has said that we can rely on the Government to ensure the security of the country and that we need not worry too much about putting anything on the face of the Bill.
However, the noble Earl recognises that this is an important problem and that it will not go away. We believe that Parliament should assert its right on this matter. If Parliament believes that it is proper that there should be foreign ownership of the prime contractor to any major extent making our nuclear warheads and researching into other devices, then Parliament will reject my amendment. On the other hand, if the Committee believes that Parliament should put into the Bill a requirement that any Secretary of State and any future Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be and of whatever political colour, should be bound by an Act of Parliament and that in order to change that he must come back to Parliament, then the Committee will join with me in approving the amendment.
Lord Mayhew: It is strange enough that the Government should wish to hand over the production of weapons of mass destruction and their associated development and research to a private commercial company. Even stranger is their willingness to hand it over to a private company with substantial foreign shareholding.
At previous stages of the Bill and in the noble Earl's letter to The Times, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, the noble Earl gives us the assurance that the Government will look closely at any foreign connections which the United Kingdom contractor may have. We have been told on numerous occasions that if shareholders are seen to be objectionable by the Government, the Government will cancel the contract.
Those assurances are inadequate. First, how will the Government know who are the foreign shareholders? How can they be sure that the purchasers of shares in London, New York or wherever are unobjectionable and that they are not being fronted by less objectionable agents? I doubt whether Saddam Hussein wishes to buy into the contracting company but I assure the noble Earl that, if he wanted to, his agents would not have the slightest difficulty in doing so. The Government would not know.
If the Government did know, what would they do about it? What powers do the Government or a private company have to require shareholders to sell their shares? I am not aware of those powers any more than the chairman of ICI at this moment is aware of powers to induce shareholders to sell their shares. The Government are aware of that point. Their sanction is to cancel the contract. What good will that do? In the first place, it is almost certain to be unfair to the contractor. The contractor does not want undesirable shareholders any more than the Government want them. and probably less so. Why should the contract be annulled for reasons with which the contractor is incapable of dealing? Having annulled the contract, the Government will find a successor contractor. But the same problem will arise with the successor. It too cannot control the ownership of its shares.
The cancellation of the contract is no small matter. It means another wholesale change of management on the production, research and development of our nuclear weapons. I said that Saddam Hussein would not wish to buy into this company. He might think differently if he knew that his buying shares in the company, and notification of that to the British Government, would disrupt and delay the production of British nuclear weapons.
It is no answer to these and other objections that may be made to foreign shareholdings for the Government to say that the Bill leaves open the way for American participation. It leaves open the way also to other participants of whom the Government and Parliament might not approve. I make this humble suggestion to the noble Earl. At a later stage the Government may incorporate in the Bill the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that cur relationship with American help should be by contract. Or, if they wish, they could amend the Bill
906
along the lines of the amendments tabled, forbidding all foreign participation other than American. That would somewhat diminish the hostility felt on this point towards the Bill.
I must make clear that we on these Benches feel that the success of the Trident project is already too dependent on American goodwill. The Bill will increase that dependence; these amendments will decrease it. It is our view that such weapons of mass destruction, which are British, should be handled by British people and British companies and not by foreigners.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Kennet: I rise to make two points only having said most of what I wish to say at Second Reading. My first point concerns sovereignty. In the case of the European Community, the Government are extremely watchful of any process which may cause sovereignty to drain away from Parliament and its elected government to any other quarter. I am one of those who believe that it is right to be watchful and, although one may adjust the speed from time to time, by and large one should not go too fast in that direction.
In contrast with the Government's caution towards Brussels, in this case we see what appears to be an extraordinary example of a lack of caution towards the United States. We realise that the Government share our opinion that one is talking mainly of a possible United States contractor if one is thinking of allowing foreign-based contractors. I wonder why it is right to be cautious about the gradual passage of sovereignty towards Brussels and yet wrong to be cautious about an immediate, sudden outright cession of sovereignty at the very heart of the military integrity of this nation; namely, in the fabrication of nuclear warheads.
Secondly, on the question of United States versus other foreign countries which might own the contracting company, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, was kind enough to write to me after the Second Reading debate. In his letter he said that the Government would set their face against foreign contractors. He went on to say that the United States is an exception.
The history of United States/British collaboration in the manufacture of nuclear weapons is far better known to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, than probably anybody else in the Chamber at the moment. It has had its ups and downs. Its long history began in 1941 and since then it has not been plain sailing by any means. The generation of the independent British nuclear production programme was due to one of the downs in that relationship. However, I am not arguing on strategic or political grounds that the United States should be treated the same as other foreign countries in the context of the Bill, so much as on environmental grounds. I risk recapitulating what I have already said at Second Reading, so I shall be brief.
The United States is the only country in the world which has experienced the prolonged use of private contractors in the manufacture of nuclear warheads. Environmentally that has been disastrous. The strong

907
man, Admiral Watson, was brought in two years ago to rectify matters. He had to close down a great many plants and the reclamation programme of poisoned earth and so forth is likely to cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Even the end of the beginning is not yet in sight in that country. There is a considerable risk that if we permit a US company to become a contractor in this country there will be a strong temptation for all those who have lost employment under Admiral Watson's programme of dismissals to seek employment here. I wonder whether the Government are confident of their own ability to prevent the employment of persons whose incompetence has been proven already in the United States.
I leave the matter there. I have been long enough in this House to believe that when the Government agree that something should be done, that is enough for the proper functioning of parliamentary government. If the Government agree that something should be done it is best that that be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. To the same extent that the Government agree that it should be done, they will not mind it appearing in such an Act of Parliament.
The Earl of ArranThese amendments to lines 22 and 24 of page one of the Bill would have the effect of imposing, by statute, a requirement for the AWE employing company, and the contractor acquiring it, and any parent company of that contractor, to be 95 per cent. UK owned. The further amendment to line 24 of page two of the Bill would impose a statutory restriction on any subsequent transfer of the contractor's shares to non-United Kingdom nationals.
To the extent that these amendments reflect a concern that United Kingdom national security interests must be fully safeguarded in the contract arrangements, I have no argument with those who tabled them.
I think I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that we are dealing with a very important industry. He is quite right. It is of absolutely paramount importance that the information about the UK's nuclear weapons must continue to be protected just as rigorously as it is now, and that such information should not fall into undesirable hands, whether foreign or otherwise. I must oppose these amendments, not because of any opposition to the security concerns which lie behind them, but because the amendments would be neither a suitable nor an effective way of safeguarding those concerns.
First, I must reassure those Members of the Committee who fear that we might be about to let the AWE contact to a foreign company. I can assure them unequivocally that the contract will be let to a company which is based in the UK, and it will also be a company whose controlling share interest is in British hands. This is not, therefore, a debate on whether the AWE contract should be let to a British company or a foreign one. It will, without doubt, be let to a British company. The debate is really about how we should ensure that whatever UK-based company we select meets our security concerns.
908
The noble Lords who propose these amendments have chosen to focus narrowly on the question of share ownership. But the issue of security is far too complex and important to be dealt with in such a simplistic way. We shall take a close interest in the share ownership of the contracting company. Indeed it is likely that we may specify in the contract that shares in the contracting company should not be transferred without the consent of the Secretary of State. That was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was concerned about. We would certainly reserve the right to terminate the contract of the ownership if the contracting company were to change in a way that was prejudicial to our security concerns.
But the ownership of shares is only one of many considerations that are relevant to security and, given that the controlling interest will in any case be in UK hands, it is by no means the most crucial. The holding of shares in the contracting company would not of itself confer any rights of access to AWE information. In any case, a company could be 100 per cent. UK owned and yet still have connections with undesirable foreign interests; or it could fail to meet our security requirements for other reasons. The most important safeguards for our nuclear weapon information are the stringent vetting procedures which must be undergone by all personnel before they can receive it and the principle that even among security-cleared personnel information is restricted to those who have a need to know.
Nevertheless, we will, as I have said, take a close interest in the share ownership of the contracting company and, in practice, the need to be absolutely sure that UK nuclear weapon information was protected would count against any company in which there was a substantial foreign shareholder. The United States is an exception in this case. Under the UK-US defence agreement of 1958, with which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will be familiar, the United Kingdom and United States Governments have co-operated closely on nuclear weapons matters for many years and will continue to do so. We would not therefore rule out participation by firms in which there was a US minority shareholding. An example is the Hunting-BRAE consortium which is 36 per cent. owned by Brown & Root UK, a company whose US connections are well known.
Hunting-BRAE is currently at AWE under the interim management contract which started last October. It has provided some 20 senior management personnel, including the AWE chief executive, who are seconded into the Civil Service at AWE for the planned two-year period between last October and vesting day for full contractorisation, the latter event depending of course on the Committee's approval of the Bill. The amendment relating to 95 per cent. British ownership of the contractor would presumably rule out the Hunting-BRAE incumbent company.
It is the job of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to safeguard Britain's national security. The Committee may rest assured that the protection of our nuclear weapon information is of paramount concern to him. He does not need a statutory obligation in order to do everything

909
necessary to protect that information. The amendment would therefore be unnecessary, even if it were appropriate. But in fact it is misguided. The best way to protect our nuclear weapon information is by the careful and thorough examination of a wide range of security considerations, of which share ownership is only one, and not by the blunt instrument of a statutory share ownership threshold.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, sought to distinguish security from leakage of information, arguing that while a contractor may be acceptable on the former ground, he may not be acceptable on the latter. That is a false distinction. The need to prevent leakage of information is part of our security concerns; indeed it is paramount among them. If there were a danger that to choose a particular company would lead to leakage of information, that company would not meet our security requirements. That is why we have consistently stated that security must be the prime concern when it comes to the selection of the contractor.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talked about the EC. I can assure the Committee that we shall not be obliged by the EC to let the AWE contract to a non-UK EC company. I realise that not everyone in the Committee or elsewhere is an uncritical admirer of the EC Commission in Brussels. But surely the Commission, even if it were to have its way in defence matters generally, would hardly be likely to want us in the UK to pass our national nuclear warhead information around the Community through the backdoor. In any case there is already an interim management contract with the Hunting-BRAE consortium which covers the provision of 20 senior managers, including the chief executive, seconded from industry into the Civil Service at AWE. That arrangement corresponds approximately to the solution advocated by the unions and the Opposition—that is to say, keeping AWE staff in the Civil Service while reinforcing the senior management from industry.
Some kind of contract seems inevitable under such options, even if it is only a contract to provide a chief executive or other senior staff reinforcements. Any snags which Members of the Committee opposite perceive in the letting of a contract for AWE would therefore apply to their proposed solutions as well as that advocated by the Government, since the letting of some kind of contract appears to be in common.
Those are the reasons why we resist very strongly this amendment. I urge the Committee not to accept it.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Will my noble friend go a little further as regards three points which he made? He referred to the fears that the Government might let the AWE contract to a foreign company. He went on to say emphatically, as I understood him, that it would be let to a British company. I wonder why that should not be put on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend also said that the Government would take a very close interest in the share ownership in the contracting company. Again, why cannot the
910
Government go further and say what kind of interest they would take and how they would make sure that that interest is effective?
My noble friend also said that Secretaries of State do not need statutory obligations to safeguard national security. I regard that as a very odd doctrine. Secretaries of State change from time to time and their performance also varies from time to time. I do not believe that Parliament has ever been particularly easy to persuade to abdicate its responsibilities simply on the premise that whoever the Secretary of State may be and whatever party he might belong to, he will do his duty. I believe that in asking Parliament to pass such a measure as this and others, the Government should be careful not to ask for sweeping powers. If they declare that their purposes are so impeccable, as I am sure they are, why should not those purposes find a place on the face of the Bill?
The Earl of Onslow: Can my noble friend tell me this: would Israel, the United States, France or any other nuclear and capitalist country allow the same outside ownership of shares in their atomic warhead manufacturing as we do? If they would not, why are we being what can only be described as lax in the circumstances?
Lord Zuckerman: Can the noble Earl say whether the Americans are as concerned about the ownership and the nature of the contracting company as the Committee is? Can he further say whether any infringement of the 1958 agreement would imperil our total relationship with the US over the whole defence field? Can he also say whether any of the 20 individuals referred to who have already been transferred—on, I presume, a temporary basis—are American citizens?
The Earl of Arran: In answer to my noble friend Lord Peyton I say again that the overriding importance of the whole of this piece of legislation—it is a very important Bill—is security. That is what it is all about. To suggest that we should have some kind of special shareholding, or some pre-arranged understanding of shareholding ownership, would not be sensible in this case; it is all to do with security. From the security point of view that would rule out many other countries. As I said, the AWE contract will be let to a UK-based and UK-controlled prime contractor. As regards any foreign connections this contractor may have, whether through shareholdings or in any other way, we shall assess the security implications carefully to ensure that there is no risk of nuclear warhead information falling into undesirable hands, foreign or otherwise.
My noble friend then referred to the various Secretaries of State for Defence who will be coming forward in the future. To whatever party he belongs, that Secretary of State will have the same paramount concerns at heart regarding the sensitivity of this extremely important weapon.
As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, I think he knows well that we have always had very friendly relationships with our United

911
States counterparts in regard to nuclear affairs. We look forward to that continuing in the future, however that may affect us.
The Earl of Onslow: Is it possible for my noble friend to answer the question that I asked him? I shall put it in a slightly more vivid way. Would the Kuwait Investment Office be allowed to buy shares in the Israeli atomic weapons manufacturing company?
The Earl of Arran: I should have thought that extremely unlikely.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble friend please go on to answer the question that I asked him? I have now asked him a second time. I expect an answer.
The Earl of Arran: With respect to my noble friend, am not quite sure what that second part of his question was.
Lord Chalfont: Can the noble Earl say, on a point of information, whether there is in this debate any relevant position to be taken on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? A great deal has been made about foreign ownership and about security. However, is it not a fact that under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty Her Majesty's Government—and indeed all governments of nuclear weapons states—are forbidden to transfer nuclear weapons, or the knowledge of how to make them, to any other power. Would that not override any considerations of ownership or even of security in the case which is now before the Committee?
The Earl of Arran: The noble Lord raises a very important point. Indeed, it is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised at Second Reading. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that our intention is to let the contract to a UK-based company or consortium which will have to satisfy very strict security requirements. The need to prevent classified information about the UK's nuclear weapons from falling into undesirable hands is paramount among our security concerns. The fact that we are bound by a non-proliferation treaty reinforces that concern, but is not its sole justification. It is also important that such sensitive UK information should not fall into the hands of countries which already possess nuclear weapons or, for that matter, terrorist groups within the United Kingdom. In practice, the need to protect UK nuclear weapons information would count against any company in which there was a major foreign shareholder, since such a company would be unlikely to satisfy all our security concerns.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I find myself somewhat at a loss because my wind-up speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in the first place, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the second place, and the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, in the third place. I have very little to add to what they said. The Government seem to persist in the view that it is enough that this should be dealt with by contract. The noble Earl has conceded our case. If this is to be dealt
912
with by contract let us—for goodness sake!—govern this Secretary of State, (a most honourable man) the next Secretary of State (who, no doubt, will be a most honourable man) and any future Secretary of State, so that Parliament has its say if and when we wish to give any considerable degree of foreign ownership to the prime contractor. That would have to come back to Parliament. Putting that into the Bill would answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. In my view, no other country in the world would do what the Government are proposing to do at the moment. I believe that this is a proposal that the Committee should accept.
The noble Earl keeps saying, "We shall do this; we shall do that; we shall do the other". The noble Earl is undoubtedly an honourable Minister, and the Secretary of State is undoubtedly an honourable Secretary of State, but the tenure of office of Ministers is, as we know, ephemeral. Other Secretaries of State and other Ministers in the place of the noble Earl may react in a different way.
I believe that this is a matter of fundamental importance; of such fundamental importance that I shall invite the Committee to divide on the issue. I believe it is time that Parliament asserted itself in a matter of such great importance and should instruct the Secretary of State what he can and cannot do in respect of this very important industry.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No.1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grey, E.

Adrian, L.

Grimond, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hampton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Hayter, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton, B.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bridges, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Brightman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Jacques, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B.

Rennet, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Desai, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ennals, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Fitt, L.

McCarthy, L.

Gallacher, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Galpern, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Glenamara, L.

Mar, C.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

[Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Mayhew, L. [Teller.]

913

Merrivale, L.

Shannon, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Onslow, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Thurlow, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thurso, V.

Phillips, B.

Tordoff, L.

Porritt, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Underhill, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Richard, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Serota, B.

Zuckerman, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Holderness, L.

Alport, L.

Hood, V.

Ampthill, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Ilchester, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ironside, L.

Attlee, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Aucklarid, L.

Kimball, L.

Bessborough, E.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Manchester, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Melville, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Carnock, L.

Middleton, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Morris, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalfont, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Munster, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nelson, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Newall, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Norrie, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plan of Writtle, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Pym, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renwick, L.

Erne, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rodney, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Roskill, L.

Flather, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Flowers, L.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gainford, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gisborough, L.

Slim, V.

Gridley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Strathclyde, L.

L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Halsbury, E.

L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathspey, L.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Swansea, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

914

Teviot, L.

Waddington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Tombs, L.

Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wise, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Asylum
4.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is making a similar Statement in another place. The Statement is as follows:
The number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has risen sharply from 5,000 a year in 1988 to more than 30,000 in 1990. From January to May this year 21,000 applications were received, a rate of nearly 1,000 a week. In the light of this increase the Government have been examining asylum arrangements, and I should like to inform the House of our initial decisions.
Britain has a long tradition of providing refuge for people who face imprisonment, torture or death because of their beliefs or ethnic origin. But for hundreds of millions of people who live in disordered countries or under totalitarian governments the answer to their problem does not and cannot lie in emigration to the West. Last year about 500,000 people applied for asylum in Europe. Numbers of this kind cannot be sustained year after year and go far beyond what was envisaged when the present international arrangements were established.
Fear of persecution is no longer the dominant element for many asylum seekers. In only a small minority of cases in the United Kingdom are the applicants shown to have a "well-founded fear of persecution" as required by the terms of the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees.
This convention is an instrument of last resort, designed to protect life and liberty from immediate threat. It does not confer an unfettered right to travel the world and settle in the country of one's choice. It does not oblige parties to facilitate, still less to encourage, the arrival of asylum applicants. We cannot allow immigration control to become optional. Nor must we let the institution of asylum be undermined by abuse.
Across the whole of Europe governments are having to review their procedures and provide additional resources to cope with the unprecedented weight of numbers. My right honourable friend is of course discussing the problem with our EC partners. In the United Kingdom we have decided to take the following action.

