Sitting of 11 July 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

  KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 July.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 July.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 16 July at 7 o'clock.

  COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 18 July.

  EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Debate further adjourned till Thursday 18 July.

  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM ETC.) BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham etc.) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  Ordered,
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal, of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
  Ordered,
  That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
  Ordered,
  That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
  Motion made. That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Government of Province
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in the current discussions on the future of the Province.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): As I said in my statement to the House on 3 July, although the talks that I announced on 26 March have now been brought to a conclusion, I believe that it is the clear wish of the people of the United Kingdom, and of the people of Northern Ireland in particular, that the process of dialogue should continue. I therefore hope that it will prove possible, in due course, to explore with the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government whether terms for fresh discussions can be established.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept the support of the whole House for the tremendous way in which he has taken the talks so far? In the context of Northern Ireland's history, 10 weeks is too short a period for substantive talks; indeed, many would think that, given the background of recent years, 10 weeks is sufficient only to get the administrative and procedural matters out of the way. Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that in future there is an adequate timetable, spanning a considerable length of time, so that we can at long last defeat the evil terrorist, who would try to run Ireland to the detriment of its people and the people of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Anyone who is involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and those of the island of Ireland, will be aware that the passage of 10 weeks, in the context of 400 years, is but a hiccup. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said about a timetable, but that is very much a matter for other participants in the talks. It would be wholly premature for me to predict their reactions at this stage.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State realise that, in this week alone, he has had to answer questions in the House about the location of a street light at Gransha presbyterian church and about when he intends to arrange for a pothole to be filled at Cairnshill in Castlereagh? Have we not reached the stage when the Secretary of State should look back at previous Conservative policy and, at least, begin to restore real local government powers to Northern Ireland? I believe that, talks or no talks, there is some scope to give local government control back to the people of Northern Ireland. Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
    Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned subjects that have been drawn to my attention during the past few days. I recognise the force of what he says. However, the framework within which these matters would be looked at would be the one in which all the political parties in Northern Ireland have been involved during the past 18 months. I recognise the relevance of
    1070
    what the right hon. Gentleman says and I shall certainly bear it in mind as and when we look at these matters again in the reasonably near future.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that a new talks process is more than simply a gap between conference meetings? Will he assure the House that he will not become susceptible to arguments being advanced in some quarters that he should attempt to impose a solution as a result of the breakdown of the talks process?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough, as a result of the events of the past 18 months, to realise the importance that I attach to any arrangements that we might make in Northern Ireland being capable of commanding widespread support. The basis of the past 20 years does not lead one to suppose automatically that a proposal by Her Majesty's Government would necessarily enjoy such support.
    Mr. McNamara: Can the Secretary of State enlighten the House about his use of the word "fresh"? Does he mean new or a continuation of the old? As all the parties to the talks expressed their sadness that they had to be discontinued and a willingness to talk in future, can he say when he expects to initiate his new round of bilateral talks?
    Mr. Brooke: In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the word "fresh", I should remind the House that the talks that we concluded on 3 July, arising from my statement on 26 March, were concluded on the basis of the ground rules that were established in the statement of 26 March. Therefore, any new talks would be new talks, in the sense that we would establish fresh ground rules for them. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that I am sufficiently conservative to pay some attention to the past in looking forward to the future. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about initiation, he will recall that on 3 July I said to the House that I would be listening for noises in the undergrowth.
    Mr. McGrady: In view of the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the first question, is he aware of the statement made by the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)? As the Unionist parties have adopted a joint approach, it must be taken to be the approach of both parties that the talks process is now dead and that there is no point in pretending that it can survive. Does the Secretary of State agree that the people of Northern Ireland require the optimism and the hope that the talks will be revived? After the marching season, which we enter at midnight tonight, and the holiday period will he use his best offices to convince the Unionist parties that the future of Northern Ireland and its people will be best served by a revival of the talks, not from the start but based on the very useful exchanges that have already taken place? Could that not be a starting point in the autumn?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is probably referring to the second question that I was asked. I was aware that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) had made a statement not only on 3 July but more recently. As always with pronouncements by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, I read it with great care and I think that I detected what it was saying to me. As to the precise verb that we use to describe what the new talks may

    1071
    be, provided that I do not use the word "resume" I think that the House and, conceivably, the hon. Member for Antrim, North, would allow me to use other verbs.
    Mr. Budgen: Since yet another initiative has suffered at least a temporary reverse, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Order in Council procedure, adopted as a temporary measure in 1972, ought to be abandoned so that, at the very least, important Northern Ireland legislation is properly discussed in detail and can be amendable? Is it not the case that Northern Ireland is at present a constitutional slum?
    Mr. Brooks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his use of the words "temporary reverse". The changes in the legislative proceedings of the House were the subject of observations by all parties during the talks—I do not think that I am infringing confidentiality when I say that. Therefore, I am confident that it is a subject to which we shall return. I am not in the habit of describing Northern Ireland as a slum under any conditions.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Brooke: Since I answered a similar question on 13 June, four people have been killed as a result of the security situation, two of whom were civilians, one a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment and one a regular soldier. Tragic though that is, were it not for the vigilance of the security forces the figure might well have been much higher.
    I am sure that the House will join me once again in praising the brave men and women of the police and Army for the difficult and often dangerous work of bringing to justice those terrorists responsible for the most horrendous crimes.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Can the Secretary of State say when he may be able to make a statement about a retrial of the Ulster Defence Regiment Four? Does he share my concern about the virtual dismissal of the three members of the Police Authority and a related resignation? Does he agree that it is essential that the remaining appointments should be used to restore the political balance in the Police Authority so that it retains credibility?
    Mr. Brooke: I hope soon to be able to determine whether there should be a reference to the Court of Appeal in the case of the UDR Four. I think that in his second question, the right hon. Gentleman was asking me to regret something. I made those appointments myself and, therefore, I stand by them.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman hold an inquiry into security around the Glenanne UDR base? Will he discover why three sides of that base were protected while a fourth side, from where the bomb came, was totally unprotected, although it has a boundary with a dangerous IRA ghetto area? Will he assure the people of Glenanne that that base will be rebuilt, because if it is not, there will be an exodus of the people living in that area?
    1072
    Can he give the House that assurance today? Will he also consider speaking to the Prime Minister and having conveyed to Her Majesty the Queen the great pride and honour that was done to Ulster with the presentation of the well-deserved colours to the Ulster Defence Regiment and the magnificent speech that Her Majesty gave on that occasion?
    Mr. Brooke: I have some familiarity with the issue involved in the hon. Gentleman's first question and with the inquiries that have already been made about the protection of the base. The question of rebuilding is more a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I understand the question. I share with the hon. Gentleman the pride of the Province that Her Majesty the Queen should have visited Northern Ireland, in part, to present the colours of the four battalions of the UDR. I think that they well warranted the honour that Her Majesty bestowed upon them.
    Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State accept that many of us will be more than disappointed at his response to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) about appointments to the Police Authority? I noted how he paid tribute to the people who serve in the security forces. Is it not then rather strange that two ex-members of the security forces, one of whom suffered horrific injuries at the hands of the IRA but has continued to give unstinting public service down the years, are among the three people who have been summarily dismissed by the Secretary of State, although they acted as chairman and vice-chairman respectively of committees of the Police Authority? Is that the way that men of experience and positive opinion are to be treated in the Police Authority?
    Mr. Brooke: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point and I am happy to respond to a further question on the same subject. I have paid tribute to the members of the Police Authority who served on it until the end of June. I should say, so that the House is not misled, that no one has been summarily dismissed. A new authority needed to be appointed and invitations were issued for people to serve on it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the service that the Police Authority renders, and it is important that it continues to do so on behalf of the community.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does not the Secretary of State understand the great fear in the Northern Ireland community in the light of the Chief Constable's report and warning of a great increase in violence in the coming months? The Chief Constable has promised the people of Northern Ireland that the Army and the security forces will contain that threat. After 22 long years of violence and slaughter by the IRA in Northern Ireland, would not the Secretary of State expect the people of Northern Ireland to demand that the IRA is defeated rather than contained?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's reference to the Chief Constable's report is apposite. The Chief Constable said that this was as dangerous a time as the Province had faced in recent months. The statement that he made on behalf of the security forces was that, however dangerous the threat, it would be resisted by the security forces. The hon. Gentleman knows well the Government's views on ensuring that terrorism is defeated.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Does not the Chief Constable want more men to enable the Royal Ulster Constabulary to do its job more effectively? Will my right hon. Friend permit an increase in its establishment?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend raises a subject which has been raised before in the House. In the first instance, the Chief Constable made to the Police Authority a submission, which in due course will come to me. The Chief Constable has requested more men, but over a significant period. I am considering that request with all the seriousness that it demands.
    Mr. McNamara: On the composition of the Police Authority, does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential that it has the support of all sections of the community? In so far as appointments have been made by the Secretary of State and previous Secretaries of State, they have sought to achieve that end. One regrets only that sometimes people who have been invited to send representatives have failed to do so.
    On the defence statement, is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome the decision that the ratio of permanent members of the UDR to part-timers should be increased, but nevertheless we hope for a return to full and proper policing. I join the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) in urging the Secretary of State to reach a quick decision about the Chief Constable's request and to consider whether more members of the RUC are necessary in view of the changes that are resulting from the defence review.
    Mr. Brooke: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for the Police Authority to be representative of the community and to enjoy its respect and support. The Chief Constable has requested further policemen, which will require considerable increased funding, and he has explained why he needs them. That consideration will weigh in our determination of the decision.

    Employment Action
    Mr. Dover: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to introduce the employment action programme into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): No. The action for community employment, ACE, programme in Northern Ireland already provides work experience on local projects similar to the proposed employment action programmes.
    Mr. Dover: Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that the action for community employment programme already provides 9,500 jobs for long-term unemployed people on local schemes? Does not that say a lot for the schemes there, compared with the arrangements here, in that they are far better than those in the rest of the United Kingdom? What would happen if Labour's minimum wage policy were introduced? What would be the effect on the programme?
    Mr. Needham: The undoubted effect on the programme if Labour introduced a minimum wage would, unfortunately, be that many people who are currently employed
    1074
    would end up on the ACE programme. My hon. Friend is right—there are 9,600 on the ACE programme in Northern Ireland. Because of our level of long-term unemployment, that is much higher than any of us would wish. Nevertheless, when business is struggling in a very difficult market and when the multi-fibre arrangement is likely to be scrapped in the next few years, the imposition of a minimum wage in Northern Ireland could have devastating consequences in many parts of the Province. I hope that that day will never come.
    Mr. Beggs: Two months ago, when the Minister was speaking about the unemployment figures in Northern Ireland, he said:
    "I am convinced that the Northern Ireland economy remains robust and is weathering this difficult period much better than other regions within the UK."
    Now that unemployment has reached 13.7 per cent. of the population and is still rising slowly every month, does the Minister believe that further steps need to be taken to make additional provision for those who are likely to become unemployed? If so, will he make a commitment to that end? Does he agree that we must maximise the use of the expertise within our further education colleges?
    Mr. Needham: The figures show that the Northern Ireland economy is still robust and is weathering the recession better than any other region of the United Kingdom. Unemployment in the north of Ireland has risen by about 2 per cent. in the past year compared with an average of 40 per cent. in the rest of the country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be right and prudent for the Government to ensure that if unemployment continues to grow—albeit at a fairly low rate—there are programmes in place to ensure that people who lose their jobs are properly catered for. We are also considering a major increase in the job training programme this year. In the light of announcements about a package over here, I have asked my officials to put together a package for Northern Ireland to deal with those who are unfortunately losing their jobs.

    VAT (Sporting Bodies)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make grants available to sporting bodies in the Province to make up their costs incurred as a result of the raising of VAT; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): No, Sir. However, where assistance has been offered towards capital schemes to be undertaken by such bodies, grant will be based on the full approved costs, including value added tax at the current rate.
    Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the increase in VAT from 15 to 17.5 per cent. is costing the British Horse Society £52,000 a year in revenue, which comes entirely from members' subscriptions, and that a large part of it comes from Northern Ireland where the society does much excellent work for all sections of the community including disabled people? Will he consider the possibility of the cash being made up from money given to sporting bodies? Should not something be done to recoup the money which is entirely the result of voluntary giving?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the British Horse Society and of the importance of the

    1075
    work that it undertakes, not least in Northern Ireland. The Department of Education does not make grants available to the British Horse Society, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to learn that the Sports Council for Northern Ireland paid £26,717 to the Northern Ireland branch of the British Horse Society in the past financial year.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In view of the high standards achieved by many Northern Ireland men and women who have been encouraged by good coaching and by having taken part in international events such as those held at the Mary Peters and Antrim tracks, does the Minister agree that both the establishment and the location of a centre of excellence should be decided upon as soon as possible, so that all Northern Ireland sports men and women are given the opportunity to excel at their sport?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the facilities at the Mary Peters and Antrim tracks and visits to Northern Ireland by international athletes making use of those facilities have not only stimulated interest in athletics in the Province but have improved performance. I believe that I am right in saying that the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is considering a fairly comprehensive plan, part of which is devoted to excellence in the provision for various sports. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of the chairman of the Sports Council.

    Community Relations
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his monitoring of community relations in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: In recent years, the Government have introduced a wide range of programmes designed to improve community relations in Northern Ireland. The fundamental purpose of those programmes is to tackle the historic divisions that exist within society in Northern Ireland and to create conditions where all sections of the community enjoy equality of opportunity and equity of treatment. Each of the programmes is monitored on a regular basis to determine whether they are achieving the desired impact.
    Mr. Coombs: Given the crucial importance of good community relations in Northern Ireland, will my hon. Friend ensure that there is rigorous monitoring machinery in place to ensure that resources are adequately and efficiently used and go to all parts of the community?
    Will my hon. Friend also consider the promotion of town twinning links, such as that which has traditionally existed between the city of Belfast and the city of Birmingham—in which I have been involved myself—to spread the message of good will and to promote understanding of the problems of Northern Ireland throughout the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why all individual grants made under the community relations programme are subject to explicit objectives and targets and are monitored against agreed performance indicators. I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to hear that, in the next few weeks, we shall be
    1076
    inviting the private sector to tender for an evaluation exercise in respect of a major programme to support community relations work within the district councils.
    On my hon. Friend's second suggestion, I am sure that twinning has great advantages not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. It is, of course, a matter for the individual towns concerned, but it would go at least some way to reduce the lack of understanding which sometimes bedevils consideration of what is happening in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Trimble: I pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done on community relations, and it is valuable work but does he agree with me that we must not fall into the trap of thinking that community relations programmes can solve the problems in Northern Ireland? Underlying the division in the community is a conflict over the nation to which the territory of Northern Ireland should belong and a territorial claim pursued by means of terrorist violence. Does the Minister agree that the best thing that could be done to improve community relations is to defeat terrorism?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind and generous personal remarks, and I certainly agree with him that there is no sense in which success in community relations terms alone will resolve the fundamental and deep-seated problems that affect the community in Northern Ireland. There is also no doubt that the winning of the battle against terrorism will play a significant role in easing community tensions. However, I know from the hon. Gentleman's previous contributions that he agrees with me that there is, none the less, an important role for a community relations programme, and the programme is commanding greater and wider support in the Province with every passing year.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware that there are many cross-community peace initiatives in Northern Ireland? The latest of them is the peace train which previously ran between Belfast and Dublin but which, on 18 July, is to run not only from Belfast to Dublin but from Holyhead to Euston, to demonstrate the opposition to the IRA's attempts to disrupt rail services in Ireland and in this country. The initiative is supported by many hon. Members and by 15 political parties in Northern Ireland, Ireland and Britain.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, I am aware of the variety of programmes involved in seeking to promote peace in Northern Ireland of which, as the hon. Gentleman says, the peace train is one. I hope that he will be encouraged to learn that earlier this week I visited the peace house in Belfast to see the peace people and I announced a grant of more than £61,000 for their work at their headquarters in Belfast and at their farm in Coleraine.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Minister aware that we very much support his efforts and all that he is doing in respect of community relations in Northern Ireland? To that extent, has he considered renewing the grant that was taken from the Glor Na nGael organisation some months ago with a view to fostering further good community relations in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I must say that they stand in sharp contrast to what he said about the education reform order

    1077
    last night, part of which was designed to require young people to be involved in education for mutual understanding; cultural heritage; a common history curriculum and a common core religious education curriculum. All that arises from the education reform order which the hon. Gentleman so despises and they are designed to promote the cross-community benefits which, at another time at the Dispatch Box, the hon. Gentleman supports.

    Drinks Measures
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposal to introduce the 35 ml measure for alcoholic drinks.
    Mr. Needham: The Department issued a consultation paper in December 1990. Thirteen replies were received. After considering these replies, I have decided to permit a 35 ml measure and multiples of it in addition to a 25 ml measure for the serving of spirits.
    Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend is one of the longest serving Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and, it so happens, one of the most popular. He will now be even more popular. When people in pubs in the Province and, no doubt, at the famous Bushmills distillery, drink his health I am pleased to note that they will be able to choose whether to do that in 25 ml measures or 35 ml measures. He is to be congratulated on his decision and I am pleased to see that the results of his consultation process led to the right decisions being made.
    Mr. Needham: I thank my hon. Friend. His representations helped us to reach this decision and I look forward to drinking his health as he drinks mine.

    Kidney Dialysis
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hospitals in the Province kidney dialysis treatment.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The renal unit at the Belfast city hospital, which I was pleased to visit recently, provides kidney dialysis treatment for the whole of the Province and is supported by a satellite dialysis unit at Tyrone county hospital in Omagh.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Bearing in mind that there are 110 kidney patients in the Province receiving haemodialysis treatment, most of them at the renal unit at the Belfast city hospital and many of whom have to travel a considerable distance to get there, what discussions has my hon. Friend had with local nephrologists about creating another satellite unit either at Craigavon to serve the population in the south or at north Antrim for the people in the north?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have been able to allocate an additional £300,000 this year to add to the extra £360,000 made available last year for further developments in renal services. That has already enabled an additional 19 hospital dialysis places and 10 peritoneal dialysis places. I am also pleased to announce that erythopoietin—EPO—is available for 48 patients. My hon. Friend asked for extra satellite dialysis
    1078
    units. With the funds that I have just announced, I am sure that discussions will bring forward the possibility of extra statellite systems and as soon as representations have been made, I will consider them very carefully indeed.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the positive note that the Minister has struck in encouraging further satellite units. Does he accept that, as well as renal dialysis, one of the drawbacks is the lack of kidney transplants?
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Despite the increase in the number of patients receiving dialysis from 160 to 175, progress is still low in terms of transplant operations. We achieved about 50 last year. The reason that we cannot further increase that figure is the shortage of organs. I encourage all hon. Members and the citizens of Northern Ireland to carry a donor card.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can my hon. Friend confirm that all new Northern Ireland driving licences now include a kidney donor statement? Will he try to ensure that the media have a chance to interview both the families of those who have donated organs and of those who have received them so that people can be made aware of the enormous life-saving benefits of successful transplants?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased to credit him with much of the progress that has been achieved by including a kidney donor statement on driving licences in Northern Ireland. That was an excellent move. He has also outlined the excellent idea of showing the benefits of transplants. Transplants can bring some good our of misery by giving new life to a person who desperately needs it.

    Chemical Plants
    Mr. William Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has received any requests for grant for the construction of a chemical plant in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Needham: I have not received any such request within the last two financial years.
    Mr. Ross: Does that mean that the Minister does not know whether any further chemical plants will be coming to Northern Ireland? Given that the existing chemical plants hope to reduce the amount of toxic waste that they incinerate before the end of the century, where on earth does the Minister expect sufficient waste requiring incineration to arise that will require an incinerator on the island of Ireland and how does he expect the incinerator planned for the Maydown site to be economically viable if toxic waste decreases by 70 per cent?
    Mr. Needham: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, the question of the amount of waste on the island of Ireland and whether we should have an incinerator will be discussed if and when an application for such an incinerator is made. We cannot tell others that we should always be able to export our waste to them if, at the same time, we are not prepared to receive imports from others.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in the Province.
    Mr. Needham: At 9 May 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 97,951 unemployed claimants in the Province, which represents a decrease of 1,059 compared with the previous month.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it scandalous that, under the Tory Government's economic policies, 100,000 people are unemployed in Northern Ireland? Will the Minister accept that when the Government came into office, as a result of sneering at the Labour Government's policies, the level of unemployment was far and away lower than the current level, as has been the case for the past 10 years? Will the incompetence of the Government and the Department of the Environment, who failed to warn local authorities about the fraud at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, have any repercussions on jobs? The collapse of that bank will certainly not create jobs; it is much more likely to cause unemployment.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman asked my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) that question yesterday and he heard the reply. I replied to the same question during last night's debate, although the hon. Gentleman was not in his place to hear it, and I have nothing further to add. In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, perhaps he will reflect on the fact that, when we came to power in 1979, unemployment in Northern Ireland was running at more than twice the average for Great Britain, but it is now only 1.8 times the average. The Government have, therefore, been increasingly successful in Northern Ireland, not only in producing new jobs, but in bringing down its unemployment ratio compared with the rest of the country.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: After the ranting that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), does my hon. Friend agree that the main cause of unemployment in the Province is terrorism and that the people who are principally to blame for job losses are the men of violence who discourage investment?
    Mr. Needham: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. The success of the economy of Northern Ireland which is, as I have remarked, the most successful region of the United Kingdom at the moment, could become an even bigger triumph if we did not have to deal with the scourge and misery of terrorism. The people of Northern Ireland are to be congratulated on the success that they are currently achieving.

    Anglo-Irish Conference
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects the Anglo-Irish governmental conference to meet.
    Mr. Brooke: The next meeting of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental conference will take place on Tuesday 16 July.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Does the Secretary of State agree that people such as the hon. Member for Antrim, North
    1080
    (Rev. Ian Paisley) who possibly exult that the Brooke talks are well and truly dead, need to reflect on the irony that the Hillsborough pact is still the framework for Anglo-Irish relations and the key to the role of the Republic in Northern Ireland affairs? If it is to be replaced by something better or to have added to it a balancing relationship between the north and Dublin and between the north and London, talks will have to be resumed, preferably along the lines that the Secretary of State described earlier in replying to a question from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).
    Mr. Brooke: My personal experience of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has always been emotionally low key, so I find the word "exult" surprising in the context. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I remind him that I have said on previous occasions during discussions about possible future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland that Her Majesty's Government would give serious consideration to any implication for the agreement of such arrangements. I confirm that in the context of the discussions we will also consider any party's proposal, including an alternative to the agreement, which would enhance the underlying objectives which I believe that we all share.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday II July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Prime Minister aware that whatever reservations hon. Members may have about the rigour of his counter-inflation policy and its impact on growth, jobs and investment, it would attract more support if the Government had a more even-handed approach to it? How does he explain, for example, the statement last night by the latest power chief to receive a big pay rise—Mr. Weston of MANWEB—that the Government knew that his salary would soar?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the gentleman concerned has withdrawn that statement and withdrawn it unreservedly. As MANWEB said:
    "the higher levels of pay were not agreed until after the offer for sale was announced in November 1990. The Government did not place any restriction on the regional electricity companies in announcing likely figures at any time."
    That was what was said and I endorse that as an accurate statement. Salaries after privatisation are and must be a matter for the company. But I have made my view perfectly clear; in my judgment those salaries should reflect what is reasonable. But it is a matter for the companies and not for me.
    Sir John Farr: Might I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has had a chance today in his list of engagements to look at the recent announcement by the Labour party that it apparently intends to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must refer to the Government's responsibility. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been away for a while, but his question must refer to the Government's responsibility.
    Sir John Farr: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will see it as his responsibility today to have an early debate on our nuclear deterrent and the need for us to keep it. Apparently the Opposition's policy has suddenly changed. Rather than an announcement in the media, we should have a full, proper and open debate on the Floor of the House.
    The Prime Minister: First, I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his absence. We are very pleased to see him back in his place.
    My hon. Friend touched on defence, a matter of great importance not just to the House but to everyone in it and beyond it. I believe that there is considerable doubt about the position of the Opposition on defence, and I hope that they will take an early opportunity to make it clear whether they are unilaterialist and in what circumstances they would use nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Hattersley: Does the Prime Minister still stick to his prediction that the British economy will recover during the second half of this year?
    The Prime Minister: Apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not want to discuss defence quite so soon. I remain of the opinion that I have expressed before in the House and which has been endorsed by the OECD and the CBI: that we shall begin to move out of recession in the second half of this year.
    Mr. Hattersley: Has it escaped the Prime Minister's notice that the second half of the year began 11 days ago.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hattersley: If the right hon. Gentleman's prediction has any veracity why are we still at the bottom of the economic league? Why do we have the worst record of investment, unemployment and growth of all the G7 countries?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman might study the diary a little more closely to find out how long the second half of the year lasts. As usual, he is facing backwards. Five per cent. off the inflation rate and 3.5 per cent. off interest rates are both essential ingredients to get the economy moving again. That has happened and it will continue.
    Mr. Hattersley: With reference to the diary, I take it that the Prime Minister is now saying that the economy will begin to improve by Christmas. Every time he makes a prediction about improvement, he gets further and further away. I shall therefore ask him a simple question based on his own pathetic analysis of when the economy might begin to improve. First, can we be assured that by Christmas and in the three areas about which I have asked the right hon. Gentleman—investment, unemployment and growth—this country will be doing at least as well as Greece, Portugal and Turkey? May we also be assured —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister now also answer the question from which he ran away last Tuesday? Since, during the three years of decline, he has been Chief Secretary, Chancellor and Prime Minister, will he accept his own responsibility for those three years of disaster?
    The Prime Minister: On the subject of predictions, with which the right hon. Gentleman began his lengthy third question, he will recall predicting that unemployment would be 4 million in 1987—he is in no position to talk about predictions. As for the position at the end of the year, as a former sacked shadow Chancellor the right hon. Gentleman should know that we will set out our predictions in the autumn statement.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and his Government will ensure that the military level of our forces will always be sufficient to meet the defence needs of the realm and of our military commitments overseas?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

    South London
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister, when he will next pay an official visit to south London.
    The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and I very much hope to include south London among them.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that youth unemployment has risen in the four inner south London boroughs by 53 per cent. in the past year, and that more than one in two crimes in the capital are committed by young people, will the Prime Minister, as a south London boy who became the youngest Prime Minister this century, make a personal commitment to the young people of south London by coming to visit them and the youth service south of the river, to see their desperate state and to make sure that he and the Government commit the personnel, resources, training and jobs to ensure that young people today have the opportunities that he is glad he had?
    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the opportunities that are necessary for young people in the inner-London area. One of the principal problems for many years was the treatment of education under the regime of the Inner London education authority, which has been continued by the disgraceful attitude that some of the inner London boroughs take to the way in which they deal with education. That dramatically damages the employment prospects of youngsters. Another factor that caused unemployment in inner London was the capacity of Labour councils, under the old system, to put up business rates to such an extent that businesses left inner London.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: If my right hon. Friend gets the chance to come to south-east London, he will find himself in the area covered by the Greenwich building society and the Woolwich building society. Will he see whether it is possible, on Monday when clause 52 of the Finance Bill is considered in the House, to have an open debate on the way that that clause adversely affects the Greenwich building society, but not the Woolwich building society, so that Parliament can decide openly what should happen in the future?
    The Prime Minister: Parliament is always in a position to decide openly on the matters before it, and that will undoubtedly be the case when we debate the Finance Bill.
    Ms. Hoey: The Prime Minister knows that unemployment has risen in south London, and that he has cut training places there. When will he put more money into training there and give young people real training prospects?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, quite apart from the general employment prospects and training that have been increased over the years, we have established two city technology colleges in south London. These will dramatically improve the prospects of the pupils in them. Prospects would be improved even more were other schools in inner London to adopt the same disciplines and to offer the same certainty of good education that CTCs offer.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the people of south Dorset believe in a strong, credible and clearly stated defence policy. Will he ensure that the policy for defence is both credible and will deter aggression, and that it is well understood? That will be in contrast to the party opposite, which believes in fudged words, so as to avoid the wrath of its Back Benchers.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, and I believe that he speaks for many people who do not trust the Opposition on defence. Yesterday, they produced a defence policy which appeared to protect them rather than the country. People will have noticed that. One cannot defend the country with a couple of sentences tucked away in an article in The Guardian. This country knows the Opposition only too well and it knows their unilateralist tendencies.
    Mr. Wilson: Less than a week ago, the Bank of England was giving a clean bill of health to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Less than a week ago, the Department of the Environment was issuing that bank's name as one suitable for local authorities to deal with. If officials of these two organisations, sitting in the heart of London, can make such a catastrophic error, does the Prime Minister have any sympathy with the officials of
    1084
    small local authorities in far-flung parts of the country which might have taken the advice of the Bank of England and the Department of the Environment? Will the Government and the Bank of England face up to their responsibilities in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: The Bank of England acted as soon as it had evidence on which to act, and that has been made clear. It would not be right to give preferential treatment to local authorities over other depositors of the BCCI. Any accountant of finance director should know that if an institution pays over the market rate of interest, it is in the form of a risk premium. Local authorities have a duty of care over the funds entrusted to them and that implies taking a prudent view of risk and spreading risk.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 .July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in the drawing up of the Government's Green Paper on industrial relations, he will take full account of the poll in The Guardian today, which shows clear majorities against a return to secondary action, flying pickets and unofficial strikes—policies which are all supported by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our trade union legislation has brought unprecedented improvements in industrial relations. Of course, they are unprecedented improvements which are not welcome to the Labour party. As Mr. Ron Todd said earlier this week:
    "Tory industrial relations law has got to go. There is no fudging the issue."
    Labour's position is absolutely clear. As the right hon. Member for Isiwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said when he spoke to the TGWU yesterday—[Interruption.] As the right hon. Gentleman said—[Interruption.] I can wait, Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the end of the Prime Minister's answer.
    The Prime Minister: I know that Labour Members are embarrassed by what their leader said, but they are going to hear it. He said about the TGWU:
    "This union is the Labour party in so many ways."
    He was right. The union calls the shots, it chooses the policies, and it even picks the leaders.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, and will he recommend to the Prime Minister that he reads Matthew Parris in The Times?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Motion on the Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 16 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 17 JULY—Opposition day (18th allotted day)—(1st part). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru entitled "The Future Structures of Government in Wales".
Proceedings on the Foreign Corporations Bill [Lords]. Proceedings on the consolidation measures. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill.
Motion on the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations.
THURSDAY 18 JULY—Remaining stages of the Child Support Bill [Lords].
Motions to amend Standing Orders relating to departmental Select Committees.
Motion on parliamentary pensions.
Motions to approve new Standing Orders to establish the new Committee system for the management of services in the House and to provide in Standing Orders for a Broadcasting Committee.
FRIDAY 19 JULY—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House entitled "Wider Choice and Higher Standards in Schools".
MONDAY 22 JULY—Motion for the summer Adjournment.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 17 July at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Committee A—Document No. 4658/91 relating to restriction on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations.
Committee B—Document No. 10445/90 relating to the oil supply situation.
I hope it will be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 25 July until Monday 14 October.
[Wednesday 17 July
Proceedings on the consolidation measures
Water Industry Bill [Lords]
Water Resources Bill [Lords]
Statutory Water Companies Bill [Lords]
Land Drainage Bill [Lords]
Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords]
Deer Bill [Lords]
Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bill [Lords]
Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations.]
Dr. Cunningham: After a week of high security gaol breaks, bank collapses and scandals over the sale of the Property Services Agency, I have no doubt that Conservative Members will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that the House is to rise for the summer recess in two weeks' time. But before that occurs, and especially in view of the meetings of the Group of Seven, and the damning indictment of the OECD report on the failure of the Government's policies, will the Leader of the House assure us that we shall have an opportunity to debate the British economy, preferably in Government time? If we are not to have such a debate on economic affairs in Government time, may we be assured that we will have a Supply day so that Opposition Members can ensure that Parliament has that important debate before the summer recess?
Yet again, we have seen an obscene rise in salaries for chairmen and chief executives in privatised monopolies, a direct result of the Government's policies. But the cat was let out of the bad when the chairman of MANWEB said that Ministers knew in advance of those grotesque salary increases, taken completely at the mercy of electricity and water consumers the length and breadth of Britain. Is it not time to end the prevarication of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers responsible and have a full debate in the House about the consequences of Government policy and their implications for consumer bills in those industries?
The Secretary of State for Defence has said, rightly, that he intends to make a statement about his review of the regimental system in the British Army before the House rises for the summer recess. May we, especially in view of the widespread interest in the future of the regimental system, which I believe extends to Members of all political parties—I know, for example, of the concern in Cumbria about the future of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment—
Mrs. Edwina Currie: The hon. Gentleman should read Matthew Parris in The Times, too.
Dr. Cunningham: I recommend the hon. Lady and all her hon. Friends to read Matthew Parris about the toadies on the Government Benches.
May we have an assurance that that statement will be made in the Chamber of the House of Commons, so that we all have the opportunity to put questions to the Secretary of State for Defence?
Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members are happy to debate many of the matters that were debated during Prime Minister's questions. There is much vigour and enthusiasm among Conservative Members to probe the Labour party's policies, and it has been noticeable during recent Prime Minister's questions that Opposition Members dislike every moment of the probing of the Labour party's policies. Therefore, the desire to rise for the summer recess