915
First, we want to make it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom is not normally prepared to entertain claims from individuals who have failed to claim asylum in the first safe country which they reached. If individuals arrive here who could have safely claimed asylum elsewhere on their way to the United Kingdom they will be sent back to that country for the claim to be dealt with there. The only exception is where the applicant has such close links with the United Kingdom that his or her claim should be considered here. In particular, applicants who arrive from other European Community countries should claim asylum there. The Asylum Convention which we signed in Dublin last year deals with these matters. We shall strengthen procedures at sea ports and airports, particularly at Dover, to identify such applicants.
Secondly, the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, through charges on airlines, discourages the acceptance of passengers who do not have valid travel documents. My right honourable friend and I recognise that many carriers have tried to comply with this, but in other cases carriers are simply not doing enough. My right honourable friend is therefore laying before another place today an order doubling from £1,000 to £2,000 the charge payable by the carrier for each passenger who fails to produce valid documentation. We shall increase our programme of training for the staff of airlines to implement this Act.
Thirdly, my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are exploring, with the co-operation of host governments and airlines, other ways to improve document checks at certain overseas airports. We are willing to provide document specialists to advise carriers about the authenticity of travel documents, perhaps taking photocopies of travel documents for later verification. The police will continue to seek out corrupt agents who are operating in or through the United Kingdom. Some of these have already been prosecuted and convicted.
Fourthly, my right honourable friend and I are particularly concerned that asylum seekers can arrive here with no passport or other means of identification and have to be admitted while their claim is considered. Evidence is coming to light that some asylum seekers have made multiple applications for asylum and have claimed social security benefits in a number of different identities. This is not acceptable. We have recently required asylum seekers to provide photographs of themselves. My right honourable friend is considering the contribution which finger printing might make in such cases. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Home Secretary are considering how the opportunities for such fraud can be reduced. They will consider whether any further powers are needed.
Fifthly, the present system for handling refugee applications is excessively cumbersome. The system is now completely overloaded. There are 50,000 undecided cases and the backlog is growing at over 3,000 cases a month. The average decision time is already over 16 months and is getting worse. On 26th April my right honourable friend announced
916
proposals to speed up the whole process. Accelerating the process will bring early justice to the genuine applicant and bring about the speedier removal of many more bogus applicants. We are now recruiting up to 500 staff for the immigration department at Croydon so that the initial determination can be made more rapidly. At the earliest parliamentary opportunity we will introduce a Bill to allow a substantial acceleration and simplification of procedures. The present opportunities for delay through repeated representations and litigation will be substantially pruned away.
Some asylum seekers already have the right to appeal to the immigration appellate authorities before removal; some do not. The Bill will make it clear that all those who are turned down in the determination process will be able to appeal while they are in the United Kingdom. In addition, there will be new procedural rules which will impose time limits for the submission of material in support of claims. Decisions on cases will take into account such matters as the deliberate destruction of travel documents and entry by deception. We will also carefully examine the credibility and good faith of applicants who make claims for asylum after they have resided in this country for some time.
I will be recruiting extra adjudicators and other support staff to the appellate authorities to ensure that asylum appeals will be heard more quickly. In order to assist the process of improving and streamlining adjudications, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I also propose to change the publicly funded arrangements for advice and representation in asylum and immigration cases. At present, advice and assistance, but not representation, are available to those whose means qualify them under the legal aid green form scheme. We propose that in future advice and assistance, and where necessary representation before the immigration appellate authority, should instead be provided by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. We believe that this will enable those who genuinely need it to be given such help more economically and effectively than under the green form scheme. When the necessary arrangements are completed, I will bring forward regulations to effect the change, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
In consequence, and as a result of the extra work which will flow from the changes that my right honourable friend and I have announced today, we intend to increase substantially the Home Office grant to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. I am grateful that UNHCR continues to contribute to the costs of the refugee unit of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service.
Our aim will be to decide all cases within a matter of months from start to finish. But in some cases it will be clear from the outset that the applicant has no claim to our protection. The Bill will provide for accelerated handling of clearly unfounded cases. An adjudicator will be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim. I believe that the rapid rejection of a large number of unfounded claims, and

917
the early departure of those applicants from this country, will play a major part in deterring further abuse of the process and allow us to tackle the dramatic growth in the number of applications.
The Government recognise their obligations to refugees, but they also have an obligation to the British people to control immigration. Those obligations can pull in different directions. Our aim is to arrive at a balance between them which is in line with the realities of the modern world. I believe that the measures we have announced today represent such a balance.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recognise that this is, on any view of the matter, a restrictive Statement. As he said in the last paragraph, the object of the exercise is to produce what he considers would provide a better balance than is the case in the present situation. I must confess that I am slightly mystified as to why the Statement is being made now. As I understand it, there has teen no consultation with any of the refugee authorities. None of them has been consulted as to whether this is the right time to make such changes. Moreover, the authorities have certainly not been consulted as to whether the proposed changes are the right ones.
The noble and learned Lord said in the Statement:
"I am of course discussing the problem with our EC partners. In the United Kingdom we have decided to take the following action".
Have the proposals been discussed with our EC partners? Is this to be part of some co-ordinated policy within the European Community for dealing with the problem of asylum seekers and refugees? If it is not, I am bound to say that the implication of those words is that the matter is being discussed with the EC, "but we have decided to take the following action, without waiting for the reaction of our Community partners". If that is the situation, it seems to me a somewhat extraordinary way to approach the matter.
As to some of the more detailed provisions, I am bound to say, looking at the document and listening to the text of the Statement, that I have concerns. I believe that they are reasonable concerns. Perhaps 1 may express them to the House. The noble and learned Lord said that there is to be some increased initial screening. Of course, it is unacceptable that there should be multiple applications for asylum and that there should be multiple claims for,
"social security benefits in a number of different identities".
That is absolutely true. However, nowhere is the mechanism for this initial screening spelt out. I should be most unhappy if it ended up by being the decision of an immigration officer at one of the ports or airports of entry.
The Statement refers to the contribution which finger printing may make. What is that contribution? I know not, except that it could apply once the individual is in the country. At that stage, I can see some grounds for suggesting that perhaps finger printing may be of some use. However, as part of an initial screening process, I am bound to say that I do not see how the mechanism could possibly work.
918
If one moves further into the substance of the Statement, one sees that there is provision for reinforcement of the immigration department at Croydon with another 500 staff. That is most welcome. Moreover, the Government tell us that there is to be a Bill,
"to allow a substantial acceleration and simplification of procedures".
When can we expect to see the Bill? Will it arrive before the Summer Recess? If there is such urgency that the Statement has been made at short notice after no consultation with any of the responsible organisations, are we to expect sight of the legislation this side of the Recess? I hope that we will.
The part of the legislation which causes me the greatest problems is that which deals with the abolition of legal aid in respect of advice in asylum and immigration cases. I am by no means convinced, as the Statement says, that the necessary representations before the immigration appellate authority should be provided solely by the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. However, perhaps the key to the issue appears in the next sentence:
"We believe that this will enable those who genuinely need it to be given such help more economically".
If the object of the exercise is really an attempt by the Treasury to save money, I must tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that this part of what the Statement justly claims is our proud tradition, so far as concerns asylum seekers, will end up sullied.
Finally, as regards the details, we are told that the Bill —whenever it appears—will provide,
"for accelerated handling of clearly unfounded cases".
We are then asked to consider the following proposal:
"An adjudicator will be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim".
Surely, that cannot be right. In such situations, when one is dealing in some cases with the lives of individuals, I believe that it would be very wrong for an adjudicator to be able to dismiss an appeal without a proper hearing after having decided that there is,
"manifestly no substance to the claim".
Under the terms of the Statement, we know not whether it will be possible to appeal against that decision. Indeed, there is a strange sentence in the Statement which states that while someone is in the country he will be entitled to appeal. I hope that the accelerated screening procedure will not mean that such people will be whipped out of the country so fast that there will be no proper opportunity for them to exercise a proper right of appeal.
As a country our openness towards genuine asylum seekers is something of which we should be proud. Successive governments have always claimed that they are proud of it. If it is part of our heritage, perhaps I may leave this thought with the House: the danger is that these measures might mean—I do not say that they will mean, because it is too early to say when we have not seen the fine print of the legislation—that genuine asylum seekers will not in future receive the fair treatment to which they are entitled and which they have received in the past. We on these Benches will therefore scrutinise the forthcoming Bill with extreme care.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I welcome the Statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am sorry that it has to come on his birthday, upon which I congratulate him heartily. I wish that I could congratulate him on the Statement with the same heartiness. It appears that some of the wording of the analysis of the problem is taken straight from the tabloid press. That is unfortunate. We must be careful over the words we use when we deal with these serious matters. Anything that creates the impression in this country that refugees, or people seeking refugee status in this country, are rogues and vagabonds is to be deplored, because if we are not careful it will feed through later into race relations in this country.
We hear that only in a small minority of cases in the United Kingdom are the applicants shown to have a well-founded fear of persecution, as required under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention. It is nevertheless true that between 1979 and 1989, 87 per cent. of applicants were allowed to stay in this country. It is agreed that 25 per cent. only of those were given refugee status and 62 per cent. extended leave to remain. I suppose the difference in view between ourselves and the Government is that they believe that many of those 62 per cent. were not proper people to stay and that they stayed only because the process was taking so long. We take the view that a large proportion of that group should be given the right to stay.
I agree with the statement that we must not allow the institution of asylum to be undermined by abuse. Any steps that can be taken genuinely to root out abuse and to ensure that such people do not undermine the position for genuine refugee seekers is to be applauded.
We have no quarrel with the suggestion that people who fail to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach should not be allowed to stay here. As the Statement rightly says, that is agreed under the asylum convention signed in Dublin last year. We have no complaints about that.
When it was going through this House the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 was opposed vigorously from these Benches, as it was from the Labour Benches, for reasons that I do not intend to rehearse again. I doubt whether the increase from £1,000 to £2,000 will make any difference. Once again I must say that the inability of people to produce valid documents is not necessarily an indication that there is anything wrong with those people. Genuine refugees find it difficult to obtain valid travel documents. Some people who travel on forged documents could well be genuine refugees.
The Statement says that the police will continue to seek out corrupt agents operating in or through the United Kingdom and that some have already been prosecuted and convicted. One would like to know how many cases there have been and how successful the police have been in this matter. We are told that evidence is coming to light of asylum seekers making multiple applications. That should be stopped but
920
again people in such circumstances may easily be tempted to do that and yet still remain genuine asylum seekers.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already queried finger printing. If the whole population were to be finger printed, there might be some validity in the suggestion. If there is to be a great central computer in Brussels to exchange fingerprints throughout the whole of the Community, that would be one thing, but to pick out a group of people and subject them to finger printing on the assumption that they are somehow more likely to be social security fraudsters is divisive and discriminatory.
We unreservedly welcome the methods proposed to speed up the process of producing early justice. Provided that it is justice that we are talking about and not just saving money, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, that proposal has our full support. The recruiting of an extra 500 staff in Croydon should go some way towards helping.
The Bill will receive the most careful scrutiny when it comes to this place. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give us an indication of when we may expect it. I hope we shall not find ourselves suddenly putting a Bill through at the end of a long year, waiving all the normal procedures of the House. I hope that the Government will go through considerable consultation before they produce the Bill.
The fact that the noble and learned Lord is recruiting extra adjudicators and other support staff is also to be welcomed. The United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service will be glad of any assistance in improving its resources. I am pleased that the UNHCR is given a pat on the back. The noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Clinton-Davis, and I, had an interesting discussion with Mrs. Ogata, the commissioner, this morning on the whole refugee problem. We were not at that stage aware that the Statement was to be made or we might have asked her opinion of some of its contents.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the dangers of the adjudicator being able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing. That is a peculiar proposal. But underlying everything is the need to know the criteria that such an adjudicator will operate. They need to be spelt out in considerable detail. Behind all this is the need for us never to send back to any country people whose lives are likely to be endangered or who face persecution. It is far better that some people—not vast numbers—should slip through the net than that anyone should be sent back to death, persecution and torture in their country of origin.
Once again I say that we must not allow the feeling to grow that refugees are in some way third or fourth class citizens from whom we have something to fear, because if we do that the whole of race relations in this country will be in jeopardy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for their remarks, especially in so far as they are supportive of the Statement. The purpose of the principal part of the Statement is to indicate what we are doing to bring speedier justice; that is to

921
say, to determine the case of the genuine refugee and to distinguish that from those who are not entitled to refugee status here.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points that have been raised. The Statement points out that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary regularly deals with these matters and is discussing them with our EC partners. Obviously asylum arrangements are necessarily part of the agenda in that discussion. However, immigration controls in the United Kingdom remain the responsibility of the Government. Of course the arrangements for determining whether someone is a refugee are very much matters for the Government. That is why the Statement is concerned with them.
The Statement is made now in order to give your Lordships, and also those who will hear it from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place, the thinking of the Government so far on the matter. A good deal of detail is required, as the Statement indicates.
Questions have been raised about the purpose of photography and finger printing. The idea would be to provide identification in respect of those who as they come into the country have none. It is in order to deal with situations where documents that are presented may not he reliable. It would also obviously help to make it more difficult for people to make multiple applications. A number of other countries have already adopted such measures. I think it is right that your Lordships should know that we are considering to what extent they may be useful in the circumstances of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Tordoff, both asked in slightly different ways when the Bill would be introduced. I shall not elaborate on what was said. I had better stick to the phraseology of the Statement:
"At the earliest Parliamentary opportunity we will introduce a Bill".
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was kind enough to mention the part of the Statement that deals with green form legal aid. He read out part of a sentence dealing with it which stated:
"We believe that this will enable those who genuinely need it to be given such help more economically … than under the present system".
However, I did not stop at "economically". I said: "more economically and effectively". In other words, I believe that money given to UKIAS in the circumstances will be a more effective method of helping the community which is affected by the legislation than money under the green form scheme. That is the belief on which the proposal is founded.
Both noble Lords spoke of the suggestion in the paper of a procedure under which an adjudicator would be able to dismiss an appeal without an oral hearing. The criterion is provided in the Statement:
"upon deciding that there is manifestly no substance to the claim"
That is quite a high standard and one with which the courts are perfectly familiar. The system of dismissing claims when they are manifestly without substance is a reasonable one and in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice. One does not want
922
the system to be clogged with cases awaiting determination if they manifestly have no substance. That is an important step in getting to the heart of claims that have substance so that they may be properly adjudicated. People should not have to wait an unnecessarily long time because the system is clogged with unnecessary cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, summarised well the purpose of the latter part of the Statement when he said that if it was directed to early justice he supported the proposal. It is manifestly directed to early justice and I believe that it carries that aim out well and in the right direction.
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend. It seems that Her Majesty's Government have thought ahead. It is worth remembering that the world at the moment is a particularly nasty place. The Serbs are cutting the throats of the Croats, the Armenians are having their throats cut by the Azerbaijanis, the Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab are doing the same. The world, to mix metaphors, is wall to wall with people being persecuted by others.
I know that this may sound illiberal, but we must not allow the country to become the sole repository of political and persecuted refugees. Perhaps we may remember that if we had been slightly less liberal in the 19th century we would not have given refuge either to Marx or to Lenin. We could have sent them back to the tender mercies of the Romanov or Hohenzollern police force. That may not have been a bad thing. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, finds that nearly as amusing as I do.
We must think about the problem; it is a complicated situation. My noble and learned friend and the Government have put prior thought into the suggestions and that must be good.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend did not intend asking a question. I am extremely grateful to him for what he said about the Government's purpose in seeking to secure speedy justice. That is the purpose of this—to distinguish between the genuine refugees who are entitled to be here and those who may apply without having a proper basis for doing so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am the rapporteur of a Council of Europe committee concerned with the arrival of refugees at airports. I confirm that the problem is common throughout Europe. It is a great problem and I should have thought that the greatest need was for co-ordination of policies among the countries of Europe before 1992 when the internal frontiers will cease to exist.
One of the points in the Statement which I believe is a step in the right direction is sending documentary experts to the airports of departure of refugees. I confirm that the rackets are universal. All over the world people have seized on the opportunity and charge large amounts of money to instruct refugees and to forge passports and other documents. The experts are organised into committees.