1087
is much stronger among Opposition Members, because they are anxious to avoid such continued probing of their policies. That is why, every time the matter is raised, they try to provide smokescreens and make sufficient noise for the responses not to be heard.
We would welcome a debate on the economy. The precise timing would be left to discussion between the usual channels. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been having some discussions about the matter and we are anxious to ensure that the debate is taken in the best possible circumstances with the fullest attendance arid with the appropriate speakers. We hope that, somehow or other, that can be fitted in before the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman knows of the pressure on the timetable, particularly with the date that I have announced for the rising of the House for the summer recess, but we are doing our best to ensure that we have a debate.
Privatisation could also be debated on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have had a recent debate on the matter which is frequently raised in the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear in the House this afternoon. The statement of the gentleman from MANWEB was not correct and a denial was issued thereafter.
The hon. Gentleman made a request for a statement on Army restructuring. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence intends to make an oral statement in the House, if at all possible, before the House rises. The hon. Gentleman knows that when the House returns in October we shall have the usual debate on the Defence White Paper.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: From his past ministerial experience, my right hon. Friend will know of the obligation that section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986 lays on the Government. May we be told whether there will be an opportunity for a statement to be made before we rise on the Government's failure to honour that obligation?
Mr. MacGregor: I not only know of section 39 of the Salmon Act 1986, but I am extremely well aware of my right hon. Friend's interest in such matters. Ministers are now considering a detailed scientific background report. As my right hon. Friend knows, the issues are complicated. The review will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. I cannot give an exact time, and he will know that no time limit is specified for presentation of the point in the 1986 Act.
Mr. James Wallace: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) also has an interest in that matter, although perhaps of a slightly different nature.
I am sure that the Leader of the House would be the first to acknowledge that the consequences for individual investors, for companies and for local authorities, especially for small local authorities, of the failure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International are a serious matter. Given the time constraints, a debate may not be possible, but is it possible to have a statement so that matters can be aired? It is a serious matter and there are concerns among hon. Members of all parties. An opportunity to air those concerns properly would be most welcome.
Mr. MacGregor: Many of the issues are being aired thoroughly at present. My right hon. Friend the Prime
1088
Minister referred to the position of local authorities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman also recognises that those who are pressing for compensation for personal and small business depositors of BCCI must realise that the deposit protection scheme is funded by contributions from the United Kingdom banking industry as a whole, so that the cost of any increase either in the £20,000 ceiling or in the 75 per cent. pay-out ratio would fall on the other United Kingdom banks, with implications either for their depositors or for their own small business customers. That point must be borne in mind.
I cannot promise a debate—indeed, I must rule out a debate in the time left. There is not sufficient Government time for a debate before the House rises. No doubt the matter can be raised in the debate on the economy, if we succeed in having it.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend tell me during which debate next week I shall be able to point out that every Labour Government in history, bar the 1924 Government, have increased the basic rate of income tax despite having promised not to do so at the preceding general election? Does he agree that if, by some misfortune, the Labour party was elected to government at the next general election, it would have massively to increase income tax, yet again, to pay for its enormous public spending plans?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the electorate will not give the Labour party that opportunity. We will make the point frequently in the House that the £35 billion extra expenditure to which Labour is already committed would have massive implications for tax. My hon. Friend may be able to deploy his arguments at greater length in the debate on Monday 22 July on the motion for the summer Adjournment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Leader of the House recall that two weeks ago I called on him to tell the Minister of Agriculture, to make a statement about the livelihood of two farmers in my constituency who are not allowed to milk their cows and now have no income? We have never had such a statement, although there are 25 other farms in the locality. Why does the Minister of Agriculture, refuse to compensate those farmers? The Government talk about the citizens charter and compensation for people, yet they do not have the guts and decency to pay the farmers in that locality. Why do they not get on with it?
Mr. MacGregor: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter, and he knows that a full statement was given when the initial announcement was made. I referred to that at some length in the House. Further explanations have been given in reply to parliamentary questions. A research programme is being devised for the two farms concerned and other farms in the vicinity. These are complex matters, as I know because I have had to deal with similar issues in relation to rhizomania and other matters. The details of the research programme for the two farms have yet to be decided. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will want to make a statement when he has completed those details. I believe that the farms were visited recently.
It is entirely fair for the hon. Gentleman to raise this point, not only in the context of compensation but in other

1089
contexts. It is indeed a serious issue. Let me assure him again—and assure everyone living in the area—that it has been made clear that, of the 27 farms in the Bolsover area that were monitored, only the two whose milk is no longer going into the public supply showed dioxin levels that required action.
Mr. John Browne: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1103?
[That this House welcomes the decision of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in authorising certain of their officials to meet with the legal representatives of the injured Grenadiers; and looks forward to fruitful negotiations yielding a just and humane solution.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, although very well intentioned, has two major deficiencies? First, it makes no provision for flexibility; it does not allow the Secretary of State for Defence to make any ex gratia payments. Secondly, it makes no provision for any service man who sues the Government to have full discovery of documents. Those two facts add up to a great injustice, which is continuing every day of the week. Please may we have a debate, as a matter of urgency, to put the Act right?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there will be an opportunity for a debate in Government time on a specific Act before the House rises. As for the early-day motion, I know that the meeting between officials and legal representatives of the three guardsmen led to a full and useful discussion of the case. My hon. Friend mentioned the provision of information. The MOD officials provided the guardsmen's lawyers with some further information, and undertook to provide other information as requested.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We may have only 10 parliamentary days left before a general election is called. Meanwhile, 1 million people are missing from the electoral register. In the course of those 10 days, should we not discuss the position, and establish whether anything can be done to restore full and genuine electoral registration? If Conservative Members think that there is nothing wrong with the current state of affairs, let me remind them that this House introduced the universal franchise, and that this Government have helped to destroy it.
Mr. MacGregor: I told the hon. Gentleman that I would give him the same reply as before if he asked for a debate on the matter again. Let me add to that reply, however. There is no connection between the number of people who register for voting purposes and the number who register for the community charge. By fomenting such a view, the hon. Gentleman is doing an injustice to those who might wish to register for electoral purposes. He is creating the wrong impression—just as Opposition Members are doing when they encourage people not to pay their community charge.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the important question of minimum values on the export of horses and ponies after 1992? Will he bear in mind that the matter is likely to be settled by the Council of Ministers, perhaps as
1090
early as September? Is it not time that the House debated the issue, which is disturbing the nation's conscience more than any other issue connected with animal welfare?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it will be possible to find Government time for a debate before the House rises, although my hon. Friend will have other opportunities to raise the matter. Let me assure him, however, that I have no doubt that the Government—including my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—know the views of the House full well. I have seen extensive constituency correspondence, and thorough replies from my right hon. Friend the Minister expressing the Government's sympathy and determination to continue to press to get the policy right.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Of all people, the Leader of the House should understand the importance of the agriculture industry and of the negotiations taking place in the Common Market. Can he guarantee that these matters will be brought before the House, either in the form of a statement or preferably in a full-scale debate? Is he now in a position to say when and how these events will be reported back to the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the MacSharry proposals, phase 2, to reform the common agricultural policy. As he knows, the Commission's latest ideas have been published in a lengthy document that will need to be studied in detail before it can be commented upon in depth. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows already that the Government have made it clear that we shall continue to resist firmly all suggestions that would increase the cost of the CAP unacceptably, that would be incompatible with increasing agricultural efficiency and, above all, that would discriminate against the United Kingdom. That has been made absolutely clear, as well as our desire to press strongly for closer integration of agricultural and environmental policies, on which I believe firmly that the United Kingdom has been taking the lead in the Council for a considerable time.
The Agriculture Council will have a preliminary discussion on 15 and 16 July and will commence detailed discussions at the September Council. My guess is that the discussions will continue for a considerable time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall arrange a suitable opportunity to debate these matters.
Mr. Keith Vaz: When may we have a further statement or debate on the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? The Leader of the House knows the catastrophic effects that the closure will have on some local authorities, investors and depositors as well as on businesses. He will also know that the situation is developing every day. We heard rumours that the Governor of the Bank of England was going to fly out of the country to meet the sheikh of Abu Dhabi, and that further discussions were taking place.
Is this not exactly the sort of issue that deserves to be debated when we know that there is a time limit, which is the date that the petition is to be presented to the High Court for the winding up of the bank? There is no point in debating the issue after that. We can do nothing to

1091
alleviate the suffering of these people once that is done. May we have a further statement and a debate on this very important matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already stated the position regarding a debate. If it seemed appropriate at any point, I would certainly discuss with my right hon. Friends whether it would be possible for a statement to be made, but we have to judge when, and if, that is appropriate.
Mr. John Biffen: My right hon. Friend stated that the House will rise on Thursday 25 July for the long recess and, by convention, has announced the business for Monday 22 July. That leaves undeclared the business for Tuesday and Wednesday 23 and 24 July. May I make a very modest suggestion: that the Tuesday should bear the more onerous business and the Wednesday the more optional?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know what my right hon. Friend succeeded in doing in the last week before the summer recess when he was in my position, but he will certainly be aware of some of the pressures. I can assure him that Tuesday's business will be onerous. I am fairly certain—though this largely depends on what returns to us from the other place—that Wednesday will be a long and onerous day as well. I have suggested for some time time that the idea that the House is running out of business —a rumour that was propagated in June—is absolute and total nonsense. We can see, with the pressure on the timetable during the next fortnight, how much we shall have to deal with.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might be helpful to have a wide-ranging debate on fundamental beliefs so that we can establish how many of the beliefs that the Leader of the Opposition previously held have now been jettisoned? My right hon. Friend will have read the report on the front page of The Times today that the Leader of the Opposition and his wife have not renewed their membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He will further recall that in 1981 the Leader of the Opposition said that nuclear disarmament was one of the fundamental beliefs that he would never desert. How many more of these fundamental beliefs is he going to desert?
Mr. MacGregor: In the earlier exchanges on Prime Minister's questions, when it was suggested by one of my hon. Friends that the Opposition seemed to be changing their position on the nuclear question, I was interested to hear the response from the Opposition Front Bench to the effect that there had been no change at all.
Dr. Cunningham: That was three years ago.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has now confirmed that the change was made three years ago and that there has been no change since. I am sure that my hon. Friends will find that extremely interesting, because there has been a great deal of probing of the Opposition's position on that question in recent months and a great deal of fudging in response. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend is making a fair point. There will be an opportunity—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is this in order?
Mr. MacGregor: I am totally in order because I am dealing with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). There will be opportunities to debate this matter when the House returns after the recess because, when, as I have said, we shall be having the usual debate on the defence White Paper.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate earlier than the debate on the defence White Paper? We could discuss the United Nations and the Government's role in supporting it. We could also discuss the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the 139 nations of our planet which have taken the decision not to manufacture or deploy nuclear weapons. We could discuss whether we should maintain the indefensible position of threatening to exterminate half the world through the possession of nuclear weapons or support and join the vast majority of the world's nations which will not have nuclear weapons. We could then decide which is the most sensible policy to pursue.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. If it had been possible, I would have liked to have a debate on the defence estimates—
Mr. Greville-Janner: On the defence cuts.
Mr. MacGregor: I would have liked to have the debate on the defence White Paper before October for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is clear that there are great divisions within the Opposition and it would have enabled us to establish that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) clearly disagrees with the views of his Front-Bench spokesmen—at least in so far as we can establish what those views are.
Sir Robert McCrindle: The question of clause 52, relating to building societies, of the Finance Bill was raised during Prime Minister's Question Time. Will the Leader of the House consider a new dimension to the long-running debate between the Government and the building societies, in that the Leeds Permanent building society has now applied to the court to test the legality of the Government's propositions? In those circumstances, would it not be appropriate if clause 52 were to be deferred until we could ascertain whether the Government are entitled to engage in what the building societies contend is double taxation, although I appreciate that the Government take an opposite view?
Mr. MacGregor: Clearly the selection of clauses, new clauses and amendments for debate on Monday and possibly Tuesday is for you, Mr. Speaker; I would not wish to comment on that. However, clause 52 was debated thoroughly in Committee, and I doubt whether it makes sense to withdraw it from the Finance Bill now.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Is the Leader of the House aware of early-day motion 1035, which draws attention to and expresses alarm about the disruption in the licensed trade?
[That this House views with alarm the disruption now occurring in the licensed trade; deplores the fact that many tenant licensees with long experience of serving the public are being forced either to accept long leases at extortionate rents and with full repairing liabilities or to leave the trade with little hope of finding new employment; notes that beer

1093
prices have been substantially increased while the market share held by the four biggest brewery companies has risen to almost 70 per cent., thus negating the aim of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to provide more consumer choice; and therefore calls on the Government (a) to instruct the Director General of Fair Trading to review the position immediately, (b) to introduce a minimum level of compensation for displaced tenants above that provided in the Landlord and Tenant Act and (c) to introduce a form of independent arbitration for the assessment of fair rents.]
It asks the Government to take remedial measures and now has the support of 73 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the legislation introduced after the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report has failed in its objective of providing a better deal for customers? It has certainly not provided better security for tenant licensees and most assuredly has upset the Conservative party's traditional friends in the brewing industry? In view of that, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on those matters before the summer Adjournment?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can arrange for such a debate in Government time. The hon. Gentleman talked of a debate before the summer Adjournment. The subject could be raised in the motion for the summer Adjournment, and there may be other opportunities as well.
On the substance of the early-day motion, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Landlord and Tenant (Licensed Premises) Act 1990 was introduced by the Government and ensures that pub tenants are entitled to the same security of tenure and statutory minimum compensation as other business tenants.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The Leader of the House must be aware of the numberous complaints about the lack of real democracy in the governance of Northern Ireland. Therefore, as I put to him in the debate yesterday, pending the establishment of a Northern Ireland assembly, will he establish now a Select Committee on Northern Ireland?
Mr. MacGregor: The position on the Select Committees for Northern Ireland and for Scotland has been discussed a number of times. I have nothing to add.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that on Thursday we shall consider motions to amend the Standing Orders on departmental Select Committees, but may I take it that it will be possible to move motion No. 41, which has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and other hon. Members?
Will it be possible to have a debate, even in the spillover period, on the defence White Paper to allow us to make a plea for the uniting and maintaining of the Queen's Irish Hussars?
Mr. MacGregor: The debate on the defence White Paper will be in the spillover period. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be able to make a statement on Army restructuring before the House rises, when such matters could be discussed. I hope
1094
that the motions on Standing Orders will implement all, but possibly the majority, of the Procedure Committee's recommendations on Select Committees.
Mr. Tony Favell: My right hon. Friend said that business is likely to be heavy on 24 July. May I remind him that that is my wife's birthday?
Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on the exchange rate mechanism? It is nine months since we joined, and several eminent economic commentators such as Anatole Kaletsky of The Times and Andrew Alexander of the Daily Mail, and economic academics such as Professor Patrick Minford of Liverpool university, feel that it is having an adverse effect on our prospects of recovering from the recession and for lowering interest rates.
Mr. MacGregor: I apologise to my hon. Friend's wife. It is not the first time that we have had heavy business on the birthdays of hon. Members' wives, including mine. My hon. Friend will be able to give his wife dinner in the House, which has excellent facilities.
On the point of substance that he raised—
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman did not say anything of substance.
Mr. MacGregor: The point of policy substance that my hon. Friend made would be appropriate for a debate on the economy. As I said to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), I hope that we shall have such a debate in the last week before the recess. I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's request about 24 July in considering when that debate should be held.
Mr. Greville Janner: As today is a much more auspicious occasion—my birthday—will the Leader of the House, who apparently is in a good mood, be kind enough to answer two questions, if you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to ask them?
First, despite what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may we have a debate on the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International? Is he aware of the enormous hardship that it has caused ordinary people, including the Oulik family in my constituency, who stand to lose nearly all their life savings? Surely we should at least have a statement, and will the Leader of the House undertake to talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about that?
Secondly, will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on the unworthy and indefensible 63 per cent. increase in the salary of the chairman of East Midlands Electricity, when its staff's salary increases were held down to 8.9 per cent.? Everyone in the Leicester area considers that to be a bad precedent in an industry that should not have been taken out of public ownership.
Mr. MacGregor: I disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the implications of the privatisation of electricity boards for the industry and for consumers. It will benefit both.
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I have already responded to both his other questions. I understand the consequences of the collapse of BCCI for families and businesses, but, as I said earlier, there is no

1095
room for a debate in Government time. If and when it is appropriate, I shall discuss the possibility of a statement with my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends—and, for all I know, some members of the Opposition—believe that no more technical assistance should be given to the Soviet Union by the G7 countries until there is genuine democracy, genuine economic reform, genuine rule of law and a genuine reduction in the conventional arms build-up in that country? Will there be an opportunity next week when President Gorbachev will be in London for us to make that clear statement to him in the presence of representatives from the G7 countries?
Mr. MacGregor: That question does not relate to the business of the House, but I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend's comment will have been noted. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, I expect, make a statement on the outcome of the G7 talks.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the decision taken by the United States Government to lift sanctions against South Africa, may we have a statement next week to the effect that the Government will not follow the American example until a new constitution is in place in South Africa to guarantee the right to vote for all South African people?
Mr. MacGregor: I believe that there will be a widespread welcome not only for that decision, but for the recent decision of various sports councils to readmit South Africa to the international sporting arena. However, I cannot promise a debate or a statement on these issues.
Sir Anthony Grant: It is welcome news that the Secretary of State for Defence is to make a statement on Army reorganisation before the House rises, but can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be sufficient time to question the Secretary of State? Last time, there was not sufficient time for many hon. Members with regimental interests to ask questions, and I was unable to raise the issue of the future of the Royal Anglian Regiment. In view of the pressure that is being brought to bear, would not it be better to have a debate on the White Paper before the House rises? Is it not absolutely essential for the world, in its present state, to know that the Government's nuclear defence policy commands a majority in the House so that the issue can be put to rest?
Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I have already said that I wish we could have time for a debate on these issues before the House rises because I am keen to solve the conundrum of the Opposition's nuclear defence policy and to contrast it with ours. I do not think that it is necessary to have a debate for the country to know of the big differences between us on that issue.
My hon. Friend's first point illustrates the difficulties of the past two weeks. There is a lot of business to be covered, which is why I said that there will be a number of very heavy days. However, the amount of time given to an oral statement is a matter not for me but for Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Leader of the House find time before the recess to arrange for further discussion on the "fortress Europe" statement on political refugees which was made by the Home
1096
Secretary last week, so that we can, in general, answer some of the rabid comments of the Tory right to the effect that Britain is being swamped by people from an alien culture and specifically raise an answer that I received from a Home Office Minister on Monday? That answer showed that in 20 of the past 27 years more people have left the country than have entered it, and that since 1964 there has been a net emigration of 786,000 people from the United Kingdom. Does not that put into context the false justification for denying and tightening the rights of political refugees?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend's statement last week was not on immigration or emigration but was specifically about asylum. His statement was very clear.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend announced that there was to be yet another debate on Wales next week. Does he ever reflect on the difficulties that hon. Members have in raising matters relating to parts of the United Kingdom that get a much smaller per capita handout from central Government than do Wales and Scotland? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the county of Kent faces extraordinary pressures, partly because the channel tunnel is now finished? We are now linked to France and, in many ways, we are already being treated, and hope to continue to be treated, as a Euro-region. The volume of traffic per mile is increasing faster in Kent than in almost any other part of the United Kingdom. There is a whole range of issues that it would be good to debate in the House. Can my right hon. Friend see his way to providing us with an opportunity to do that?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can see a way to providing an opportunity to debate those specific issues before the House rises, although I know that they have already been raised quite often. My hon. Friend will know that next week's debate on Welsh matters is to be held on an Opposition day, and that the subject has been chosen by Plaid Cymru.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House says that we "might" have a statement on BCCI "when and if" it is appropriate. May I tell him that the local authorities think that it is appropriate now? They expected a statement to be made to Parliament today. May we have that statement on Monday, and may we have an assurance that a statement will not be made tomorrow because, too often, important statements are slipped through on Fridays when it is mostly London and home counties Members who are present and when many of us have had to go back to Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and all parts of the United Kingdom, with a travelling time of five, six or seven hours? May we have that statement as a matter of urgency—particularly as, in the north-west of England, many authorities of all political persuasions are affected?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said about our making a statement when and if it is appropriate to do so. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about statements on Fridays, but I emphasise that it is sometimes appropriate to have statements on Fridays.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Leader of the House will be aware that the resort of Hunstanton in my constituency today took delivery of the

1097
highly prestigious blue flag award for being one of the cleanest and best resorts in the country. May I ask my right hon. Friend for his advice? I should like to pay tribute to Kings Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, to Hunstanton town council, to Anglian Water and to all those in the town of Hunstanton who have worked so hard to achieve the award. When will I have the chance to pay tribute to those bodies and to discuss the question of improving beaches throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has already done so, and, as a Norfolk man myself, I should like to add to the tributes that he has paid in respect of Hunstanton beach. May I give him another favourable reply by pointing out that tomorrow there is to be a debate on the environment in which he could embellish the points that he has already made.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will there be a statement or a debate next week on the G7 economic summit and its outcome, with particular reference to third-world debt—the system whereby the poorest countries subsidise the banking systems of western Europe, north America and Japan? It is time that the G7 summit stopped the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, wrote off the debts and arranged for changes in the trading system so that commodity prices paid to the poorest people around the world for their products rise instead of continuing to decline. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, the longer the system continues, the more schools and hospitals will be closed in poor countries, the worse the health of the people of those countries will become and the more damage will be done to their environment? This is a serious matter and should be debated in the House.
Mr. MacGregor: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be a statement on the outcome of the summit, although I cannot, at this stage, say exactly when.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the usual courtesies in the proceedings of this House? May I draw his attention to the statement made earlier by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who referred to a number of Conservative Members as toads and drew attention to an article by Mr. Matthew Parris in The Times? Will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that Mr. Toad and his friends defeated the weasels and drove them out of the house? Some of us would be proud to be toads.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. It was an answer and not a question.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the way in which we are handling the business of defence? He has said that we will not have a debate on the White Paper until the spillover period. Therefore, there will be three months from the publication of the White Paper until the House discusses it. That is not the normal procedure. The normal procedure would be to discuss a White Paper very soon after its publication.
1098
Some very serious issues in Scotland require answers on the Floor of the House, and they should not wait for the spillover period, especially those in relation to the safety of the Trident system which has been reported upon extensively by the Select Committee on Defence. We need a decision and a statement on the future of naval bases, including the base at Rosyth. Although it is perfectly reasonable to have disputes about such matters across the Floor of the House, if the Leader of the House is really anxious to discuss the matter, should we not have a longer period before the recess? There is ample time, and a recess of a couple of months or so is a bit of a nonsense. The Leader of the House should know better.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman understands why the White Paper was later this year. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave evidence to the Select Committee only yesterday. He will also know that we had two full days' debates on defence matters only recently. We therefore need some time to consider the matters in the White Paper and the points about Army restructuring on which I have been pressed today. I am under great pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House for the House to rise at the time that I have announced. It is therefore not possible to have the debate on the defence White Paper until we come back.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend probably read in The Daily Telegraph today that Saddam Hussein has been responsible for the assassination of 14 of his generals over the past few weeks, and that the United Nations team of observers in Iraq is having particular problems. The Pentagon has now said that satellites have observed more than 10 depositories of nuclear material. In the same breath, the Pentagon is preparing a strike force. Before everything happens again, may we talk the matter through before the recess?
Mr. MacGregor: I will convey my hon. Friend's concerns to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the Leader of the House aware that I fully support the request for an early debate or for a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on the position of the injured Grenadier guardsmen? Is he aware that the meeting the other day between the solicitors representing the soldiers and Ministry of Defence officials was welcome? I believe that there will be progress and that there will be proper compensation for those who have been crippled for life. However, if that progress is not made, may we have a statement as quickly as possible about the matter, certainly before the House rises for the recess? There is tremendous concern in the west midlands about the issue and about Sean Povey.
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter because he has raised it on a number of occasions. I cannot say whether there will be developments before the House rises. However, I will convey yet again to my right hon. Friend the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised this afternoon.
Mr. David Wilshire: Earlier this week the Civil Aviation Authority published proposals that threaten the viability of the express rail link at Heathrow airport. If that scheme is abandoned, it will cause great harm to my constituents, to the travelling public, and to

1099
British aviation interests in general. By the time that I have sat down, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be left in no doubt about my views. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House organise a debate before the House rises so that the rest of the House may make it crystal clear to the Secretary of State for Transport that the proposals are absolute nonsense and that once again they show that the CAA does not understand the economic facts of life?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, the proposals were advanced not by the Government but by the CAA. I am sure that he will make his views known during the consultation process.
Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Leader of the House aware that grave concern was expressed last night in another place by the chairman of British Coal about the behaviour of the two big generating companies') Will he find time to discuss the problems that have been caused by the privatisation of one electricity company and the creation of two electricity duopolies—that is what they are; they act as monopolies—which are now screwing down coal prices so far that there will be drastic closures in the coal industry unless something is done soon?
Mr. MacGregor: I have not yet had the opportunity to read the comments made last night in another place, but I will draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Michael Brown: If the Prime Minister totally changed the Government's policy on our independent nuclear deterrent next week, the Opposition and the House would rightly expect him to make a statement in the House. Therefore, perhaps not before the recess but during it, will my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Leader of the House, devote his energies to considering the possibility of introducing a procedure whereby if the Leader of the Opposition, who receives an official salary for that job, changes his policy, he can be asked to account for it in the House?
We have heard the shadow Leader of the House say this afternoon, sotto voce, that Labour's defence policy was changed three years ago, but we need to have that on the record. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if anybody who receives an official salary similar to that received by a Minister and thus has the responsibilities that go with it changes his policy on privatisation, nationalisation or nuclear deterrence, that person should be required to subject himself to a debate in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I can assure my hon. Friend that, in an appropriate debate, such a person would certainly be subjected to a great deal of probing on his or her position. There has been considerable confusion about the Opposition's nuclear policy for some months. We have heard this afternoon—it has been confirmed by those on the Opposition Front Bench—that there is no change in the Opposition's policy, so I am afraid that there is still no change in the confusion.
Mr. Peter Hain: May I press the Leader of the House again to find time for a statement on the increasingly complex issue of sanctions against South Africa? Although, in common with many others, I welcome South Africa's readmission to the international Olympics and to cricket because it has integrated its sports
1100
structures for the Olympic sports and for cricket, that has not yet happened in rugby or in the other sports that are still organised on racial lines. By backing President Bush's almost obscene haste in lifting economic sanctions while blacks do not have the vote in South Africa, the Government risk derailing the whole process of reform that has been gathering momentum over the past year. Does the Leader of the House recognise those concerns, and will he find time for a debate on those vital issues?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I do not think that it will be possible to find time to debate that issue before the House rises. The Government's position on sanctions is clear, and has been clear for some time.
Mr. David Sumberg: May we have a debate next week on leasehold reform to give the Government the opportunity to refer to reports in the press today that they are shortly to announce the introduction of the commonhold system of land tenure, which would remove many of the problems that my constituents face because of impossible and difficult landlords who are making their lives a complete misery? Can my right hon. Friend give us any hint about what the Government might say in the next few days?
Mr. MacGregor: Although there will not be time for a debate, I assure my hon. Friend that there will be a statement shortly, which I believe he will very much welcome.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I advise the Leader of the House that I am a Member cif the Council of Europe and thoroughly enjoy the experience of our debates at Strasbourg, Paris and other places of hardship around Europe? I attend the Council of Europe as part of a delegation which is sent there by the House of Commons. It would therefore be appropriate if we had the opportunity to give an account in this House of what we have been doing in the Council of Europe on behalf of all hon. Members—[Interruption.]—and often at great pressure to our health and livelihoods.
When did we last have a debate in Government time on the working of the Council of Europe? If the Leader of the House cannot say that, will he give us an assurance that we shall have an early debate when we return from the recess so that we can give an account of what we have been doing on behalf of the whole House?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to look into the record. I cannot give an assurance that there will be a debate in Government time—although I am sure that the entire House would be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman has been up to.
Mr. Skinner: He got a new jacket last Christmas.
Mr. MacGregor: The jacket has certainly come from somewhere. I have noticed that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is never short of opportunities to tell us what he has been up to in various pursuits. Undoubtedly he will find an opportunity at some point to explain what he has been up to.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the request of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) for a debate on political refugees? In such a debate, we could consider one particularly unworthy

1101
group of political refugees—the Militant Tendency in the Labour party. It would give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to tell us whether he believes that he is eligible.
Mr. MacGregor: Many of us believe that it is time that the Leader of the Opposition made clear his position on those of his colleagues who are members of Militant or who support Militant. Therefore, my hon. Friend makes a fair point.