923
I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the practice of sending documentary experts abroad could be extended. It would surely be much cheaper and quicker to have more people in our consulates and embassies abroad who are expert in these matters than have the laborious business of collecting information after people arrive here. It is not only laborious; it is difficult and sometimes impossible. In this way, at least the Government would have definite knowledge on which to base the first check on whether people are genuine asylum seekers.
The need is known in the areas affected, particularly in places such as Liberia, Somalia and other areas where certain people are genuine refugees. They could be identified on the spot. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give his views.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said about the extent of the problem. He is quite right that these matters require to be discussed and should be the subject of international consideration. As I said in the Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is engaged in discussions. The steps we take on control within our own country are primarily a matter for us and that is what we seek to deal with in the Statement.
In trying to identify situations abroad, there is scope for developing the policy, which is one of the aims we have in mind to try to help airlines in particular to identify those passengers who may have difficulty or may cause difficulty. The Statement points out the desirability of increasing our programme for training the staff of airlines to implement the Act and for considering what other help can be given. That is important.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as an officer of the British Refugee Council, perhaps I may first ask for an assurance that there will be full consultation with the refugee council as well as with the UNHCR and other bodies which are intimately concerned.
Secondly, I sympathise with the Government's wish to draw a distinction between economic migrants and genuine refugees. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he can give an assurance that those who are genuinely fleeing from oppression will have the opportunity of stating their case, even though they may be a minority of those seeking to come to this country.
Finally, is it not clear that genuine refugees fleeing from oppression or fear of oppression are unlikely to have adequate documents with them to present to the carriers? Is that not one of the weaknesses of the present legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if we can take the last point first, it is true that a genuine refugee may well have difficulty with travel documents. It is not at all clear that that would necessarily be the case, but it would be rather unlikely that a genuine refugee with no travel documents would come from one international airport to, say, London Heathrow. If
924
somebody has embarked at an important international airport abroad and then travels to Heathrow, that is a rather unlikely scenario for a genuine refugee without documents. If he was without documents at the beginning, particularly in a country where persecution is to be feared, it is unlikely that he or she would present himself or herself at the international airport in that country. Of course the system would require us to take account of the possibility to which the noble Lord has referred.
So far as consultation is concerned, the Government are in regular contact with organisations that are active in the asylum and immigration field. Their views will certainly be taken into account as we develop the proposals outlined in the Statement. The Statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, recognised, is one of principle and the detail has still to be filled in. We shall certainly take account of continuing consultations with the relevant organisations.
As to the third point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the object of this exercise is indeed to have a proper procedure for ascertaining whether people who present themselves as refugees are genuine and to try to decide that in a fair way but sufficiently speedily so as to enable the decision, once taken, to be made effective. One of the difficulties of the present system is that people present themselves as refugees and even if it is later decided that they are not refugees they are still enabled to remain because the procedures have taken so long that it would not really be feasible to give effect to the decision. This is a very important, indeed a major, issue and the latter part of the Statement is primarily directed to that.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
4.43 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, after ("him") insert ("and in which the Secretary of State shall have a majority shareholding").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This amendment would inject a much needed element of public service into an excessively commercialised concern. It would require the Secretary of State to own a majority of the shares in the company actually carrying out the contract —probably and almost certainly a subsidiary of the company negotiating the contract. For example, if Vickers had negotiated the contract, it is certainly not the intention of the amendment that the Secretary of State should acquire a majority of shares in Vickers: the shares would be held in the subsidiary of Vickers which would carry out the contract.
It is extraordinary that the Government should decide to hand over this particular industry to private enterprise. I think it is fortunate for them that at the time the matter was dealt with in the other place the Gulf War was on; otherwise there would have been a stronger public reaction against the proposal, which is purely ideological—Thatcherism at its worst and possibly, we hope, at its last gasp.
The amendment does not go the whole way towards public service but it dilutes the element of commercialism. It is a compromise which attempts to get e best of both worlds; and if we had a consensus government supported by the majority of electors that government should welcome a concept such as this. Unfortunately, we have a doctrinaire government, elected by a minority of electors and probably supported by only a third of them at the present moment.
The first effect of the amendment would be to increase the degree of ministerial responsibility. It is the profound conviction of noble Lords on these Benches that the production of weapons of mass destruction and the associated research and development are matters for which Ministers should be answerable in Parliament. This issue was discussed at some length at Second Reading, and I must say that I did not think that the Government made any effective reply to the powerful arguments in favour of it.
The second major advantage of the amendment is that it would dilute conflict between the requirements of security on the one hand and the hopes of profit on the other. This conflict does exist and the Government admit that, because they are offering financial incentives to the contracting company to maintain the highest security standards. They are saying in effect that the contracting company needs financial incentives if it is to maintain the highest standards of safety. However, a company which needs in effect to be bribed to maintain the highest standards of safety deserves to be disqualified on that ground alone.
The amendment would at least ensure that the majority shareholder had no incentive but to produce the maximum security for all. There would be many other advantages. A feature of almost all the privatisation projects has been the excessively generous terms bestowed by the Government on the new private shareholders. Unfortunately, there is no reason to suppose that the Government will not again reward their friends with over-generous terms in the proposed contracts. Our amendment would mean that at least one-half of the excess profits would return to the taxpayer and not to the private shareholders. It also opens the possibility, to which the Government have not referred, of offering shares to the workforce. This is a concept which we on these Benches have been advocating year after year, and it could be applied in this Bill were it not for the doctrinaire approach of the Government.
The amendment also enables the Government to prevent excessive pay rises to the chairman and chief executive of the privatised company. The first aim of a privatised company nowadays seems to be to siphon off its assets into the pockets of its chairman and chief executive. This amendment would prevent that scandal happening in the case of the privatisation of the production of nuclear weapons.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go into great detail on this matter. I admit that it is a matter of principle; but we say that this is not a proper sphere for unrestricted private enterprise. It is necessary to introduce the national interest, the public interest, and that would be achieved by this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. I do not want to reiterate all the arguments he has brought forward in its support. However, there are two on which I should like to lay emphasis. The first is that, as the Committee will know, my party is wholly opposed to the principle of the Bill although your Lordships agreed to the principle of the Bill on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I shall continue, on suitable occasions, to make clear our opposition to the principle of the Bill.
If the Bill goes forward, the amendment would at least provide for government majority interest in the continuing operation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has quite rightly pointed out, it would prevent the prime contractor from putting commercial and profit-related interests before concern for safety and security. That must be exactly what the Government want in view of what the noble Earl said in an earlier debate.
My second point is that, furthermore, it would ensure for all time—at least until Parliament decides otherwise—that it will be the British Government who will be responsible for production of our nuclear warheads and for the research into their development and effects. Ultimately it will be the majority shareholder who will make sure that the priorities of the British Government prevail over commercial priorities.
I would add one more word in support of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. It is extraordinary how, when any form of privatisation occurs - and this is a form of privatisation —the board of directors immediately receive large increases in salary and the workforce lose their jobs—and we shall come to that point later in the Committee stage. I believe that on a question of national interest such as this the amendment is proper and right. I hope the Committee will accept it.
Lord Kennet: What we propose from this side of the House is a compromise since we realise that rejection of the whole Bill is impossible after it has been through the other place.
Twenty or 30 years ago—when what was then laughingly called Selsdon man began to emerge—we used to make jokes about how far privatisation could go. In retrospect he seems quite pink. At that time I advanced the hypothesis that if we continued long enough in that direction it would not be long before the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force were privatised. They have not been yet but the Government appear to be embarking on the slippery slope towards precisely that.
Perhaps I may introduce an element into this debate which has not been mentioned so far and which I hope the Committee will not find irrelevant. I believe it is comparable. At the moment British soldiers are directly employed by a private company, as if they were a workforce picked up in the labour market. That company is Royal Ordnance plc, which has recently been privatised. Royal Ordnance plc has a contract with the Government of Kuwait. The noble Earl sent me a series of Written Answers on that subject yesterday from which it appears that the Government are quite satisfied with the terms of the

927
contract between Royal Ordnance and the Royal Engineers: that is, the British soldiers concerned. That is good. However, the Government are not aware of the contents of the contract between Royal Ordnance and the Government of Kuwait. They are prepared to hire out British soldiers to a British company to work for a foreign government on they know not what terms.
Unless the amendment is passed, the Government would be prepared, on a comparable basis, to hire out the fabrication and design of British nuclear warheads to a company which might or might not be foreign and about which the Government might or might not know anything, under a contract of whose implications they might or might not be fully aware. If they show no more interest in such a contract than they have in the case of the Royal Engineers in Kuwait, that would be the end of the line in the privatisation of British military establishments.
Therefore, I commend the amendment to the Committee as a half-way house which retains an element of public control and introduces the private capital and private skills which the Government judge to be necessary, though we do not.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Perhaps I may add one word to what my noble friend Lord Kennet said. One cannot be entirely surprised that this most mercenary of governments should finish up virtually converting our soldiers into mercenaries. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend ought not to have been surprised.
The Bill is a triumph of ideology over common sense. What is proposed in the amendment must commend itself to the Committee. I believe that while a number of the Members of the Committee may be enthusiastic about a form of economics about which we on this side of the House have considerable reservations to say the least of it, there may be a point at which they say, "No, it is not right that in this case the sole consideration should be financial". That reservation, which we are endeavouring to assert in the amendment, must, I feel sure, commend itself to some noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber. If that were not the case, it would seem that Thatcherism still rides; and although the face is less aggressive than it use to be underneath, it is much the same. I hope that the Committee will prove that wrong this afternoon.
Lord Chalfont: I must express my puzzlement as to the way in which the nuclear weapon is apparently being separated from all other forms of armament production. Since I have been interested in these matters I have always railed against any suggestion that the nuclear weapon is entirely different from all other weapons. It is a weapon of war. However, let us not become involved in philosophical discussions. I rise simply to make the point that weapons of war for Her Majesty's armed forces have always been made by private companies. Indeed, the company of which I am presently chairman makes the Trident submarine.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he declaring an interest?
Lord Chalfont: I have declared that interest many times before and I declare it now.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is the noble Lord declaring an interest today?
Lord Chalfont: Yes, I declare an interest. As chairman of the company which makes our Trident submarines, I point out that it is a public limited company owned, except for one special share, entirely by the public. There is no conflict of interest, in spite of the somewhat minatory attitude of the noble Lord. I simply make a point of fact.
I am not making any special pleading but simply pointing out that for many years, right up to the present, weapons of war for Her Majesty's armed forces have been made by private companies—or by public companies, however one wishes to describe them. In other words, they have been made by companies which are not nationalised companies. I am simply expressing puzzlement that a distinction should be made from those companies which make submarines, guns, or tanks. I am seeking to determine whether in my mind I can create any intellectual difference between the manufacture of those weapons and the manufacture of nuclear warheads. I find that I cannot.
5 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Langside: I do not know whether what I have to say is relevant but I found the statement that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just made quite extraordinary. I remember the day I was sitting in a train at Victoria Station, or wherever it was, and I heard that the first atom bomb had been dropped. I was returning to Germany after leave. I was half asleep when I heard two fellow soldiers discussing the news. I thought what they were saying was pure invention. Then the following day I learnt all about the bomb. That bomb changed the history of warfare and perhaps the history of the world.
That recollection came into my mind as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made his statement. Perhaps he is right and I am wrong but I considered the atom bomb to be the beginning of the end of the history of warfare. The Committee will have to decide whether the noble Lord is right and whether I am wrong. Members of the Committee will recall the history of that extraordinary weapon and will have to decide whether those of us who are concerned about the concept of different treatment in this sphere are right or wrong.
Lord Chalfont: With the leave of the Committee, I hope I may reply to that somewhat apocalyptic intervention. It was never my intention to suggest that the nuclear weapon has not constituted a fundamental revolution in the history of warfare. I was talking about the matter of public and private ownership of companies producing weapons. In that context I do not see the difference between a nuclear weapon and any other weapon. I am otherwise in full agreement with what the noble Lord said. There is no need for the Committee to decide whether the noble Lord is right or whether I am right. We are both right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: With the leave of the Committee, I should point out that we are discussing a special type of weapon. If it is a special type of weapon, it needs special protection. That is precisely what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Zuckerman: Knowing the views of the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, I assume he was not differmitiating between the production of conventional weapons by industry and the production of nuclear weapons, which are not necessarily the same as other weapons. If that is his view—I sincerely hope it is not—I dissociate myself utterly from his comments.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of this amendment would be to provide for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to hold a majority shareholding in the contracting company. We are, however, far from persuaded for the need of such a requirement. Our aim in contractorising AWE is to allow fully flexible and efficient private sector management of the establishment—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to intervene at this stage but the Minister refers continually to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. That, however, is not the effect of this amendment. The effect of this amendment would be to give a power to the Secretary of State. It is neither here nor there whether that Secretary of State is the right honourable friend of the Minister or any future Secretary of State. We are talking about the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Arran: I take the noble Lord's point. At the moment I am referring to the present Secretary of State but I accept that there will be other Secretaries of State in the future. As I said, we are not persuaded of the need for the requirement in the amendment. Our in contractorising AWE is to allow fully flexible and efficient private sector management of the establishment. We are hardly likely to realise the full potential of that if we insist upon AWE being run by a company in which the Government retain a very substantial shareholding—in other words, a nationalised company. Such an arrangement would also be unlikely to encourage private sector companies to come and bid for the AWE management contract.
In any case, the whole point of contractorisation is to introduce best practice and experience from the private sector, which implies that those managers must have freedom to manage. This will not be achieved by a part government-owned company. I must emphasise that we do not need a government majority shareholding to make the contractor comply with our requirements at AWE. On those issues where it is necessary for us to keep a tight control on what is happening—such as safety and security—we will do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Williams of Elvel, have commented on the fact that the Government, in providing financial incentives on safety performance for contractors, have thereby admitted that there is a conflict between the profit motive and safety. The Government have made clear that the contract will be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the contractor will have no financial
930
incentive to compromise on safety practice. This does not imply any conflict between the profit motive and safety. It simply ensures that the profit motive will reinforce safety.
The Compliance Office has strong sanctions against inadequate safety performance, including the right to order the cessation of any process or facility which the Compliance Director may feel is not fully safe. However, to help ensure that such problems never occur in the first place, the contract will provide that it will not be in the contractor's financial interest to put production or other output requirements before safety. It is for those reasons that I urge the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, decides what to do with his amendment, I must press the noble Earl on his statement that it is difficult to have a government-majority owned company which is well managed. I believe I have interpreted him correctly. Is the noble Earl saying that because the Government own a certain percentage of British Telecom that company is not well managed? Is the noble Earl saying that because the government have had a majority stake in BP for almost 50 years that company is not well managed? What point is the Minister trying to make?
The Earl of Arran: This is an extremely important matter as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, stated. It is important from the point of view of national security and the defence of the realm through its nuclear deterrent. The whole point of contractorisation is to introduce best practice and experience from the private sector. As I have already said, that implies that managers must have the freedom to manage. In this case we feel that would not be achieved by a part government-owned company.
Lord Mayhew: I wish to take up the point made by the noble Earl on whether there is a conflict between safety requirements and the hope of profit. I stated that the Government were offering financial incentives to the contracting company to observe high standards of safety. The noble Earl seemed to deny that. He said the Government were ensuring that there is no financial motive for the contracting company not to observe the highest standards of safety. One does not have to be a logician, a grammarian or a barrister to appreciate that if one takes the Minister's statement literally he is saying exactly what I have already said; namely, that to encourage the contractor to observe the highest standards of safety, we must ensure that he has no financial motive for not doing so. That is ridiculous. It is perfectly plain to everyone that safety in the production of nuclear weapons and research and development are all extremely expensive. There is duplication of men and materials and back-up of all kinds to cover contingencies which almost certainly will never occur. A private company is bound to require a financial incentive before undertaking such expenditure. The Government recognise that that is the case and have said so.
However, by recognising that fact the Government are saying that if the financial incentive is not provided

931
we cannot rely on the contracting company to observe the highest standards of safety. No one can deny that that is the position. My simple amendment dilutes that conflict by making the Government the principal shareholder. My amendment does not remove the conflict altogether, but it dilutes it and that is one of its advantages.
I am sorry to find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. My case is—as I stated in introducing the amendment—that the production of weapons of mass destruction should not be entrusted to a private company. I would feel the same way about weapons of biological warfare and the production of gases. It is highly inappropriate that such production should be undertaken even by such a magnificent company as that over which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, presides. I hope the noble Lord would not claim that it would be appropriate for his company or similar companies to manufacture biological weapons. I was delighted with the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, who reminded us of an ancient ideological dispute on how far privatisation should go, and how nobody dreamt that it should include the production of nuclear weapons.
I was reminded of an ideological discussion before the war at the Oxford University Labour Club when we debated how far nationalisation should go. It was decided that it should stop short at the nationalisation of ladies' hat shops. What a restrained attitude we had to nationalisation compared with the attitude of the Government to privatisation—privatising the means of mass destruction! It is a ludicrous misjudgment.
I feel that there is a big point of principle involved. We cannot hope to persuade everybody but in view of the magnitude of that principle, I believe that I should ask the House to divide on the amendment.
5.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Ardwick, L.

Hamwee, B.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hollick, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jacques, L.

Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Desai, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kennet, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Longford, E.

Gallacher, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Galpern, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Mayhew, L.

932

Mellish, L.

Shackleton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stedman, B.

Mulley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Thurso, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Redesdale, L.

Underhill, L.

Richard, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Whaddon, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

White, B.

Seear, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Serota, B.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Holderness, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Alport, L.

Hooper, B.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Astor, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Attlee, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Auckland, L.

Joseph, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boardman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Borthwick, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lytton, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnock, L.

Mar, C.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Margadale, L.

Chalfont, L.

Marlesford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Mottistone, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mountevans, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nelson, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Norrie, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L.

Onslow, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Pender, L.

Dundonald, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Elton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Flather, B.

Pym, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rodney, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharpies, B.

Gisborough, L.

Sherfield, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gray of Conlin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Strathclyde, L.

L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,E.

Halsbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harlech, L.

Swinton, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Tombs, L.

Hesketh, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hives, L.

Tryon, L.

933

Ullswater, V.

Wedgwood, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Wise, L.

Waddington, L.