Consolidated Fund Bill (Adjournment Debates)
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about arrangements for the debate on the motion for the Adjournment which will follow the passing of the Consolidated Fund Bill on Monday 22 July.
Members should submit their subjects to my office not later than 10 pm on Wednesday 17 July. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day. Normally the time allotted will not exceed one and a half hours, but I propose to exercise a discretion to allow one or two debates to continue for rather longer, up to a maximum of three hours.
Where identical or similar subjects have been entered by different Members whose names are drawn in the ballot, only the first name will be shown on the list. As some debates may not last the full time allotted to them, it is the responsibility of Members to keep in touch with developments if they are not to miss their turn.

Orders of the Day

  British Railways Board (Finance) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is primarily a technical measuree, but the debate on its Second Reading gives the House an opportunity to spend a relatively unusual amount of time debating the railways in the United Kingdom. The Government are delighted that this opportunity should be available. It is also provides us with an opportunity to probe in the kindliest and gentlest way the views of Her Majesty's Opposition on railways policy. Clearly, over the months, a certain ambiguity, dubiety and equivocation have developed about exactly what those views are.
  In my later remarks I shall seek to entice the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to abandon his customary shyness and speak to the House in a clear and unequivocal way so that we and the country can be better informed about the Labour party's views.
  Mr. John Prescott: The Secretary of State must make his own judgment about whether I am a shy Member. Is he aware that, in the latest National Opinion Poll survey, when people were asked whether they would trust the Labour party's or the Government's policy for transport in our country, 50 per cent. said that they would trust Labour and 29 per cent. said that they would trust the Tories? That is a sufficent answer to the Secretary of State's suggestion that there is confusion about our policies.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is so interested in opinion polls. I presume that he was equally impressed by the opinion poll in yesterday's Guardian, which showed that most people wish to see British Rail privatised and that 23 per cent. of Labour voters believe that the railways would improve if they were privatised. As the hon. Gentleman has just confessed that he is an implicit believer in everything that the opinion polls say, privatisation will undoubtedly become part of the policy conversion that the Labour party is slowly and grudgingly moving towards.
  Mr. Prescott: This is the last time I shall intervene in the Secretary of State's speech. I do not want to debate this important issue now, but the poll in The Guardian also showed that the people surveyed thought that privatisation had been pretty disastrous in other areas so far, but that they felt that it might work better for the railways. So their experience did not seem to fit in with the privatisation that they wanted.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will have to start off by trying to persuade 23 per cent. of his own supporters that the Labour party's policy, which is hostile to privatisation, deserves their approval—
  Mr. Peter Snape: The right hon. and learned Gentleman just said that we have not got one.
  Mr. Rifkind: The Labour party certainly has many policies, but they are mutually inconsistent and they vary from spokesman to spokesman and from month to month. No one would dream of accusing the Labour party of being short of policies—that would be grossly unfair.
  The Bill is a technical measure which amends the statutory provisions relating to the indebtedness of the British Railways Board. The first part of the Bill increases the limit on the borrowing powers of British Rail from the current figure of £1.1 billion to about £3 billion and it enables the Secretary of State to propose by affirmative order a further maximum of £5 billion. There are similar provisions with regard to grants under the public service obligation which also propose that the figure in question should not exceed £3 billion, with an opportunity to increase that sum by affirmative order to £5 billion.
  For many years, for the railways and for other nationalised industries, there have been statutory limits which determine their maximum borrowing and grants at any given moment. Unless those limits are regularly increased, British Rail, like other nationalised industries, would be in the unusual position of having Government approval to fund a certain level of expenditure without being able to use that approval because it would conflict with the technical statutory limit laid down in the legislation.
  It is especially important now to enable British Rail to go forward with the large investment programme that it has undertaken, based on heavy Government support. That investment programme usually funded by a combination of internal receipts and of borrowing, but the proportion of internal receipts falls if British Rail goes through a difficult period such as it has been in for the past 18 months.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why does it take me longer to travel on the west coast line from Carlisle to London today than it did 12 years ago when I was first elected to Parliament? Why do trains invariably break down on that route? Why are trains often late? Why are there repeated signalling failures? There are broken seats; there is broken equipment; there are toilets that do not work; the carriages are overcrowded. What has gone wrong? Every time I travel on the line people complain to conductors and drivers. When they finally get to London they find that the escalator at Euston station does not work and has not worked for seven weeks—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Interventions should be short and to the point. The hon. Gentleman is not making a speech at this stage.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's remarks provide confirmation of the Government's view that the last Labour Government were foolish to cut investment in the railways, and that the present Government were right to increase it.
  British Rail's annual figures, released last week, show that it went through a difficult period—as did many other companies—during the recession. Not so much because of railway activity but primarily because of a dramatic fall in the income that it would usually receive from property assets, it has not been possible for BR to fund from such receipts the proportion of the investment that it would have hoped to fund. Without the Bill, some time later this year, British Rail would have found itself with Government approval to continue its investment
  1104
  programme, but unable to do so because the borrowing requirement for that purpose would have taken it over the statutory limit.
  Essentially, that is all that the Bill is about, and that is why it is appropriate to ask the House to allow these limits to be increased. It does not mean that British Rail will be getting borrowing or grant powers of £3,000 million at any given moment. The limits are intended to last for several years and, as in the past, future investment levels will be determined as part of the public expenditure survey programme.
  Although it was a matter of some sadness that British Rail announced a loss of some £40 million last week, I found it particularly pleasing, and it was refreshing, that even last year, during what was undoubtedly an extremely difficult financial year for British Rail, two of its major businesses—InterCity and Bulk Freight—continued to make a profit. When the Government consider the likely course of privatisation in what we hope will be the not-too-distant future, we shall find it encouraging that, even during an economic recession, both those businesses demonstrated their capacity to make a profit.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: In considering the public sector obligation grant, will the Secretary of State have regard to the complaints of the Transport Users Consultative Committee that the network on which the grant is being paid has effectively been reduced because the levels of service on many of the lines are far below what they were when the direction was given? In effect, that is closure by the back door, with no recourse to the Secretary of State or to a public inquiry, of a number of important rural lines.
  Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, in any given year, at any time, some services are increased and some are reduced and some lines are opened or re-opened. The public service obligation grant applies to the entirety of these services. While the hon. Gentleman is entitled to point to examples of reduced services, I find it encouraging that, over the past few years, there has been a substantial net increase in the totality of services offered by British Rail.
  Mr. Robert Adley: I am still waiting for my right hon. and learned Friend to convince me that the passenger will benefit from privatisation. Which country is he using as a model to provide guidance because this policy has been successfully undertaken there?
  Mr. Rifkind: I am impressed by the fact that the policy of privatising the railways is being put forward by other Governments than the British Government, who have the support of the public as expressed in the opinion poll. It is also the policy of the Japanese Government, who are further ahead on these matters than we are. The Dutch Government have said that they are proposing to privatise the Dutch railways. The chairman of the German railways —the Deutsche Bundesbahn—was reported as saying in a recent speech that privatisation might be necessary for the German railways. The European Commission and the Council of Transport Ministers have taken the lead in ending state-controlled railway monopolies. Therefore, privatisation is part of an international trend which is very much to be welcomed.
  Dr. Kim Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State wil be aware that in Japan, a series of

  1105
  regional monopolies, plus a freight-carrying monopoly, have been created. Neither I nor anybody else who has investigated this matter has yet found a privatised railway system that involves real competition of the sort that I assume the Government would like to see. The problem about privatisation can be put simply. How does one make one train pass another on the same line? It is impossible.
  Mr. Rifkind: The example that the hon. Gentleman used is absurd, as he is obviously aware. He must appreciate two things. First, competition can often mean two trains going from one destination to another by different routes. For example, one can get from London to Birmingham in two ways and from Edinburgh to Glasgow in two ways—one by ScotRail and one by InterCity. It may be that one day these two services will compete on price, perhaps under separate ownership, and that would be genuine competition.
  There is also an opportunity for new entrants into the railway industry to provide services either for freight or passengers, which currently are reserved by law to British Rail or can be conducted only with the approval of British Rail. There is a multitude of ways in which greater choice can be introduced on the railways. It is for that reason that not just in this country, but in the European Community, such a policy is increasingly being pursued. I shall return to those matters in a few moments.
  The Government's policy is to seek greater use of the railways, primarily for freight but also for passengers. It is appropriate to do that not only in the interests of the railways, but in the interests of the motorists and those who use our roads. To the extent that it is possible to encourage greater use of railways for freight, that will help to relieve congestion elsewhere.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I am interested in the theme that my right hon. and learned Friend is beginning to enunciate. Is he aware that there was concern in my constituency when the Speedlink service was withdrawn from Taunton Cider, as it was feared that that would result in lorries using the narrow roads of Norton Fitzwarren. Fortunately, Tigerail has taken on most of that service, which I welcome. I hope that it is successful.
  Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any proposals to enable the railways to take more freight away from lorries that use environmentally sensitive roads—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are becoming speeches. I shall do my best to call the hon. Gentleman to make a speech. Will he please confine his intervention to a few comments?
  Mr. Nicholson: There will also be a problem with bridges, which will cost Somerset a vast amount to improve if heavy lorries use them.
  Mr. Rifkind: I reassure my hon. Friend on both counts. He may have noted my announcement two or three weeks ago on section 8 environmental grants, which substantially improved the entitlement to grants that can be paid to those who are currently using country roads, environmentally sensitive roads or other roads not designed for the carriage of heavy freight. They can be much more generously assisted to transfer that freight to the railways, which I am sure my hon. Friend would welcome.
  1106
  On my hon. Friend's point about Speedlink, it was difficult to fault British Rail for deciding to close an operation which, on a turnover of £45 million, was expected this year to make a loss of £40 million. It was a great relief that BR negotiated with its former customers to ensure that 70 per cent. of that load would continue to be carried by rail. As my hon. Friend mentioned, new operators are also being invited to take over part of that responsibility.
  Investment is a crucial part of the Government's objective of encouraging the development of our rail infrastructure. There is now more investment in our rail infrastructure than at any time since the days of Dr. Beeching. It is not simply a question of providing global sums, which can sometimes sound impressive, without indicating what that means in reality. However, the reality is impressive, and the investment is being used to improve the quality of service both for those who depend on the railways and those who would like to use them.
  The figures are impressive. Currently, the approval given to British Rail for investments, and the rolling stock that is being manufactured, amount to no fewer than 1,361 passengers coaches, at various stages of manufacture. Some 112 new locomotives are also being manufactured. Network SouthEast, which operates in a part of the country that is often believed to be most dependent upon elderly stock, has no fewer than 895 passenger coaches in various stages of manufacture. They will transform the quality of travel for those who use its services in the months and years to come.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not a good example of what my right hon. and learned Friend just explained—and for which the people of north Kent are grateful—the introduction of the new Networker units on the north Kent line, which from the autumn will bring relief to commuters from Gravesend and elsewhere?
  Mr. Rifkind: We were pleased to give British Rail the investment approval that it required for that service. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it was clearly an important and urgent priority.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: There has been a substantial delay in the introduction of the Networker coaches, and that has been a considerable disappointment to my constituents. Have the bugs in the manufacture of those coaches been eradicated?
  Mr. Rifkind: I understand that the first coaches will be introduced in September. It is always regrettable when manufacturing delays retard the arrival of new rolling stock. However, it is clear that my hon. Friend's constituents will have the benefit of that investment in the near future.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has given way many times. Will he say something about electrification? He is aware that he is not exactly the most popular figure in Nottingham because of his roads policy. Might he try to reclaim some of his lost popularity by suggesting that the midlands line to Nottingham could be electrified?
  Mr. Rifkind: I appreciate that in some parts of my hon. Friend's constituency the preferred line of route for a particular road was not greeted with enormous rapture.

  1107
  However, I understand that, even among those closest to my hon. Friend, there are differences of view about the preferred line of route. If there can be differences of view in the heart of my hon. Friend's constituency, it cannot be surprising that our announcement had mixed reactions.
  Individual projects for electrification are matters for British Rail. It analyses the various proposals and then comes to us if it believes that an investment can be justified. The level of investment—
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the proposal for the overhead electrification of the Leeds-Bradford and the Aire Valley railways. That proposal has been forwarded to his Department and it has been approved. Unfortunately, there is no approval for the coaches and the rolling stock. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, one is no good without the other. At the current rate of progress, if there is much further delay the cost of the rolling stock will increase. As the Government want, I hope, maximum value for money, will he make a statement urgently— preferably tonight— giving authority for the passenger transport authority to go ahead with the purchase of the rolling stock?
  Mr. Rifkind: I understand that there has been some change in the proposal regarding either the leasing or the purchase of the relevant rolling stock, and that will have to be given the fullest consideration.
  The level of investment is crucial to the prospects for improving our railways, and investment is now at a higher level than at any time for 30 years. The opening of the channel tunnel will be significant. In the past, the prospects for encouraging freight to transfer to rail have been relatively limited. As many hon. Members will be aware, the economics of rail freight depends on the distance that it is carried— the longer the distance, the more commercially and economically attractive it is to use the railways.
  The United Kingdom, which is geographically a relatively small country with a population largely concentrated in the south, has previously offered relatively few opportunities for long-distance rail journeys. The opening of the channel tunnel will transform the position, because it will be possible for freight to be carried on a single journey from Scotland, the midlands or wherever through the channel tunnel to France, Germany or Italy. That, together with the improved technology that is available for combined transport, makes rail freight much more feasible. British Rail estimates that about 400,000 lorry journeys a year will switch to rail as a result of the channel tunnel and that will make an important contribution towards relieving congestion on many of our roads.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I am pleased to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that there will be a movement of freight from road to rail, but can he reassure the House that the gauges, both track and wagon, which are being manufactured for use in Britain by British Rail, will be wholly compatible with the gauges on the continent so that trains can run from the north of Scotland to Milan without the swapping of loads or other movements?
  Mr. Rifkind: British Rail is conscious of the need to ensure that, as far as possible, there is compatibility. It estimates that some 80 per cent. of all the rolling stock on
  1108
  the continent used for freight purposes could use British lines as a result of the changes that are being made in various regards.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Secretary of State aware that, almost two years ago, Tameside local authority proposed a joint venture for a freight terminal at Guide Bridge on the edge of my constituency and we were originally promised a decision by January of this year? We still have not had that decision. Will he urge British Rail to make up its mind quickly about a freight terminal in the north-west and to accept the site at Guide Bridge and get on with the work there so that we can, as the Minister has just said, take a great deal of traffic off the roads and on to the railways?
  Mr. Rifkind: I understand that British Rail expects to reach a decision on that matter this summer. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have too long to wait before he is aware of its conclusions.
  I have said that part of the thrust of the Government's policies concerns investment and part concerns using the new opportunities that the channel tunnel represents. I have also described the environmental impact represented by the improvement in section 8 grants. But I make no secret of the fact that I believe that one of the most important ways in which we can make progress is by ending the legally enshrined monopoly that British Rail presently has.
  It is no coincidence that the ending of that monopoly is not only perceived in Britain to be important in increasing the use of the railways and is increasingly recognised as such within Europe, but has been adopted by the Commission and the Council of Transport Ministers. At the last meeting of Transport Ministers in Luxembourg on a proposal from the European Commission warmly supported by the United Kingdom, the EC, for the first time in the rail history of Europe, adopted a directive which will give a right of access to any international combined transport/freight operation that wishes to operate internationally within the EC.
  The effect of that would be that if, for example, an operator wanted to provide a service from Manchester to Milan, he would have a right to do so, subject to the usual safety and other technical requirements, and it would not be subject to the veto of either a nationalised state monopoly railway undertaking or the Government of any member state. That is an historic decision taken by the EC which shows that the British approach to ending the monopoly as quickly as possible is warmly to be welcomed.
  We in Britain have already stated our intention to move in that direction and I have been heartened over the past few weeks by the numerous representations and approaches that I have received from many United Kingdom companies interested in considering the use of rail and in making such proposals. In the near future, we will be having a seminar to which we have invited those who have an industrial interest in the possible use of rail in order that we can explore specific ways of taking the matters forward.
  Mr. Adley: I am interested in what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. He is putting forward a policy, certainly with regard to Europe, with which I wholeheartedly agree. He will, of course, confirm that his reason for welcoming the alternative uses of our tracks is

  1109
  not a party-political dogmatic one but is that he believes that it will offer the customer a better service. If we were to open up part of the tracks on British Rail to other operators, how would my right hon. and learned Friend feel if, for example, SNCF wanted to run trains on British tracks?
  Mr. Rifkind: I welcome what I understand my hon. Friend to have just said— that he supports the decision taken by the EC and that he, too, like all my hon. Friends, is pleased that the monopoly of state-owned railway companies in Europe is gradually coming to an end. That is not only an important statement of principle; it recognises that there is no insuperable practical problem which would prevent the use by several operators of particular railway track. I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned in the past about some of the practical problems, and I am glad that, in his welcome for the principle, he clearly envisages that it should be possible and practicable to translate that principle into action.
  My hon. Friend asked a specific question about the opportunities for SNCF or for other operators. Clearly, I look forward to the day when any railway operator within a single internal market in Europe which could meet the safety and other technical requirements would be free to provide services that the travelling public or industry in terms of freight carriage might find it useful to use. If we hope to have the opportunity for British operators to operate freely in other European countries, obviously the reverse will also have to apply or such a policy could not be taken forward. I genuinely welcome my hon. Friend's support for the ending of the monopoly, because he has an unrivalled knowledge of railway matters in the House over many years.
  I have given the Government's view on these matters and it would be helpful to the debate and to a better public appreciation in Britain if the public and hon. Members could have the same knowledge of the Opposition's views on railway matters. I start with investment, because that is clearly important. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East often speaks eloquently and at length about the need for massive investment in our railways and how he would seek to ensure that that was brought about. I do not doubt that he genuinely intends to bring about such a transformation, but it is not exactly reassuring to look at investment under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman is always reluctant to have these matters drawn to this attention, but we are entitled to compare what he says, no doubt sincerely, with what took place when his colleagues had responsibility for these matters.
  When one looks at the period from 1974 to 1979, one finds not only that investment was far lower than under the present Government, but, what is even worse, and even more difficult to understand and to justify, that it got progressively lower. Far from increasing under the Labour Government, it was reduced. I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures. In 1990–91 prices— to make sure that we have a confident basis for comparison— in 1975 the Labour Government provided some £568 million for investment. The following year that fell to £561 million, the year after that it went down to £541 million, the year after that down to £526 million, and then it crawled up a bit to £537 million in the final year of the Labour Government.
  1110
  The Conservative Government started with investment of £556 million and now we have investment of £818 million. Therefore, the record is extremely revealing. Year after year under Labour, investment in the railways was reduced. Under a Conservative Government, particularly in the past five years, there have been unrivalled increases in real terms in investment in our railways. When the hon. Gentleman chastises us on levels of investment, I must say to him, "Physician heal thyself, then you will be able to speak with greater authority."
  Mr. Prescott: It was the Conservative Government who appointed the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the south-east network and the provincial network. If he looks at the investment there from 1975, he is correct to say that up to 1979 it fluctuated within £10 million or £20 million. [Interruption.] I am trying seriously to answer a point. The level of investment raises serious issues which I want to address.[Interruption.] This is an opportunity for us to have a serious debate about railway finances. If the Secretary of State looks at the investment figures, he will see that they fluctuated in the way in which he described— up and down, but around the £500 million level. If the Secretary of State looks at the figures for the first two years of this Government, he will see that there was a cut of 10 per cent., according to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I am prepared to send to the Library for those figures, and I have copies of the figures on my desk at the moment. They show a cut of almost 10 per cent. in investment levels during the first two years of the Tory Government, which was caused by the same monetary policy which led to the recession.
  Mr. Rifkind: I must gently chide the hon. Gentleman. Under the Labour Government, the figures did not fluctuate; they went down. The meaning of the word "fluctuate" is simple, and cannot describe continuing decline. I know that the hon. Gentleman is embarrassed by such matters and I realise that they are, in a sense, of historical interest, but I must press him on the question of why we should have greater confidence that a future Labour Government would be able to increase investment when Labour's record is so poor.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has said on several occasions—and I have heard him say this myself—that under a Labour Government, investment opportunities for British Rail would be transformed because it would be allowed to borrow from the private sector, as happens in France, and not only from the national loans fund. That is not quite as impressive as it sounds, for two reasons. First, the French Government still determine totality of investment; there is no unlimited investment opportunity. The only way in which one can give unlimited investment opportunity, in this country or in France, is by privatising the railways. As long as they are owned by the state, any investment, whether borrowed from the private sector or from the national loans fund, is inevitably constrained by the limits of public expenditure.
  Secondly, as regards flexibility in this country, the hon. Gentleman's proposal was shot out of the air only last week by Sir Bob Reid in his evidence to the Select Committee on Transport, when he said that, even if British Rail had the opportunity to borrow from the private sector, it would not have the slightest intention of doing so because it is cheaper to borrow from the national loans fund than from the private sector, if one is in the public

  1111
  sector. As a consequence, British Rail's investment potential would be reduced if it adopted the hon. Gentleman's worthy recommendation. His point is not very valid.
  Another comparison between the two Governments is revealing.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State tell us what we got in oil revenues during the period of the previous Labour Government and the amount of oil revenues during the period of the Conservative Government? Will he accept that it was logical that, having had so much money from North sea oil, we should have had a massive investment in public transport between 1979 and the present? If he makes a comparison on that basis, the Government's record is pretty appalling.
  Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the reason why investment fell under the previous Labour Government was not because they wanted it to fall, but because their management of the economy was so rotten that they had to cut investment in almost every sector, and the railways were treated in the same way as the rest of the economy, in which public expenditure collapsed.
  We are all anxious to see an expansion in the use of rail, so it is interesting and instructive to examine what has been achieved under this Government compared with the period 1974–79. There has been a continuing increase in the number of railway stations being opened and reopened. Under the previous Labour Government, there was an increase of about 25 in the number of railway stations available to the travelling public. Under this Administration, there has been an increase of no fewer than 108. Under the Labour Government, there was a net reduction in the number of lines that British Rail operated, whereas under the Conservative Government, there has been a net increase. That is also a revealing comment.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it might have been appropriate for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who left the Chamber shortly after his lengthy intervention on the decline of services over the past 12 years, to stay for this important section of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech?
  Mr. Rifkind: Indeed. If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had stayed for my speech, he would have been no wiser, but probably better informed. That is a matter for him to consider.
  I have some main questions to put to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and I put them in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because I know that he is always anxious to help the House and to clarify matters of confusion. He may want to intervene to clarify these points so that they can be put on one side quickly.
  What is the attitude of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and of any future Labour Government, to industrial conflict on the railways? That matter has been of considerable importance in recent weeks, because there was a proposal at the recent conference of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen to take industrial action because of alleged grievances felt by its members over the levels of investment and other quasi-political matters. On that occasion, the union leadership took advice and was told that, under the
  1112
  Employment Act 1982, such industrial action would be contrary to legislaton and would not have involved protection of union funds. The strike was called off and, fortunately, the British public were spared the frustration, inconvenience and general damage to their interests of a pointless strike. I raise that point because I and the House need to know the hon. Gentleman's view on whether the 1982 Act should remain on the statute book.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed his view on the subject not long ago. On 27 December 1989, the hon. Gentleman was clear about his attitude towards that legislation. He was reported in The Independent as having said of a Labour Government:
  "It's going to repeal all of it, there's no little bits you can keep of it. There's nothing you can keep of this legislation … It all has to go."
  That was his view not long ago. He gave a pledge, and we, need to know whether that is still his view and still the policy of the Labour party. If that were to be the policy of a future Labour Government, this country would face the likelihood of industrial disruption on the railways on quasi-political grounds, if the ASLEF action was anything to go by. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wants to clarify whether that is his view. It appears that he is still as shy as I described him some minutes ago and either he does not know what his party's policy is or he is reluctant to tell us what his policy is. As he is so shy on that matter, I will turn to another matter, on which he may be less recalcitrant.
  Mr. Prescott: This is university debating stuff.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for the compliment.
  Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Rifkind: Yes, because we may hear about the Labour party's policy from the hon. Gentleman, as we are not told about it by the party's official spokesman.
  Mr. Cryer: I ask a serious question about electrification around Bradford. As a result of the Government's dithering, jobs in a Leeds engineering factory are at stake. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's foolish policies have led to giving the passenger transport authority authorisation for electrification although he has still not made clear the position on rolling stock because he is patently not aware of it. The Secretary of State is supposed to make decisions as a member of the Government. All he can do is to try to make a few cheap debating points at the expense of the Labour party. The Secretary of State is a member of the Government. Why does he not make some decisions and give the people in West Yorkshire decent transport?
  Mr. Rifkind: I announced an extra £400 million for British Rail only a couple of weeks ago, which the hon. Gentleman obviously missed. I appreciate his desire to divert the House's attention from understanding the policy of the Labour party. The House will have noted the shyness of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and his colleagues and their reluctance even to tell us what the Labour party's policy is— let alone to defend it before the House.
  I turn to a comparable matter of importance to see whether there is the same shyness.
  Mr. Prescott: He is as bad as the other Secretary of State.
  Mr. Rifkind: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's views. I come to his view on the need for or desirability of rail subsidies. In a number of speeches, the hon. Gentleman has attacked the Government for reducing the operating subsidies to British Rail over the years. We have emphasised that we believe that it is more important to increase investment than to use resources for operating subsidies.
  What would be a Labour Government's view? The last Labour Government explained their attitude with splendid clarity— a clarity that we do not normally observe in the utterances of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East— in an official Government document, the 1977 transport White Paper. This is what it said about operating subsidies for the railways, and for other forms of public transport:
  "subsidies transfer the cost of a service from the traveller to the taxpayer … and the traveller is often a taxpayer or ratepayer himself. To use subsidies to disguise from people the cost of the services they are paying for is pointless, and to subsidise richer people at the expense of poorer is perverse."
  That was the unequivocal view of the last Labour Government— a view which is very similar to the one that Conservative Members would probably express. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman again whether Labour has now renounced the policy enunciated in the 1977 White Paper, and, if so, why it has changed its view in this specific instance. After all, in every other regard Labour Members are anxious to show how moderate and reasonable they have become, and how consensual they would like to be. Why are they now rejecting the policy of the last Labour Government, and adopting an approach that not only differs entirely from that policy, but would deny the railways the resources for investment that are infinitely more important for their expansion?
  That was the second of the hon. Gentleman's fudges; I now come to the third and final fudge. Earlier, I mentioned the European Community's historic decision to end rail monopoly in Europe. That was only the first step— there is a long way to go— but the principle has been established, and all the European Governments are now committed to it. The Conservative party is also committed to it, and I do not believe that the Liberals support a British Rail monopoly either. It seems from what we have heard so far that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and Mr. Jimmy Knapp are the only two people left in Europe, let alone Britain, who still defend it.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us in his speech whether Labour still believes that British Rail should retain its present monopoly. Will he join me in saying that one of the best ways in which to ensure the expansion of our railways would be to end that statutory monopoly and allow all operators meeting the safety and technical requirements to provide either freight or passenger services to respond to the wishes of the travelling public and those of industry?
  Mr. Conal Gregory: Is it possible for Members of Parliament to travel on British Rail from the good city of Hull to experience the present opportunities, or are they forced to travel by road?
  Mr. Rifkind: Let me emphasise that, by ending the present monopoly, we can encourage new operators not just to run trains on existing track, but, perhaps, to use new track. If new track is built, it will help to expand the network.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: If the House approves the proposal, a brand-new dedicated track may soon be built joining the channel tunnel to London. Why should it not be built by private enterprise, rather than by British Rail?
  Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend implies, our objective is for anyone who meets the safety and other requirements to be free to invest in rail. Certainly, no one should be constrained by either law or policy.
  Those, then, are the three Labour fudges: their expressed views on industrial relations law, the monopoly and subsidies. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East now has an opportunity to do away with the fudge and to introduce the clarity for which he would like to be remembered.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: I welcome the opportunity for the House to re-examine the whole framework of the railway system. I want to avoid the rhetoric that we have heard in the past— I am as prone to rhetoric as any other hon. Member— and address my remarks chiefly to the need to establish a financial framework that will remove the current environmental and congestion problems.
  When the Secretary of State first approached me about the Bill, I told him that the Opposition would give it their full support and would help to hurry it through the House. We recognised that, in the summer, British Rail would run into the buffers unless it received the necessary resources. Whatever Labour's position may have been in 1979, after more than 10 years of Conservative government, British Rail is rapidly running out of money to meet its capital investment requirement and enable it to operate effectively—money provided by the public service obligation funds.
  That is not what was envisaged in 1983, when the Government appointed the Serpell committee to examine British Rail's finances. They believed that the system could be run with less money; now, we are dealing with the consequences. That is why the Bill is necessary.
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: No, not yet.
  Opposition Members are becoming used to being constantly addressed as though we were the Government. Recently, I was the first to address the Association of Metropolitan Authorities; the Secretary of State then gave his reaction to what I had said. I am happy to set the agenda on such occasions to enable a proper debate to take place. I am bound to say, however, that, after 11 years of this Conservative Government, the transport for which they are responsible is a national disgrace. They have produced the highest fares in Europe and one of the poorest services, and have failed to enable British Rail to reduce the current massive congestion costs and environmental damage.
  There is growing concern in the country as a whole— a concern that is reflected on both sides of the House— about the decline in safety standards, most of which has taken place over the past 10 years. I am not relying on a hunch; inquiries have been conducted into the terrible railway tragedies at Kings Cross, Clapham, Purley and Bellgrove, all of which have been associated with the reduction in resources. In one case, single-track running