Wynford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 24, leave out ("or another").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. As we understand it, the Bill as drafted would allow another company to become the employer of the existing workforce of the Atomic Weapons Establishment. If that is the case and the Government's intention, we should first of all wish to know it and secondly to warn that such a separation could cause problems. The employing company could be an organisation which exists only as an agency. Anyway, it would be extremely odd for the prime contractor not to employ the workforce as it exists at the moment at AWE.
I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that it is import ant that if there is to be contractorisation the workforce at AWE should be perfectly happy with the terms and conditions under which they will be employed in the future. It is part of a series of amendments that I shall move to try to ensure that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of this amendment would be to rule out the possibility of transferring AWE's staff to a separate employing company, rather than to the contracting company itself. I believe that the amendment stems from a misunderstanding of the "two company" structure which we propose to operate at AWE. Perhaps it would be helpful, therefore, if I explained the two company structure in more detail.
On vesting day, AWE's staff will be transferred out of the Civil Service and will become employees of a company formed by the Secretary of State for that purpose. The company or consortium which is successful in the competition for the contract to operate AWE will be required, as a condition of the contract, to buy this employing company. For the duration of the contract, therefore, the employing company will be owned by the contracting company and will be indistinguishable from it for all intents and purposes. There is no question of any potential division of executive responsibilities between the two companies—the sole function of the employing company is to be the employer of AWE staff.
The reason that we wish to have a separate employing company rather than transferring AWE staff directly to the contractor is that there might come a time when we wish to change the contractor. If the staff were employed directly by the contractor it might be difficult to remove him—for without him there would be no staff to carry out AWE's work. But the employing company eliminates those problems. If a contract is terminated and not renewed, the incumbent contractor will be required to sell the employing company to his successor, who can thus
934
take over responsibility for operating the establishment with the same staff and minimum disruption. The employing company also makes it possible for the Secretary of State to take back responsibility for running AWE himself should he choose to do so; for example, in the event of a gap between the end of one contract and the beginning of the next.
That is the same arrangement that was adopted when contractor operation was introduced at the royal dockyards. I can assure the Committee that the two company structure has worked well at both Devonport and Rosyth.
The two company structure has considerable advantages, not only for the Ministry of Defence, but also for the AWE workforce, for which it provides continuity of employment. If there were to be a change of contractor, AWE staff would remain employees of the same employing company, but that company would be acquired by the new contractor.
If this amendment were made, AWE staff would have to be employed directly by the contractor. What would happen then if the contractor failed to perform satisfactorily and the Ministry of Defence wished to appoint a new one? The entire AWE workforce would still be employed by the old contractor, who would have little incentive to co-operate with his successor. Similarly, if the Secretary of State wanted to take back direct responsibility for operating AWE in some emergency, the mechanics of arranging it might be difficult. With a two company structure, however, he would simply take back the employing company, and with it the entire staff of AWE.
In short, the one company structure which this amendment imposes on AWE would effectively be handing the AWE workforce to the contractor for good, rather than for the duration of his contract. That would cause difficulties for both AWE and its workforce. For that reason, I urge your Lordships to reject this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. Did I understand him to say that if the prime contractor were changed for one reason or another the prime contractor whose subsidiary employs the workforce would be required to sell the company which employs the workforce? I hope he will confirm that I heard him correctly. At what price, under what circumstances and for what consideration will the prime contractor sell the employing company to the future contractor? What is the price of the workforce? We cannot treat people like cattle. They have to be properly employed under proper conditions.
Perhaps I may refer to the example of Rosyth. I am afraid that the two company structure has not worked particularly well. There are more redundancies coming up. There was a 50 per cent. loss on start-up of the company. It seems to us that the workforce should be properly protected by being employed by the prime contractor.
If the Government wish to take back the contract from the prime contractor, it follows axiomatically that they take back the contract and the workforce in

935
the same way that they propose to privatise the contract and the workforce. There seems to me no difficulty in writing that into the prime contract.
I am not sure that Rosyth and Devonport are good examples. I am uncertain about the conditions that the Government propose for this putative sale of a company employing the workforce on a change of prime contractor. It is still an area of great uncertainty. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to clarify the matter before I decide what to do with the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: The answer to the noble Lord is, yes, a contractor would be required to sell an employing company to its successor at the same price for which it bought it. At Devonport and Rosyth it was a nominal figure of £50,000.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am not sure that the noble Earl has fully met all my points. The nominal figure of £50,000 is therefore just a device for ensuring that there should be another employer company other than the prime contractor. What is wrong with having a one company structure? The two company structure in our view does not work particularly well at either Rosyth or Devonport. The noble Lord is hoist by his own petard. If the contractor is required to sell the employer company at the figure for which he bought it,—namely, £50,000—he then says, "This will be written into the contract." It is therefore not a sale but a straightforward transfer. Therefore, why should not the sum be £1? Rather than a subsidiary, why should not the prime contractor be responsible for the whole matter, thus avoiding all those difficulties? I cannot see the logic in the Government's argument.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I may repeat and try to clarify that which I have already said. The reason that we wish to have a separate employing company rather than transferring AWE staff directly to the contractor is that there might come a time when we wish to change the contractor. If the staff were employed directly by the contractor it might be difficult to remove him, for without him there would be no staff to carry out AWE's work. But the employing company eliminates those problems. If a contract is terminated and not renewed, the incumbent contractor will be required to sell the employing company to his successor who can thus take over responsibility for operating the establishment with the same staff and minimum disruption. The employing company also makes it possible for the Secretary of State to take that responsibility for running AWE himself, should he choose to do so. The precise terms of the contract have not exactly been worked out. But of course that will be done with considerable care and caution.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl repeats what is in his brief. That does not help us. I am interested to know why there should be a separate company when any contract—and I shall offer my services to draft the contract if the noble Earl wishes—can perfectly easily say, "Under such and such circumstances the workforce will go back to such and such". It is
936
a perfectly easy contract to draft. I do not understand why the Government persist in this structure which has not worked well elsewhere.
Furthermore, there are considerable problems. Who will be the directors of the employer company? Will they all be members of the prime contractor company, which is the parent? Will there be employee directors? Will there be union representatives who are directors of that board? Will terms and conditions for the directors of that board be different from those of the directors of the prime contractor? We have no idea of the answers because the Minister continues to refer to the contract which we have not yet seen. Will he consider those points and let the Committee know his feelings?
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: I shall certainly consider them. As I said, the actual terms and conditions of the contract have not yet been fully worked out. However, all the issues to which the noble Lord draws attention will be taken into account when drawing up the final terms of the contract.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Before my noble friend makes a final decision about his amendment, perhaps the Minister will clarify a further issue. Would it not be a more simple procedure if upon the change of contractor the Secretary of State automatically became the temporary employer on the same terms that existed with the original employer? Thereby the position of the employees will be safeguarded in the interim period before a satisfactory secondary employer is found. Is not the idea of setting up a company to carry out that task unnecessary? There would be many difficult and dangerous problems which the Secretary of State, acting as pro tem employer, could avoid. Members on this side of the Committee who have knowledge of what has happened in similar situations are filled with considerable perturbation and frankly we do not like it.
The Earl of Arran: The transfer of staff is not as simple as the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Jenkins, make out. I must remind them that TUPE 81 provides for the transfer of staff from one employer to another. It is a complex business which is now being considered. However, as the Committee stage progresses I believe that I shall be able to give clear instances of the transfer of staff meeting exactly the conditions that are now encountered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am well aware that TUPE 81 will apply. We shall come to its provisions later in Committee. However, the important point is that the continuity of employer is essential. One simply cannot have staff being shoved around from one employer to another, to another and yet again to another; there must be continuity. If there is a change in the status of the employer company the contracts may well change without knowledge of the trade unions or anybody else. The Government may wish to think about the matter again.

937
Of course I shall read what the Minister has said, but I remain wholly unconvinced that the Government are adopting the right solution. Perhaps the Minister has received by courier extra messages that he would like to convey to the Committee. If so, I shall listen to him before deciding what to do with my amendment.
The Earl of Arran: I can finally say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the two-company structure ensures continuity of employment in AWE work.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are not getting very far. I must read carefully what the Minister has said and take advice. I reserve our position: at a later stage I may wish to return to the matter. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Such a company shall have a duty to consult and agree with recognised Trade Unions as to the establishment and maintenance of suitable machinery for negotiation and consultation on terms and conditions of service, to provide reference to arbitration, conciliation or mediation in the event of dispute, and to discuss other matters of mutual interest to the company and its employees.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 5 is designed to ensure that the workforce is properly treated at the point of transfer. As the Committee is aware, the workforce now within the atomic weapons establishments as part of the Ministry of Defence is within the Civil Service and is therefore covered by the Whitley arrangements. My amendment seeks to ensure that suitable and acceptable joint negotiating and consultative machinery is established by the new companies once they are under commercial management.
The present Whitley arrangements ensure that management and recognised trade unions—both industrial and non-industrial—meet on a regular basis to consider problems of mutual concern and to deliberate on their resolution. That covers health and safety, which is an extremely important issue in the AWE, as the Minister will recognise. Between such formal meetings there are many informal contacts which are possible largely because of the formal framework of the existing procedures.
The Civil Service is also covered by an arbitration agreement which provides for either side to seek to put an issue to arbitration if agreement cannot be reached by negotiation. That is a vitally important mechanism in avoiding industrial conflict and dispute. I am sure that the Committee will wish to enshrine in legislation the avoidance of any industrial dispute or conflict which could jeopardise this extremely important activity.
I have no doubt that in reply the Minister will say that negotiating and consultative arrangements will transfer under TUPE 81. However, two problems arise. The first is that at present TUPE 81 applies only at the moment of transfer. After that, it is all up for grabs. Secondly, negotiation arrangements will have to be changed because there can be no reference to a higher level from the new employer company. One
938
imagines that access to the Civil Service arbitration tribunal will be lost. Therefore the workforce will be considerably disadvantaged by the transfer unless the Government accept the thrust of my Amendment No. 5.
I need not emphasise to the Committee the importance of this issue. As a nation we cannot afford to have industrial disputes at the point of manufacture of our nuclear warheads. On any occasion, industrial disputes are undesirable but in this instance they are wholly wrong. We seek to ensure that the workforce has the proper protection that now obtains and to ensure that proper negotiating machinery is in place after transfer and continues to be in place after TUPE 81 stops operating. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The aim of this amendment is to impose a duty on the AWE contractor to negotiate and to consult with the recognised trade unions on terms and conditions of service. The Government's chief concern is with the welfare of the workforce at AWE as well as its proper management. We believe that contractorisation will benefit AWE as a whole and its staff.
I hope that relations with the unions will be as close and constructive as possible, and I am sure that both AWE management and the trade unions will work towards that end. The fact that AWE staff will no longer be civil servants does not mean that they will no longer be trade unionists. No private sector company in the defence industry has ever done away with the unions. Other major firms in the defence industry such as Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace and Hunting Engineering all recognise the unions. It is firms such as these or others of similar stature which would be involved in running AWE.
We are thus not disposed to accept the amendment. The facts are that under TUPE 81 the contractorised AWE will inherit the establishment's existing consultative machinery and all currently recognised trade unions. Any subsequent change that the contractor may wish to make through the employing company must be by negotiation. If there is to be any change it must involve full consultation with the workforce. Like any good employer, it will be very much in his interests to consult and negotiate with staff. If he does not consult properly and fails to carry through what has been inherited, he can be taken to an industrial tribunal.
The fear lurking at the back of some trade unions' minds might be the possibility, however remote, that the workforce may decide that it does not want to be represented by unions. In fact we believe that the workforce at AWE wants to have a constructive relationships with the unions; but in the end it is for the workforce to decide. We should not impose on AWE any statutory obligation relating to the role of unions that does not apply elsewhere in industry. In the light of that explanation, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Mayhew: The amendment does not merely require a company to consult, but it requires it to agree with recognised trade unions. That seems to go

939
a little further than may be regarded as desirable. It is one thing to consult and another thing to require agreement by law.
I am slightly worried too by the feeling that although the future workforce will certainly wish to carry on the excellent traditions of the present AWE, and will be loyal to its unions, it seems to me that if we pass this amendment we are pre-empting its view. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, can reassure me; but it seems to me that the amendment is imposing on the future staff which I am sure should be and will be loyal to their trade unions but should not be told to be loyal by legislation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for their comments. My problem remains as it was when I moved the amendment. There is a long-established negotiating procedure. So far as I understand it, that has worked extremely well. At present, that is being by-passed to a certain extent by Hunting-BRAE under phase 1 by means of something called team briefings which are not part of the negotiating machinery.
Furthermore, I am advised that trade unions are finding it difficult to obtain information and hence are finding it difficult to represent the interests of their members.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised a point about whether the company shall have a duty. At present the company has a duty to conform to Civil Service arrangements. I do not believe that it is sufficient for the noble Earl to say simply that if unions or representatives of the workforce have a grievance, they can take matters to the industrial tribunal as they can in other industries because here we are dealing with a special case. With numerous contractors about the place, we may well be in a position in which the industrial relations machinery which has worked extremely well to date—and I hope that the noble Earl will agree that it has worked extremely well to date—will be cast aside without some sort of provision of this nature.
I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. However, I should be grateful if the noble Earl could reassure me more than he has at present that the Government recognise that contractorisation is different from privatisation. The contractorisation of the production of nuclear warheads requires an industrial relations machinery which is smooth, efficient and avoids disputes. That is what I am trying to impress upon the Government. I believe our interests are at one. However, I believe that if the noble Earl says that the matters can be taken to an industrial tribunal, then we shall be in some sort of trouble.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, this is a special case from the point of view of many aspects. This particular instance is special from the point of view of the transfer of the workforce being smooth and efficient. That is what one hopes will happen. After transfer, the employer
940
cannot change conditions without the consent of the workforce. That is part of the normal consultative process.
Lord Williams of Elvel: When the noble Earl says that the new employer company cannot change the terms and conditions of employment without the consent of the workforce, what does he mean?
The Earl of Arran: I mean that there must be a consultation process in order that the transfer can be agreed, as in all circumstances of this sort. I do not believe I can add to what I have said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Earl used the expression "without the consent of the workforce". By that does he mean that after TUPE 81, which we agree applies at transfer, any change in those arrangements must have the consent of the workforce? In what form will that consent be expressed? Will that be by a unanimous or majority decision? What does the noble Earl have in mind when he uses the expression "without the consent of the workforce"?
The Earl of Arran: The trade unions will still have a role to play at AWE after contractorisation. The negotiation machinery is in place now in the form of joint consultative committees on which those matters are discussed. The department remains ready to meet the trade unions to discuss any specific issues which may be of anxiety.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Do I take it that the expression "consent of the workforce" means exactly what it says; namely, that the workforce, in some procedure to be discussed, must deliver its opinion and consent to any changes in the arrangements which have been passed over under TUPE 81? If that is the case, will the noble Earl give an assurance that that will be written into the contract?
The Earl of Arran: I have said that a very close consultation process will take place between the workforce and the unions. Every employee must agree any change made by his employer to his terms of service otherwise it is a breach of contract.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe we are gradually getting somewhere on this matter. We do not want that consultation, which is always very valuable, to be something like, "We will tell you what you are doing". We do not want it to be said that that is consultation. If the noble Earl says that the consent of the workforce is required—and I noted carefully his words—then we are getting somewhere. I shall study carefully what he said and I may come back to this at a later stage, having received advice on the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) In pursuance of the arrangements made hereunder the Secretary of State shall ensure that the redundancy provisions applicable to all employees of any company shall be equivalent to those presently embodied in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme and will set up out of monies provided by Parliament a redundancy fund for the benefit of all qualified employees declared redundant after the transfer of the undertaking.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall weak also to Amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 deal with any possible redundancies which may result as a consequence of contractorisation. At present there is no provision in the legislation for the Ministry of Defence to fund any redundancies caused by its relationship with AWE. That relationship with AWE will be crucial in the future. These will be difficult and important issues. The Ministry of Defence will be the one monopoly buyer of the prime contractor's products. Therefore, there is a monopoly buyer—the Ministry of Defence—and a monopoly provider of the products—the prime contractor.
If the prime contractor or the employer company decides in its wisdom that there must be redundancies, in our view money should be available from the Ministry of Defence to fund any redundancies. The Government should make it clear that they will ensure that that happens.
Amendment No. 7 would allow the setting up of a scheme which will be properly funded. It will ensure that the argument which I have put forward as regards redundancies. If there are to be redundancies, then qualified employees should be properly protected by a funded programme set up by the Ministry of Defence. In our view that is not something that should be left to the private contractor. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of these amendments would be to write into the statute book that redundancy provision after contractorisation was equivalent to that in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, and should be funded under arrangements made by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 6 also requires that a redundancy fund should be set up out of moneys provided by Parliament.
We cannot guarantee that no redundancies will ever occur at AWE, or in the Ministry of Defence, or in the Civil Service generally. But the introduction of contractor operation at AWE will not itself cause redundancies. The relevant factor is workload, not the status of the workforce. However, on contractorisation, a new redundancy payments scheme will be set up that will, when taken together with the pension scheme benefits, provide redundancy conditions at least as good as at present. That requirement will be written into the contract and the AWE contractor will be obliged to comply. That assurance has been given previously by Ministers in another place and I am pleased to repeat it today in your Lordships' Chamber. There is no need for legislation on this point; we shall cover redundancy conditions in the contract. I should perhaps add that in this Bill, as with all legislation, we try to avoid including material which is superfluous, however benign its content and intention.
The amendments, moreover, show a misunderstanding of the concept of redundancy. Redundancy money is not paid from a fund as such, as pensions are paid from a pension fund. It is paid as part of a pay and provisions package. I believe, however, that the point behind the amendments is to guarantee redundancy payments should the AWE
942
contractor be unable to meet his obligations to do so. We have already met this point in the Bill, albeit in a slightly different way to that proposed by the noble Lord. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the worst happened and the contractor went bankrupt. I stress that this is a very unlikely scenario, but it is a useful illustration. The employing company, as the noble Lord will recall, is separate from the AWE contractor, so that company would not itself be in difficulties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State could then simply take back the employing company into his sole ownership. In that way, staff pay, and if necessary redundancy payments would be fully safeguarded.
In summary, my arguments against these amendments are not so much with their aim—we also intend that redundancy benefits should be fully safeguarded—but rather with the means by which they seek to achieve those aims. We have already given assurances that redundancy conditions, when taken with pension scheme benefits, will be at least as good as at present. Similarly, in the very unlikely event that the AWE contractor could not meet his obligations, the Bill already allows the Secretary of State to take back the employing company into his ownership, thus safeguarding pay and redundancy. It is for those reasons that I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. This Committee appears to be leaving a great deal to the contract. I have no doubt that the contract will do exactly what the noble Earl says it will do. I have not previously dealt with a contractorisation Bill, but I have dealt with privatisation Bills. As with other Bills—indeed two Bills I am taking through your Lordships' House from the Opposition side at the moment—we seem to produce an enabling Bill and everything else is left to the contract, the articles of association or something else which Parliament never sees.
The noble Earl is saying that we shall not see the contract because it is not yet ready. In that case, I can see no problem in including a provision in the Bill. However, I would be perfectly satisfied with what the noble Earl says if he will be kind enough to write to me to that effect and enclose a copy of what he said. That will enable me to advise the trades unions involved that that is the Government's position and that what he said will be in the contract. That is an important matter.
Obviously I accept what the noble Earl says. But I should like further confirmation. It seems to me that the Bill cannot properly be discussed without some sight of a draft contract. Will a draft contract of any sort be available to the Committee before we reach Report stage? If not, we shall have a series of discussions somewhat in vacuo, which could be resolved if we were able to see the draft contract. I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. However, we need confirmation. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some reassurance in regard to the contract, and that he will use his best endeavours to place it before the House before we reach Report stage.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Earl speaks, perhaps I can say a few words. The Home Office made available a draft contract in regard to the private sector remand establishment in Humberside. There was no difficulty. A copy of the contract was placed in the Library of the House. In my view, that was the correct thing to do. If it could be done by the Home Office, why cannot it be done by the department of the noble Earl? Perhaps he could tell us.
The Earl of Arran: My understanding is that there will not be a draft contract available in the time that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggests. I have stood at this Dispatch Box and already given assurances that redundancy commissions, when taken with pension scheme benefits, will be at least as good as they are at present. Those guarantees will certainly be included in the draft contract.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Is there not already a contract for phase 1? Is Hunting-BRAE not already operating under a contract of some sort?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps the noble Earl can give me an answer to my question. The noble Earl spoke but he did not deal with my question. It is the expectation of most of us that when questions are asked of Ministers they are answered.
The Earl of Arran: I do not wish to be unforthcoming to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. Perhaps I need not take up the time of the Committee and I can write to both the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Williams setting out our principles and the state of play on the draft contract.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We can do better than that. I intend to continue with the amendments which will no doubt refer to the contract. During the course of those amendments, I am sure that the noble Earl will take whatever advice he feels appropriate and allow us to have information on what the state of play is on the draft contract. I know not whether the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be answered in the course of this debate, nor my question regarding whether under phase I Hunting-BRAE is operating under a contract. If it is not, is there a contract? All those questions remain for the moment in the air. We shall certainly come to them as we go through the amendments before the Committee.
The Earl of Arran: Perhaps I can be of a little further help to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I understand that this is a contract of considerable size and length. It is a classified document and it will not be available until the end of next year.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The contract will not be available until the end of 1992. Therefore the noble Earl is asking the Committee to discuss a Bill which enables the Government to do certain things, the realisation and the principles of which will not be known at all, and not known to the participants, until the end of next year. We are at least clear on that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert:
(""premises" means any buildings that are fit for the purpose for which they are constructed.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to "premises", which are referred to at page 2, line 21, of the Bill and are to be designated by the Secretary of State. It is my understanding that there have been some problems with premises, particularly at Aldermaston. The object of the amendment is to ensure that radioactive materials and equipment are stored in proper facilities, with due regard to the full safety standards and requirements which at present exist. We wish to ensure that the contractor is obliged to uphold these standards and that stores, materials and equipment are kept in purpose-built buildings and facilities which are adequately shelled with lead or concrete.
The Committee may be aware that there was an accidental release of tritium gas at Aldermaston. The Atomic Weapons Establishment plans to build special facilities there affording primary and secondary containment which will in theory prevent the release of tritium gas outside the plant. But they will not be ready for about five years. We need to have assurances that that construction will go ahead.
There is some suggestion that substandard materials have been used in the construction of the A90 complex. The substandard items were in the ducting and ventilation system. As I understand it, the complex was not accepted by the Ministry of Defence and subsequently it was refurbished using proper materials. I believe that the noble Earl knows what "proper materials" means. The concern is that the contractor may well accept substandard construction and materials which may not contain the hazardous products. The object of the amendment is to make absolutely certain that the contractor will be under an obligation to continue the work which is being done at the moment and also that he makes absolutely certain that the highest levels of safety will be maintained in the installation in which he is operating. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The amendment states that the premises to which the Act will apply would be,
"any buildings that are fit for the purpose for which they are constructed".
We all recognise that it is important to have the right buildings at Aldermaston and the other establishments. Indeed it is very right. During the 1980s problems of cost escalation and delay were experienced with the Aldermaston capital programme. This is a billion pound programme of investment in new buildings and facilities, the centrepiece of which is the new A90 building for the manufacture and processing of fissile components for nuclear warheads. These matters were considered in detail in successive reports by the Public Accounts and Defence Select Committees in another place.
Against that background, the National Nuclear Corporation Limited was appointed in 1988 as the overall project manager of the AWE capital programme. It has great experience in managing such

945
programmes and in the commissioning of civil nuclear facilities. Its appointment did not imply that staff at AWE were incompetent but rather that nuclear scientists are not adept at managing building programmes; it is not their expertise. Shared responsibility for capital projects between the PSA and MoD also contributed to the difficulties.
I am pleased to say that the A90 problems are now firmly in the past. Construction work is complete. Equipment installation is largely complete and commissioning of the building and equipment is under way. We shall be able to meet the requirements for Trident production, and I am pleased to say that the Trident programme is on course to meet its in-service date of the mid-1990s.
Another major new capital facility at Aldermaston is the A91 building for the treatment of radioactive liquid effluent. Like A90, this is built but not yet commissioned. Commissioning involves running the various treatment processes under simulated operational conditions. No radioactive materials have been introduced into the building. This major step was planned to take place at the end of 1991 following completion of the commissioning programme. However, earlier this year during commissioning some of the stainless steel pipework and filter vessels of A91 were found to be leaking; that is, leaking non-toxic, non-radioactive test fluid. Initial inspection revealed the cause to be corrosion from the inside, mainly adjacent to the welds. Commissioning was stopped and an investigation launched. The detailed report is yet to be completed.
One of the purposes of commissioning is of course to ensure that any such problems are discovered before the new facility is used operationally. There is no connection with previous welding problems with the ductwork in A90 which were reported to the Defence Committee in 1989 and which have long since been solved. We are confident that the A91 corrosion problem will also be solved, and there is certainly no threat to Trident.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned, a tiny amount of the radioactive gas tritium was released at Aldermaston on 19th February. That has nothing to do with A90, A91, NNC Ltd., Hunting-BRAE, contractorisation or this Bill. There is no tritium in A91. The release occurred in a research, not a production, facility. The work within this facility and the personnel employed there have not been e langed or affected in any way by the interim management contract. The release was minor and the maxim urn dose that could result to any member of the public would be less than one microsievert. Members of the public receive every year on average over 2,000 times as much radioactivity from natural and background sources. The resultant dose to the workforce would also be extremely small; no greater than that to the public in this instance.
In summary, there is no need for this amendment as all buildings at AWE are fit for their intended use. For that reason I seek the Committee's rejection of the amendment.
Lord Kennet: Before my noble friend decides what to do about the amendment, can the noble Earl say
946
whether these matters in general—that is to say, the fitness of the buildings for the purposes for which they are constructed, what they are lined and roofed with, the question of tritium and so on—will be within the province of the director of the Compliance Office, or will they remain under the direct jurisdiction of the Secretary of State as the owner of the premises throughout the establishments?
The Earl of Arran: Our plans are that land facilities and other assets—namely, capital facilities—will remain in Crown ownership but they will be operated by the contractor. The Government will ensure that capital facilities are appropriate for the task.
Lord Mayhew: In what way will these matters come under the control and monitoring of the compliance officer? Can the noble Earl say whether the report on corrosion will be published and, if so, when?
The Earl of Arran: The compliance officer will be absolutely insistent on and very much responsible for matters such as safety and security during the operation. That will certainly be the case, as is most appropriate.
Lord Kennet: Will the Secretary of State have any source of information on such matters as these other than the Compliance Office?
The Earl of Arran: I am not absolutely certain of the answer to that. It is a good question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord and make sure of the duty of the Secretary of State in these particular circumstances.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will write to all of us. We all enjoy letters from him.
Serious questions need to be addressed about the premises which are now under consideration. The noble Earl quite rightly referred to the A91 stainless steel pipework. He was right to say that there was a corrosion problem. It had been reported to the local press so it was no particular news to anybody. Is this corrosion problem to be patched up before contractorisation, or will it be properly repaired to the highest standard required in the industry before contractorisation? Who will pay for that? Will it be the Ministry of Defence, or will it be a charge on the new contractor when he takes over these desirable premises? That is what he wants to do.
Before the appointment of NNC, the facilities project management contractor, it is my understanding that this package of work was in the hands of the PSA and not the nuclear scientists at Aldermaston. Can the noble Earl confirm that? Finally, if the A90 complex is delayed, will not production work continue in outdated buildings? The example, from the United States, is terrifying about what happens when production of these very important and difficult products takes place in outdated buildings.
The Earl of Arran: I do not wish to be patronising, but these are obviously important and sensible questions which need to be addressed very carefully. The Compliance Director will monitor everything a

947
contractor does, including anything which relates to the premises. If there are questions which I have not answered I shall advise the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as soon as possible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. I do not wish to hold up the Committee. We have to get on with business. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Inspection of accounts by Comptroller and Auditor General
Subject to section 1(2) above an account of the contractor shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple but really quite important amendment. If approved, it will allow continuing parliamentary scrutiny of AWE's finances and the finances of the prime contractor. This is particularly important because of the valuable work that has been carried out by the Public Accounts Committee in another place in its scrutiny of these premises, as of the whole establishment, and the fact that AWE's work will be derived entirely from the Government. Again we get back to this thought that the Ministry of Defence will be the sole purchaser of the product of the prime contractor. It is therefore of vital interest that the taxpayer and the taxpayer's interests should be properly protected. I beg to move.
Lord Kennet: Before the noble Earl says that the Bill will be all right without this amendment—which I expect it will, though I hope it will not—perhaps I may ask whether he or the Secretary of State has called for a detailed account of all the reasons why things went wrong in the United States on the environmental pollution front and on the fraud front. The United States Government are the victims of massive fraud and massive malpractice. That has called for the most heroic remedies by the incoming Secretary of Energy. Every one of those malpractices, frauds and mistakes—no doubt some honest mistakes, too—could have been found out, prevented or, learnt about in advance, or at any rate at the moment that they were happening, if there had been a sufficient and sufficiently immediate auditing procedure in the United States. Clearly there was not, otherwise those disasters would not have occurred. What steps have the Government taken in advance in preparing the Bill and in preparing their minds for operating it to ensure that we do better when we have to cope with private contractors here?
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of this amendment would be to open the accounts of the contractor to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The facts are that the Comptroller and Auditor General can currently look at the MoD's relations with any defence contractor to ensure that the
948
taxpayers' money is being wisely spent. He already has the right to do this, and to have access to departmental papers, without specific legislation in every case. Consequently, we do not need this Bill to give him that right in respect of our relations with the AWE contractor.
The amendment relates specifically to access to the contractors' accounts. These will, naturally, be prepared in accordance with the Companies Act and thus publicly available. Once again, we do not need the Bill to specifically provide for that to happen.
If, however, the amendment is seeking a wider remit for the Comptroller and Auditor General in respect of the contracting company, to enable him to see all their internal papers, then I must say that I believe it would be wrong to attempt such an effect. The contractor operating AWE will be in the same position as any other defence contractor. It would be inappropriate and unfair to provide for any greater access to background, or commercially confidential information, than is currently available to the Comptroller and Auditor General. Furthermore, the wording of the proposed amendment does not parallel that of the National Audit Act 1983 so it would not, in any event, have that effect.
However, under the National Audit Act 1983 the Comptroller and Auditor General does have rights of access to documents in the control or custody of the Ministry of Defence, including those originated elsewhere. It will therefore be up to him to use the power that he already has to go into the Ministry of Defence and obtain the papers that he requires. These arrangements work satisfactorily in other cases like the royal dockyards and there is no reason why they should not do so in this instance.
I conclude, therefore, that the additional powers envisaged by this proposed amendment are superfluous, in so far as the contractor's accounts will be published in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act and the necessary powers already exist for the Comptroller and Auditor General to consider the MoD's relations with the AWE contractor. If, however, the principle behind this amendment is that the contractor should be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General then I see no reason for putting him in a different position from any other defence contractor, including the dockyard contractors, in respect of whom such a requirement does not exist. It would be unfair to insist that it did so in this case. It is for that reason that I urge your Lordships not to accept this amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his response. It is my belief that the prime contractor to be set up as a result of the passage of this Bill is in quite a different position from any other defence contractor. Other defence contractors have other business; they can sell their products elsewhere. This is a contractor which is to be set up for the unique purpose of running premises owned by Her Majesty's Government, for no other purpose, and, it will have no other business whatever. Therefore, I do not accept the argument that this is to be treated as any other defence contractor. Nevertheless, I shall read very

949
carefully what the noble Earl said. I may well wish to come back to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Provisions applying to the transfer of certain employees]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 29, at end insert:
("(1A) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, in their application to the transfer of the undertaking or any part of it, shall have effect as if, for regulation 10 (duty to inform and consult trade union representatives), there were substituted the provisions of subsections (2A) and (4) below, and the remedies by way of complaint to an industrial tribunal provided for by, and the other provisions of, regulation 11 shall be available and shall apply in relation to those subsections as they would in relation to regulation 10 or any corresponding provision of it.
(1B) Long enough before the transfer to enable consultations to take place between the Secretary of State and the representatives of the independent trade unions recognised by him in respect of the employees, the Secretary of State shall inform those representatives of—

(a) the fact that the transfer is to take place, when approximately it is to take place, and the reasons for it;—

(b) the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for employees;

(c) the measures which he envisages he will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to those employees or, if he envisages that no measure will be taken, that fact; and

(d) the measures which the company which is to become their employer envisages that it will, in connection with the transfer, take in relation to those employees or, if the company envisages that no measures will be so taken, that fact.

(1C) The company which is to become their employer shall give to the Secretary of State such information at such a time as will enable him to perform the duty imposed on him by virtue of subsection (1B) (d) above.
(1D) The Secretary of State, where he envisages that he will, in connection with the transfer, be taking measures in relation to the employees in respect of whom an independent trade union is recognised by him, shall enter into consultations with the representatives of the trade union and in the course of those consultations shall—

(a) consider any representations made by the trade union representatives, and

(b) reply to those representations, and, if he rejects any of those representations, give his reasons.

(1E) If in any case there are special circumstances which render it not reasonably practicable for the Secretary of State to perform a duty impressed on him by subsection (1B) or (1D) above, he shall take all such steps towards performing in the circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 13. The noble Earl will have recognised the purpose of this amendment. It is to put the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations specifically in the Bill. I believe that was done, although I have not checked, in the Dockyards Services Act 1986. I think it was the successful initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that brought that about. The noble Earl might wish to consider that proposal.
I turn now to Amendment No. 13. Although the Bill says that TUPE 81 should apply to the transfer, there is at present no effective remedy if there is a breach of TUPE. This amendment would give the trade union concerned the ability to take the Secretary
950
of State to the court to challenge any breach. That is an extra protection which the trade unions, because of the sensitivity of this industry and the sensitivity of contractorisation, need and deserve. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of Amendment No. 11 would be to enshrine in the Bill a statutory duty on the Secretary of State for Defence to consult and inform the trade unions on the scheme for transfer of the staff; to consider their views; and, if rejected, to explain why. Amendment No. 13 also allows a legal challenge by the trade unions to the High Court on the adequacy of such information and consultation.
The amendments rightly draw attention to the need for close consultation with AWE staff as contractorisation proceeds. In replying to the debate, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I outline our approach to consultation and then explain why the Government believe the proposed amendments to be unnecessary.
We are committed to consultation and have established joint consultative committees with the trade unions to discuss, prior to vesting day, those matters which affect their members. These act as the fora for discussion between MoD management and the national trade union sides on all matters which affect AWE staff. We remain ready to meet the trade unions to discuss any specific issues which may be of concern to their members.
We also issued, on 5th December 1989, a consultative document detailing the Government's proposals for AWE. The trade unions commented on this, and we issued a second consultative document responding to their comments. A further document was issued to the industrial and non-industrial union sides on 10th January 1991 dealing with pensions and redundancy arrangements. This has been made available to all staff through an in-house newsletter Insight which has been set up to keep staff informed of progress towards full contractorisation.
Insight is an important part of our consultation programme and shows how seriously we take our obligations in this respect. It is produced by the implementation group at AWE, which reports to the compliance director. Its aim is to explain and present the facts so that staff have a clear view of developments. Any member of staff is welcome to put questions or suggestions to the editor so that Insight can respond to them. In addition, a number of letters have been sent to AWE staff giving detailed information on matters which affect them.
The requirement for consultation between employer and staff is set down in the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Paragraph 10 of those regulations imposes a duty on the employer to inform and consult trade union representatives on the details of the transfer. These regulations have been laid before Parliament and represent the Government's considered approach to the question of transferring staff.
Clause 2 of the Bill already makes it clear that the safeguards of TUPE 81 will apply to the transfer of AWE staff and so we are obliged to comply with them. Amendment No. 11 duplicates requirements which are already enshrined in TUPE 81—indeed, much of its

951
wording is lifted directly from TUPE 81 itself—and which we do not need to spell out any further; to do so would be unnecessary and potentially confusing. We do not need to cover the point twice in the same legislation.
We acknowledge that a similar requirement for consultation was included in the Dockyard Services Act 1986 following consideration in your Lordships' House. That does not, however, alter our view that it is unnecessary in this case; indeed, the fact that it has made no difference in practice to the consultation procedures in the dockyard contractorisation exercise provides a sound reason, based upon experience, not to insert it in this Bill.
Amendment No. 13 also provides for the unions, where they allege failure by the Secretary of State to fulfil his duties in consultation, to bring an action in the High Court to seek a declaration as to whether or not this is so. Similar provision was inserted in the Dockyard Services Act 1986 and was used by the trade unions to pursue a High Court case. They lost, having spent a lot of their members' money in the process. The Government consider that such a provision is, in any event, misplaced because Paragraph 10 of TUPE 81 provides for such a complaint to be presented to an industrial tribunal, with the right of appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The same regulation provides for "appropriate compensation" to be awarded if the tribunal finds the complaint well founded.
I presume that the noble Lord may be seeking to use these amendments and the suggestion of High Court action as a kind of threat over the Government. But staff at AWE need have no fear. We are committed to consultation on all detailed aspects of contractorisation as our record shows. The requirement to consult is laid down in TUPE 81 and we shall adhere to those rules which are the laws of the land. We do not need a gun held to our heads in order to play fair. If anyone wishes to allege otherwise, their remedy is already there in TUPE 81, through the industrial tribunal. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply. I am sure he recognises that these are complicated matters—indeed, his reply demonstrated that. The whole question of TUPE 81—how it will apply and what will be the status of the staff in terms of their employment—needs to be digested fully before we continue the debate. I should like to read what the noble Earl has said. These are complicated matters and I do not want to continue to move amendments which are centred around the same point. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Privileges and immunities: application of certain enactments]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Clause 3(3) refers to the power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 3(2). This is an exceptionally important order. We believe that such an order should be fully discussed in Parliament before it is made. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: From my reading, the provision in the Bill will cover rather wider matters. I entirely support the idea behind the amendment. We have not had sufficient discussion and knowledge of the contract and of the possible future actions of the Government in relation to the schedule. I therefore warmly support the idea that, before any changes are made in the schedule and in the orders issued by the Government, Parliament should have another chance to discuss it.
Lord Kennet: Irrespective of its merits as a whole, and indeed of its merits piece by piece in the various clauses, the Government will agree that, as Bills go, this is rather a sketchy one. It is a bit of a skeleton. There are a good many areas not yet filled in. For instance, as we shall see in a moment, the compliance office does not appear anywhere in the Bill. A new regime is to be launched on the basis of primary legislation which is fairly skeletal. In that case it seems to me, as it seemed to my noble friend, that the case for not relying on a take-it-or-leave-it yes or no order to determine the situation as history unfolds is a strong one. The more skeletal a Bill is, the stronger is the case for insisting that amendments to its schedules or to the regime that it sets up should be debatable and amendable in Parliament. I strongly support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: The amendment before the Committee would require defence Ministers to return to both Houses of Parliament for approval to make an order repealing or amending the schedule. The current wording of the subsection allows such changes to be made through the statutory instrument and negative resolution procedures.
The schedule confers a number of privileges and immunities upon the contractorised AWE. These are necessary for security, and in some cases for practical reasons. However, as I said during the debate on Second Reading, it is the Government's policy that immunities and exemptions from legislation should only exist where absolutely necessary. I am sure that Members of the Committee will support that view. The schedule to the Bill was examined in detail during its passage through another place, and a number of amendments were passed which reduced its provisions considerably.
The schedule as it now stands has been reduced as far as we consider possible at the present time. However, should development occur in the future which might enable us to reduce the schedule still