  1115
  caused two trains to collide: that was intended to save money. Fortunately, the incidence of people falling out of carriage doors is now under independent investigation— owing more to pressure from the Opposition than to pressure from the Secretary of State, whom I approached at an early stage.
  In its recent indictment of British Rail, the inquiry into the Clapham tragedy made it clear that the Government were responsible and had accepted their responsibility. The judge then explained that he was imposing a very small fine, because he believed that the taxpayer would have to pay in the end. That should have imposed a special responsibility on the management, particularly the chairman of the day, who made it clear that he thought it better to stay than to resign. It is a question of accountability, in the public as in the private sector, and British Rail did not face up to that.
  The quality of service, like safety, has much to do with resources, but managerial competence is also important, as are the framework in which the service operates and the objectives that we provide. The Secretary of State talks a good deal about Europe. According to the Select Committee on Transport, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and all the other bodies that have analysed the matter, our railway system receives less money than any other European system— and it shows.
  Mr. Oppenheim: As the hon. Gentleman is in such a consensual mood and as he so often praises the performance of the European rail system, can he tell us whether he welcomes the recent Railway Gazette International survey which shows that passenger growth on the British Rail system since 1985 has been far greater than that in France, Germany, Spain and Italy? The survey also shows that the punctuality of British Rail's inter-city service is far better than France's equivalent service.
  Mr. Prescott: I welcome any improvement. We could argue about why people are changing from road to rail. Perhaps it is because we have the most congested motorway system in Europe. In 1979, a comparison was made between the British and European rail systems to establish just how efficient British Rail was. It came out with flying colours, compared with the European railway system, but that does not mean that there is no room for greater efficiency and for changes in the management structure.
  We welcome the Bill, which provides the resources that are required for the investment that British Rail needs to make. A tremendous amount of money is required. Whether the railway system is publicly or privately owned, that investment has to be made. The new investment requirements and operating costs are considerable.
  Mr. Gregory: The hon. Gentleman has rightly raised the important point that investment in British Rail lies at the heart of the Bill. Can he comment, please, on the fact that, during the last year that the Labour Government were in office, £537 million was spent on the railways, at 1990–91 prices, whereas £834 million is now being spent on the railways? Does he approve of that increase in investment? How does he answer the socialist claim that the Labour party is the only party that is really interested in public transport?
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has proved one thing— that it would be better if I got on with my speech.
  1116
  I intend to make exactly that point. Since, however, he has raised it at this stage, let me say now that that important point was at the heart of the argument when Peter Parker, who was chairman of British Rail in the 1970s, said that, if money was not invested in the railway system, whatever Government were in power, it would begin to fail in a few years' time, primarily because the rolling stock was about 20 years old then. More than 10 years have passed since he said that. I shall deal further with that important point later in my speech.
  Unfortunately, the railways have been treated to a bunching of investment. The Treasury's approach to long-term investment requirements has made matters worse. The Bill at least provides the Government with an important opportunity to say that borrowing powers will be made available. However, much more information is needed about investment projects. The Government have made many statements about what they intend to do, but they must provide the money for those projects, which will become a reality only if resources are provided.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will have something to say about a number of other investment programmes, but I intend to concentrate on the channel tunnel, which is probably the most important investment decision that has been made this century. It will have a major effect on our engineering works, the freight industry and the movement of people through Britain to the south and then into Europe.
  Will resources be made available to finance improvements for the carriage of intermodal freight? It has been announced that Wakefield will have one of the freight terminal facilities, but British Rail has not yet allocated money for that purpose. No resources have been identified for that facility. Will it now be financed by means of the funds provided for in the Bill?
  Ashford station, in a much reduced form, will be part of the international provision for the movement of goods and freight. How much money will be invested there? The Secretary of State is a convert to the advantages of overnight sleepers, as a result of his train journeys between Edinburgh and London. By means of overnight sleepers, does he intend to travel by train to Europe to discuss with the Commission British Rail's monopoly position?
  I remind the Secretary of State that the Government have reached what amounts to a duopoly agreement with the French, that all freight and passenger traffic is to go through the tunnel. They have agreed, in a contract with the tunnel company to guarantee a certain level of income, whether earned or not. The Secretary of State has guaranteed that the monopoly will continue. Does he intend to repeal it? Is that part of European thinking?
  It is difficult to believe that Mr. Smith, if he were allowed to run the train service, would be prepared to accept liability if there were insufficient freight or passengers. If the Secretary of State read the agreement, he might realise that he had created a duopoly between British Rail and the French railways, and that they are to be the sole provider of the services. I believe that that is right. Nevertheless, the new policy now enunciated by the Secretary of State raises interesting questions.
  Will the passenger services north of London be financed by means of the funds provided for in the Bill? I doubt whether the Government and British Rail intend the service to run north beyond London. They will find that

  1117
  there are financial and technical reasons for curtailing it. All of a sudden, it will be Paris-Brussels-London, and then no further.
  Do the Government intend to turn the investment requirements into reality? God knows, they are needed. The way that the Government arrived at their decision on the channel tunnel has to be compared with the way in which the French Government reached theirs. There is no comparison. It shows the inadequacy of our approach to strategic planning when developing our railway system. Many people in Derby and York are waiting to hear whether money is going to be made available to create the work that the investment demands.
  The Bill recognises that a railway system cannot be self-financing. Our railway network amounts to 11,000 miles. Its operational and investment costs cannot be met by its own revenues. According to the Serpell inquiry in the 1980s, it was thought that a railway network of 1,600 miles could be self-financing. Unless we want the railway system to be only 15 per cent. of what it is now, the reality is that it has to be funded with public money. That is not in dispute. There may be arguments about creating a monopoly, but that network must be funded one way or another. Experience in other countries has shown that a railway system cannot exist without the investment of public money, whether it be for the provincial network, inter-city purposes or freight. The railway system must be supported by public finance.
  Those requirements have not been effectively met by previous legislators, whether Labour or Tory Governments. The financial framework of the railway system leaves a lot to be desired. I do not blame entirely the politicians. One has to take into account the relationships between politicians and civil servants. Most of these issues revolve round Treasury rules. Therefore, it is up to politicians to take their courage in their hands and argue against the Treasury. Although Treasury rules never appear in our election manifestos, they dictate just about everything that we do in this House.
  Things are done differently in Europe, but we are not prepared to learn from that experience. The Secretary of State should learn the lesson of the European experience and bring it back here. That lies at the heart of whether private funds can be part of these massive capital requirements, a point to which I shall return.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great problems of strategic thinking for the railways is that, sometimes, rhetoric gets in the way of reality? There has been a great deal of rhetoric about privatisation in the Chamber today, but very few concrete plans about how it might happen. My hon. Friend has pointed out very well the difficulties of privatising any railway company that has to run a commuter network. It is impossible to make a profit on a commuter network if the bulk of trains are run at certain peak times in the day. How is such a company to be privatised?
  Mr. Prescott: There is a real difficulty. We know from the civil servants in the Department of Transport and the Chevening seminar that many civil servants express the same view.
  There have been inadequate funds for investment in and operation of the system. In the 1930s, the railways in
  1118
  Britain were collapsing. No one could find the money to operate the system or to invest in it. In fact, the system was saved by the war because the Government took it over. Then, in the 1950s, a Labour Government nationalised the railways and the first major tranche of investment in the system came under a Tory Government in 1955.
  That investment was provided for the same reason as it is being provided now— the railways were collapsing. The money had to be found, whatever Government were in office. We switched from steam to diesel, cut the structure and changed the organisation. In the 1960s, Beeching and the business mind were introduced. The argument was that, if we could reduce the liabilities of the railway system, it could become viable. The network was reduced from 20,000 to 11,000 miles, which is the basic network today.
  Whatever the Secretary of State may say, the reduction in line mileage is a marginal matter. That is an important point, because there have been many arguments in the House about that. In 1974, it was laid down that we should maintain a network of comparable size and quality. That has usually been defined as mileage only, not the quality or frequency of the service. That is one of the first signs of where both Tory and Labour Governments made mistakes in the management of the system.
  Surprising as it may be, I want to take the politics out of the argument. The proper framework for a railway system is not an ideological issue in Europe. It is only in Britain that the Secretary of State talks about monopolies and privatisation. There may be a role for both, and we can argue about that. The system has to be supported by the state because the state has decided that a network of a certain size is necessary for our requirements. It needs to be financed and we are the custodians of the public purse. It is our job to decide what we expect of the railway, what it should do, what should be its quality and what fares should be charged.
  Only some of those elements can be controlled. Both Tory and Labour Governments have tried to control them all. That continued right up to the statement by the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) on railway corporate finance. We said that that would not work, and it did not. He tried to control everything—the fares would go up and public subsidies would go down. He said that the Government might increase the investment, and I am still asking for a greater rate of return.
  Now, the Bill is providing a great deal of money. In fact, the Secretary of State was shovelling in a great deal of money even before the Bill. Unusually, he was knocking on the Treasury door and changing the public expenditure requirements. The bid was already in, but the money was running out. The heart of the argument is that the House must decide what it wants to do with the railway system and what it wants the railways to contribute to the country's economy and prosperity.
  Mr. Adley: This is one of the rare occasions on which I can agree with almost everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had his fun, quite properly, and invited the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to intervene during his speech. The hon. Gentleman did not do so. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might allow my right hon. and learned Friend to intervene in his speech. If we can reach a consensus on railway policy and long-term planning, which the hon. Gentleman is now advocating, we will have a better

  1119
  transport policy. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend would care to intervene and accept the challenge that we should take party politics out of the discussion on railways.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State is an intelligent man, and he is open to argument.
  Mr. Rifkind rose—
  Mr. Prescott: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to comment during the debate, we shall give him the opportunity, but I should like to develop my argument a little further.
  There is an argument about relationships. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in the 1970s we saw the development of the public service obligation concept. The argument was that subsidies should not be provided for the railway service because it was subsidising only business and the rich. I do not think that many people supported that argument. The railway system of the 1990s has a major part to play in moving people round. That is an important change.
  We began to identify a social part of the railway and a profitable part of the railway and that is when we began to make mistakes. We began to see that there was no cross-subsidisation and, to that extent, we should be asking ourselves what we expected from our railway system. When the Tory Government took office, they were ideologically against the fact that the railway system was publicly owned. They did not feel that the system had a great future, and people wondered whether they believed in it. In the 1980s, the then chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker, and the British Railways Board made a clear statement about rail policy. It is interesting to see who sat on the British Railways Board at that time. It included Mr. David Serpell, who was later to reach far different conclusions when the civil servants got hold of him and produced the Serpell report. It also included Simon Jenkins, who is now the editor of The Times—I might get a good editorial tomorrow.
  The report produced by that board said:
  "The resulting fundamental problem, which is the thrust of this document, is that the Government through its various limits on investment, have never allowed us sufficient funds and the authority to achieve in the long term what was required."
  Sir Peter Parker was talking about the age profile of the system. He said that the Europeans system was better, and that we were trying to run ours with a quarter of the resources. We all know the arguments about subsidies. People were asking for a comparison.
  At that time, a report, commissioned by British Rail, was produced by Leeds university. It showed that, in all areas, including productivity and financing, British Rail had done much better. The Government did not accept that view, and they set up the Serpell inquiry. The inquiry split into a minority group and a majority group. The majority held the view that somehow the railway system could be maintained by saving money on maintenance, signalling and so on. That was bitterly disputed by British Rail, which said that, if the railway was run with fewer resources, it would break down. However, that was the policy pursued by the Government from that day.
  They reduced the amount of public support and said that if British Rail needed extra resources, it should sell off its land, sack its workers and increase fares. So we moved from the highest fares to even higher fares, yet, we still
  1120
  could not provide the necessary resources. During the 1980s, the decision to cut back on signalling and maintenance proved to be very wrong. The inquiries into those tragedies revealed a great deal of evidence to support those who said that there was a link between the tragedies and the cuts in maintenance.
  The majority of those on the Serpell committee recommended that the service could be operated on less money. It is interesting to read the minority report by Mr. Goldstein, who said that the service could not be operated on less and that, if it were, it would simply put off the evil day. He said that that would have a tremendous effect on the quality of the service. He also said that the Government should recognise the objectives of the service and he suggested changes in the Department of Transport. He took the view that the rail system needed a 20-year plan, whereas the Serpell report concentrated on the PSO grant and whether it could be maintained at its 1974 level.
  The Government made a fundamental mistake in the 1980s, because the lack of resources has had a considerable effect on investment. Ministers and Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have exchanged official figures from various organisations to show who gave most. Some hon. Members believe that if we say, "We gave the highest subsidy," or the Government say, "We allocated a higher PSO grant than you did," that is somehow a successful policy. That is not necessary and it lulls us into believing that it is a policy. It is not a policy, and in many ways it has been a major mistake.
  The Secretary of State and the hon Member for York (Mr. Gregory) mentioned investment data. Page 41 of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission shows how much investment has been made: £516 million in 1975; £495 million in 1976; £475 million in 1977; £500 million in 1978; and £513 million in 1979— and that was at 1982 prices. Interestingly, the Secretary of State did not mention 1980 or 1981. In 1980, investment fell from £513 million to £401 million and in 1981 it fell to £333 million.
  That supports my argument about the Treasury's hostility to investment, which it has used as a regulator under Labour and Tory Governments. We will not get efficiences without higher sustained investment. In 1955, the Tory Minister could rightly have boasted about the Government's investment programme, but more than 30 years later, without that sustained investment, we have an inefficient system and concerns are being expressed about safety. Labour and Tory Governments accepted a financial framework for our rail system that was dictated by Treasury needs, which by definition are short-term and deadly to the development of a rail system.
  Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the general direction of his speech. He mentioned the PSO. Does he agree that the reduction in the PSO in the past two years has changed British Rail's policy, because it has sought to concentrate resources on a smaller and smaller part of the network in a desperate attempt to achieve the returns necessary to meet a reducing subsidy?
  Mr. Prescott: I could go further. When the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) was Secretary of State, he changed the PSO requirement so that it would no longer apply to inter-city services. The Select Committee on Transport disagreed. At the heart of the argument was the Government's policy of hiving off the profitable parts of the network.

  1121
  The Secretary of State mentioned privatisation. The first stage of privatisation is to create a crisis so that a Minister can say, "Everybody wants privatisation because it must be better than what we have." The rail system that we have has resulted from the Government's inadequate financial provision. In their privatisation experiments, the Government have created a crisis and then suggested that the private sector could do better. As the polls show, people do not believe that once they have the goods.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman eloquently said that, under successive Governments, the Treasury's need to control public expenditure has had a significant effect on rail investment. Why does he not accept the logic of the argument that investment that cannot be made by the public sector will be attracted only by privatisation? As he is appealing for a new consensus on rail policy, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), will he accept that there is a consensus throughout Europe among Governments of different political complexions, who have called for the end of the monopoly of state controlled railways? Will he, therefore, join that consensus and say that the Labour party does not distance itself from the Government or from the rest of Europe?
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State made great play of that political point at the Conservative women's conference, but the policy does not depend on ownership. We can argue about monopolies and duopolies and about privatising public utilities, but that is not helpful. Whether the system be private or public, public money is necessary because a rail system cannot operate only from the fare box. Therefore, we are entitled to ask for accountability.
  It is argued that a company must be privatised to gain access to the private financial market, but that is not true. I do not suppose that that is a shock to the Secretary of State, who has been a Treasury Minister.
  Mr. Rifkind indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: I withdraw that remark. That is in his favour; I do not think that I will ever make it.
  Investment in SNCF was announced on 23 May. It is phenomenally higher than ours, with 100 billion francs being spent on TGV in the next five years. The Secretary of State asked me a question that is answered in the report of SNCF's finances:
  "In the 1990 budget, marked by an increase of 31.5 per cent. in the financial requirements, SNCF were able to finance internally 21 per cent. of investment",
  which British Rail can do,
  "9 per cent. was covered by miscellaneous income— grants and asset sales"—
  which also is possible under our grant system, but for the rest SNCF borrowed money
  "by raising it in the financial markets as well as by selling TGV sets to a banking consortium who leased it back."
  It is not necessary to privatise the rail system to gain access to private money. The Treasury usually argues that using private money costs more, yet it has been clever in screwing a lot of money from our nationalised industries. Even the nuclear programme in France has been financed by the private market, primarily because that service is not allowed to go bust. The Treasury would say, "But that
  1122
  means that we stand as guarantor and it is part of our borrowing requirement." The French and German rail systems are not treated in that way.
  The Secretary of State said that the French and German Governments control the amount of investment, but that is a different issue. The Secretary of State could properly ask, "Would we have to change British Rail's structure to one where a capital debt structure had to be worked out to allow it to borrow from the market?" The European Commission has asked that question. The Hundred Group of Chartered Accountants recommended what I am suggesting, and I believe that the Minister for Public Transport is a member of it.
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Prescott: I withdraw that, but the hon. Gentleman is aware of the document. It is not essential for companies to go through the ideological process of privatisation to get private money.
  I could never understand why publicly owned British Airways could lease aeroplanes, but British Rail could not lease its trains. It was said that, if the company went bust, aeroplanes could be sold, but that did not apply to trains. Neither would have been allowed to go bust. The truth was that the Treasury could not fund the huge amounts of money needed to buy aircraft, so not only did it allow British Airways to lease them, but it guaranteed the exchange rate. It would not help the rail system— and that was under a Labour Government.
  It is the Treasury's philosophy that has dictated to us how to manage our railway system, and we then have to answer for the consequences of having a poor quality system. We get into the rhetoric of party ideology and wonder whether we are dealing with monopoly or privatisation. That remains an issue between the parties, but it is not an issue that determines the quality and safety of our railway system.
  Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman recognises that private sector borrowing, even by a state-owned corporation, still counts against the public sector borrowing requirement. Does he have the approval of his hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to say that in future it will not? Where will the money come from? The tenor of his remarks suggested that he will change the rules. Does he have his party's approval to say that?
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, and that of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does the hon. Gentleman think that I would come to the House and argue as I have done without discussing the issues with my colleagues? I would not.
  There has been intensive discussion about what happens in the European Community. The Minister has been lecturing us from the Dispatch Box and suggesting that we learn from what is happening in Europe. One recommendation from Europe is precisely this— we do not have to privatise, although, as the Secretary of State said, that is the judgment of some chairmen, of some railways and of some Governments. That view is fine, but the Commission does not suggest that privatisation is a prerequisite, although a capital debt structure may be necessary on those industries.

  1123
  I have suggested ring fencing as one method of financing the channel tunnel rail link. There are a number of attractive ways to proceed, and I am not limiting my ideas to the railways. I have just finished talking to financiers about a bus financing operation. We merely need to use our intelligence and, at the same time—
  Mr. Bellingham: What intelligence?
  Mr. Prescott: I did not have a public school education like you, you twit.
  The bus industry is another example. Governments can play a part. We can argue about whether to go public or private, but access to the private market does not depend on becoming private.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller). He said that he has the approval of the shadow Chancellor to say that a future Labour Government would change the rules of Treasury finance. They would allow access to the private sector for purposes of public expenditure with regard to railway and bus investment and, I presume, investment for other parts of the public sector.
  Will he clarify that? Is he saying that the overall levels of public expenditure would be comparable to those we have at the moment, but that, instead of being financed, as in the case of the railways, from the national loans fund, they would be funded more expensively by borrowing from the private sector? Or is he saying that, through the change in the rules, he would add to the overall investment available to the railways by adding to the finance currently available from the national loans fund, many hundreds of millions of pounds from the private sector?
  Mr. Prescott: At least we have been successful in bringing the Secretary of State on to the real problems of railways and finance. The technical questions that he posed have exercised my mind— [HoN. MEMBERS: "They are not technical."] They are technical in that they relate to how we define the way in which our public sector industries are dealt with and the rules of operation of equity and capital are drawn up. Those issues have been spelt out in many reports, and we are dealing with them.
  The Secretary of State has a long way to go, but if he wants to learn about railways I refer him to the Transport Act 1962, which states:
  "the Boards may borrow temporarily, by way of overdraft or otherwise, either from the Minister or, with the consent of the Minister, from any other person".
  The railways could go to the private market as envisaged under the 1962 legislation. It is the Treasury that has restricted the interpretation of how and from whom they borrow. It is a matter not of legislation, but of Treasury rules determined by Ministers and civil servants. Now that we have alerted the Secretary of State to the fact that there are other ways in which to proceed, I suggest that he puts a towel on his head and starts to think about the real issues of railway financing, and how to tackle the problems of the competing demands made on capital by hospitals, schools and other bodies.
  Some cases are easier than others. Provincial railways are making losses, and although the Secretary of State talks about laying private lines it would not be easy to raise cash. There are many different approaches, such as the rail link at the channel tunnel site and its development values, the dedicated track and the new formulas for raising cash.
  1124
  If the Secretary of State spent as much time talking to bankers as I have done in the past year or so, he would understand that that is not impossible or unique— it has been done by European railway systems. Only ideological nonsense and Treasury daftness prevent us from doing so here.
  Mr. Rifkind: I must press the hon. Gentleman further. He knows— it is not a matter of dispute—that, if one borrows from the private sector instead of from the national loans fund, it is more expensive. Therefore, if the total is the same, there will be less investment available. His proposals would help the railways only if he envisaged a substantial increase in total investment through borrowing from the private sector in addition to what the Government currently borrow from the national loans fund. Is that what he proposes? If not, his changes would lead only to a net reduction in the level of investment.
  Mr. Prescott: No. We readily accept the arguments about joint financing between the public and private sectors. Why not? We would prefer that financing was publicly rather than privately led because otherwise it would be to the disadvantage of the public sector. It is possible to have different arrangements for raising money, such as leasing, and different rates. I accept that, in some cases, it may be more expensive, but it depends how much one puts in. If one wants to electrify a line and one reaches an agreement with a private company which is interested in doing the construction, one can reach arrangements that are not so heavy on the taxpayer because they have an interest in it. That is precisely what the group of one hundred auditors said.
  I hope that if the Secretary of State goes to the sleeper tonight he will read that report. I could lend him my copy. Instead of asking technical questions, he should be aware that there are alternatives to knocking on the Treasury door. He should take his courage in his hands and say that he can improve the railways by private capital. My God, here I am talking about private capital and how to use it effectively to those who have been elected as its guardians. That is almost a switch around. It is staggering, but I am concerned not about the ideology of capital, but about the quality of our railway system and how to get more money for it when there are many other competing demands made on the Treasury.
  Mr. Gregory rose—
  Mr. Prescott: No, I cannot give way. If there is any doubt about the necessary scale of resources I quote Bob Reid, the new chairman, who said on "The World This Weekend":
  "we're investing £1.3 billion, I would see that we would have to go on like that for the next four or five years to get the railways in shape— that's what you need."
  He was then asked:
  "And this is new money, new grant, or what?"
  He said, "This is new money."
  He was then asked:
  "would it come in the form of grant, loan— because the Government often prefers to see you borrow money … rather than to give it to you?"
  He replied:
  "It really depends how the Government want to finance it"—
  that is true—
  "If it finances it by putting it in not as a grant, then of course you need to increase your subvention from the Government purse."