953
further without adversely affecting security or any other major concerns, we would still wish, in principle, to do so. The purpose of Clause 3(2) of the Bill is to enable us to do just that.
Clause 3(2) enables the Secretary of State to repeal any item in the schedule. It also allows him to amend the schedule's provisions, but states clearly that this power shall not be exercised so as to extend the application of privileges or immunities. In other words, under Clause 3(2) we could not add to the list of exemptions or immunities even if we wished to do so. The only changes that we can make is to delete, or reduce, a provision.
I am a little surprised that, in such circumstances, the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, should table an amendment requiring us to come back to Parliament for an affirmative resolution. It would be quite unnecessary and a waste of parliamentary time. For those reasons, I urge Members of the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: It is all very well for the Minister to talk about,
"a waste of parliamentary time".
But we on these Benches have to try to find out what the Bill is all about. If we do not get the chance to do sox—and we know that the contract will not be produced until the end of next year—it makes life on the Opposition Benches rather difficult.
However, I accept, as I hope the noble Earl does, that we have a genuine problem on this side of the Committee in understanding the full purport of the Bill. It is most important that we should be given opportunities to understand what is going on as it goes on. However, at this stage, I certainly do not wish to press the amendment. I hear what the noble Earl says; but, nevertheless, I must express some dissatisfaction that are not being given all the details about how the whole process will operate before this Bill receives Royal Assent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert:
("(4) Schedule (Compliance Office) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of providing means of monitoring and supervising the designated and other activities of any contractor appointed under section 1 above, and providing advice to the Secretary of State on the incurring of expenses under section 5 above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall, for the convenience of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. All these amendments stand in my name and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
There has been a good deal of debate about the Compliance Office. At present, I am quite unclear as to what the responsibilities of the Compliance Office really will be, what authority it has and what its size will be. Further, I am worried that the Compliance Office may be contractorised at the end of the day if that is what the Government are set on. In our view, it must be firmly within the Ministry of Defence and responsible only to the Secretary of State. If the noble Earl can help us with some views on what the
954
Compliance Office might have as its responsibility, what authority it might have and what size it will he, we may perhaps be able to make some progress. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew: We have had considerable discussion both on Second Reading and today in Committee on the question of safety. I believe that a study of Hansard would show that the noble Earl in fact agreed this afternoon that there is a conflict between the requirements of the highest standards of safety on the one hand and the hopes of profit on the other. For that reason, it is of the utmost importance that we should embody in legislation the duties, the obligations and the constitution of the Compliance Office.
Frankly, I do not know even now—although perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, knows more about this than I do—what the Compliance Office is, what it does and how many people belong to it. I should like the Minister to tell us something about it. It should certainly be mentioned in the Bill. We should know something about the duties and the size of the Compliance Office. The Minister may well say, "Well, you can trust us. We will see to it. We have said over and again that we shall look after the safety of the new contracting company". We do not doubt the Government's goodwill on the matter. However, this is not a matter that Parliament should devolve. It is not a matter that we should shuffle off and leave to Ministers and their orders; the duties and constitution of the Compliance Office should be stated quite clearly and fairly in the Bill.
Lord Kennet: After the two amendments upon which the Committee divided, this amendment is, in my opinion, by far the most important left for us to decide. We heard just now that the contract will not be available until the end of next year. I do not know what "available" means in this context. However, it is to be a classified document so, presumably, it will never be available to Parliament. Therefore, it must mean that the contract will only be available to the contractor at the end of next year.
I cannot quite remember, but I believe that the noble Earl told this Chamber on one occasion that the programme is that the contract, which does not yet exist, will go out for tender in the middle of next year. In other words, a contract competition will take place in the middle of next year and the Government hope to award the contract to someone at the end of next year. However, it will be a difficult competition if the text of the contract is not available to competitors. Like much else, this aspect of the matter requires further thought by the Government.
I turn now to the question of the Compliance Office. It is amazing that a Compliance Office (which is an American phrase) should be part of the scenery without being mentioned in the Bill. We only have the Government's word for it—which of course we accept; but governments change as has been said a thousand times—that there will be a Compliance Office. It ought to be mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, in general, this amendment ought to be accepted. That much is very clear.

955
However, as regards greater detail, "compliance" with what? We have not even been told about that yet. Will the Compliance Office monitor only the compliance of the contractor with the terms of his contract, or will it also monitor the compliance of the contractor with the law of the land? That will be quite a job as most of what the contractor does will be classified as top secret and the ordinary inspectorates, the police and so on, who one would expect to enforce compliance with the law of the land, will not be able to go in and do so.
Let us assume, for example, that the compliance director will be responsible for both compliance with the contract and compliance with the law of the land. I believe that that is more likely to be the case. Where will his staff come from? He will need a very large staff. It may be that the size of his staff will approach in magnitude the staff that the contractor will bring to the job. It is important that we should have an answer to that question. Further, who will pay for this large staff? Of course, one assumes that it must be the Secretary of State as there can be no question of it being the contractor because that would mean the privatisation of the Compliance Office. Moreover, and perhaps most important of all, how is this important and, in certain respects, supreme authority at Aldermaston going to fit with the existing authorities which will govern the place and the contractor? I have in mind, in particular, the chief scientist of the Ministry of Defence and the head of the Defence Procurement Executive.
Further, who will talk to the Americans? I refer now to the American administration. Who will talk government to government on behalf of the Secretary of State and the Cabinet about day-to-day questions on the procurement and design of nuclear warheads? Is it, as it was always going to be, the chief scientist who will know everything and control most things? Will he still be the chief adviser to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister?
Alternatively, will it be the head of the Defence Procurement Executive? If so, will that official have sufficient clearance to enter into such matters fully and freely with the American Defense Department as an equal, or will he not? We need to have an answer to that question. Or, is it conceivably in some respects going to be the director of the Compliance Office? Moreover, what security clearances will the director and his staff have and how far down the heap will that extend?
On the relationship between these three men, who are all servants of the Secretary of State, will depend the efficient functioning of the design and production of nuclear warheads in this country, far more, I submit, than on any question of whether it is a private company that undertakes the management or direct state employees as has been the case hitherto. Perhaps we shall be lucky enough to have some answers from the Minister before we leave the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: The effect of Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 would be to write the functions and powers of the Compliance Office on to the statute book and to bind the Secretary of State for Defence to
956
comply with any of the Compliance Director's recommendations for payments by the ministry to the contractor. I must resist the amendments not because I have any fundamental disagreement with the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, about what the functions and powers of the Compliance Office should be, but because provision in the Bill is neither necessary nor appropriate in order to define them.
In so far as the amendments reflect the noble Lords' concern that the contractor should be regulated effectively by the Compliance Office, I am in full agreement with them. We have always intended that the Compliance Office will have thorough oversight of the contractor's activities and the power to enforce environmental, health and safety standards and compliance with the terms of the contract. That has been made clear in repeated public statements.
The Secretary of State already has the power to establish a Compliance Office and define its functions. After the repeated statements that I and other Ministers have made of our commitment to establish a strong Compliance Office, I am surprised that the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, feel that we cannot be trusted to fulfil that commitment without a statutory obligation to do so. The Secretary of State for Defence is constitutionally responsible for all that happens within the sphere of his department's function, including the activities of AWE, for which he will remain accountable irrespective of the fact that its operation will be contracted out, and he will be called to account before Parliament if the Compliance Office fails to regulate AWE satisfactorily.
The Compliance Director is, and will remain, a senior MoD civil servant responsible to the Secretary of State. Consequently, it would be inappropriate to give him statutory powers enabling him to force upon my right honourable friend a particular course of action, such as withholding contractual payments. The constitutional position is, and must remain, that civil servants are responsible for offering advice to Ministers, who take the decisions and are in turn answerable to Parliament. Although I should find it hard to conceive of a situation whereby my right honourable friend would not accept the advice of the Compliance Director, it is MoD Ministers and not civil servants who are answerable to Parliament for the activities of the department. Ministers will remain accountable for what happens at AWE and for meeting the nuclear weapons programme, irrespective of contractorisation. It would be quite wrong to bind Ministers to accept a decision of their civil servants.
It is misleading to draw parallels with the statutory bodies, such as Oftel and Ofwat, which have been set up to regulate privatised industries. When an organisation is sold off completely, the Government's responsibility for it is discontinued, and therefore, if the organisation is to be regulated at all it must be by statute. But that will not be the case at AWE. I must repeat that we are not privatising AWE as the gas and electricity industries were privatised. The Government will continue to own the assets and the property, and will still be ultimately responsible for the establishment. All that we are doing is bringing in a contractor to carry out the activities of AWE for a fixed period of

957
time and under strict contractual control. It would be wrong to attempt to qualify by statute the Secretary of State's continuing constitutional responsibility for the establishment, as the amendment seeks to do.
I do not propose to discuss the content of the proposed schedule in detail, since my main objection is to the principle of making the Compliance Office a statutory body. I will merely say that in some respects, the duties which the amendment seeks to impose by statute upon the Compliance Office correspond approximately with those that it will actually fulfil. In particular, I stress that the Compliance Office will ensure that when a particular activity is covered by an exemption under the existing schedule to the Bill, the contractor must not only achieve safety standards at least as good as those required by statute, but will also maintain the higher standards which it is the ministry's policy to achieve. On the other hand, there are parts of the proposed schedule which would be objectionable even if the principle behind it could be accepted. In particular, I note that it seeks to wrest responsibility for the enforcement of health and safety legislation away from the Health and Safety Executive. In fact, the HSE is already responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and associated enactments at AWE, and will continue to be so after vesting day.
We are also considering Amendment No. 18, which would prevent the Bill from coming into force until six months after a Compliance Director has been appointed. I have to say that I believe the amendment to be seriously misconceived. There is already a Compliance Director at AWE, who is presently monitoring the performance of the interim management contractor, Hunting-BRAE, and establishing the methodology and staffing requirements for the larger Compliance Office which will monitor full contractor operation. The Compliance Director was appointed at the commencement of the interim management contract, which began on 1st October 1990, so he has already been in office for more than six months. The amendment would therefore make no difference to the date upon which the Bill would come into force, since the condition which it lays down has already been met.
To sum up, the Government have made abundantly clear their intention that a strong Compliance Office will regulate the contractor-operated AWE, with particular attention to environmental, safety and health considerations. It is completely unnecessary to write the terms of reference of the Compliance Office into the Bill. Moreover, it would be wrong to interfere with the Secretary of State's continuing constitutional responsibility for AWE, or to give a civil servant statutory powers over the Secretary of State. Finally, to delay the date on which the Bill will come into force until six months after the appointment of a Compliance Director would be pointless since the Compliance Director has already been in place for more than six months.
I shall deal with the points made during the debate. Compliance relates to compliance with the contract, but the contract will require the contractor to comply with all relevant statutory regulations. Except where
958
the contractor is exempt from legislation, legislation will be enforced by the normal authorities as it is now—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act will be enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.
The Compliance Office will be adequately staffed fully to undertake its responsibilities. It will be staffed and paid for by the Ministry of Defence. With those explanations, I hope that I have persuaded the Committee not to accept the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That reply does not take us very far forward. The Minister said that we lack a certain amount of trust by trying to have the provision included in the Bill. If I may say so, we do lack a certain amount of trust, because time and time again the Government have said that there will be a Compliance Office inside the MOD which will be strong and powerful. They continually refuse to give to either House of Parliament any details about the size and authority of that Compliance Office. We are aware that the Compliance Office in the dockyards is a one-man affair. That is not a Compliance Office. It is one man in the MoD. We know that the only person who has been trained in safety at AWE who has been asked to participate in the existing Compliance Office left the safety section some 10 years ago. That is not even the bare bones of a Compliance Office. It is a nothing.
In the amendments we want to ensure that the safety standards, through the Compliance Office about which the Government keep trumpeting, are no less rigorous than they now are at AWE. That is the principle of the amendment. The Minister must consider carefully what I and my noble friend Lord Kennet and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, have said. When we return on Report, we shall need much more detail about this supposedly strong Compliance Office than we have had this today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved].
Clause 6 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Police Custody (Time Limits) Bill H.L.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. First, I wish to say on behalf of all in the House how much we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
The Bill is designed to implement an important recommendation of the report of Lord Justice Woolf on the prison disturbances in 1990. The recommendation is that police cells should not be used as an

959
expedient to prevent overcrowding in our prisons. That recommendation is contained in paragraph 11.152 of his report on the disturbances.
I shall deal briefly with the Bill. The first clause has the objective that I have just described. Clause 2 empowers the Secretary of State to direct that the time limit of four days should not apply in the specified area in the event of serious disturbances in the prison system.
Before I come to the substance of the matter, it may be desirable if I deal with the background to the current situation. We learn that over 800 prisoners are still being held in police cells, despite the size of the Government's prison building programme, about which no doubt the noble Viscount will tell us in his reply. It is also despite a reduction in the size of the prison population.
Until 1980, Home Office prisoners—as I shall describe them, since that is what they are—were not put into police cells at all. In the five years that I was at the Home Office I can recall no occasion when Home Office prisoners were held in police accommodation. Indeed, it never occurred to anyone that this should be done unless there was some form of calamitous national industrial dispute in the prisons. However, even then it was considered that this burden should be shared with the armed forces. There was another reason for it not being contemplated: it was by no means certain that the police had any lawful right to detain such prisoners.
That situation changed in October 1980 when the present Government were confronted with widespread industrial action in the prisons. In large numbers of prisons, prison officers refused to receive prisoners remanded or sentenced by the courts. I quote from a Statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, (as he now is) in the House of Commons on 27th October 1980 (at col. 38):
"[They] also [declined] to undertake certain other duties which are necessary to maintain conditions for prisoners, and to provide the facilities to which they are entitled".
As a result of that dispute in October 1980, the military were called in to establish a number of camps in which prisoners were held under the direction of governors and assistant governors. Somewhere in the region of 3,500 prisoners who should have been in prison were held in police cells.
In his Statement of 27th October, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, announced that he proposed to introduce an Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill to deal with an emergency situation. It was truly an emergency situation, as recognised by the Opposition in both Houses, who gave the Bill facilities. It was on the statute book within 48 hours.
Many of these powers lapsed after the end of the dispute, but one important provision of the Bill did not lapse. That was a declaratory provision making it clear that the police had the power to hold sentenced and unsentenced prisoners.
As I have indicated, most of us would agree that it was an emergency in October 1980 and in that situation it was right for the police to hold prisoners for a strictly limited time. However, unhappily, the emergency appears to have gone on for more than 10
960
years and it shows not the slightest indication of coming to an end. The noble Lord, Lord Knights, unfortunately cannot be here today because of an accident involving a member of his family. He has made his position clear in a letter which he sent me and I have his authority to quote it. In October 1980 the noble Lord was Chief Constable of the West Midlands, the largest police force in the country outside the Metropolitan Police. He states in his letter:
"It still concerns me that what started out in 1980 as a concession on the part of chief constables to help the Home Office in an emergency has now become an accepted way of life".
He adds:
"Police officers [are being] diverted from their proper duties and at a time when everyone is calling for them to be more productive and efficient in stemming the tide of crime. It really has become a farce if it were not so tragic".
The concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Knights, were echoed by Mr. David Owen, Chief Constable of North Wales, who is president of the Association of Chief Police Officers. At the ACPO summer conference he warned the Home Secretary of the deep anxiety of the police service about the current situation. He warned not just about the current situation but a situation which has gone on for over 10 years.
The blunt reality is that since October 1980 there have been Home Office prisoners in police cells on every single day, if I except a period of either 24 or 48 hours when there were none, following a remarkable interview given by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan, to The Times. He proudly announced, to the embarrassment, I suspect, of his department, that there were no prisoners in police cells, although there were within 24 hours or so of that statement being made by Mr. Brittan. With the exception of that limited period, ever since the dispute of October 1980 we have had substantial numbers of prisoners in police cells.
Not only has this policy led to a deplorable misuse of police resources, but it has been extraordinarily expensive. As I said on a previous occasion when debating this matter, as we know, in the Metropolitan Police area holding a prisoner in a police cell costs well over £300 per night, which is 50 per cent. more than the cost of a double room at the Ritz Hotel. The number of prisoners in Metropolitan Police cells last week was significant.
According to paragraph 11.154 of the report of Lord Justice Woolf, in the first six months of the last financial year the Home Office had to pay police authorities over £25 million. That was the cost of holding their prisoners in police cells. Given the large number of prisoners who were held in police custody for the rest of the last financial year, it seems obvious that over £50 million will have to be paid to police authorities for carrying out this responsibility on the part of the Home Office. Given the number still held in police custody, it is unlikely that the bill for this year will be any less. I hope that during the course of his speech the noble Viscount who is to reply to this debate will explain to us how this extravagant, wasteful and damaging policy can be related to the Government's repeated statements that they are determined to secure value for money.

961
I turn now to the conditions in which many of these prisoners are held. In our debate on this issue during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I both reminded the Government of what Lord Justice Woolf said at paragraph 11.152 of his report about conditions in the central police detention centre in Manchester. For the purposes of this debate I shall quote just one or two sentences:
"While police officers appeared to be doing their best to make the prisoners' conditions tolerable, the conditions were in fact wholly unacceptable. The night before the Inquiry's visit, 101 prisoners had been held in 73 police cells. The cells had no natural light, they were small, they had an objectionable smell, they were over-heated and without sanitation. The amount of exercise which the prisoners could have each day was limited to 20 minutes. The exercise area was a cage of modest size on a flat roof patrolled from above by a dog handler. The prisoners spent the major part of the day locked in their cells. They were not allowed radios".
I ask the noble Viscount, quite apart from the dreadful conditions just described, whether prisoners are still being held in those conditions in Manchester. From a reply given to me by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrets, I understand that over 200 prisoners are still being held in police cells in the Greater Manchester area. I have given the noble Viscount advance notice of my question and I hope that he will tell us during the course of his speech what is the current situation.
I have mentioned Manchester only by way of illustration: the situation in Manchester is replicated in many other police stations and magistrates' courts. These cells are intended to hold prisoners for a few hours before a court appearance, but Lord Justice Woolf found that some of the prisoners had been held in these really squalid conditions for over two weeks. I repeat that they have 20 minutes exercise a day, for a period of two weeks, and many of these prisoners have not been convicted of any criminal offence whatever. It is a scandal that we are prepared to tolerate conditions of this sort. However grave an offence a prisoner may have committed, we have a duty to hold him in civilised conditions. As I have indicated, the majority of prisoners held throughout the country in these cells are remand prisoners who have been convicted of no offence whatever.
The noble Viscount will no doubt ask us to await the Government's White Paper on Woolf, as did his noble friend Lord Ferrers when we discussed this matter during the Committee and Report stages of the Criminal Justice Bill. But this House will rise for the Summer Recess in only three weeks' time and it looks as though we may have no opportunity of discussing the Government's response to Woolf until somewhere around November of this year.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt? I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should point out that I have an Unstarred Question down which should give us every opportunity for discussing what I am told will be the Government's response by that time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much hope that that will be so. The noble Earl has information that is not available to me. I did not know about that, but no doubt the noble Viscount will confirm in due course whether the Government's
962
response to Woolf is to be published before the debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. No doubt he will clear up that point.
As the Government are fully aware, the real explanation for the conditions in which many prisoners are currently being held is the appalling industrial relations situation in our prisons—a judgment confirmed by Lord Justice Woolf. In his report Sir Harry Woolf reminds the Home Secretary of the recommendations in Sir John May's report—a report commissioned by the Government of which I was a member. In paragraph 13.230 the Woolf Report says:
"Unhappily the May Committee's exhortations and recommendations did not result in any long-term improvement in industrial relations".
Indeed, he says that they have become even worse since the publication of the May report. So I should like to ask the noble Viscount what precisely Ministers are prepared to do about the situation. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in a Written Answer given to me last night said that 404 prison cells were not in use on 24th June of this year because of industrial disputes and the prison service management was unable to use further cells on that particular day in prisons at Liverpool, Pentonville, Cardiff, Shepton Mallet and Hindley. I should have received a remarkably similar answer had I asked precisely the same question about the industrial relations situation on almost any day in the past 10 years. Sometimes the numbers might have been more modest but on the majority of occasions they might well have been even larger.
It is wholly unacceptable that prisoners should be kept in these deplorable conditions in tiny, cramped police cells, with wholly inadequate opportunities for exercise and to talk to their legal representatives and to their families simply because of these never-ending industrial disputes in the prisons. It is quite wrong that this heavy burden should be placed on the police service simply because Ministers have found themselves incapable of dealing with the situation. Sir Harry Woolf made his position clear in his report on the Strangeways disturbances. He has recommended that no one should be kept in a police cell for more than 10 days. That is the objective of this Bill and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
7.8 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I was a little surprised, if I may say so, at the last sentence of the noble Lord, who ringingly told us that Sir Harry Woolf s recommendation was for not more than 10 days. I read it as four.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right.
Lord Richard: My Lords, this is in many ways a brisk and simple Bill. It has certain admirable qualities. It is clearly drafted; its language is understandable; its purpose is clear; and if it were to be enacted the results would be obvious within a relatively short time. The only thing that we lack tonight, I suppose, compared to the debates we had on

963
this matter during the course of the Criminal Justice Bill, is the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. No doubt we shall have the opportunity of at least listening to his words later this evening, even if we are to be deprived of his actual presence. I nearly said that it is a little like "Hamlet" without the Prince, but it is not. It is like "Hamlet" without the captain of the guard. However, there it is and we must make the best of it.
I do not believe that anyone who has followed this issue over the months and indeed the years during which it has been going on can really be left in any doubt as to the merits of the argument. They are clear and unarguable. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted a few sentences from Lord Justice Woolf's report describing conditions in police cells in Manchester. Conditions in police cells under Camberwell court in London have also been described. To any of us who have practised in the criminal courts in London and who have been to magistrates' courts and seen clients in cells under the magistrates' courts, the idea that people will be kept locked up there for 23 hours out of 24 is incredible. Those conditions have been described in this way:
"The conditions in the cells underneath Camberwell Court are by far the worst in which I have ever seen prisoners held in this country. Two prisoners are held in a cell which seemed to me little more than half the size of a Victorian-built prison cell. One sleeps on a mattress placed on a bench along one wall while the other sleeps on a mattress on the floor. They are kept in these tiny cells for over 23 hours out of every 24, being allowed out in groups for half an hour's association in a room along the corridor if police manpower allows. There is no daylight anywhere on this floor, and all the light is artificial".
Are those conditions acceptable in this country in 1991? I cannot imagine that any noble Lord in this House would say that that is right. It clearly is not.
Not only are the conditions in which people are kept in cells under the courts frankly appalling. We are also asking the police to do a job for which they are untrained and unfitted. I say that not in any pejorative sense but in a sense of reality. It is quite wrong that society should ask them to carry out such a task. They are not prison officers. They are not meant to be prison officers; they are meant to be police officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quoted the speech of Dr. David Owen—I beg his pardon—Mr. David Owen, the chief constable. It is a natural error for those of us who have been involved in politics for some years. When the name Owen is mentioned there is an inevitable spasm reaction. In a press statement the Association of Chief Police Officers said:
"The effect on the Police Service is damaging for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the simple fact that even though the costs may be reimbursed by the Home Office, precious police manpower, already too thin on the ground, is tied down in looking after prisoners at the expense of patrolling the streets of our towns and villages where the challenge of hooliganism, violence and disorder is becoming more evident. This situation has been going on for so long now that it is increasingly damaging to efficiency and morale. It is quite unreasonable to expect police officers, who are untrained to carry out the duties of prison warders, to be continually involved in this sort of work and in conditions which are totally unsuitable for the job in hand. Even the best
964
of our police cells were never intended for more than short term accommodation and the design of the majority of police stations makes administration and supervision a nightmare".
On grounds of both the effect of the conditions on prisoners and the effect of the conditions on those who look after prisoners in police cells, the arguments in favour of the Bill are irresistible and unanswerable. One then has to ask the question: why are the Government resisting it and attempting to answer it? I fear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated, this has now become built into the fabric of the system. Whatever the problems in regard to industrial relations and whatever the problems of overcrowding in our prisons, conditions, which were totally unacceptable and unthought of before 1980 when the emergency provisions were introduced, have become not only acceptable but part of the normal way in which we treat prisoners on remand. That is wrong. It is an appalling state of affairs and has to be rectified.
I do not believe that the situation will be rectified unless and until there is some compulsion on the Government to rectify it. I do not believe that, if nothing is done now, within a year or so all will be well and the practice will stop. I suspect that it will not. If nothing is done, and if perchance this unhappy country were to be governed again by the same party which is at present in power, I suspect that I shall be standing at this Dispatch Box in a few years' time and, along with the noble Lord Harris, making the same speech on the same issue and encountering the same blandness from the Government by way of response.
There is a sense of urgency about the issue. If the Bill does anything it will at least tell the Government that the present practice is totally unacceptable and that people should not be lawfully detained for a period exceeding four days. If the Secretary of State needs some time to organise affairs in Clause 2 a period not exceeding six months is given to him whereby he can contract out an area from the operation of the Bill.
The compulsion for legislation in this area is proven by the fact that although emergencies have come and emergencies have gone nothing has been done to rectify the position since 1980. We on these Benches wholly support the Bill.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, as I have very little to add to the two powerful speeches which have been made it will be good for everyone if I am brief so that we can arrive more quickly at the occasion to which we are all looking forward—the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. All of us want to hear that.
When I put my name down to support the Bill I had no illusions that I could add anything to the case which has been so powerfully presented. However, I could not remain silent in the face of the crying scandal which my noble friend has portrayed in which untried prisoners on first arrest are treated in the disgraceful way which has just been described. It is as shameful as any of the shames for which we have had to attack the Government in the melancholy history of their treatment of people in their custody—not this

965
Government alone in the case of local prisons but this Government exclusively as regards the particular case of police cells.
To hold newly arrested prisoners in police cells for more than a night, or at most two, on the way to prison is unacceptable, for the reasons which have been given: the almost complete lack of facilities for prisoners, the difficult and taxing diversion of police time and the cost, which is double the cost of prison. The Bill embodies one of the recommendations set out in Lord Justice Woolf's invaluable report. I believe that he has been uncharacteristically mild in suggesting a maximum of four days. The practice should be eliminated altogether, and in my opinion two days' licence would be quite enough. However, as so often, we have to settle for the best that we think we can achieve, so I support the Bill without reservation.
However, I cannot refrain from telling the noble Viscount what the Government ought to do to stop these harmful practices, even though I know that even if he takes notice the Government will not do so. What happens is this. An individual is arrested and taken to the police station for custody until he can appear before the magistrates' court. There either the charge is dismissed, he is given bail, he is remanded in custody to await trial or, if sentenced on the spot, he is remanded in custody to await allocation to the prison where the sentence is to be served.
We are concerned here only with the last two cases and most frequently with the prisoner remanded awaiting trial and, therefore, presumed innocent until proved guilty. He should be sent directly to the local prison and held there until trial. However, as the average level of overcrowding in local prisons is 32 percent. and in nine of them is over 50 per cent., prison governors sometimes very reasonably say that they cannot cope with any more. Sometimes, and more frequently recently, it is the staff rather than the governor who stand out against receptions and refuse admission. Without approving of such action, one cannot help but have some sympathy with the members of the Prison Officers' Association who have been complaining about overcrowding for years and have seen very little movement towards a solution. In any case, the wretched prisoner is simply stuck back in his police cell and remains there until the prison department can find a prison to accept him. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, pointed out, sometimes a prisoner is not even left in the police station but in the cell in the magistrates' court, which was never meant to provide overnight prisoner accommodation. At least police cells were meant to fulfil that function.
At this stage I believe that the Secretary of State should say that enough is enough and should use his power of executive release—I believe that was given to him two Criminal Justice Acts ago—to release a prisoner in the prison concerned to make room for the new arrival. The prison governor would choose the man or woman who was nearest to his or her release date. That release date would normally only need to be anticipated by a day or two. No damage would be done to the effect of the sentence by knocking a couple of days off the end of it and the present scandalous state of affairs would be ended.
966
I do not flatter myself that the noble Viscount will jump at this proposal, even though it is based on a paragraph in the May Report to which my noble friend referred. We all considered that most of the report's recommendations were sensible. I fear that my proposal may be too obvious and too inexpensive to convince the Government of its value. However, I venture to prophesy that within 10 years—the average gestation period for any proposal that is made to the Home Office—something of the kind will become the practice. I hope that the Government will accept this very modest anticipation of the Woolf Report. The present situation in which nearly 800 prisoners are kept in police cells is entirely unacceptable. I am sure the noble Viscount is as fully aware of that fact as we are. Having said that, I fully support the Bill and I join with others in wishing the best of luck to the noble Baroness who is to speak next.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have offered such kind words of encouragement to me. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, both for providing me with this opportunity to make my maiden speech and also for introducing this Bill which Lord Justice Woolf considered to be a matter of considerable urgency. There can be no one in this House who is not aware, whether from first-hand knowledge or from the report drawn up by Lord Justice Woolf and His Honour Judge Stephen Tumim, that the conditions in which many remand and serving prisoners are currently being kept deserve to be called atrocious. They are atrocious substantially because of serious overcrowding. We all deplore those conditions.
I have spent the past 21 years practising at the Criminal Bar. I have visited cell areas in the courts and elsewhere and prisons almost daily. I believe that to use police cells or court cells for such prisoners—except in the real emergencies for which this Bill provides—is counter-productive and is in effect a cure which worsens the original ill. I say that for two reasons, which I ask noble Lords to bear in mind when considering this Bill. First, it may be a truism but the ultimate object of sentencing anybody must be to reduce crime. In the past 30 years we have come almost full circle in our assessment of the effect of prison sentences on the crime rate. Back in the 1960s it was rule one of the prison rules that rehabilitation was the primary underlying objective of a prison term. By the late 1970s the May Report—to which reference has already been made—effectively conceded that prisons could not achieve that object. Despite the work of many committed and dedicated members of the prison service, understaffing, poor conditions and, above all, overcrowding made that object of rehabilitation almost impossible.
Throughout the 1980s the primary object of a prison sentence was seen as one of deterrence. There was public pressure for more and longer sentences to counter rising crime. The courts responded to that demand with a consequential increase in overcrowding in prisons and a further deterioration in prison

967
conditions. In the early 1990s both the recent Government discussion documents preceding the Criminal Justice Bill appeared to accept that imprisonment reduces offending only by restricting the opportunity to commit crime for a limited period. The documents also accepted that imprisonment is likely to add to the difficulties which offenders encounter in living a normal law-abiding life after they are released. The worse the conditions are in custody, the greater the difficulties of adjustment later and the greater the likelihood of reoffending.
Cells in police stations, and even more so in courts, were never designed to be used for more than a few hours. I understand from what has been said today that those cells house about 800 prisoners. Many of those cells—as many noble Lords know—have wholly inadequate facilities for sleeping, exercise, washing, bathing and changing clothes. Many have no natural light or proper sanitation. Despite the best efforts of the police officers concerned, remand prisoners kept in those conditions are often denied some of the facilities which are granted to those on remand in prison. In effect, bad conditions in overcrowded prisons are being replaced by even worse conditions elsewhere.
The greatest deterrent of all to committing crime is the certainty of being caught. It cannot make sense to require police officers who are already overstrained in their work of crime prevention and the apprehension of offenders to leave the job for which they have been trained and assume a role for which they have not been trained. They are often asked to undertake such roles in near impossible conditions. That is a waste of police time and training and of public money. At the end of the day it is likely to result in increased rather than decreased crime.
I am well aware that I must not stray into the area of controversy which I might well do if I were to embark on the causes and the solutions to the underlying problem of prison overcrowding. Today I must leave that discussion to others. I hope that this Bill is only the first of many designed to improve our penal system which will come before this House in the coming years. During that time I hope, with a little luck, to be an active Member of this House.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sure I express the convictions of the whole House when I express our far more than conventional admiration for the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. The speech was a wonderful example of conciseness from which many of us would no doubt benefit.
I cannot express myself in the terms that a gifted friend of the noble Baroness did in the current edition of the Spectator. I should like to quote from that article in the Spectator by John Mortimer, the famous writer and QC. He writes:
"It seems only yesterday that I was leading Annie Mallalieu"—
I suppose that that is the intimate way of addressing her and perhaps in time some of us will be allowed to use that form—
"in defence of those publications which were fortunate to come to the attention of Mrs. Mary Whitehouse"—
968
whom I greatly admire, but that does not seem to be true of John Mortimer.
"Our first acquittal, if I recall, was a little spanking magazine".
I hope that I am not being unfair in suggesting that a lot of the noble Baroness's work was in defence of spanking magazines. At any rate, that is what John Mortimer writes. He goes on:
"She's a beautiful"—
we all confirm that—
"compelling advocate with an excellent voice and juries thought that if a nice girl like that couldn't see anything wrong with it, it must be all right"—
that is, the spanking magazine. I am quoting a great friend and admirer of hers.
"No doubt she will perform the same admirable service for the Labour Party in the House of Lords".
I am sure that if a Labour Government ever brought forward —which God forbid!—a spanking magazine, it would be eloquently defended by the noble Baroness. At any rate, we all much admired her speech tonight, which, incidentally, was full of profound wisdom.
I am very happy that for the first time my speech will be followed by that of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. His father was a great friend of mine. I remember his father selecting me as the most promising Conservative whom he knew as a suitable journalist on the Observer, which his grandfather owned. I was chosen to meet his grandfather, Lord Astor, who ran the Observer. It was a dinner invitation. Unfortunately I had acquired concussion of the brain that afternoon in a race which was won, incidentally, by the noble Viscount's father. When the Peer who owned the Observer questioned me closely about the future of the House of Lords, all I could do was splutter and, as a change, giggle. So the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, felt that the young Oxford was not what it had been in his time. At any rate I am sure that the noble Lord will not splutter or giggle but will answer coherently.
I support strongly the measure introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I follow him fairly slavishly on most issues of this kind. Certainly I do so tonight. I agree also with my acting leader, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I should add that I am not quite such an enthusiast for the Bill as possibly are some other noble Lords. It is all right so far as it goes; but it does not go very far.
When one talks with the police one finds that they do not want any of these prisoners in their cells. Holding them there for four days is far from welcome. I hope that we shall not be excited by the thought that we are bringing forward some great change. The genuine improvement would be to ban altogether such prisoners from police cells.
I have one small suggestion to make. I should like to propose what might be considered an amendment at a later stage. I put it forward following some very relevant discussion with police officers. I suggest that no prisoner who has been detained in a police cell for four days should then be brought back again; in other words, prisoners should only be detained once in a police cell. That is a modest suggestion as a modest amendment to a modest Bill. I hope that it will be considered. So far as concerns the police, it is an