  1125
  The other alternative, which he put to the Select Committee, is to use private capital.
  I want to leave in this debate the seeds of a cross-party consensus about a proper and adequate financial framework.
  Mr. Rifkind rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I shall finish this point, and then I shall give way.
  The Secretary of State should now consider a new financial framework for the railway system, and that is what I am suggesting. Let us debate what that framework should be but, first, we must be clear about our objectives for the railway industry. What do we expect it to do and what size should it be? As the Secretary of State knows, the Government can influence certain issues either by direction or by nods and winks.
  For example, he has an interest in the fare levels. The quality of service is determined by the revenue secured through fares or through the subventions that he gives in borrowings or grants. One cannot control everything. The railway management must be given a competency to get on with the job, but we must be sure that we give the management clear directions. The 1974 direction is inadequate and does not specify what resources should be given or against what standards the railway must be measured.
  The Select Committee made its case clear in 1987: we cannot continue with the 1974 objectives and the financial framework that is available. Now is the time for us to make a fundamental change and to rethink. Ten years of cutting resources have had a phenomenal effect on the quality of our system. It is true that investment levels are now increasing because most of the network is in a very bad state, and we have to do something about it. Now that that is happening— as it is under the present Government and as it would under a Labour Government if elected — let us look to the future and consider how, in the next 10 years, we can give British Rail an adequate financial structure and allow it to meet its objectives, about which the Labour party is much more specific than the Government. Do not let us be ideologically obsessive about whether the railways are publicly or privately funded.
  Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has still not given the House his view of the Labour party's attitude towards the ending of British Rail's statutory monopoly. I have asked him a very clear, very simple question. He knows the Government's view and that of the European Community. What is his view and what is his party's view?
  Mr. Prescott: Let me come straight away to the point about ownership and the monopoly. I believe in the public system and in public accountability. I am prepared to accept that mixed or totally private systems can be operated, although I do not think that such systems are as good as the one in which I believe. If I am being asked to go for what is called "ending the monopoly" and privatising the system—
  Mr. Bellingham: Answer.
  Mr. Prescott: But it is at the heart of the argument, behind which lies the concept of competition. It is believed
  1126
  that competition is enhanced if there is more than one supplier on a route. I should have thought that that was part and parcel of the same philosophy. The answer is to be found in what the Government were told by their own people at the last seminar. I cannot remember who was the Secretary of State on 10 September; they change so quickly. I think that the present Secretary of State had just got the job.
  Mr. Rifkind: No.
  Mr. Prescott: Who was it then? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hertsmere."] That is right; it was the right hon. Member for Hertsmere. I suggest that the present Secretary of State should have a look at the confidential paper produced by civil servants and circulated to all those attending the seminar about whether we should privatise the railway system and end its monopoly. Right?
  Mr. Rifkind: Really?
  Mr. Prescott: These matters are part and parcel of the same argument. Didn't they tell you that at school, kid? The arguments about whether British Rail is a unit, whether there should be a track authority and so on are all connected. All those suggestions were rejected by civil servants and found not to be feasible or workable. Presumably the argument about whether there should be one provider of the railway system, a monopoly, is not so divorced from the track authority argument. Do we want the running of the track authority to be in the hands of two or three people?
  Mr. Bellingham: What does this have to do with anything?
  Hon. Members: Quiet, Bellingham.
  Mr. Prescott: It is no wonder that the hon. Gentleman is a PPS. You will not go much further, kid.
  Presumably, we would want to place the money for a track authority in the hands of one person. That would be a monopoly and would make a lot of sense. The same argument applies to the distribution of electricity. The power lies in the hands of one provider. In that case, too, it makes sense. In respect of the channel tunnel, there are two providers; a dual operator provides the services. The arrangements are written in to the contracts and agreed in Europe.
  We shall not be allowing anyone else to control the system. People will not be able to say, "We are going to run a railway through," because that would run counter to the contract. But in respect of regional railways, I doubt the practicality of the monopoly position. I doubt whether any operator will consider it practicable for someone to come along and provide £500,000 for stock for a provincial railway and hope to run on the line, make a business out of it and get some of the subsidies. That is not a point worth pursuing.
  Perhaps the question is whether InterCity should be a monopoly— whether we should allow ICI to run the 8 o'clock train from the north-east in competition with InterCity. That was partly what the Secretary of State was talking about when he referred to ScotRail and InterCity, except that the ownership would be different. He would be trying to introduce competition, even if one might argue about whether it would in fact constitute competition.
  Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned merely with the question of private capital. If he

  1127
  is asking whether the Labour party believes that a publicly owned body should become involved in joint ventures and private operations and the private sector should be allowed access to the railway system, whether in the operation of freight trains in the provision of other services, the answer is that we should be quite prepared to look at the question. We do not have an ideological position against it.
  Such combinations can make a lot of sense. Such a system would also be cheaper for the railway, which could spread some of its capital costs. Track 29 provides a good example of such a system operating on the freight side. British Rail uses what it wants, and the private sector handles the facilities at the other end. I believe that TNT is asking to move on to the rail track system.
  We must have one authority to deal with signalling and track safety. There is no doubt about that. One cannot put such matters into the hands of different regional authorities. That would be nonsense, as the Secretary of State's civil servants will tell him. We have no problem with general access, whether by private or public capital or in joint arrangements, and no problems with what is proposed by the EC, which I believe will not only assist with British Rail's immense capital requirements but help it to be more efficient in developing services and meeting the demands of passengers and freight. I do not have an ideological problem with that.
  Mr. Rifkind: Frankly, I do not think that the House is yet any clearer about the hon. Gentleman's views on monopoly. I shall try to be as specific as possible. Even if British Rail remained a public-sector-owned industry, it would be possible to end its monopoly—in other words, to give other operators the right not just to provide capital but, without British Rail's approval, to operate freight or passenger services on the track. That is what ending the British Rail monopoly means. It is a separate issue from privatisation, and we still do not know what the Labour party's attitude to it is.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State thinks that he is on to a major point. That is not the issue with the railways.
  Mr. Rifkind: It is.
  Mr. Prescott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely obsessed with this point, and it is tragic to have a Secretary of State obsessed with a point.
  Mr. Rifkind: Answer the question.
  Mr. Prescott: I am trying to answer it. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State said nothing about the development of railway policy. We are talking about the monopoly, and whether parts of the system can be given over. We already have Yeoman Foster—
  Mr. Rifkind: Answer.
  Mr. Prescott: Wait a minute. There is already a lot of private capital operating on the railway system.
  Mr. Rifkind: But with permission—
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State has apparently learnt that British Rail has to give permission—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Heckling from a sedentary position does nothing to improve the quality of our debates. Let us proceed.
  Mr. Prescott: The Secretary of State and I can no doubt agree that the overriding consideration is the quality and safety of the railway system. That matter has to be in the hands of one authority. As the lorry industry has shown, it does not always work if one lays down quality standards and assumes that all the operators will meet them. I have severe doubts about such an approach.
  There must be one authority, but I find no ideological problem in allowing the private sector access to the railway system, provided that the main authority has access to its terminals and can use its facilities to meet requirements and safety standards. Having said that, it is all-important for British Rail to continue to provide its own facilities and not simply to become a track authority for the private sector. It is important for British Rail to play a part in the development of services and not to be told, "Stay out; it is up to the private sector"—which, I suspect, is basically what the Government are about.
  If what the Secretary of State wants is to end the monopoly to bring that about, we shall have a repetition of our experience with the privatisation of the bus service, where deregulation has led to real problems. I should hate to see such problems on the railway system. We believe that one responsible authority can produce better safety standards than can be produced where responsibility is distributed between a number of bodies. I maintain that there must be one authority.
  Let me reiterate my point. The Bill affords an opportunity for us all to recognise what we can do and to learn from Europe. We should not be too arrogant to learn from European practices and to ask whether we can use European financing formulas in a different way and give a whole new future to the railway system. Everyone in the country wants that. We can unite in trying to achieve that end, but we must first be prepared to look at the problems and to leave political rhetoric behind us. Both because of congestion and in the interests of the environment, the people of Britain require a good railway system. Now, in the 1990s, the railways have a better opportunity than they have ever had before. Do not let us allow it to be spoilt because the politicians stay on the sidelines spouting ideological rhetoric and doing nothing to produce a proper railway system.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: I hope that my colleagues and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will not mind if I say that the hon. Member made a remarkable speech. If it were possible to achieve the cross-party consensus of which he speaks, there is no doubt that the railways of this country would benefit, and that would mean that the people would benefit.
  I do not normally write out my speeches with great care. However, I had written:
  "Would it not be a good idea if we could have a cool if not philosophical look at a subject that would benefit from being free from party political prejudices?"
  Before the debate started, I might have thought that that was a vain hope. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has given us a little hope that we might in the House and in the country once in a while lift our minds above the partisan political battle and agree on a long-term future for one vital part of our national economy—our railway system.

  1129
  The money that is required for any major new railway project, and the time that is needed to spend it wisely on investment, extends far beyond the lifetime of any Government. I hope that I will not embarrass my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his colleagues when I say that I welcome the obvious change in policy which they have initiated over the past few weeks.
  Until quite recently it was my impression that the Government had no transport policy other than the quest for profitability almost regardless. That has been changed to a positive policy of seeking to transfer traffic from road to rail. The Government's conversion to the need for an interventionist public transport policy is good news for the railways which have a vital role to play in maintaining civilisation as we used to know it on a small, industrialised, overcrowded island.
  The new policy was encapsulated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Although I do not intend to weary the House with endless quotations, my right hon. and learned Friend, in his speech at the Financial Times conference on 28 May, said:
  "Congestion is the result of the decisions of millions of ordinary people. The only solution to congestion is for many of those ordinary people to make different choices. The responsibility of Government is to help them make that choice."
  That was a sober assessment of the need not only for guidance and exhortation from Government but for a transport policy based on the national interest and one that recognises that the Government must convert from thought to reality the implementation of that policy. That inevitably means the long-term funding of such policies.
  I want to divide my speech into three parts—the past, the present and the future. We do not need to spend much time on the past, but we can learn lessons from it. When the steam engine was invented in this country it provided man with his first opportunity to travel faster than the fastest horse or camel. We then saw the inexorable rise of the internal combustion engine. When people can drive their own cars, that will always be cheaper than using another form of transport where one must buy the services of a driver.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to Beeching. Beeching's main policy was to eliminate competitive rail routes. That was one of the most cynical acts of policy from which this country has ever suffered. It was a deliberate act of policy. The Beeching plan was sired by Marples, but implemented by Barbara Castle. I do not wish to make a partisan point about that because the policy was introduced by one Government, but implemented by another. That policy destroyed the option of rail competition between British cities.
  If I may be a little blunt, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was disingenuous to argue with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) when he made his point about rail services competing on the same track. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Glasgow to Edinburgh line. By sheer chance there are alternative routes. My right hon. and learned Friend knows the area much better than I do, but even he will agree that to propose that the route from Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs is a more competitive route than the more direct line is to use circumstances to meet one's
  1130
  arguments. My right hon. and learned Friend would not design a rail link to take people from Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs.
  It used to be possible to have genuine competition between London and Birmingham. One could travel via the London Midland and Scottish railway between Euston and New Street or on the Great Western railway from Paddington to Snow Hill. Naturally the latter route was better, but of course I am never partisan about these matters.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State referred to the London to Birmingham line as if we had turned the clock back 30 years. The line between Leamington Spa and Coventry has virtually all been singled. It was never the intention to maintain that line as a competing service between London and Birmingham. It is now possible to travel that route because of the intense pressure on travel requirements between London and Birmingham that has built up over the past few years. It is possible to travel that route in spite of, and not because of, the policies of successive Governments. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State were to study the service of through trains between Paddington and Birmingham as recorded in British Rail's timetable, he would not, with his background, describe it in the House as a competing service for the Euston to New Street route.
  We destroyed much of the genuine competition that had been built up over generations. Some people are now trying to create what I would describe as phoney competition on the same tracks. The hon. Member for Pontypridd referred to that, and his comments were pooh-poohed by some of my colleages.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was kind enough to suggest that I might know a little bit about railway policy and about railways. On the point about phoney competition, I want to quote from the evidence given by Mr. Richard Hope, who will be known to many hon. Members, when he appeared before the House of Lords European Communities Committee on 25 October 1990. He said:
  "I am not aware of any situation in the world where there is effective competition between passenger trains using the same tracks."
  Those who advocate competition must address that point. They cannot duck it. The idea of creating competition between passenger trains using the same tracks is like trying to create phoney competition that will not result in the running of a better railway service. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State be kind enough to tell me which countries he was thinking of which had done that or were contemplating it?
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I have been listening very carefully to my hon. Friend. I agree with him and with some of the examples raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House earlier. Does my hon. Friend accept that what he has described is the approach taken by the European Commission, charged as it is under the treaty of Rome, for the development of a communitywide transport policy to promote the competition reforms to which my hon. Friend is alluding instead of the idea of different trains on the same tracks and all that illusory nonsense which is totally unrealistic? The Commission wants greater competition between different forms of transport.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend studies those matters, and he is right. I am in favour of ending BR's monopoly and

  1131
  that is the policy of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I have not yet been convinced however that the illusory privatisation argument, which is quite separate, would result in a better railway. Let me return to where I was. By selling track bed in the 1960s, we closed options just when the roads were becoming clogged. We have built more roads and they have become even more clogged.
  I have pleaded with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State as I did with his predecessors—I have got nowhere although I place this point on the record again today—to recognise that there is a difference between instructions to BR to sell off surplus land of a general nature and an instruction from Government to BR to sell off track bed from which services have been removed. Unless we recognise that we are constantly destroying assets that can probably never be replaced, we will not be able to take advantage of the legacy of our forebears. That is a simple point, although I realise that its implementation requires a degree of intervention. However, if my right hon. and learned Friend's words are to be taken at face value, they mean that he is not opposed to some form of intervention. Please could we stop selling so-called redundant track bed?
  What has happened in this country—and all over Europe—is simple; the internal combustion engine, which once appeared likely to sound the death knell of the railways, has by its very proliferation, brought about a railway renaissance. The purpose of this debate must be to see whether we have the will to achieve that renaissance and whether we shall will the means so to do. That is putting the debate in the context of learning from the past. We are now beginning to have what I regard as a healthy debate but, in the past, it has been motivated too much by partisan political knee-jerk reactions. Even The Times, that organ of independent thinking—[Laughter.] Hansard cannot record things in inverted commas, but my hon. Friends have just given a slight guffaw. The Times recently had a leader that was entitled "Break up and sell" but which then stated,
  "BR is probably the most cost-effective big railway in the world".
  It is extraordinary to admit that one has one of the best railways in the world and yet to state that the prescription for its future is to break it up and sell it. If some of my hon. Friends could occasionally give some acknowledgement of British Rail's successes despite all its difficulties, that would be most welcome.
  I welcome the commencement last week of the full electric service on the east coast mainline. The Times undertook an interesting exercise involving three travellers, travelling by air, rail and car. I shall not repeat all the comments that were made, but the only one who enjoyed his journey was the one who travelled by train. The journey by car took seven hours and 55 minutes. When I was sitting in the Tea Room, one of my right hon. and learned Friend's ministerial colleagues said, "Yes, but the journey only cost £30.73." That is where we come to the rub, because that amount is only a tiny fraction of the real cost of the car journey both to the driver and to the nation. Unless and until the House is willing to recognise the real cost to this country of motoring, the motor car and the internal combustion engine, we will never get to the heart of the debate.
  Although, as I have said, I welcome the east coast main-line electrification, one has to be frank and say that
  1132
  we have spent £400 million on modernising a Victorian railway while most of our continental competitors are building new railways. I am often asked how the railways are doing in comparison with other countries. I shall weary the House briefly with a story that was told to me in a different context by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Home of the Hirsel.
  During his last year as a Member of this House, my right hon. and noble Friend was giving his annual garden party when he was approached by a man whom he recognised as one of his most cantankerous and difficult constituents. Of course, none of us has such people in our constituencies but, unfortunately, my right hon. and noble Friend did have such a constituent. Thinking of something totally bland to say as the chap walked towards him, Lord Home said, "Good afternoon, Mr. So-and-so, how is your wife?" to which the answer was, "Compared to what?"
  I shall take that as the thesis for this part of my speech. When I am asked how our railways are doing, I must add, "Compared to what?" Compared to France and Germany to name but two, we are modernising a Victorian railway while they are building new railways.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I am interested in my hon. Friend's point, but I wonder whether he thinks it right that British Rail is bringing forward proposals for a channel tunnel rail link which is to be superimposed on the existing Network SouthEast? Would it not be far more sensible to have a completely new route, with a dedicated freight line and a fast passenger route instead of the makeshift and ramshackle proposals that British Rail has produced so far?
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is tempting me. Some of our European colleagues think that we are barmy. They do not understand how we can still be arguing about whether to build a brand new railway line. Of course my hon. Friend is right. Of course we have to have a new railway line. However, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) allowed herself to be persuaded to include clause 42 in the channel tunnel legislation at the behest of some of her friends who ran the ferries, thus preventing public investment in a new railway system, and that is the root cause of the problem. However, that was during the ancien regime, and I do not want to be sidetracked down that blind alley.
  The train grand vitesse is the French Government's visible commitment to a transport policy in which the train is more than an afterthought. As has been said, the French Government are about to invest £21 billion, aimed at more than doubling the size of France's TGV network over the next two decades.
  Together with the hon. Member for Pontypridd, I spent two or three days in Germany a couple of weeks ago. We talked to the German Department of Transport, to those connected with the German railways and to German politicians. We travelled from Frankfurt to Hanover in the cab of a new German intercity express on a brand new railway line. One only has to do that to see the investment that has been made. One could almost hear the money falling out of the German Treasury. There has been massive investment in a public facility. The German Government are not exactly noted for running the most inefficient and overburdened economy in western Europe—
  Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Adley: Of course, if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, do not mind.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I do not, provided that the intervention is short.
  Mr. Gregory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has said that he travelled in the cab of a German train. Will he tell the House the manning levels in that cab? Was one driver responsible, or, as in this country, was there overmanning? The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has such power that it can require a minimum of two people in the cab at all times so that the second person can be pouring tea or reading the Daily Mirror.
  Mr. Adley: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but there were two people in that cab—
  Mr. Gregory: My hon. Friend and the driver.
  Mr. Adley: There were two German railwaymen in the train, the hon. Member for Pontypridd and myself—
  Mr. Gregory: That makes three.
  Mr. Adley: No, There were two German railwaymen in the train, plus the hon. Member for Pontypridd and myself, which makes four. I must advise my hon. Friend that two plus two still equals four, so the answer to his question is that there were two railwaymen in the cab.
  Mr. Snape: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman who, like me, is usually provoked by the barmy interventions of his hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory)—who, fortunately for the fair city of York, will soon be back sniffing wine corks or doing whatever he did before being elected to the House. As we are comparing cab rides, may I advise him that, when I travelled on the Japanese high-speed railway line some years ago, there were two men in the cab although the line is virtually semi-automatically operated? Before the hon. Member for York asks any more inane questions, there was a driver and his mate, but I am not sure of the Japanese translations for either.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, being extremely unkind and unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who asked a question to which I did my best to give him a straightforward answer.
  The line from Frankfurt to Hanover continues to Hamburg, and 40 per cent. of it runs in a tunnel to cope with the environmental problems that might otherwise have been caused. Perhaps that helps to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). The Germans recognise that, if there is a conflict between the environment and public transport—the railways—the Government must pay the environmental costs.
  I have mentioned France and Germany, and shall now turn to Sweden which, until recently, used to be mentioned by some of my hon. Friends with incredulity as a country that is privatising its railways. At the moment, the Swedish national railways have a Government-funded budget of £1.5 billion over the next seven years—for a country of 8.5 million people. It is true that the Swedish Government have carried out a detailed examination of the option of privatisation, but they have now decided that that is an unattainable ambition and that all the shares in the railway company that was established will be held by the
  1134
  Government of Sweden for the indefinite future. There are now no plans to seek to sell off the shares. That is yet another country which has tried to find a way of privatising the railways and has not succeeded.
  One thing that the Swedish Government have done—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will take comfort from this—is to allow the Swedish railways to run alternative modes of transport. The Swedish railways have set up their own bus services in competition with the private sector but in co-ordination with their railway services. That, too, might make some of my hon. Friends gasp, but I merely state the factual position in Sweden.
  The Swedes have introduced what they call the tilt train, which we called the advanced passenger train when we invented it here 15 or so years ago and starved it to death for lack of investment. That system of transport could now be sweeping the industrialised world. Fiat is building a train similar to the APT, and so are the Swedes. If ever one wanted a classic example of failing to back success, one would have to look only at the sad tale of the APT and the steps that are being taken elsewhere in Europe to build what we invented.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who has had to leave the Chamber, referred to Japan in his speech. I have had lengthy meetings with the Japanese transport councillor at the Japanese embassy in London and the head of one of Japan's six new companies. They told me that I was the first British politician who had ever been to see them to discuss Japanese railway policy and what was happening in Japan.
  The Japanese are restructuring their railways, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd knows. I must say that I am training him well to be a spokesman on the railways. The Japanese have established six non-competing passenger companies. They have been created on a geographic basis into regional monopolies. The counsellor at the Japanese embassy said to me:
  "Your understanding of privatisation is totally different from ours. Ours is restructuring not privatisation."
  In the past 27 years, the Japanese national railways have procured over 2,000 km of new double-track mainline high-speed railway—all constructed with public funds. What have we done in Britain during the same period? The latest information available to me is that we have built one and a half miles of new double-track high-speed railway—the Windsor link in Manchester. It is true that the Stansted link will be built. Indeed, I believe that it is nearing completion. But it perhaps says a great deal more than words of mine ever could that that piece of track will be the longest piece of new railway in Britain, and it is a branch line to an airport.
  The six Japanese regional companies will automatically qualify for 50 per cent. Government grant on new railway construction costs. I have done my best to check my facts.
  Mr. Dykes: Perhaps my hon. Friend would also care to mention the high-speed train that is planned between Madrid and Seville, on which we both travelled in recent months.
  Mr. Adley: I am trying to keep my speech short. Of course I could mention that line, but my hon. Friend has now done so, so I do not need to amplify the point. Spain is yet another European country which is building new railways.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has frequently said to me, "We are going to do what the

  1135
  Japanese are doing." All that we have to do in order to do what the Japanese are doing is the following. It is quite simple. We build 2,000 km of main-line railway for high-speed trains at public expense. Then we transfer British Rail free of charge to six non-competing regional monopolies, financed initially by the public sector. Having done that, we write off all British Rail's debts and financial commitments involved in any staff reductions which any new private railway might inherit. Then, to finalise the process, we give the six regional monopolies an open-ended guarantee that any new private railway company would automatically qualify for a 50 per cent. grant for all new construction.
  If that is what my right hon. and learned Friend means by privatisation, I am entirely in favour of it, but I suspect that that may not be quite what some of my colleagues have in mind. The debate continues, but if Lord Home were to ask his erstwhile constituent what he thought of our railways the reply might also be, "Compared to what?"
  I turn briefly to the future. The Government have at last begun to define the future role of our railways. I welcome that and the recent decision referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, by the Community transport council in Luxembourg to seek to create a single market in transport. But the question for us remains whether we are prepared to recognise that the Department of Transport operates a wholly unequal investment regime between road and rail when there is competition for scarce funds.
  I referred earlier to the comment by one of the Minister's colleagues in the Tea Room abut the £30.73 cost of travelling by car from London to Edinburgh. The true cost of the internal combustion engine in Britain is unknown and, at the behest of the road lobby, remains carefully hidden. Over the years, I have done my best to find out the cost, for example, of the court time which is taken up in dealing with traffic offences and accidents. When I asked specifically what was the cost I was told in a written answer that the cost of answering my question would be prohibitive. The Department cannot even afford to answer the question, so we have absolutely no idea what the real costs are.
  Recently, my wife and I were travelling to London with our three dogs and God knows what else—by road, I fear. We were stopped by the Wiltshire constabulary—
  Mr. Gregory: For speeding?
  Mr. Adley: No, we were not stopped for speeding.
  Two highly trained policemen in a large motor car spent 23 minutes with us. My wife is an extremely careful driver. She never drives at more than 69 miles an hour.I timed the two policemen. They spent 23 minutes following and then measuring, centimetre by centimetre, the distance between the letters and the numbers on my front and back number plates. What was the cost to the taxpayer of that 23 minutes of the time of two highly trained men? Do the police have nothing better to do? That is a matter for the chief constable of Wiltshire, but if we added up the true costs of the internal combustion engine in Britain, the answer would be unbelievable.
  It is not just the cost of police time in dealing with accidents and congestion, apart from the time-wasting activities such as I have described—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is muttering. I am not sure what he is saying.
  1136
  British Rail pays its own police force. Why, if we are trying to create a level playing field, do we tolerate British Rail having to pay for its own police force?
  How much does the nation spend on lawyers to deal with traffic offences? How much does road transport cost the national health service? We kill 5,000 people and maim 250,000 every year. How much social security funding is stashed away on helping people who have been injured in road accidents? In the end, what is the value of human life? If we valued human life, we would impose on our roads the same safety criteria that Parliament has always applied to the railways. That would, at a stroke, make British rail the most profitable organisation in the world. But there is no chance of that, because the sad fact is that, in road transport, any conflict between human misery and human convenience is always settled in favour of the latter.
  If the future is to be based on a serious and honest assessment of the true costs of road traffic and the inevitable congestion and pollution that flows therefrom, no one will be happier than me. But I have yet to detect any hint that that is the Government's or any political party's intention.
  In conclusion, I turn to the citizens charter. What does the citizen want? I suspect that the citizen wants fast, punctual trains and cheap fares as well as empty roads and free parking. In the case of British Rail, the idea behind the citizens charter fails to tackle the question whether the provider of the service has the resources and the ability to provide what the traveller wants. I do not know whether that question has been considered seriously. Of course, British Rail is subject to substantial restraints on investment and subsidy which inevitably affect the level and quality of service. Those are ministerial decisions.
  Will Ministers be held to account if the rail traveller seeks to invoke the citizens charter? Let us suppose that Joe Bloggs finds that his train is late and wants to invoke the charter and claim compensation. All sorts of questions arise. Was the delay caused by an accident? Was it caused by vandalism? Was there a suicide on the line? What about hoax telephone calls? On 25 February this year, one man —I am glad to say that he is in prison now—disrupted the travel plans of 500,000 passengers and cost British Rail £25 million. How does the citizens charter fit into that? I fear that, if we are not careful, we shall end by putting more money into the hands of lawyers, as so often happens when we allow enthusiasm to evolve into legislation.
  Is the road traveller to have a citizens charter? Are delays to be blamed on Ministers who allow road works to take place on the A303 trunk road to the west country in the middle of July? What about a citizens charter for airline passengers—or is it only the public sector that should be subject to the rigours of this discipline? If so, is there really a role for a citizens charter in transport?
  I have not had time to discuss numerous aspects of future policy options. I close with a few thoughts on what is happening in Germany. The Germans have a state-funded railway, but they know that it costs them a great deal of money, so there is now a thoroughgoing examination of the relationship between the German Government, Deutsche Bundesbahn and the German people. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, it is essential to recognise that discussion of privatisation is quite separate from the need to strike a fair balance as between the infrastructure costs of road and rail.

  1137
  There is no doubt that those costs need to be reviewed, but that is a discussion separate from the one about privatisation. The Germans are less hidebound on these issues than we are, with our party political stances, and they recognise this. Chancellor Kohl has decided to establish a Government railway commission. Can we re-examine the role of the railways in society free from partisan prejudice? Let us take a leaf from Helmut Kohl's book. Changes to the relationship between the German Government and Deutsche Bundesbahn would require a change in the constitution, a problem that we do not face here, so such changes should be much simpler for us.
  I should like the Government to establish a Government railway commission with terms of reference similar to those given by Chancellor Kohl to the German railway commission. Those terms would be simple: first, to define the role of British Rail in the national and international transport markets; secondly, to define and delineate the railways' public or community responsibilities versus their business or economic responsibilities; thirdly, to set out the conditions for a rational and requirement-specific fulfilment of tasks by British Rail. In this way our future transport policy could be reached in a climate of rationality and realism which is long overdue.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. John Hughes: This debate is timely, in that it allows those concerned with the declining standards of service on British Rail to demonstrate the desperate and long-standing need for higher investment and for decent levels of borrowing. It is also timely because BR is in a grave crisis due to the terrible neglect of the past decade or more. It is desperately in need of a new deal. Cosmetic promises have been made by the Secretary of State; now is the time to put his money where his mouth is. That is what most people want.
  It is a major scandal that the Government have run the railways into the ground, compared with those of other countries such as France, where Governments of left and right value praise and even use the railways. The crisis on BR has become so acute that senior management figures, honourable men and women with a public service vocation and a concern for BR, are prepared to put their jobs on the line.
  Many hon. Members will have seen the informative article in The Independent on Sunday on this issue. I want to refer to it briefly. According to Ian King, then an area manager in Manchester,
  "we are giving our customers as poor a quality of service as many of us can remember."
  He has also said:
  "We charge fares that should provide a quality product but we do not."
  These BR dissidents have been treated in a way that would make Joseph Stalin blush. This House, if not the British Railways Board or the Government, should carefully listen to their views. They reflect the experience of many years and a commitment to decent public transport, which is vital if we are to reduce the environmental damage of the motor car.
  Many managers are terrifically concerned about the quality of the service—late trains, cancelled trains, overcrowded trains, insufficient public investment and high fares. The central transport consultative committee
  1138
  has justly criticised the Government's underfunding and has questioned the legality of cuts in British Rail services —cuts that have hit rural areas hard, and they are the areas of greatest social need.
  Has the Minister finally replied to the committee's letter? If not, will he answer it when he closes the debate? I share the committee's anxiety, but I want to concentrate this evening on one aspect of the BR crisis.
  No one has yet mentioned the problems and treatment of the disabled. That treatment is disgraceful, uncivilised, discriminatory and unjust. The Government's consistent underfunding of British Rail and their limitations on borrowing have prevented BR from ensuring that its services are fully accessible to all citizens, especially disabled people.
  Disabled people get a raw deal in all walks of life. There are well over 6 million of them and they deserve better, comprehensive and anti-discriminatory laws to guarantee their rights, not least on the railways. Unfortunately, the Government cop out on the need for such laws. Worse, instead of enhancing the rights of the disabled in employment, they are eroding those rights. If anything, the Government are anti-disabled. For them, the disabled are second-class citizens.
  It is in this shocking state of affairs that BR is trying to do its best within the limitations of its funding. Its record may be better than that of other major institutions, but it still leaves a great deal to be desired. BR has set up an advisory group on disability, I concede, but its efforts have been shown to be half-hearted and less than credible by the outrageous experience of the new multi-million pound sprinter class 323 train, which can be seen at Tickfords of Coventry.
  I recently took the opportunity, together with local representatives of disabled people, of inspecting the mock-up of the new train. The class 323 train miserably fails to provide for the disabled, who need easily accessible door operating buttons, signs, fixtures and other special fittings. In response to early-day motions that I have tabled on this matter, BR's parliamentary affairs manager, Mr. Austin, sent me a letter outlining the official BR position. It argues that credit should be given for real successes and that solutions should be sought to real problems. I take it from the letter that the needs of the disabled do not constitute a real problem. Perhaps I should hand a bouquet to the Government, British Rail, Centro, and Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire transport authorities—to the professional staff and the politicians who deliberately decided to commission the class 323 train, which has toilets for the able-bodied and no toilets for the disabled and whose design gives little consideration to handrails or door-operating buttons.
  In the light of those glaring omissions, I would point out to Mr. Austin and to all involved in this project that one cannot give to anyone what is their right. However, as of right, the disabled must have toilets, and the wide range of aids that they need at every station and on every train. I would also point out to all involved in transport strategy that the introduction of this type of train in America would fall foul of the law there.
  Mr. Snape: Is my hon. Friend aware that the class 323 was designed to the specification of some of the passenger transport authorities that he has just castigated; that the door to the toilet, which he said could not be used by the disabled, will be redesigned before the train enters service,

  1139
  so that they can use it; that the class 323 is a two-car unit in which one seat can readily be removed so that a wheelchair can be placed at a table inside the train; and that the vestibule on both the coaches making up the unit has been designed to allow people with disabilities—to use the proper term—to use a local train travelling over comparatively short distances? Furthermore, Centro and the other passenger transport authorities consulted BR's disability panel, which consists entirely of people with disabilities.
  I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will realise that some of his criticisms were a little unfair, and that, despite the financial constraints under which passenger transport authorities have to operate, some new provision is being made for the disabled.
  Mr. Hughes: I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend has made.
  I mentioned the law in America. The legislation dealing with passenger coaches for those who use wheelchairs says:
  "Single-level passenger coaches shall be required to—

  (i) be able to be entered by an individual who uses a wheelchair;

  (ii) have space to park and secure a wheelchair;

  (iii) have a seat to which a passenger in a wheelchair can transfer, and a space to fold and store such passenger's wheelchair; and

  (iv) have a restroom usable by an individual who uses a wheelchair".

  The provisions that we make fall far short of those requirements.
  However, just because the British Government are opposed so strongly to legislation that would discriminate in favour of the disabled does not absolve others from their obligation towards the disabled. Silence on this important issue is tantamount to collusion. Inaction reinforces discrimination. Lip service has been paid by many to this important issue. This is obvious when Centro says that the passenger transport executive did not have a demand for toilets, and when BR has decided that the disabled should have toilets only at stations. I welcome the building of those toilets, but there are 63 stations in the Centro region, and toilets should be built at every station. BR cannot be allowed to dodge its responsibility to the disabled, and to relegate them to third-class status. If there are accessible toilets for the able-bodied, then there should be toilets for the disabled, too.
  What is worse—to add insult to injury—the 323 train toilets are situated next to the wheelchair section of the unit. As one of the local representatives of the disabled has pointed out:
  "No other passenger is asked to sit next to or near the toilet facility."
  But that seems to be all right for the disabled, even though they cannot use the facility and even though some would be adversely affected—physically—by proximity to the toilet and running water.
  BR cannot be allowed to wash its hands of the disabled, although I readily concede that the ultimate responsibility for this dreadful discrimination lies with the Government and their refusal to fund a decent public service for all.
  Mr. Gregor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: In his response to me, Mr. Austin argued:
  1140
  "British Rail has always believed that wheelchair users should be assisted in and out of trains, using ramps, to minimise the risks of injury to both customers and staff."
  I am afraid that that is not good enough. To pick up what my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said about consultation with other bodies for the disabled, I can say that my friend, Mary Beaumont.. the representative for Nuneaton and Bedworth Council for the Disabled, asked:
  "Was it not perceived that many disabled prefer to travel independently, as do the able-bodied?"
  What if there is not staff available at the station when the wheelchair user gets on or off the train? As she points out,
  "even if somebody has helped you on to the train, you can be stuck at the other end if you cannot open the door at your station, and if you are in an electric wheelchair and there is no ramp available at the platform."
  She adds that she is worried that
  "even though other people may be on the train"—
  of course, they may not be—
  "they may not be getting off at your station, and by the time someone has noticed you cannot open the door"—
  that is, if they are bothered—the train will have moved on.
  Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Mr. Austin also argues that the single step
  "allows the optimum compromise between vertical and horizontal stepping distances."
  Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify whether this is a debate or an opportunity for hon. Members to read a script that they can later give to Hansard? If it is a debate, does it not involve both sides of the House, Government and Opposition?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Gentleman knows that it is within the accepted traditions of the House for an hon. Member to refresh his memory from notes, albeit that they may be copious from time to time.
  Mr. Hughes: Mr. Austin also argues:
  "Any dropping of train-floor height requires an increase in the horizonal gap which would be dangerous to all passengers… There is no simple solution to that problem without rebuilding Britain's railway infrastructure."
  It is one thing to say that change cannot be made overnight, and another to refuse even to start the process of change. The main problem is finance, and this brings us back to the Government's underfunding and the need to increase BR borrowing.
  Mary Arnold of the Coventry Council for the Disabled, of which all Coventry Members of Parliament are vice-presidents, adds to my criticism of the 323 train by saying:
  "The only real concession to wheelchair users is the tip up seats. The electric door switches are impossible to reach… there is no grabrail to hold on to, to keep your wheelchair steady."
  Overall, I hope that the House will agree with Mary Beaumont, the representative of the Nuneaton and Bedworth Council for the Disabled and the Warwickshire Coalition for People with Disabilities, when she describes these mock-ups as "glorified guard's vans".
  My final criticism is about BR's consultation with disabled people. The direct testimony of disabled people that I have quoted should have been taken fully into account in drawing up the design specifications. Mary Beaumont rightly expressed her deep disappointment that more research into possible usage by wheelchair-bound people, who are also potential commuters, was not carried

  1141
  out. I am sure that this contention will be reflected by the central passenger transport consultative committee. According to its secretary, Michael Patterson, it has yet to finalise its report on the class 323 and provision for disabled people. The Coventry Hereward college for the disabled is also preparing a report on the mock-up. I await those reports with interest.
  I hope that hon. Members will put pressure on the appropriate authorities to make the necessary changes in the new train. It is not too late to change the design specifications for the class 323 so that it provides the best of facilities for disabled people. I urgently appeal to British Rail to do that, or it will do the disabled a great injustice.
  I ask the House to examine the American disabilities legislation, from which I have quoted. That law was passed without reference to costs because those who passed it argued that the rights of the disabled were above cost. Such laws should be part of human rights. A society that treats disabled people so shabbily disables itself because it fails to tap the many talents of all its citizens. The way in which disabled people are treated on the trains, the buses, and almost everywhere else is a disgrace. Investment in and higher borrowing levels for British Rail would start to give the disabled a better deal, especially if they and their organisations are fully consulted. I hope that the Minister will tell the House tonight that the Government will urgently allocate specific funds for the needs of the disabled.
  7 pm
  Mr. Conal Gregory: For a long time—indeed, since I became a Member of this House in 1983—I have had a keen interest in transport, and in the railway industry in particular. I am vice-chairman, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), of the Conservative parliamentary transport committee. We work strongly in the best interests of public transport, and the railways in particular.
  I welcome this Second Reading debate, as I shall welcome the other stages of the Bill. I have a constituency interest as York has the headquarters of the eastern region of British Rail, and shortly it will have the headquarters of BR's freight operation. York is also an important centre for the denationalised sector of British Rail, as one of the key plants of British Rail Engineering Limited is situated there, with two more being in Derby and the fourth in Crewe. It also has Golden Rail, the tourism interest of BR, and the Royal York hotel—to name but a few.
  The Bill would increase BR's borrowing limit to £3,000 million, which is not an inconsiderable sum, extendable to £5,000 million, with the grant at the same levels. It is therefore appropriate that the House considers the use of the finances provided to date and how far BR has fulfilled its obligations to its passengers, its freight customers and its staff.
  It is clear that, at today's prices, BR has cost the taxpayer £16 billion since the Conservative party took office. I shall put that into the jargon that the electorate can understand—it is £800 for every household in the country. One point that is crystal clear now, and will be crystal clear at the hustings, is that investment under the
  1142
  Conservative Government has been the highest in real terms for 29 years, at £834 million. That is a telling figure, of which I am proud.
  Dr. Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman has referred to large sums, and we all appreciate the enormous strain of such sums on the economy. However, they must be compared with the amount of money invested by the most successful economy, at least until now, in western Europe —west Germany. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and I were told by representatives of the west German Government that the subsidy—they call it a payment—this year will be DM27 billion. That puts £16 billion, spread over 12 years, into perspective.
  Mr. Gregory: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I shall give some European comparisons in due course. He, as a member of the Labour party, is not too happy to look at its record. Indeed, he must be embarrassed by its neglect of BR. It is only the Conservative Government who have honoured their commitments and properly invested in the railways.
  We are about to increase BR's borrowing limit by more than £1 billion in 1991–92, and the Government have approved an increase of more than 20 per cent. to £600 million in the public service obligation for 1990–91. I am sorry that the shadow transport spokesman is not here; however, as always, I welcome his deputy. Had the shadow spokesman been present, I could have asked him how he wanted borrowings to increase, and whether he would approve of the Labour-controlled councils that have invested in such dubious banks as BCCI for one eighth of I per cent. more. It would be interesting to know whether he would suggest that as a blueprint for the private sector of the railway industry.
  I have cited the solid investment programme under the Conservative Government. We must now ask whether there has been an increase in quality.
  Mr. Snape: My point is not strictly relevant to the debate, but whenever we debate transport matters, the hon. Gentleman has an irresistible urge to make a fool of himself, and today has been no exception. Can he tell us how many left-wing socialists there are on the Shetland and Croydon councils, which together lost £30 million in BCCI?
  Mr. Gregory: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because he is not advancing the matter of transport policy. Yet again the hon. Gentleman, who will shortly be returning to his occupation in the railway industry following the next election, shows that he has little understanding of finances, or he would not have got them so hopelessly wrong. I assume that he was referring not to a £30 million but to a £23 million loss in the Western Isles. He can further consider these issues when he returns to his full-time occupation in the railway industry.
  The subject that we are debating is the railway industry, not the failure of Labour Members to read the financial press. I referred to the quality of management and of delivery in British Rail and how those relate to such considerable investment programmes. The House is being asked tonight to increase those investments.
  Electrification is a splendid form of investment, and it is a tangible way to judge the money from the public purse that is going into BR. The east coast main line has taken £400 million of investment, yet with the new timetable that

  1143
  was introduced on Monday it is now impossible for anyone from York or from the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to attend a function in London and return that evening, because the last train departs at 10 pm.
  Although this week saw the introduction of the new InterCity 225 service on the 393-mile east coast line from London to Edinburgh—using the new class 91 Electra electric locomotives—we must ask whether we are getting an increased service. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) mentioned European comparisons. I can draw examples from the excellent railway service that I have experienced in north America—a good way to show that BR can succeed with Amtrak. BR is letting down its passengers and its staff, and I shall give examples of that.
  Mr. Adley: What conclusion would my hon. Friend draw from the fact that when the American passenger railways were in the private sector they were ghastly, but that is no longer the case now that they are owned by Amtrak, which is financed by the Federal Government?
  Mr. Gregory: I am well aware that Amtrak has some public finances, but I would not agree that the services were ghastly before. However, that is a subjective view and I shall try to be as objective as 1 can.
  Let us consider whether the quality of British Rail's management has improved as a result of the generosity of the public purse. British Rail does not only provide a railway system to go from A to B but, without going into the business of cattle trucks, it should provide a service for people such as the disabled. I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes), but he dwelt a little unnecessarily on the physically disabled. I should have liked him to say a few words about British Rail's lack of interest in the blind and partially sighted because there are a number of cheap ways in which British Rail could make their life considerably easier. Its failure to do so may be because most of those who sit on the disability committee—excuse the pun—are in wheelchairs, not standing, and blind or partially sighted. I hope that that is a matter to which British Rail will address its mind shortly.
  Let me examine the finances of the buffet facilities which, sadly, are still in state control. [Interruption.] Travellers' Fare is a wholly owned subsidiary of British Rail. On many routes, it is extremely slow to open, the major exception being on trains out of Paddington. I travel frequently on the east coast main line and its Travellers' Fare services often do not open until 20 or 30 minutes after the train has departed. If one goes up the train before it departs, one is in danger of seeing the staff waiting for the goods to come on board or interrupting some card game.
  Once the buffet is open, many items that the public might like to purchase, such as KitKat, that excellent confectionery from my constituency, are not available, presumably because there is the danger that they would increase customer satisfaction or reduce the public service obligation. Such good brands of confectionery, or even those made in places such as Birmingham or Slough—I cannot recall the brands offhand—are not available.
  There are long queues for the buffet, and one way to reduce them would be to provide vending machines so that those who simply want a hot or cold drink could obtain
  1144
  one without queueing for a wider range of services. However, that would increase customer satisfaction and so has been put at the bottom of British Rail's list.
  Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gregory: Let me finish my point. My hon. Friend may be about to refer to those services which have been denationalised, such as the trolley service between Victoria and Gatwick, which is excellent. Not only does it take five different currencies—I am not referring to Scottish pound notes—but a range of drinks is available which it is almost impossible to find at Travellers' Fare. In addition, on no train in the United Kingdom is it possible to purchase a newspaper or a magazine. Such a service would also increase customer satisfaction and reduce the public service obligation. Those are two matters that are not at the top of British Rail's list of priorities.
  Mr. Adley: The catering services on the Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter line have been privatised, and a way has been found of getting rid of the queues after Salisbury by discontinuing the service because the girls have to go home to Bristol.
  Mr. Gregory: It is important that this House starts its deliberations on time and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are mindful of the fact that on Monday to Thursday we start at 1430 hours. But for British Rail that would not necessarily be on time. Because British Railways Board members and senior executives are paid an overrider based on the percentage of trains that arrive on time, it is particularly important to them that the trains do arrive on time. Sadly, they found that their overrider beyond their salary was not very substantial, so they changed the definition of "on time". For inter-city trains to be on lime now, they have to arrive within 20 minutes of the scheduled arrival time. That is not on time for my constituents; it is only on time for those who are deriving a percentage bonus. On time should mean literally on time, not a sloppy 20 minutes later, which helps no one. Let us have a bit of honesty and ensure that trains are on time and that those who are responsible for trains arriving on time receive the appropriate reward.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred, not for the first time, with a little humour, to a citizens charter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first senior politician in Britain to devise a citizens charter, and he had British Rail very much in mind when he did so. [Interruption.] I am glad that the few Opposition Members who are present agree.
  Compensation is particularly appropriate with regard to British Rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I travelled on the TGV to Lyons. Because the train was delayed, not for the first time, by the rail union of that country which has that facility, just as it does here, the guard came through the train giving compensation vouchers. There was no question of people having to queue up or write letters to SNCF. I have asked the previous chairman and the present chairman of British Rail to consider such a feature in order to encourage people if the service falls short of their high expectations.
  That market-oriented approach is anathema to British Rail. The former chairman, for whom I have great regard, could not understand the concept, because he thought that everybody, except for the solicitor and the architect, could

  1145
  be retrained. He had been retrained a number of times. But, sadly, that aspect of marketing never came up for serious discussion.
  Therefore, when my hon. Friend replies to this interesting debate, I hope that he will say whether, if we approve the higher investment tonight, we shall at the same time enter into a genuine contract between British Rail and the customer, whether that is the passenger or freight company. If British Rail falls short of such a contract, what genuine compensation would it offer? It should not take the form of the rather feeble letters that I have to pass on to many of my constituents; it should be genuine compensation which will encourage people to return to the service and to recommend it. There is nothing like proper compensation to attract people.
  There is much lost opportunity at our railway stations. I will give two examples, the first of which is my constituency city of York. Its famous station was opened in 1877, and has been the beloved station of a number of poets and others. The station is approximately the size of Utrecht station in the Netherlands, but only recently has British Rail provided a few extra services. We now have a flower seller, one of the few in the city which is open on a Sunday. We have no banking facilities, in common with every station bar one in the United Kingdom. It is impossible to cash a cheque at any railway station except for one. There is a little cafeteria, but it has a limited menu.
  Mr. Cryer: There are two.
  Mr. Gregory: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman's definition of "cafeteria" extends so far. Utrecht station has 250 shops and offices; it is a whole complex, although it covers the same area as York station does. We want greater imagination from British Rail. British Rail does not have the staff to provide that imagination, but it has the expertise to go to outside agencies that could develop ideas for it. It could consult commercial estate agents and other developers who could enter partnership agreements to provide such assistance.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: Does my hon. Friend recognise, as I do, that among the critics of British Rail are many people who in their professional lives have built, designed and operated railways in other countries? When they make suggestions to British Rail about how it can improve its operational performance, they meet a blank wall and deaf ears. British Rail does not recognise that anyone outside Euston house can understand railways better.
  Mr. Gregory: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. At the risk of making a pun, I must say that British Rail tends to have tunnel vision. It believes that the only people who understand railways are those who have been steeped in them from the age of 16 or from immediately after the time they left university.
  Important as it is for a certain group to understand engineering, signalling and maintenance, there are further opportunities for British Rail. It is not yet an albatross, despite the unhelpful comments made so frequently by the Federation of Railway Unions, which seeks to put British Rail into the dinosaur category. I continue to work to show that British Rail has a strong and serious future provided that it will enter a partnership with the private sector.
  Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gregory: We must stick to railway policy rather than get sidetracked, as we were before, by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East.
  Mr. Snape rose—
  Mr. Gregory: My second example concerns London. There is no difficulty in extending the range of services at railway stations in London. If British Rail is restricted at King's Cross or at Paddington, it can simply push the railway lines out by half a mile, one mile or two miles. A range of activities could be provided there, from bowling alleys and cinemas to restaurants and banking. If British Rail has any doubts, it could enter partnership agreements, as happens in other parts of the world and in the airlanes. If British Rail has doubts on those matters, it could talk to the airlines and the airports. If we could get some synergy between the British Airports Authority and British Rail, we would move towards a far more customer-orientated railway industry.
  The House and the public outside should be aware of the real danger to British Rail if it should ever again fall under a socialist Government. That is very unlikely, but as it is just a possibility, we should spell out that point. Labour has said that it will support the Bill tonight, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that British Rail should be allowed to borrow from the private sector. He has not made it clear whether loans from the private sector would be cheaper or more expensive than loans from the national loans fund. Clearly they would be substantially more expensive. We must remember that, whether British Rail borrows from the public or the private sector, the debt is still a public sector one. As Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, has said, investment in the railways is a social cost benefit to the public. That factor should be borne in mind when considering his comments to the Treasury in early July.
  British Rail has already gone successfully down the path towards denationalisation. Those who have brothers or fathers some of whom are in British Rail whereas others are in British Rail Engineering do not find themselves torn between the two. The person coming home with a pay packet from British Rail Engineering has between one fifth and one quarter more—plus shares—than the person with similar experience and qualifications who works for British Rail has. British Rail will move in the direction of British Rail Engineering, once it moves down the path of denationalisation.
  Under this Government, investment has been higher than it was in any year under the socialists. To be charitable, let us take Labour's most recent year in office, when it spent £537 million on the railways at 1990—91 prices. In the past year, the Conservatives have invested £834 million—or have allowed British Rail to invest that sum. Labour insists on maintaining the British Rail monopoly, which is clearly out of tune with the feeling in the European Community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will no doubt confirm. That is totally out of step with the rest of Europe.
  The case for denationalisation could not be greater if we consider British Steel, British Telecom and British Leyland. They used to make losses on the same scale as British Rail has. I choose those examples carefully because they are companies of a similar size. Now that they have been denationalised, they are—surprise, surprise—all

  1147
  making profits. On moral and economic grounds, the present subsidy to British Rail is excessive. It should be carefully targeted in terms of staff, so that they have shares for the first time.
  If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has any doubts about that, he should ask his constituents who are employed by National Freight whether they want to go back to life under state control. They will make it clear to him that they are proud of their share certificates. They frame them, just as they will frame their shares in British Rail in due course.
  Safety is another element. I referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in connection with the manning in the cab. By a curious twist of logic, British Rail says that two men must be in the cab of an inter-city train. When I have been in the cab of such a train, the second person has done almost no work. The case for having a second person is not convincing for the inter-city services, but it is convincing for the regional network, which is now far more complicated and does not have all the safety devices that inter-city services have. If we are to have that overmanning, it should be on the regional railways and not on inter-city services. We should address our minds to that.
  I commend the Bill to the House, with the reservations that I have expressed. I look forward to a new era for the railways which is customer-orientated and which truly recognises staff commitment and responsibility.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Although I have some criticisms of British Rail, it is worth placing on record the fact that there have been substantial improvements in the quality of railway services and some significant changes in the atmosphere and approach of the railway system and its staff. Like many hon. Members—although unfortunately not all—I travel many thousands of miles a month on British Rail and I have a pretty wide experience of what happens. I travel from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London—I will come to the new timetable in a moment—a journey that enables me to walk out of my house and to be in the centre of London just over four hours later, having had a comfortable journey and having done four hours' work in the process.
  I am almost invariably on time, although having said that, I shall probably be late on my next two or three journeys. It is the ill luck of many of my constituents who make only occasional journeys to find that theirs is the train that is an hour late on a four-hour journey, whereas in the high sample of rail journeys from which I have to draw, there is a high proportion of journeys that I complete on time and sometimes early.
  I have also noted significant improvements on my cross-country journeys. For many years, I crossed the Pennines on filthy trains, with grossly inadequate timetables and no hope of a cup of tea; now the rolling stock is much better, the service is more frequent and a private-enterprise trolley travels up and down the train regularly. The change in attitudes, and the combination of public and private-sector effort, has greatly improved many other services as well.
  On my travels, I meet many dedicated British Rail staff who go out of their way to try to ensure that passengers are well catered for, and that when things go wrong every possible effort is made to help. That does not always
  1148
  happen, but it happens often enough to be worthy of note. Another welcome development is the arrival on delayed trains of British Rail staff carrying mobile telephones for the use of customers who will be unduly delayed.
  I am slightly worried about the possibility that "sectorisation" will make it increasingly difficult for staff at the main terminal stations to make use of resources to deal with such difficult circumstances. Staff who would, in the past, use the resources of another sector have expressed anxiety to me about this. It may no longer be easy, for instance, to use a regional railway's diesel train, or to run an InterCity train to complete a journey on which a transfer to a regional service might otherwise have been necessary. Any move that cramps BR staff's initiative and their ability to cope when things are going badly is regrettable, and I hope that BR will continue to encourage those who still cling to the old attitudes to change their approach.
  Despite the improvements that I have observed, there is still a serious lack of attention to passenger needs, even at times of major investment. That was brought home to me by my experience of the new east coast main-line timetable. At the beginning of this week, I had to set out for London 20 minutes earlier than I did under the previous timetable to catch the first train of the day, in order to arrive no earlier than I would have done on the old diesel-hauled 125. I boarded a new electric train that was due to arrive 20 minutes later than the diesel train that had run in the previous week.
  When the train reached Newcastle, it broke down, because the staff could not shut the automatic doors; that was on the second day of the new timetable. I switched to a fast train, which enabled me to reach my destination no sooner than I could have done before the introduction of electrification. That does not strike me as a major step forward.
  Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman should not complain about the east coast main line. He should accompany me on the Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter line when I go home. The fastest train now takes six minutes longer to get from Waterloo to Salisbury than the same service took in 1964, the last full year of steam operation, when the train was pulled by a Merchant Navy Pacific engine.
  Mr. Beith: Many such examples could be given. My complaint about the east coast main line timetable—which I hope will be improved in subsequent editions—is that the opportunities for improvement provided by electrification have not been directed at all the areas from which customers emerge, and in which fresh business can be secured by means of effective marketing. Certainly passengers from the borders are getting a fairly raw deal at peak times; they are also finding that the last train from London to Berwick leaves not at 8 pm—as they were promised when the sleeper services were withdrawn—but at 6.30 pm, and that the last train from Edinburgh to Berwick on Saturdays leaves at 7 pm, which makes it impossible for passengers to take the train to attend any evening event in Edinburgh.
  Following electrification, overnight services have returned to the east coast main line. Once a week., on Friday nights, it is possible to take an overnight train from Edinburgh, Berwick or Newcastle, to London. Of course, it is not possible to lie down in a sleeping car; that would be too much to expect. Passengers must sit up for the

  1149
  whole journey. British Rail has shown that it is possible to reintroduce overnight services, but has not done the obvious—that is, run a proper service to Edinburgh with sleeping cars, and gain the extra business that is there to be obtained from the borders and from Tyneside
  The Secretary of State knows that very well, because he travels regularly to Edinburgh in the sleeper. I cannot get into my sleeper compartment for the television crews that follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman nowadays to provide background film to accompany his statements. I am glad, however, that he is a regular rail traveller: as such, he probably realises how absurd it was to withdraw all the sleeper services from the east coast main line. It would be perfectly possible to run one of the Scottish sleepers through Tyneside and the borders.
  British Rail's failure to honour its promise in that regard constitutes a standing warning to passengers never to believe what it says when it wants to get private Bills through the House. I shall issue the same warning in respect of every private Bill that BR introduces until its meets that undertaking.
  I shall say more about regional services in my part of the world later in my speech. First, let me deal with the financial core of the Bill. In real terms, direct Government support for the railways is now 40 per cent. below the 1983 level, according to British Rail's annual report. Investment has been hopelessly constricted: the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) mentioned the "bunching" of investment and the long periods in which no significant investment was made.
  Because of that, many opportunities have been missed. This country did not develop the high-speed TGV service on a dedicated line; France did. We have been hanging about rather than making a decision on direct links with Europe and the new line to the channel tunnel, which baffles other European countries: as other hon. Members have pointed out, they cannot understand why we have not leapt at the opportunity to ensure that we have direct links not only with the south-east, but with the north, Scotland and Wales. By that means, we could attract freight on to the system by offering a rapid, direct journey, and also ensure that freight terminal facilities were available in the areas from which the business would come. Because of the current indecision, there is no prospect of a proper freight terminal to serve Tyneside, for example.
  In recent years, there have been endless delays in the replacement of commuter and provincial stock, to the enormous discomfort of those who travel into London and some of our other conurbations. That discomfort is relieved only by the efforts of some passenger transport authorities, which have spent a fair amount on building up commuter services in co-operation with British Rail.
  The kind of investment practice that we have seen for many years certainly will not secure the transport system whose desirability has been implicit in the Secretary of State's speeches ever since he came to office. We all welcome the tone of what he has been saying, but we want that to be borne out in the financial structure that he gives the railways. According to the current edition of Modern Railways:
  "The Transport Secretary's recent speech was a cleanly-executed piece of public relations, and at the very
  1150
  least, it is significant that he feels what he said to be politically necessary. But the railways will not improve just because he has declared that it is OK to favour them.
  The big missing link in the Transport Secretary's declaration on rail transport is a willingness to assess all forms of transport on a common basis."
  We know perfectly well from previous debates that the rail passenger is being asked to contribute more of the infrastructure costs of his journey than is the road passenger, who notices very little marginal cost arising from his decision to make that particular journey by road. That distorts the objective that the Secretary of State has set out, and, indeed, prevents the achievement of that objective.
  It makes environmental sense for us to attract more and more people to travel by rail rather than driving. It makes more sense in conurbations, but the principle is not confined to them. It also makes environmental sense for us to carry a much larger proportion of our freight by rail, and the investment structure must be built up to meet those needs.
  Various of my hon. Friends favour specific projects on which they will wish to press the Secretary of State: one example in the extension of electrification to Aberdeen. We can all cite examples of projects that ought to be undertaken. I suspect that that will require far more investment than the Bill contemplates.
  Much was said earlier about privatisation and its implications for the railway system. We take the view that the railway system needs to be opened up to more providers of services. The principle of the common network being available to more providers is appropriate, just as it is appropriate for telecommunications and other services where, until now, there has been a public service monopoly. We see considerable attractions in identifying ways in which new operators can be brought into the railway system.
  The idea is not foreign to the railway system. Private trains are running about now, carrying both freight and passengers on the network. That concept could be developed extensively. It will be necessary to retain a publicly owned and managed network on which the services run. The Secretary of State asked the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East whether the concept that I am advancing is supported by him.
  However, the Secretary of State has not answered questions put to him as to his views about the future of the network. Does he believe that we need to retain a publicly-owned and managed basic network for the railway system, or does he believe that the entire system can be privatised? Our judgment, reached on the basis of our studies so far, is that a publicly managed system is likely to continue to be needed but that there is extensive scope for private enterprise activity on the network.
  The public service obligation grant goes to the heart of the Bill's provisions. For some years, public service obligation money has been the subject of a reducing target. The original plan was to reduce it in 1992–93 to £345 million. The Bill refers to a figure of over £400 million, which shows that the Government recognise that that target cannot be achieved. If the regional railway system, that provides cross-country and rural services, is to be faced with a declining level of public support every year, what will happen is what is now happening.
  Railway managers will say that there is only one way in which they can cope—by contracting the network. However, the network cannot be contracted without

  1151
  closures being proposed and without going through all the machinery that is involved in closure proposals. The Government do not want to be seen to be a Government who close railways. They do not want the Beeching tag hanging round their neck.
  Managers of regional railways have found an answer to that—to cut down services on large parts of the network to the point where nobody can use them. They are turned into completely unusable services, or they are reduced to such a level that they cost the absolute minimum. Resources are then concentrated on areas where the largest number of people live. In that way, the managers have some hope of increasing their returns.
  If regional railways are run like that, the public service obligation is not discharged in the way that was originally intended. The principle underlying that obligation was that a basic network of cross-country and rural railways ought to be retained. The public service obligation refers to that broad network being maintained, and is not now being maintained.
  This is not a political point, put forward by me as the Liberal Democrat spokesman. It is the view trenchantly expressed by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which is extremely concerned about what is happening to the rural network. The Central Transport Consultative Committee considers that the direction given to British Railways—to operate its passenger service so as to provide a public service broadly comparable generally with that provided by the board at present—was intended as a benchmark, below which grant-supported services must not fall. The committee points out that the services are falling well below that level and it lists services where there have been reductions of 50 per cent. or more below the level stated when the direction was given, which was as recently as 1988. It points out that in many rural areas the frequency has been dramatically reduced.
  I can give the Secretary of State the most ghastly examples from my constituency. During the last three years, a stopping service of trains on the east coast main line, serving stations at Chathill, Alnmouth, Widdrington, Pegswood and Acklington, has been reduced by one train a year. There were only four trains to start with, so there is only one more year to go before we reach zero. The northbound train service on that line has been reduced by one train every year. It is now impossible to travel from Chathill station northwards to Scotland, even by using a connecting train at Berwick, and return to Chathill on the same day. As there is only one train, one has to return to Chathill the following day. Moreover, it is impossible to travel to Chathill by train and return from it that day. One can travel there by train only in the evening.
  Chathill station is provided with a postbus connection —an efficient bit of transport co-ordination to which the Post Office and the local authority are committed, and that has been very successful in enabling people from the coastal areas of Seahouses and Bamburgh to use that rail service. However, that service is now hopeless because there is no train with which the postbus can connect. British Rail says, "By taking away the trains that we were using on that service, we can get more passengers on to the stock by using it in urban Tyneside." Surely, however, the objective of the public service obligation was to ensure that a basic network continued to be available. It cannot be set absolutely in stone, but the regional network is now being cut wholesale in order to meet impossible obligations.
  1152
  The Secretary of State should consider it in terms that he would find congenial or agreeable—in terms of performance obligations and performance measurements. There is no performance measurement now for regional railways when it comes to providing rural services. There is not even a benchmark—that a basic service should be retained. The Government shouled not dole out very large subsidies without there being some sort of performance measurement against which the subsidy that is given can be measured. But that is what is happening now. A large subsidy is given to a whole network without any assessment of whether the network as a whole is being maintained. I sought to amend the Bill to include such an obligation.
  In your other capacity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Chairman of Ways and Means, you felt unable to select those amendments to the Bill. We therefore face the dilemma of whether to vote against individual clauses that deal with the public service obligation. That may be the only way to get the point across. It does not make sense to continue a public service obligation grant that is not measured against whether the network for which it is being provided is still there and still provides a reasonable and recognisable level of service.
  Mr. Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when Ministers are asked about this practice, it is unfair for them to say, "These matters are entirely ones that should be answered by British Rail"? The House has great difficulty in obtaining information from a Department that, due to its own financial noose, causes these cuts yet declines to accept responsibility for them in this place.
  Mr. Beith: Absolutely. The Secretary of State has placed British Rail in the position that it can run regional railways only on the basis of retrenchment—on the basis of concentrating rolling stock in such a way as to obtain the maximum return. British Rail is the originator of the policy. It may say that that is not what it wants—that it has its own ideas about what can be achieved. In that case, why are the Government telling British Rail and the House what that basis is? I shall be happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wishes to intervene to clarify the point.
  What is the point of having a Central Transport Consultative Committee if the Secretary of State takes no notice of what it says on the subject? It has written to him at considerable length and made public statements, but we are getting no further. The committee has gone into considerable detail about the performance targets that should apply to British Rail in relation to its rural services, but it has received no response. It says:
  "The CTCC is disappointed with the Department's interpretation of the PSO direction. It seems to give BR the right to reduce a train service on a particular line or at a particular station to the bare minimum to avoid closure proceedings, irrespective of the social need which that service satisfies and for which BR receives grant. The CTCC believes that situation to be most unsatisfactory and one which must be tackled by future legislation."
  This is a legislative opportunity. Do Ministers intend that British Rail should meet its target by cutting to a minimum the services on the more extended parts of the rural network, thereby meeting the obligation of reducing the public service grant? Is that the plan, or do Ministers intend that the rural service network should remain at broadly the same level as now? I should like the service extended in some areas and more stations to be opened. It