969
infernal nuisance to hold prisoners for four days and then bring them back again for four days. I hope that the noble Viscount will consider that point at the next stage of the Bill. We must all agree that it is a small improvement, but it is worth doing.
To pursue the thoughts of other speakers, particularly those of the noble Baroness who has just spoken, a tremendous revolutionary change has to be brought about in the prison system in this country before we can be proud of it instead of, as now, somewhat ashamed. When we read what she said about the history of this legislation, it will help us to realise that this is a parting of the ways. The Government have a tremendous opportunity. I said the other day, and I shall say it again when we have a debate on the Woolf Report, that I am far from being optimistic about the effect of the new Bill. It could all work out very well. Let us hope and pray that it does. Mean while, let us back the Bill and congratulate once again the noble Baroness.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening without having put my name on the list of speakers. I do so first to say that I support the Bill and, secondly, to invite the noble Viscount who is to reply for the Government to give us whatever good news there may be on three specific points.
The first point relates to the question of bringing into England and Wales the time limits that have applied since time immemorial in Scotland on the number of days during which a person may be detained on remand. Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he has any good news about bail hostels, a topic on which both the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who was here earlier this evening, and I have spoken on numerous occasions. Thirdly, I ask him whether there is something to be said tonight about the extension to the whole of England and Wales of recent bail and remand experiments which, to my knowledge, have been going on in certain counties of England and Wales. I believe that they have teen making good progress. We hope that they will eventually come to cover the whole country.
7.37 p m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, first, perhaps I may also offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, on her maiden speech. We all look forward to her Future participation in this House—spanking or no spanking. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, explained, this Bill seeks to give effect to proposal 109 in the Woolf Report. This was that there should be a new prison rule placing a limit on the amount of time in which prisoners could be kept in police cells before being admitted to the prison service establishment to which they had been committed by the court.
Lord Justice Woolf suggested that four days might be the appropriate limit and this is reflected in Clause 1 of the Bill The Bill does not propose to use the prison rules as the mechanism by which to give effect to the proposal. Instead, it seeks to limit the power to hold prisoners in police cells or court accommodation by direct application of the statute. If I may say so, I
970
think that this would be the most appropriate method of giving effect to Lord Justice Woolf's proposal. But I am bound to explain to your Lordships that the Government could not support this approach to the police cells problem.
We are all in agreement that keeping prisoners in police cells is fundamentally wrong. That is not what police cells are for. Not only, as the Woolf Report brings out, is it a very expensive way of providing accommodation; it also means that policemen, who should be out on the streets protecting the public, are stuck in police stations acting as gaolers for people who should be in prison and not in police cells. That cannot be right. I agree with the noble Lord that the police do not like it; they do not see it as their job.
There is also the human cost. There have been cases in which prisoners have been held in police accommodation which is totally unsuitable to the purpose. Conditions vary. Indeed—and this has much to do with the ingenuity of the police officers concerned—many prisoners who are in police cells are held in decent accommodation and are given what amounts to a reasonable regime.
But none of this detracts from the central issue. It is the duty of the prison service to care for people who are committed by the courts. It is not the duty of the police.
That duty of the prison service is spelt out in the prison service's statement of purpose. It states:
"Her Majesty's Prison Service serves the public by keeping in custody those committed by the courts. Our duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law abiding and useful lives in custody and after release."
If that is the prison service's mission statement, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to ask—as, in effect, he does —"How is it that so many prisoners have been held in police cells for so long? And why is it that the Government remain opposed to the idea of placing a time limit on the length of time in which this type of accommodation may be used?"
I can assure noble Lords that neither the Government nor the prison service management regard the present position as in any way acceptable. There is no question of relying on police cells as a routine source of extra accommodation, although I accept that the extent of their use has led some people to take that view.
It is a fact that police cells in various parts of the country have been used for this purpose for many years. But the present position is somewhat different from that which has applied in the past. Against the background of the Bill, perhaps I may explain the legal position and the reason why we need to have this source of emergency accommodation. I shall then explain what we are doing about it.
The Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 was passed by Parliament in order to cope with the lengthy Prison Officers' Association dispute in 1980, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The Act allows the police to hold prisoners where, for any reason, it is not practicable to secure their admission to a prison service establishment.
Prisoners have frequently had to be held in police cells in recent years. This has sometimes been caused by periods of industrial action by prison officers. At

971
other times it has been caused because there have been insufficient prison spaces available in the system. This was especially so in London and the South East, where the prison estate was simply unable to cope with the numbers which were committed to them by the courts.
Pressure was particularly great in local prisons and remand centres. But, as new accommodation has begun to come on stream as part of the Government's prisons building programme, there has been a welcome overall fall in the numbers of people who are held in police custody.
As a result, by the beginning of 1990 police cells were used only in very exceptional circumstances. Indeed, in March 1990—the month before the Strangeways riot—there were no prisoners in police cells.
I should inform the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that prisoners have not been held in police cells every day since 1980. For example, in the first three months of 1990 prisoners were in police cells on only two occasions—16 and 10 prisoners respectively.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I had not wished to intervene. However, given what the noble Viscount now tells us, and accepting the number of days involved since October 1980, it would be interesting to know how many days there have not been prisoners in police cells.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord at this moment but I shall certainly try to answer the question before the end of the debate.
The April 1990 disturbances have radically changed that situation, and I very much regret to tell your Lordships that the situation has been made considerably worse by the actions of the Prison Officers' Association.
Following the disturbance at Manchester Prison alone last April, over 1,600 places were lost to the system. Those people had to be housed elsewhere and, inevitably, many had to be housed in police cells. It simply was not possible to accommodate the inmates, who were displaced by this loss of accommodation, in other prison service establishments.
The situation was made more difficult through further action by prison officers in other establishments. What they said, in effect, was that they were unwilling to take Manchester inmates into their prisons because that would have led to further overcrowding of their own prisons.
When this kind of thing happens it makes it look as if the long-term use of police cells is endemic, but that is not so. The Government's investment in new prison accommodation had begun to pay off and, had it not been for the Strangeways incident and the loss of accommodation in the North West, we would not be in anything like the situation in which we found ourselves now. Without the industrial action and the inflexibility which that has generated, there would be no need whatsoever for prisoners to be in police cells on a regular basis.
972
During most of the time, during which we have had so many prisoners in police cells, there have been spaces elsewhere in the prison estate. But the vacancies have not coincided with where the requirement is.
The difficulty was that the loss of accommodation at Manchester was a total loss of local prison accommodation. A local prison such as Manchester is one which serves the courts. Local prisons hold a proportion of sentenced inmates, but their primary function is to service the courts —by holding prisoners who are remanded in custody and those who are awaiting trial. In order for local prisons to do so, they must clearly be close to the courts which they serve. We cannot therefore use the spaces which may be elsewhere in the prison estate, such as training prisons or other local prisons which may be some way away.
This has not been a question which can be resolved by commandeering military camps. That option is available to us in an emergency when we may have to deal with severe population pressure, but the need now is to use accommodation which is near the courts.
Other local prisons in the North of England, for example, Liverpool and Leeds, are overcrowded; but there have been spaces within the operational capacity —in other words, "overcrowded capacity"—of these establishments which we have wanted to use. But the unwillingness of prison officers to accept Manchester prisoners from outside their local prisons' court catchment areas has been a major obstacle to the resolution of this problem.
I would not wish to underestimate in any way the anxiousness to which the April disturbances gave rise, in those establishments. Both Risley and Manchester have seen major disturbances and acts of gross violence and vandalism. One is of course sympathetic to the anxiousness of staff in those establishments. But the plain fact of the matter is that their unwillingness to accept Manchester prisoners from outside their court catchment areas has led directly to a large number of remand prisoners being held in entirely unsatisfactory conditions in police cells, and to the police being diverted from more productive work.
When a riot, such as occurred at Strangeways, takes place, it is inevitable that a considerable burden is placed upon the police and their resources—and especially on manpower. I can assure your Lordships that we are determined that the police should not have to shoulder such a burden for any longer than is necessary, and I should like to place on record my sincere appreciation, and that of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, for the work which is being undertaken by the police and, in particular, for the professional manner in which it is being carried out.
In no way do we underestimate the burden which such work has placed upon them. Nor do we underestimate the unwelcome effect of diverting so many police officers from other duties. The task now is to take all possible steps to reduce the scale of this problem and to eradicate it.
As I have explained, 1,600 prison places were lost at Manchester. An extensive refurbishment programme has been undertaken, and 200 refurbished places came back into use in December. These places are being used to hold remand prisoners.

973
The prison estate in the North West was reorganised. Preston prison became a local prison receiving prisoners from all courts in Lancashire. Changes were made at Liverpool so that the prison could take inmates from all courts in Cheshire. As a result the only prisoners in police cells in the North West are those who have appeared in court in Manchester itself.
At the beginning of November the number in police cells in the North West was over 1,000. By the end of December it had fallen to below 500. At times it went down to 400. We have recently run into difficulty, as the result of a short-term surge in the prison population. But the plans which the prison service has have been unable to be put into effect because of the inability to use accommodation which actually stands empty. At Full Sutton there are 192 new places lying empty, and at Acklington there are 152 empty places.
Last year there was an agreement with the Prison Officers' Association to reduce the population of Leeds to 970. That figure still represented overcrowding, but it represented a substantial reduction. But that reduction was made on the assumption that Full Sutton prison in York would be available to take sentenced prisoners. That cannot now be done because of disagreements over staffing levels.
The Prison Officers' Association agreed to use the Full Sutton accommodation in order to hold Iraqi detainees temporarily, but it refused to use it for the purpose for which it was intended—holding prisoners. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that agreement has now been reached for the occupation of at least one of those wings, and that should give us the opportunity of taking at least Leeds inmates out of police cells.
The second wing is also critically important because it will enable us to reorganise the dispersal prison estate and it will also give crucial additional training places which will provide further relief to prisoners in police cells in the north. But I regret to tell your Lordships that there is as yet no agreement with the Prison Officers' Association for the opening of the second wing.
The new accommodation at Acklington offers 152 spaces. After protracted negotiations with the Prison Officers' Association, it now appears that we shall be able to use that accommodation. That will have an important effect on the police cells problem.
The next 150 refurbished places at Manchester Prison are in the process of being commissioned. This should give us, in a few weeks' time, sufficient places to take all the remand prisoners out of police cells.
The Government have been especially concerned about the plight of young offenders in police cells. The loss of Manchester has meant that we have had to rely almost entirely on Hindley remand centre for taking young men on remand. This again has not been without industrial relations difficulties. However, by careful management of the young offender estate it has been possible to clear more space in Hindley and therefore we hope to see the last young offender in Manchester police cells in the next few weeks.
Until recently this problem was being confined to the North West. Its spread to Leeds has been most
974
unwelcome. The next important development will be the opening of Moorland young offender institution and remand centre later this month. This will enable us to clear all young men from Leeds and Hull and it will create space for prisoners who are being held in police cells.
The opening of Belmarsh provides us with the opportunity of rationalising the London prison system. Belmarsh Prison in Woolwich was the first local prison in the Government's prison building programme. It began operating in April and so far two of its wings are in use. The third unit will come into use shortly.
Wormwood Scrubs has provided remand accommodation and Brixton has provided accommodation for prisoners who are awaiting trial. It has now been decided to turn each of the major London prisons into a local establishment with its own court catchment area. The first phase of this involves extending the local role of Pentonville and for Pentonville to take over some further courts. Unfortunately, the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association at Pentonville has been unwilling to agree to this change because of disagreements over a range of issues including the time at which the reception at the prison should close. This can hardly be described as a grave issue but although it is inconvenient to the police management has agreed to change the opening time. Unfortunately, the Prison Officers' Association has refused to agree to the change of catchment area. As a result there are now more than 100 spaces at Pentonville which could be put to better use. As a result London prisons are having to use police cells.
There has been a further worrying development. Although it is well known that the plight of remand prisoners will be transformed as 10 new local prisons and remand centres come on stream between April this year and 1994, the Prison Officers' Association has been pressing to have the operational capacities of existing local prisons and remand centres reduced. It is quite appalling that the Prison Officers' Association at Cardiff has decided that it will not accept prisoners above the uncrowded capacity of that establishment. It took industrial action without involving the disputes procedure. And it has refused to accept management's offer to reduce the population and to work to produce a resolution of the issues by the end of August. As a result more than 100 inmates will have to be housed in police cells in South Wales and Gwent.
I have described in some detail the extent of this problem. Put simply, the question is: can we legislate against it? Can the imposition of a time limit in the way which is envisaged by the noble Lord's Bill remove this problem? It is with the greatest respect that the Government do not consider that merely by taking away the power to hold prisoners in police cells beyond four days the problem will be resolved.
We are dealing with a situation which has two regrettable facts. The first is the loss of a large local prison. The second is industrial action by the Prison Officers' Association. These two factors have led to this most regrettable situation. It is not lack of action or initiative on the part of Prison Service management which has brought this about. It is a fact of life that

975
Manchester prison was lost. It is also a very regrettable fact of life that the Prison Officers' Association has chosen to use the combined strength of its members with total disregard to the consequences for the inmates concerned, for their families, for the police or indeed for their duty as prison officers.
If the noble Lord's Bill were passed into legislation what would happen to the prisoners who are at present held in police cells? They would still have to be held somewhere. The army would not be the right body to turn to. The fact is that, whatever the merits—and they are few—the deliberate action of the Prison Officers' Association has exacerbated the very practice which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, so correctly points out.
The Government are completely in agreement with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The holding of prisoners in police cells is an intolerable situation and must be ended. However, I regret to tell the noble Lord that a change in the law of itself will not resolve the problem.
I now turn to some of the issues raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the figures since 1980. I do not have them available but shall write to the noble Lord. He also asked me about Manchester central detention centre. Clearly the conditions in the centre are not suitable for holding remand prisoners. The prisoners are being held two or three to a cell and exercise arrangements are severely restricted. To reduce the pressure on the prisoners, the police are moving them out to be held temporarily in other police stations where conditions are better and are returning them where necessary when they appear in court again. This morning 227 Home Office prisoners were held at Manchester.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, also asked about lockouts. The present level of industrial action is preventing the full use of available prison accommodation. It dates from the Strangeways incident and has not been a permanent feature of the past 10 years. Much of it stems from the anxiety of staff about holding large numbers of prisoners displaced as a result of the loss of Strangeways.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about the White Paper. It is being prepared and will be published in due course. It is not possible to give noble Lords a specific date for publication. The Woolf Report has necessitated considerable work and a premature response would not be useful. I believe that at present approximately 400 cells are empty. Noble Lords also asked about the suitability of police cells for holding prisoners. Given the constraints of holding prisoners in accommodation for which it was not designed, I am generally satisfied with the treatment that prisoners receive.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, likened the absence of my noble friend Lord Ferrers to Hamlet without the Prince. I do not wish to make Shakespearian analogies; but I am tempted to say to the noble Lord that perhaps the debate could be Henry V without Falstaff—but perhaps I should not.
976
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, raised various issues. We do not accept that executive release is the right solution to the problem. We should have access to places which already exist in prisons.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, mentioned that he was a great friend of my father. I was told with great authority by my father that when the noble Earl met my grandfather not only was he suffering from concussion as a result of a fall while riding in a point-to-point race but that when he remounted on a right-handed course he went the wrong way. My father always said that the noble Earl has been going left ever since.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about time limits. It is a crucial aspect; 17 per cent. of prisoners are on remand and custody time limits are being introduced throughout England and Wales. The noble Lord also asked about bail hostels. More than £36 million has been allocated by the Government to increase the number of bail places by 1,000 from April 1988 to April 1993.
I am a mere novice compared with noble Lords who have spoken this evening and who have wide experience of the subject. However, I hope that at the very least the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will consider releasing me on bail. I repeat that we are in agreement with his intention but believe that this is not the Bill for it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, rises to his feet, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend Lady Mallalieu on her maiden speech. It was skilful and fluent; it came from experience and it held the House. Would that more speeches to which we listen in this House were similar.
8 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I too share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is always a pleasure to hear him make his second speech on the Second Reading of a Bill. However, it was rightly directed at the quality of his noble friend's speech. I agree entirely with what she said.
I was not surprised by the noble Viscount's speech. I believe that speeches on police cells come off a word processor because they are all so similar when the arguments are put before us. First, there is the statement that there is total support for the principle of what one is saying when one is complaining about the use of police cells. I am sure that the noble Viscount was wholly sincere, but that has been said on about 12, 13 or 14 previous occasions by people sitting where he now sits.
The noble Viscount then went on to say, first, that it is not the duty of the police to perform that function; secondly, that the police do not wish to do it; and, thirdly, that it is not right that that function should be carried out by the police on a routine basis, as of course it is. At the end of all that he said that all that being so, the Government are not in favour of the Bill.
The Bill contains a recommendation of Lord Justice Woolf. The debate is notable for one particular reason—this is the first recommendation of Lord

977
Justice Woolf which has been rejected by the Government. Last weekend or perhaps the weekend before we heard that the Government were contemplating rejecting further recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf dealing with the overcrowding of prisons. If a report such as the one for which Lord Justice Woolf was responsible is to be faced with such constant rejections, there will be serious public disquiet. In my view there is overwhelming support for the recommendations he has made in the report, and this evening's explicit rejection of what Lord Justice Woolf recommended is deeply depressing.
The noble Viscount then went on to tell us about previous industrial relations difficulties in prisons. He talked about the problems at Leeds, Full Sutton and Pentonville. I am sure that that is all true, but what are Ministers doing about it? How many trade union Bills have there been in this House from the present Government? I am not a statistician. I am not sure whether there have been more trade union Bills than local government Bills, but there has been a substantial number.
At the end of it we are told by Ministers that they have transformed the industrial relations climate in this country; and yet in that area for which Ministers are directly responsible the only defence which the noble Viscount can find is to give a list of prisons where the industrial relations situation is nearly out of control.
Many of us wish to know, as do the police in particular, why they should be given the responsibility for dealing with the situation simply because of the incapacity of Ministers to run the prison service
978
efficiently. That is quite disgraceful. I suspect that the noble Viscount is aware that the police service has become increasingly annoyed about the way in which it has been treated. In particular it believes that in 1980, when it was asked to co-operate as it did, it was never given a wholly accurate account of the Government's intentions. It was implied that it would be a temporary affair. It has now become permanent.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. One matter about which we can be quite certain is that if by chance the present Government are re-elected next year, we shall be having the same debate that we have had this evening. Ministers will be reading out lists of prisons where there is a dispute with the POA and there will be no indication whatever that they are capable of dealing with that crisis situation—a crisis situation which has now lasted for well over 10 years. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Cattewater Reclamation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.

London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with amendments; the amendments were considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock.

  ASYLUM AND REFUGEE-STATUS: CONSULTATIONS
  ASYLUM AND REFUGEE-STATUS: CONSULTATIONS
  ASYLUM-SEEKERS: ACCOMMODATION
  ASYLUM-SEEKERS: ACCOMMODATION
  ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS AND VETERINARY TRAINING
  ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS AND VETERINARY TRAINING
  PET SHOP PREMISES
  PET SHOP PREMISES
  RAF: IMPLEMENTATION OF "OPTIONS FOR CHANGE"
  RAF: IMPLEMENTATION OF "OPTIONS FOR CHANGE"
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO STATUTORY BODIES
  NORTHERN IRELAND: GRANTS TO STATUTORY BODIES