  1153
  has been demonstrated in some of the passenger transport authority areas that new business can be achieved by that, and the same could take place on some of the rural lines. However, currently everything is going in the opposite direction.
  It is not reasonable to ask the House to approve the increases in the public service obligation, which is one part of the Bill, without explaining what the money is to pay for, what obligations arise from it and what the Government's policy is. The Bill sets out only the limits. it does not set out what the Government will give in PSO grants, just the maximum that they are allowed to give.
  The Minister who has day-to-day responsibility for the railways has returned to the Chamber. He must tell us his response to the views of the Central Transport Consultative Committee on the issue that affects rural railway users in Northumberland and Wales, including the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and other hon. Members in mid-Wales and in the south-west and all over the country where services are being severely damaged. It is not reasonable to ask the House to approve the Bill without dealing with such questions.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: I was reassured by the opening remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It is encouraging to see increased investment in railways and an increase in competition in railway services. It is pleasing to learn that the monopoly that British Rail has enjoyed and exploited over the years is likely to be broken by private enterprise opportunities opening up and, ultimately, by denationalisation. In addition, there is the encouraging thought that we now have a more positive freight policy on rail, as opposed to roads, than we have had for many years.
  Given the welcome signs that are the background to the Bill, it is a pity that the one great investment opportunity, perhaps the greatest opportunity of the century—the channel tunnel and its rail link—has been so mishandled by British Rail. It has failed to rise to the challenge. The transportation of freight and the communication of passengers with other parts of Europe has been handled in a cack-handed way. If British Rail's proposals for the channel tunnel rail link are introduced, they will make Britain a branch line of the rest of Europe rather than part of the main line.
  I shall outline the deficiencies and failures of British Rail's proposed route, how it fails to rise to the opportunities offered by the Bill and how alternatives could meet those requirements in a much better way.
  British Rail has sought to impose a channel tunnel rail link that goes no further than London. It pays lip service to going beyond King's Cross, but, by and large, it will represent a buffer stop for passengers. Those who travel to the west country will have to go from King's Cross to Paddington under their own arrangements and then use other parts of British Rail for the rest of their journey. If one is trying to attract passengers to travel from all parts of the United Kingdom by rail instead of by road or air, it is nonsense if there is no proper network of through trains allowing passengers to travel without stopping in London to change trains.
  1154
  That is culpable enough, but, worse than that, British Rail has made no real provision for freight. It intends to superimpose a freight route on existing commuter routes in the south-east. British Rail is not offering a freight policy, but is using the slack time on commuter routes. That is no way to encourage those who ship from the north of Scotland to the south of Italy to use a train or a rail container rather than road. Until that matter is seized by those who operate the service now or who will operate it in the future, particularly the channel tunnel link, rail will never command the commercial and financial support that it should have.
  British Rail's proposals seem merely to link the King's Cross area of London with the capitals of Europe. It will offer an opportunity for passengers covering that distance, but precious little else. The reason for that planning may have been dominated by the development aspect. There is no doubt that the opportunity to exploit the development potential around King's Cross has been fully investigated by British Rail.
  I have no knowledge of precise details, but we can surmise that, if an office development were to be built on top of a terminal linking King's Cross with Paris, Brussels and the other capitals of continental Europe, the value of such accommodation would be increased by a factor of three or four. So, what is worth £x per sq ft now could be worth £4x after the development. Think of the advantages to any European or international company if its employees could simply go down in the lift from their office to the platform below and travel straight to the heart of Europe without the hassle of travelling to Heathrow, Gatwick or even City airport. That would greatly enhance the property development value of King's Cross.
  I have no reason to know this, but perhaps the reason for British Rail's preoccupation with a terminal at King's Cross with precious few facilities for through trains beyond King's Cross is dominated by the desire to exploit to the best advantage the land around that area.
  British Rail's outlined route fails on three main criteria that should apply. First, it is commercially and financially unattractive. The private investor partners who linked with British Rail in an attempt to reach a partnership agreement to build the King's Cross southern route dropped out because they found it commercially and financially unsustainable. Secondly, operationally it is of no great benefit. In terms of passenger time, the direct link to King's Cross saves perhaps 12 or, at best, 20 minutes. That is a small amount of time when one considers what an alternative could offer. Also, as I have mentioned, it makes no provision for freight, which will trundle around the existing commuter lines.
  Thirdly, and perhaps most damaging, the proposed line is environmentally disastrous. It would cause much damage, not only to the heritage, farmland and landscape of Kent, but, when it passed through Warwick gardens in my constituency and on to King's Cross, it would cause the maximum disturbance and devastation to the area. The cost of mitigating that environmental damage is out of all proportion to the benefit that would be gained by following that route.
  British Rail has chosen the worst proposals to meet the challenge. We are debating a railway for the 21st century and how we ensure that the United Kingdom, although separated from it by the Channel, can nevertheless have a direct rail link with the rest of continental Europe. British Rail has failed to recognise the opportunities and to meet

  1155
  that challenge. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State promised that increased investment will lead to an improved service and that the rail system will be subject to competition and private enterprise. The channel tunnel offers him perhaps the best opportunity to fulfil those promises.
  Alternative routes have been proposed that can be built de novo and do not superimpose themselves on existing lines. More than one alternative route is under consideration, but I shall highlight the main points of what might be called the Ove Arup concept, which is a way of linking Folkestone with London—the capital link is important—without pushing all passenger or freight traffic through the bottlenecks of central London or King's Cross. The Ove Arup route goes through parts of north-east Kent that are regarded as the under-privileged areas of the south-east, which could do with some economic uplift and where flagging industries would benefit from the increased investment and opportunities that would flow from the link.
  The line would continue through south-east Essex—another area that would benefit from economic uplift—to Stratford. Trains travelling to the west would continue to King's Cross, Paddington, Heathrow, Bristol, the south-west, the north-west and Wales. People in Cardiff could board a train and get off in Paris, Brussels or Milan without changing in London.
  Passengers travelling to the north would not need to travel to King's Cross, as their train would go straight through Stratford and up to the north-east, the north-west and Scotland. That would avoid pushing freight and passenger traffic through central London.
  Building that route de novo offers an opportunity to build a dedicated freight route alongside it. I recently asked Ministers whether BR's arrangements for freight traffic are compatible—whether the track and wagon gauge are compatible with European systems. If the route is to link the United Kingdom with continental Europe, trains must be able to run without transferring their loads or stopping in sidings. The alternative routes offer advantages that British Rail's preferred route does not.
  I mentioned the development opportunities at King's Cross, which no doubt British Rail has assessed and will seek to exploit. Similar opportunities arise at Stratford, which is near the major development at docklands. Industry and enterprise in docklands would have easier access to the channel tunnel link. Stratford offers passengers the opportunity to park and ride, as they can at the airport, but certainly could not at King's Cross, or what is now called the kiss-and-ride syndrome—one says goodbye to granny or the children but later can pick them up near where they get off the train.
  We should seize that opportunity now, because if we make the wrong decision not only we but many generations will suffer. It will be an inconvenience for us now, but disastrous for the long-term economic prospects of not only London and docklands but, more important, of the whole of the United Kingdom. If the opportunity is missed now, it is missed for ever.
  I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, but I urge him most seriously to consider the opportunities that lie beyond the vision of British Rail and to ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom becomes part of continental Europe. I commend the Bill in those terms.
  8.7 pm
  Dr. Kim Howells: I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be relieved to hear that I shall be brief.
  We have had an even-tempered and good debate. The lesson to be drawn from it is that the future of the railways is of extraordinary importance. The publications that the Secretary of State for Transport has issued show that, on a cross-party basis and throughout the world, it is regarded as the alternative to our choked road system.
  I hope that the discussion will not obsess itself with whether the rail system should be nationalised or privatised, but will concentrate on ensuring that our rail system is efficient, safe and, if possible, cheap. Geographically, Britain is on the periphery of Europe—Wales and Scotland are literally on the periphery of Europe. It is vital that we have the direct links that the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) mentioned.
  The problem that is faced by my constituents and many others in the former mining valleys of south Wales is how we ensure that we continue to enjoy the services of a commuter rail system. Much of the area's population, perhaps I million people, use that excellent service, which is distinguished by a young female manager, the imaginative Alison Ingram. She has some good ideas about the future of that rail system. It is difficult to apply normal financial criteria to what is essentially a commuter system.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) did the rail service a great service by drawing the House's attention to the false comparisons which are frequently made between the competitiveness of the railways with the roads. I was glad that he brought to our attention the hidden costs of road transport. I hope that the Minister for Public Transport, who, I know, cares a great deal about the railways, will bear that in mind when he replies.
  Such false comparisons always detract from the value that we place on our railways. That comparison is crucial if we are to take as seriously as we should the environmental superiority of the railways over any other form of public transport. No matter which party is in power, it will be difficult for us to break off our love affair with cars and the easy accessibility so often offered by road transport to factories, villages and supermarkets. However, we must make some fundamental decisions now.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich drew our attention to a decision that is of supreme importance at least in terms of our links with Europe. I should like the western half of Britain to be saved the pain of going through a certain London bottleneck. I am sure that many hon. Members know the Reading-Redhill-Ashford line. It needs upgrading, and I understand that there are some difficulties with Redhill station, but the sums needed to modify the line are very small when compared to those spent by other European countries. The same applies to the possible Stratford-King's Cross line, and the way in which British Rail management is, I suspect, forced to skimp on any of its imaginative projections is laughable.
  I remember when British Rail management were brought before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. We asked them to describe to us—because we could not get a clear picture—how somebody would travel from Cardiff to Paris during the day. We were told that that person would get on a train in Cardiff, travel to Paddington, pick up his cases and then get on the Circle line, which would,

  1157
  of course, be vastly improved by that time. The groans of disappointment and the guffaws were louder than the noise of a 125 diesel pulling out of Cardiff station. The notion that everyone west of London has to travel in that way to get to Paris is an insult to an area which has been one of the great growth areas of the economy in the past 10 to 15 years.
  We must think seriously and urgently if we are to avoid falling into the trap of short termism and of trying to upgrade only the main London railway terminals to take this huge step forward.
  There have been worrying tendencies in south Wales to try to eke out the public sector obligation grant by cutting early-morning and late-night services. Having spoken to the management in south Wales, I can understand why it is trying to do that, but it detracts from the overall service offered in areas such as south Wales. If we start lopping off services at either end of the day, we may end up in a position similar to that which existed in the mining villages. We said that as long as we took off the uneconomic tail, we would be left with a profitable middle sector, but, inevitably, we were left with nothing—south Wales now has two pits. We do not want to be left with two rail services a day to Pontypridd or Treherbert, but there are alternatives.
  I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the suggestions made to me by British Rail management in Cardiff. It was suggested that one solution might be to substitute its own buses for trains in the early morning and late at night. That could be done at a fraction of the cost of running trains at that time because of difficulties with timetabling and signalling. Management said that they could not do that because they did not have the power of their German and Swiss equivalents, which can run buses. I should have thought that it would be a sensible extension of British Rail's powers to allow them that flexibility.
  It is difficult for some of the valley communities, and, I am sure, for many rural communities elsewhere, to find a substitute form of transport. We often end up throwing people back on to the roads. We say that we want to cut down on pollution from cars and to reduce the whole of the car economy which is such an environmental problem, yet at the same time we fail to recognise that we must allow British Rail—or whatever it will be called in the future —to be flexible enough to overcome those central economic difficulties early in the morning and late at night.
  The Minister is also aware that we are unhappy about our service in south Wales. Signalling, the conditions of many railway stations and on-line services need to be much improved. Although I disagreed with much of what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) said, he put his finger on a number of points which need special attention. Railway stations need to be refurbished and the quality of service on trains needs to continue to be improved.
  For example, many improvements are needed at Cardiff station. I mention one of the more light-hearted problems; it is less urgent but it is immensely irritating. When I get off the 125 diesel and cross to the platform from which trains leave for the valleys, my ears are assaulted by the wonderful plummy tones of someone who says, "Welcome to the velleys lines". That is not how the valleys are known in south Wales. The same applies to the stations enumerated by the announcer. He says, in his plumy
  1158
  tones, "The train about to depart goes to Treherbert and Bargoed." It would be nice if we did not feel that such an alien presence was directing us from one platform or one train to another.
  Mr. Wolfson: I hope that British Rail will take to heart what the hon. Gentleman says and will use his voice as an alternative.
  Dr. Howells: I hope that my majority is not that thin.
  On a more serious point, many of the people who use the valleys lines work in Cardiff and along the M4 corridor. The economy and the social economy of south Wales have changed dramatically over the past 30 years and especially over the past 10 or 15 years. We do not have as many community-based employers as we did. The pits have largely gone, as have many of the manufacturing plants in the valleys. Increasingly, investment is being concentrated along the M4 corridor. That is where the jobs are, and that is where people want to get to.
  I am sure that the Minister is well aware that one of our great problems is that, because of the topography of the valleys—the physical restrictions—it is impossible to build any more roads there. We have had a dualled A470 for quite a long time now. It is highly congested, with constant traffic jams and attendant delays and such congestion adds considerably to the costs of road-borne traffic. To the communities of south Wales, that is a crucial question, because we are trying to reduce our unit costs. Our road transport firms have performed valiantly in trying to negotiate inadequate roads in the valleys and the eternal bottleneck of the Severn bridge—and I am glad that the construction of the new bridge is to start shortly. I would only say, about time too.
  We must realise that we cannot go on filling the valleys with roads, not least because the people do not want them and because communities such as mine suffer badly. Places such as Talbot Green, Llantrisant and Taff's Well are choked with traffic. I hope that the Government will take that on board and will realise that the alternative is to launch a series of imaginative initiatives, some of which will cost money, to attract people and heavy goods on to the railways and off the roads.
  I know that the Minister is very much concerned with the problem. I am sure that he is aware that all kinds of experiments are taking place in Germany—for example, with tax breaks and new technologies. The Germans are only just starting, I do not think that they are much further advanced than we are. I must say that some of the proposals that I have heard from British Rail and from private concerns about how the swap-over from road to rail might take place are extremely interesting, and at least as imaginative as those that I came across in Germany with the hon. Member for Christchurch.
  Ours is a very good rail service—certainly in terms of the amount of cash that we make available to it. The German rolling stock that we saw was certainly of no better quality than British rolling stock, and much of it was of inferior quality. In many ways, British Rail management has done an excellent job, but we must realise, that it is the Government who hold the purse strings. It is the Government who have their hands on the rope round British Rail's neck. If they care to loosen it and to encourage BR—and I am glad to hear encouraging noises—we may well see that changeover take place: a whole new generation of rail transport may be helped to

  1159
  supersede the great problems on our roads. I hope that the Minister will continue in that direction, and that the new age of railways will take off.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: This has been an interesting debate, in which there has been a meeting of minds on a number of salient points. I had some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said about plummy tones on stations—albeit that it was not perhaps one of his most important points. The LRT network is not part of the subject of today's debate, but the House will know that we in London are very familiar with the immortal announcement, "Mind the gap", usually delivered in very plummy old-Etonian tones. I am sure that people's voices are not normally like that. The voices on the southern region are often very Roedean or very Eton in tone.
  "Mind the gap" is an important injunction for both Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. There is still an enormous gap in respect of the ideas and proposals on transport and rail policies for the future. "Mind the gap" is also a useful admonition for the Government. The danger is that we are still seemingly rather half-hearted about our railway policy. Yet I detect the first stages of a change of mind on the Government's part—it was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) in his excellent speech—and that is welcome. At the same time, the Government seem to be nervous and hesitant about going further. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for their work in beginning to restore—and then to increase—the morale of British Rail management. That is an important task, and we are a long way from completing it.
  Many of BR's long-distance services—and, indeed, its other services—are very good. We all have a tendency to knock the rail network, probably excessively. Moreover, the Government are hesitant when it comes to providing the enormous resources that are needed in terms of investment capital. Having said that, I recognise that the Government have made some substantial increases in investment resources and the Bill is an expression of that.
  All that is very welcome, but we are not there yet. When I visit other European countries, I note that there is a totally different psychological attitude towards railways as a system of internal transport. Perhaps, in future, we shall have slightly transmogrified monopolies. Incidentally, it is not right to pray in aid the Commission's attitude to policy formation in respect of internal transport policy. That is not its function. The function of the Commission in Brussels is to try to achieve a co-ordinated single market in transport policy, which involves it in what happens across frontiers, in what is done by way of intermodal developments and more intensive co-ordination of the different national railway systems and perhaps, therefore, in bringing in more private operations. The Commission is certainly not saying that privatisation in all the individual member states would be a good thing.
  It would also be a gross exaggeration to suggest that other national Governments are thinking in terms of privatisation on a major scale. They may be thinking of reducing the monopoly in an operational practical sense. They may be thinking of other operators coming in with
  1160
  the national central railway system on a greater scale. I note the amusing example from Switzerland, where I gather no substantial changes are proposed, but where it is planned to let MacDonalds run some of the rolling restaurant cars. It would be daft to cite that as an example of major privatisation. I do not think that any of the political parties, including the centrist and Christian Democrat parties, have concluded that privatisation is an indispensable part of any future policy.
  We all want a heavily invested national railway asset. That is especially true in Britain, which has fallen behind some other countries, and in Germany, which benefits particularly from the advantages of a dense network. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who has visited the Bundesbahn, will agree with me that the Germans are now beginning to worry about the cost of the network and the size of the deficit, yet the network makes a direct contribution to the development of the German gross domestic product. One cannot say that our railway system makes such a contribution. BR management would like to do that, but they have been prevented by circumstances, including ideological circumstances, from doing so in recent years. That is a great tragedy for Britain.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is right that the Germans are worried, but they are worried because, with the amalgamation of east and west Germany, they are faced with the prospect of having to build a virtually completely new lateral railway system. What is causing the problem is the amount of investment that that will involve.
  Mr. Dykes: That is right, although I suppose one might say, amusingly, that the incorporation of the five new Lander into the Federal Republic amounted to the Deutsche bank having the world's biggest rights issue and deciding to use the West German Government as the means to do it.
  Enormous amounts of capital will be needed to bring the Reichsbahn network from east Germany into the Federal railway system—something that is scheduled to happen in two years' time. I have the feeling that the Germans will tackle that problem and raise the capital. I think that they will accept the capital deficit that that will entail as well as the operating deficit on German railways. The Germans will regard the development as a direct positive contribution to the development of their economy. In that sense, investment in the railways is better than many other forms of public sector investment. The Germans do not say, "The railways must make a profit." In Britain, we have reduced the steel industry to half its previous output level. It is one of the smallest steel industries, in a nation with a population of 50 million.
  We could all find ways of reducing the railway network and making it fabulously profitable on current account. We could probably do that by having five lines. The smaller the network, the more profitable it becomes in economic terms, but does it serve the nation? Of course my hon. Friend the Minister knows that it does not, even if he will not agree with me now. I detect the beginnings of a major psychological change. This is not the ancien regime. For some reason, the previous Prime Minister did not like railways. I did not have a chance to discuss it with her. However, the new Cabinet is pro-railway and that is witnessed by the Bill which I heartily support and by the change of attitude. Perhaps in future there will be a

  1161
  "Malcolm Rifkind plaza" at Waverley station or a "Roger Freeman plaza" before Euston station as the new commitment unfolds. However, that will mean a lot more money.
  Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dykes: I will give way reluctantly.
  Mr. Snape: And I intervene equally reluctantly. Before the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), in his eloquent way, hails this new golden age of railways, we should allow reality to intrude for a moment. Without the Bill, BR would be virtually bankrupt by mid-summer. There is no real alternative and there has been no great conversion just yet.
  Mr. Dykes: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) obviously was not listening carefully to me earlier. He was talking animatedly to his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to ensure that he says the right thing when he speaks later. If he had listened more carefully, he would have heard me say that the Bill is the first small step for mankind and that it is welcome. However, a lot more needs to be done.
  Not withstanding the sympathy that we feel for my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) about the channel tunnel rail link route, the time that it is taking to decide on the route is alarming. It is also alarming to hear our friends on the continent asking what the Government and BR's management are doing to our railway system. I am reluctant to blame the BR management. They have coped almost heroically with enormously adverse circumstances and restrictions and with the atmosphere of hostility.
  I do not believe that many of my Conservative colleagues are mad about the privatisation of the railways. They want an efficient network and more capital devoted to the railways. They would probably welcome the intermodal competition of private enterprise providing services with BR. The linkage between road haulage, freight and trains is crucial and it must be achieved properly. That is one of the preoccupations of the European Commission. However, that is very different from saying that if BR is privatised and run by Lord Hanson or Gerald Ronson—
  Mr. Adley: If that were the case, one would never get from Wandsworth to Brixton.
  Mr. Dykes: I will resist the temptation to comment on that.
  We know that it would be a nightmare if there was a 19th-century, old-fashioned capitalist approach to railways. That is one way of running the system down. I welcome the change of attitude. That attitude was mirrored by the reference of the hon. Member for Pontypridd to people being addicted to their motor cars. That idea no longer grips people as it used to.
  People like to use their cars these days for holidays, on essential journeys and for journeys where there is no railway or bus alternative. However, people now realise the negative aspects of such a policy. They want a railway network that will serve the needs of the next two decades. I believe that our ministerial team can provide that if they are given the opportunity and the financial resources.
  1162
  Although I may be guessing, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is the Government's positive attitude.
  That policy must be pursued for many reasons, not least to protect the environment. We are aware of the short-sighted policies of the past few decades involving the glorification of the motor car and the attendant problems for cities and country routes. Motorways have not provided the solution as they should have done according to the sacred laws of the famous French economist Jean Say and the provision of extra capacity.
  Perhaps we should be more consensual in the House. It is extraordinary that it is considered to be immoral and wicked to have consensus in this Parliament. At every European parliamentary debate I have attended, I have seen people on both sides nodding in agreement, including the Government and Opposition representatives. I am sure that it is difficult for the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to understand that, because he must always fight. However, consensus is the way forward for such a complicated policy. Agreement produces policy stances as well as management efficiency. That must be led by the politicians.
  There is no way in which even a free enterprise-oriented Government can stand back and tell a railway management to do what it likes. Ultimately, the money comes from the public sector and, therefore, the Government are heavily involved. Even if there is more of a stand-off posture, the management must manage, but the guidelines for future railway policy depend on the Government's attitude and support for it among the public.
  The channel tunnel project was the greatest transport project in history and it was privately funded. I pay tribute to everyone involved in it, but we now need public sector finance to surround it, especially in the south-east, to ensure that it is a great success. The project shows that the public and private sectors can go together if we strip out ideological prejudices and reach a rational railway policy for the future. The sooner we achieve that, the more we will be able to keep up with the others.
  We cannot always insist on being behind other European countries as the single market develops. Do we want to be the only country in Europe with a different currency with regard to the ecu and the single currency?
  Mr. Cryer: We are beginning to diverge now.
  Mr. Dykes: I am finishing now, so there is no need for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to become excited.
  A foreign visitor might arrive at Dover and discover that he will travel at only 32 mph to London when he has just stepped off the French TGV. Must we be the only European country to have antiquated trains?
  Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend add to his list the fact that we are the only country in Europe which seems to insist on requiring immigration and customs facilities to be carried out at the terminus? It is possible to travel into and out of the Community—to and from Switzerland and Germany—with all the documentation sorted out on the train. We still do not have such a facility on offer.
  Mr. Dykes: The myopic people pursuing the policy for facilities at the terminus will find that the public will not accept it. There will be rioting on a grand scale if they

  1163
  pursue it. I do not suggest that politicians should be involved in the rioting, but the public will not accept such a policy over the next few decades when there is agreement between the other European countries to cross frontiers without any checks. Interpol does not consider that a threat to the prevention of terrorism and drug trafficking.
  It must be the message from this new Cabinet, devoted as it is to the development and expansion of BR, that it will keep up with the rest of Europe, and perhaps in a few years' time we can have an all-electric network for long-distance and short-distance routes including regional trains, and which will be a system in which we can, as we did in the past, take pride.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I recognise the relief that the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) must feel at the Government's change of heart as the Tory party is officially no longer against the railways. However, there was not much evidence in the speech by the Secretary of State for Transport of a change of heart. There has been a major shift of power in the House this year and increasingly Conservative Members question what the Labour party will be doing in government over the next five years instead of thinking about what they will be doing in opposition.
  The Secretary of State's performance was remarkable. He moved the Bill's Second Reading, but spent only one or two minutes considering it. After that, he made what amounted to an Opposition shadow spokesman's speech when he attacked Labour's policy. The ministerial speech was made by my hon. Friend the Member for K.ingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He clearly set out authoritatively a policy for rail—over which some of us might raise a few question marks—which the next Labour Government would carry forward. There seems to have been an interesting movement of power in the House over the past few months.
  It is a great tragedy that, throughout the 1980s, the Government were against BR and against providing resources for it. During the 1980s, Britain derived a tremendous amount of wealth from the North sea and we should have invested it in major infrastructure and, in particular, in British Rail. It is a tragedy that that opportunity was missed. Although I welcome the Government's conversion, I must point out that it will cost a lot more now to do what should have been done 10 years ago.
  I should like to raise some specific constituency points. First, I wish to make a bitter complaint against British Rail which has failed to reach a decision about a freight terminal for Greater Manchester. Tameside local authority suggested a joint venture project for a terminal at Guide Bridge. The original proposals were advanced almost three years ago and British Rail assured the local authority that there would be a decision by January this year. No decision has yet been reached.
  I very much regret that the chairman of British Rail has continually fobbed off my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who has been writing to him to press the case for the terminal on behalf of the three Tameside Members. We want an urgent decision—first, because if we are not to have a freight terminal, the land could be used for something else.
  1164
  Secondly, we want a successful terminal, but if it is to be successful, we must persuade a large number of manufacturers in the Greater Manchester area that if they are to export to Europe in the future, they must have containers that are capable of a short road trip into the terminal, followed by a long rail trip. If those companies are to make plans and to take their freight off the road network on to the rail network, they should be making their decisions now.
  At Question Time on Monday, the Minister told me that he hoped that British Rail would make a decision before he visited the north-west. However, when I intervened earlier, he said that he hoped that British Rail would make its decision this summer but summer is an ambiguous word. I plead with British Rail to reach a favourable decision quickly. We need such a decision so that we can carry out the policy of both the Government and the Labour party and transfer a large volume of freight from road to rail.
  My second point relates to the developments at Stockport station. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was ever in the signal box at Stockport, but he must be aware that there used to be a large coal yard at the side of the station. During the 1970s and 1980s, the people of Stockport were promised that, when that coal yard ceased to be used for that purpose, the area would provide a new facility, a bus-rail interchange for Stockport. The people of Stockport have seen the way in which imaginative bus-rail interchange facilities have been developed in Bury and Altrincham. We were told that Stockport would have a small bus provision, with the main bus station being sited in the bottom of the valley.
  The development is now being completed, but there is only minimal provision for buses. It is almost impossible for buses to enter the station area. There is also minimal provision for taxis. Most of the land has been used for a leisure development and for a McDonald's drive-in food takeaway. That sort of commercial development is the last thing that that land should be used for. Of course, many of the kids in my constituency like the idea of going to a McDonald's and I have no objection to that, but it is a tragedy that, instead of allowing Stockport to have a good bus-rail interchange that would facilitate good public transport in the area, that land has been used for a drive-in McDonald's takeaway.
  Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents a change of policy? Whatever the criticisms of the 1974–79 Labour Government, they impressed upon British Rail the need to offer local authorities any of its surplus land that they could use. However, British Rail is now under pressure to maximise revenue from the sale of land to finance the railway service. That is why important schemes, such as the one in Stockport that my hon. Friend has mentioned, are coming to naught.
  Mr. Bennett: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. I had been about to say that British Rail has been pushed into short-term profit instead of being allowed to provide a good integrated transport service.
  My third point relates to the way in which British Rail is cheating Parliament in terms of the service that it provides on the Stockport to Manchester, Victoria line. That line runs through my constituency, from Stockport to Reddish, South into Denton, on to Ashton and then down

  1165
  to Manchester, Victoria. In 1966, British Rail outlined proposals to the Transport Users Consultative Committee for the closure of the line, but the case was decided against British Rail. I accept that, since then, the number of people living close to the stations on that line has declined and that Reddish, South and Denton are no longer viable stations. If that line is to be successful, a series of new stations should be built much closer to where people now live.
  I would not have complained too much if British Rail had proposed the closure of those stations—that would have been sad, but I could have understood it—but instead of opting for closure, British Rail claims that it is still providing a service on that line. Last year, the service on that line consisted of one train per week on a Monday morning. I was not surprised to learn that, on at least two occasions, the Monday morning train was cancelled. I am told that, on other Monday mornings, the train was absolutely empty. Running a train just once a week is not much of a service. Instead of running a train on a Monday morning, this year British Rail has run it on a Friday morning—no doubt to improve the service. Again, I am told that virtually nobody travels on the train.
  It is nonsense for British Rail to claim that it is providing a service between Stockport and Manchester, Victoria to meet its statutory requirements when it runs only one train per week. British Rail should be honest with Parliament and say that it is seeking to withdraw that passenger service. Indeed, it should go ahead and withdraw it because that is what it is effectively doing with that nonsense of one train a week. That is typical of British Rail's lack of interest in the Greater Manchester network. Unless it can get a subsidy from the local authority, British Rail is clearly not prepared to provide a service.
  The Minister has proudly said from the Dispatch Box that the Government have increased the number of railway lines. The line from Stockport to Manchester, Victoria will be included in that increase, but how can a service that comprises only one train a week count, especially when it is sometimes cancelled?
  Mr. Prescott: Is the service paid for by the local authority?
  Mr. Bennett: No, not in this case. The service has no subsidy.
  My next point relates to the Brinnington service. Again, we have heard a fanfare from British Rail that that station, for which the Government claim credit although it was provided by the local authority, is to benefit from an improved half-hourly service. I very much welcome that. However, many of my constituents, who travel from Brinnington to Reddish on that line, have found that, instead of there being an improved service at Reddish, alternate trains do not stop there. That means that there is a half-hourly service from Brinnington to Manchester via Reddish, but that Reddish has only an hourly service. I understand that it would take an extra two minutes for the train to stop at Reddish, but British Rail apparently feels that that two-minute delay is not worthwhile. The result is that my constituents who want to travel from Brinnington to Reddish cannot do so.
  Many people in Reddish think that, because there is only an hourly service, they might as well forget about
  1166
  using British Rail. The result is more cars going into Manchester, where the parking problems are increasing. If there is only an hourly service, those who are going shopping have to fit in their errands extremely well so that they can be back in time for a train. One can be more flexible with a service that runs every half hour or every 20 minutes because, if one misses one train, one will not have to wait long for another. I plead with British Rail to reconsider the case of Reddish and to provide a good service.
  The general level of British Rail's local services in the Greater Manchester area is simply not good enough. There are repeated delays and cancellations and the service is generally unreliable. The result is the people find alternative ways of travelling.
  My next point is a personal plea on behalf of Members of Parliament. Ever since I came to the House in 1974, there has been a sleeper service from London to Manchester. British Rail has threatened to withdraw it on several occasions and we have used various devices to try to stop it doing so. We have objected to private Bills and lobbied British Rail hard. Two years ago, it came up with a proposal to run sleepers one way and to send them back empty the other way.
  Now we hear rumours from the sleeping car attendants that, from October, the sleeper service to Manchester will be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), on behalf of the north-west group of Labour Members of Parliament, has written to British Rail and a meeting has been set up for the 23rd of this month. But we still cannot get firm information from British Rail about the sleeper service to Manchester. It would be a tragedy if that service were withdrawn—not only because many Members of Parliament use it on a Thursday night to return to their constituencies, but because it is a well-used service.
  It is interesting to note the way in which over the years British Rail has slowly eroded the service. In 1974 when I first used the service passengers could stay on the train when it reached London or Manchester until 8 am. In order to save a little money in pay to the sleeping car attendants British Rail cut that and passengers had to be off the train at 7.30 am at both ends. Then that was cut back to 7 am. If someone is going up to Manchester for a day's work, it is not very attractive to have to get off the train at 7 am and find something to do in Manchester for one and a half hours before going to a meeting. British Rail made a small saving but cut the service. It has eroded the service in other small ways.
  I simply make a plea that the service should be retained for the benefit not only of Members of Parliament but of many other people who find it convenient. The more that British Rail cuts such services, the more that people who have to go to Manchester will think, "Why not fly up?" If one has a meeting in Manchester at 9 am, one must either fly up or take the sleeper. If one flies up, one might as well fly back.
  We have been told that British Rail intends to consider providing sleeper services from the north of England to Europe. If it is considering such a service it seems odd that it cannot maintain a sleeper service from Manchester to London. I make a plea to it to ensure that the sleeper service is continued for the short term. Perhaps, in the longer term, British Rail could consider integrating the sleeper service from Manchester to London with a sleeper service on from London to Europe.

  1167
  We are debating investment in British Rail. If the nation wants good passenger services it must put the money in. I welcome the Government's conversion in principle to rail, but I argue strongly that they must match that conversion by putting up the money. We need investment, not the stale arguments of the Secretary of State about privatising British Rail. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East firmly developed the argument that we would not have alternative railway lines competing with each other as we had last century. The most that we could have would be private firms providing a service on those railway lines. I make a plea for the level of investment in British Rail in the next 10 years which we should have had in the past 10 years.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that the Bill is welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the implications of the Bill for the north-west of England. I shall restrict my remarks to how the Bill will affect the Principality of Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) has already made some interesting references to Wales. Like him, I am a valleys Member of Parliament. Perhaps I should say "velleys", but the public address system at Newport station is not quite as yuppified as it is in the capital city of Wales.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East made a statesmanlike speech. He made some important points about the need for a consensus about the development of policy on the railways. In the past few years there have been some important developments in railways in Wales which I and many of my colleagues in Wales welcome. For example, there are more trains and they are more frequent and more modern. The 1960s stock has gradually been replaced despite some severe teething problems with the new sprinters.
  Some new lines, have opened around the Cardiff, area and in the Aberdare valley, while other lines, such as the one from Maesteg to Cardiff have been planned. Despite some problems, the 125 inter-city train from London to Cardiff, and vice versa, is still in general a good service. Some new signalling has been put in and a new pumping station has been built at the Severn tunnel. There have also been several improvements to some stations in both north and south Wales at Holyhead, Queen Street station in Cardiff and Caerphilly.
  I must confess that I thought that the Secretary of State's speech was singularly partisan. His points about privatisation did not hit the right note, certainly for Wales. Many of us in the Principality believe that breaking up British Rail into sectors was fattening the calf for privatisation. The effect of that has been many of our services in Wales which are, indeed, under the control of the so-called provincial sector of British Rail have been put in serious jeopardy.
  One source in Wales was recently quoted as saying:
  "Trains are available but no staff; staff are available but no trains; and in many areas, neither staff nor trains."
  Trains are delayed and staff are not used to the best advantage. Several inter-city trains have been rerouted via Bristol Parkway to avoid paying the cost to the provincial sector of going through Lydney to south Wales.
  1168
  Splitting up British rail into sectors has been nothing but bad news for the Principality. Several of our rail systems, especially in south Wales, have been adversely affected by sectorisation. For example, there are no railway lines in the valley of Gwent. Almost a quarter of a million people reside in those valleys. At the top of the western valley is the town of Ebbw Vale, which next year will be the site of the national garden festival. A line which is used by freight could go from Newport up the valley to Ebbw Vale. Yet the line is not being utilised, despite the obvious need for extra passenger services at the time of the garden festival.
  There is no railway line in my valley—the eastern valley of Gwent. There is no proper line in the Vale of Glamorgan, which is becoming the commuter area for the capital city of Wales. There is no link to Wales's airport, the Cardiff-Wales airport close to the capital city. There is a railway line within spitting distance of the airport, but no proper link between the airport and the city.
  Some valley services are inadequate. In my constituency, Pontypool station, formerly one of Wales' great junctions, has had its service severely cut in the past few weeks for wholly unacceptable reasons—despite the claim by British Rail that there are
  "improved service patterns, especially in the valleys"—
  certainly not in my area, but I hope that there will be improvements.
  There is still a great need for better signalling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said. Some trains are overcrowded, and there are not enough of them. There are poor luggage facilities at some stations, which suffer from a lack of staffing—even complete destaffing—and the policy of open stations has led to loss of revenue, to poor information and to tragic cases of vandalism and violence.
  Wales needs a better north-south link, new lines, improved stations and more facilities for disabled people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) said. Waiting accommodation needs improvement, and new stations should be built between Port Talbot and Llanelli and at Magor and Portskewett.
  Some of our stations are nothing more than what we in our youth used to call railway halts. Amazingly, when a new halt is built nowadays, it attracts the same sort of enthusiasm as the great stations built by our Victorian grandfathers did in the past century. I sometimes wonder what would happen if those who built the great embankments, cutings, viaducts and railway lines came back and saw what had happened to them—they would be scandalised.
  The hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), in their engaging speeches, referred to the new European dimension, which represents the challenge of the next few years for Wales. We are on the periphery and we need new Euro-terminals with customs clearance for rail freight at Newport, Cardiff, Swansea and Holyhead. We need to re-examine the idea —even though British Rail has dismissed it—of electrifying the main line from Holyhead through north Wales to Crewe and down to London. That is a main European rail route, not only for Wales and the United Kingdom but for the Republic of Ireland.
  It is scandalous that Wales will not have a daytime through service from the main centres of south Wales direct to Paris and Brussels when the channel tunnel opens. British Rail and the Government should reconsider that.

  1169
  Wales should have its fair share of any extra funding that the Bill may provide. One of the greatest villains in modern Welsh history was Lord Beeching, who closed down many lines. Over the past 20 or 30 years we have found to our cost that those lines could have been used for railways, roads and other useful purposes.
  We are heading into a new era and another century. I hope that all Governments, whether Conservative or the new Labour Government, will use the opportunity to introduce a modern, integrated transport system to the Principality in which rail will play a major and vital role.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am a great railway enthusiast and the founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley railway preservation society, which successfully took over a five-mile branch line and undertook the maintenance of engines, rolling stock, track, bridges, tunnels and fencing. So in a small way I have helped to preserve five miles of railway that would otherwise have been turned into a linear tip, just like many other miles of railway. So I have experience of and a background in railway work.
  It was wonderful that so many rail workers took part in developing the railway in their spare time. Many rail workers—they are often much maligned—are devoted enthusiasts in the cause of providing the highest standards of railway service. Unfortunately, because of Government-imposed financial limitations, they are often inhibited in that task. Many British Rail managers have the same attitude, but some are critically regarded by the workers who meet the public and run the trains for seeming less in touch than they should be with the needs of the railway.
  Conservative Members talk glibly of privatisation, which has never happened to the railways since they began. In 1829, when the Manchester to Liverpool Rainhill trials were held and the Rocket proved such a far-sighted and advanced design, there were moves to allow every railway operator access to the tracks. However, it was realised that that was not possible on safety grounds. There developed more than 100 private railway operators, which means a highly inefficient and badly organised system, although the railways owned clearing houses to move privately owned wagons from one network to another. It was cumbersome and bureaucratic, so the Conservative Government passed a compulsory amalgamation Act to create the London and North Eastern railway, the London Midland Scottish, the Southern railway and the Great Western railway.
  On that basis, in the post-war period, the railway system was brought into public ownership. That was much needed, because it has been run down greatly, not as a result of a particularly wayward attitude by the railway owners but because of the enormous tasks that they had undertaken during the war. In the post-war period, there was not the necessary private capital to refurbish railways, and a public effort was needed.
  Mr. Gregory: I have been following the hon. Gentleman with considerable interest. The crucial point that he is making about denationalisation is an historic one. However, in modern transport terms, the analogy should be with the airlines. It would be possible to
  1170
  denationalise the railways by having something like the Civil Aviation Authority in control of the track and signalling, and then having private operators to move freight and passengers, just as we have with maximum safety and security with the Orient Express and InterCity.
  Mr. Cryer: All sorts of consequences would arise from such a system. Routes would be selected so that favoured customers and friends of the Conservative Government would receive the creamed-off profitable routes. The rural routes would have constantly to struggle for public subsidy, even if companies came forward to take them over.
  The only motivation in the system outlined by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) is profit. Some railway lines will never make a profit, but they provide valuable public services. How will that be calculated? There will be a continual battle, and energy will be wasted when we should be retaining a public service of the highest standard. We should not be arguing over which company has the best routes so as to make the most profit. The argument should be about how to provide the best standard of public service, because that would improve the morale of the workers, managers and the users.
  I shall elaborate briefly on the purpose of the publicly owned network. In a privatised concern, who would take over the hundreds of disused railway viaducts, which are part of British Rail's maintenance problem? They are all listed structures and cannot simply be bulldozed out of existence. Often, it would be difficult to bulldoze them anyway, because they straddle reservoirs, so building rubble cannot be allowed to drop on the land because of the catchment areas. British Rail also has hundreds of listed buildings that are stations, which it has to maintain although the funds to do so are in short supply.
  It is not true that British Rail has no additional obligations over and above the general one of running a service. That is not to say that British Rail is not trying to dispose of these burdens to local authorities or trusts so that people who are devoted to the preservation of these important structures can concentrate on that. Where it is reasonable so to do, British Rail can discard those obligations and get on with its primary task of providing a decent public service.
  Having given that brief background, I wish to focus the attention of the House and, especially, the Minister on the proposal for electrification of the Bradford line. The Bradford chamber of commerce—which I suppose, although I do not know, contains a majority of Conservative rather than Labour supporters—strongly supports the electrification scheme, as does the Labour-controlled Bradford council. The scheme would cover the Leeds, Shipley, Bradford, Foster Square route, the Leeds, Bradford, Shipley, Keighley, Skipton route—the Airedale service—and the Leeds, Bradford, Ilkley route—the Wharfedale service. It would enable a fast, reliable local service to operate on all three routes. Most important, it would allow the InterCity electric services to run on to Bradford from London. In the longer term, it would allow channel tunnel trains to operate from Bradford.
  As the Minister knows, Bradford is the primary city of Yorkshire. It is the queen of Yorkshire cities, but it has been pushed down the scale of railway services during the past 10 to 15 years. For example, it no longer has a freight depot of any significance. The Post Office has to use lorries to carry parcels to either Preston or Leeds because loading

  1171
  facilities at the Bradford interchange are not adequate. It is absurd that parcels should be transported by road when there is a railway facility in Bradford which, with a small amount of investment, could accommodate the significant parcels traffic in Bradford—which is the home for a large number of mail order companies. We want money to be invested in that sort of project so that lorry traffic can be kept at as low a level as possible.
  Under a £400 million electrification scheme, InterCity trains run from London to Leeds, but they then have to be hauled to Bradford by a diesel electric locomotive. That is uneconomic and inefficient. It slows down the trains and hinders the development of a good, fast, electric service from Bradford to London. That is why electrification is so important.
  I shall explain the background to the proposal. In April 1990, the Government said that no decision was possible on the scheme until the public expenditure negotiations were completed in November 1990. British Rail negotiated an option on the trains with fixed terms of purchase until May this year. Last November, the Government gave credit approvals for the infrastructure—the overhead catenary—and lineside structures, but not the trains. The passenger transport authority advised the government that it would use operating leases to acquire the trains because the rental payments would not count as capital expenditure. In May, the Minister wrote to the PTA saying that operating leases may be reclassified by the Government as capital expenditure, with retrospective effect. That ruled out that form of finance.
  Councillor Mick Lyons wrote to the Minister on 22 May saying:
  "It is fair to say that we have pursued the acquisition of the trains by means of an operating lease not as a first preference (although competitive terms are available) but because the credit approvals you gave for the scheme last November never made any allowance for the trains. Operating leases were therefore the only form of finance in which resources could be made available. You have now advised me that it would be imprudent to rely on this form of finance because of possible changes by the Government to the regulations affecting borrowing."
  That means that the delay is entirely the Government's responsibility. Since the Government have ruled out other forms of finance, they must, as a matter of urgency, give credit approvals for trains.
  One important aspect that I must mention is that the passenger transport authority is still exploring with the manufacturers whether an order can be delayed until November and whether there will be a cost in doing that. If there is a cost, will the Government meet it, because it will be due to their delay? The concomitant of that is that trains will be built in Leeds by Hunslet. If there is not a continuous programme of carriage construction, that will inevitably lead to redundancies from a team of skilled workers who have the production organised to maintain high standards of output and productivity, which is what I am sure we all want.
  I want briefly to mention two other points about credit approvals. When passenger transport authorities borrow to finance investment, they have to pass on the cost of servicing the debt which falls on the revenue account to the district councils as part of the annual levy. Usually the Government allow for that in setting the district councils' standard spending assessments, because the credit approvals given to the passenger transport authority are included in the SSA for servicing debt for each district.
  1172
  However, one of the problems is that the Government are treating only part of the expenditure as trading and the other part as capital expenditure. In the view of the passenger transport authority, the reality is that the services lose money. They will continue to do so after the investment, but the electrification will reduce the deficit. The services are among the most heavily used in West Yorkshire, and the Government accept that closure is completely out of the question. Electrification shows an 8 per cent. return compared with the base case, but the surplus which it earns is needed to reduce the operating deficit. It is not a profit that can be used to service the debt, so that service will fall on the district councils.
  I think, and the passenger transport authority has made representations along these lines to me, that the Government should agree to give credit approvals to cover the full capital cost of the scheme and classify the credit approvals as non-trading. Otherwise, if district councils are required to pay for the cost of electrification—this is a great danger, as the Minister knows—they will face capping and cuts in their services. If that happened, the district councils would naturally be presented with an invidious set of priorities and might feel bound to refuse to pay their contribution.
  British Rail has to make a contribution to the cost of the electrification scheme. That is under negotiation, but does the Bill enable British Rail to make its contribution to the electrification scheme? There has been some suggestion of a moratorium imposed by the Treasury on British Rail's investment plans. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out, the Bill is to stop British Rail drifting to a point of virtual bankruptcy. Public corporations do not go into bankruptcy, but that would be its technical position. Therefore, this will be extra investment. Does the Bill allow for investment by British Rail in the Bradford electrification scheme, so that its proportion of the scheme can be retained and maintained? If it does not, the scheme could well be in jeopardy.
  There is a great deal of good will in Bradford, Leeds and the surrounding area towards the electrification scheme. The Minister also has good will towards the scheme, but he must realise that the Government will look extremely foolish if they give consent only for the overhead wiring, but not for the stock to run under it.
  I will tell the Minister what it is like to travel from Leeds to Bradford at peak times on the existing diesel multiple unit services. The trains are so crowded that people have to press together to allow the doors to be closed. Once the doors are closed, passengers can step down into the well and breathe a little more easily. It is not possible to move along the gangways of the coaches because they are absolutely packed. Trains start out from Leeds in that way, and passengers get off and on at the stations up the Aire valley line and from Leeds to the Bradford interchange. Those passengers should know that the overcrowding is caused by the Government's failure to give the electrification scheme authorisation.
  With electrification, a more rapid service would be provided. Electric traction has a greater acceleration than diesel multiple units. There would be a cleaner and more comfortable service, and the diesel multiple units already in operation could be cascaded down on to services that are not electrified in the West Yorkshire region, which would provide a better standard of service there. All the railways in the area would have a better standard of service

  1173
  and would generate extra passenger use and revenue. The Minister must recognise how important it is for him to battle with the Treasury, or with anyone else who is to hand and who is blocking the authorisation, so that the electrification scheme can go ahead. That will ensure that West Yorkshire has the train service that its people need and deserve.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: This has been an interesting debate, which started off in a somewhat surprising way. As my hon. Friends have said, the Secretary of State spent the first five or six minutes of his speech in outlining the basic thinking behind the Bill—the need to increase the borrowing powers of British Rail—and then spent an extra 35 minutes cross-examining my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about the Labour party's policy and what we will do when we come into government. That is rather a role reversal. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about the Government's plans in the last few remaining months in which he occupies his post and in which the Government remain in power.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East set out in some detail the Labour party's policies and philosophy towards the railway industry. He surprised and pleased a few hon. Members, both Conservative and Labour, by the radical nature of those policies, although I appreciate that for certain Conservative Members yesterday's ideological battle is all important whereas the reality of running a railway in the 1990s and planning railway policy does not matter very much.
  In some ways, it is surprising that the Bill has been so long in coming. Although I may have a few harsh words to say about certain British Rail managers and certain policies, I should pay some tribute to their financial acumen. They have kept things going, albeit on a shoestring, for many years. British Rail has survived since 1982 on the Transport (Finance) Act 1982. It has survived, if not prospered, at a time when inflation has increased costs by 75 per cent. through an ingenious system of increasing efficiency, a dramatic increase in real terms in fares, a reduction in manpower and, at least during the short-lived boom years, the sale of property assets.
  In many respects, the Bill represents a watershed—a central and inherent failure in Government policy. What price privatisation now? According to the Secretary of State's figures and some of the statements made by BR's newish chairman, BR needs investment of more than £1 billion per annum: in the chairman's opinion, it will need £2 billion per annum over the next few years. I shall not argue about the odd billion, because I do not wish to disturb the tranquillity with which the debate has largely been conducted.
  Mr. Gregory: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Snape: No, no, I have not even started yet. I shall, however, be dealing in some detail with the hon. Gentleman's remarks later. They elevated parliamentary buffoonery to a fine art, and I want to refute all the factual errors that he made—although I fear, Madam Deputy
  1174
  Speaker, that I may detain the House for far too long if I do so. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's contribution —if I may dignify it with that description—in a moment.
  The Government still claim that the privatisation of the railways is, like the poll tax, a flagship of their policy. No doubt it will go the same way as that earlier flagship, but no matter. According to the figures that we have been given, the industry needs some £600 million of support per annum. Indeed, InterCity is the only sector that is in profit, and it is in profit only because of the financial regulations that force it to charge the highest passenger rail fares in western Europe.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pointed out, the fact that InterCity's receipts have held up so well in recent years can be credited partly to the quality of the service that is sometimes provided —although it is not provided often enough for me—but also to the disadvantages of road travel, which, to say the least, is also a frustrating and congestion-ridden business.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us—if he cannot, perhaps the Secretary of State will whisper in his ear how this great flagship, privatisation, will set sail, given the stormy financial seas that I have just described. I want to ask the Minister one or two more specific questions. In the eight years for which I have been doing this job, I have listened to and participated in many railway debates. As well as witnessing the yah-boo politics typified by the Secretary of State's speech today, I have heard from successive Secretaries of State—and, my goodness, they have come and gone like subalterns on the western front—about all the great improvements that the Government have made.
  Normally, when Opposition Members ask what has happened to a particular investment proposal or improvement scheme, the parrot cry comes back, "No such proposal is on my desk. I clear my desk regularly, and investment proposals are on and off it in a matter of days." We all know how true that is, because, after 12 years of Conservative government, we know how the game is played.
  Mr. Gregory rose—
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I shall be round to give him a verbal box on the ears in no time at all.
  Mr. Gregory rose—
  Mr. Snape: No, I will not give way, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. He made a speech that was riddled with factual errors, with which I shall deal in a moment; he then walked out, and was subsequently seen skulking in the Tea Room, having not even waited for the speech that followed his to finish.
  Mr. Gregory: No.
  Mr. Snape: That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman did: I watched him. Then, about 11 minutes ago, he returned to the Chamber, and immediately intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). The hon. Gentleman may think that we are all desperately hanging on his every word. I know that he will not be here much longer, but I must tell him that such is not the case. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a chance in a few moments. I must not be sidetracked, in railway parlance, by the hon. Gentleman's infrequent appearances in the Chamber.

  1175
  Can the Minister for Public Transport provide details of the investment submissions that are in the pipeline, whether or not they are on his desk? Would approval for the Bill lead to the go-ahead for the inter-city 250 scheme for the west coast main line? Those of us who regularly use the train service between Birmingham and Euston are aware of its deficiencies. Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House I, too, have suffered during the last two weeks. The Monday before last, I missed Transport questions owing to a derailment the previous day and a signal failure—the usual hurdles one has to jump, again to mix metaphors, on passenger journeys from Birmingham. Having been diverted via Coventry and Nuneaton and arriving at Euston an hour and a half after I expected, I was unable to hear the customary soothing words of wisdom of the Secretary of State and the Minister for Public Transport.
  I should appreciate it if the Minister could tell me whether approval for the Bill will lead to progress towards electrification of the line and modernisation of the signalling system that dates back to the 1960s. Can he tell us about the Heathrow express link, the Civil Aviation Authority report notwithstanding, and whether there is to be progress on that in the near future? Can he also tell us about the Manchester airport link, approval for which was given in the House, largely thanks to the campaign fought by my hon. Friends with constituencies in the north-west of England, two years ago? No doubt we shall be told that the proposal is not yet on the Minister's desk. If it is not on his desk, it is under some civil servant's desk. Perhaps the Minister will reach under that civil servant's desk, extract the proposal and tell us about the likely fate of the project.
  Other projects are in the pipeline. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to Ashford international station, which I understand is to be included in the British Railways (No. 3) Bill which the House is to debate next Tuesday. Can the Minister say when building is likely to commence, once parliamentary approval has been granted? Apart from King's Cross and the Kent coast Networker, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South talked about the Aire valley electrification scheme. Finally, there is crossrail.
  The public service obligation limit of £3 billion will last only for five years at the current rate of expenditure. Does the Secretary of State expect to increase it, or is the Government's original intention to phase it out to be adhered to during that five-year period? If so, can the Government provide us with some facts? My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East provided us with many facts and policies that will be adopted by the Labour party.
  If the Government intend to phase out the PSO, they ought to have the courage to say so. They ought to say to the, regrettably, largely Conservative-voting populace who use the various former southern region stations—now part of Network SouthEast—that that commitment will mean, according to our estimate, a 45 per cent. increase, in real terms, in rail fares if Network SouthEast is to break even.
  I hope that the Minister will come clean and tell us whether that is still the Government's intention. Will he and his Conservative party colleagues be honest enough to say that on the doorsteps of Network SouthEast voters during the forthcoming election campaign? I shall let him into a secret. If they are not prepared to do that, we are.
  1176
  If that is the Government's policy, the Minister should say so tonight. If it is not, it will mean that there has been a U-turn. That would enable the Opposition to comment upon it. Then we should know exactly where the Government stand.
  What is the Minister's and the Department's position regarding the chairman of British Rail's reasonable request for an additional £340 million external financing limit for this year? Will the Department make that sum available? The chairman of British Rail made that request to the Select Committee on Transport only last week. All of us are familiar with the refrain that some British Rail managers have used over and over again during the last few years: that they have enough investment money to be going on with and that they cannot cope with any more. Obviously the chairman of British Rail feels that he could cope, because he requested that extra £340 million only last week.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East talked about British Rail's borrowing powers and about a future Labour Government's anxiety to involve private sector capital in some of the projects, as is done in other EEC countries. If our figures are correct, British Rail's asset base is about £12 billion. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that borrowing powers of about £3 billion are relatively modest in relation to that sum and it would not by any stretch of the imagination break the bank if British Rail was allowed greater borrowing powers.
  The Secretary of State talked about the value of competition. I am always interested when the Conservative party talks about competition. It is a doctrine that it espouses frequently but practises rarely. Conservative Members make great play of the effects of their privatisation proposals. However, those proposals have rarely brought about any additional competition. In fact, the reverse is often the case.
  As many people have commented, the public monopolies have been replaced by private ones. The Secretary of State mentioned the London-Birmingham route. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) is a great fan of the former Great Western railway. No doubt his eyes clouded over at the thought of kings, halls and castles making their way along the former Great Western line.
  However, that competition led to great financial problems for the former railway companies. It is what Mr. Alfred Barnes, the first Labour Minister of Transport, described as the
  "pretty poor bag of assets"
  that the nation inherited after nationalisation in 1948. That sort of ruinous and outdated competition brought the railway companies to such a sorry state.
  I do not believe—and .I am sure that the Secretary of State does not believe—that the restoration of kings, halls and castles is the way forward for British Rail's inter-city services in the 1990s. Perhaps the minister will clarify what the Government mean by competition now.
  I have put to the Minister some specific questions about investment in new rolling stock. I hope that he will answer them and once again announce the Government's new found conversion to the principle of transferring freight from road to rail. The Minister could do one or two things to bring that pious hope towards reality. As long ago as 1977, the Leitch committee recommended that investment criteria for road and rail should be judged on the same basis. Fourteen years later, we still have the cost-benefit

  1177
  analysis system for road building that I am not sure anybody understands, including successive permanent secretaries at the Department of Transport. Any railway project must be justified on the ground of an 8 per cent. return on the capital investment. I return to that subject in the vain hope that the Government will do something about the criteria for both modes of transport.
  In many city councils the road builders, road repairers, borough surveyors and directors of technical services—to give them their proper and suitably salaried title—reign supreme. However, even there there is a growing knowledge that building more and more roads in the hope of catering for more and more cars and road transport is not the way forward and cannot continue for much longer. The city engineer in Birmingham, Mr. Derek Rawson, told me recently that he had met some regional officials from the Department of Transport to suggest that Birmingham should look at its transport requirements in various parts of the region on a corridor basis to decide how best expenditure on road, rail, park and ride, and so on could tackle the problems of congestion.
  That is a progressive view from someone who, for understandable reasons, has spent most of his highly qualified working life in the road building and repair business. He told me that not only did the Department of Transport's regional office show little interest in such an approach but almost said, "It is not our business to worry about such things; our business is to decide what needs to be done to the road network and to get on with it." We have often said that the Department of Transport is a misnomer. There is no way of considering transport requirements on a corridor basis or of deciding how best to provide a transport system that will prevent a city from seizing up.
  One of the reasons why Birmingham is so concerned is that the opening of the M40 has attracted much extra traffic to Birmingham, yet because of the half-baked way in which we plan—or do not plan—such matters, when traffic leaves the M40 it is the city council's job to disperse or to dispose of it. There is no coherent method of planning park-and-ride stations, so that after leaving the M40, motorists can leave their cars at the first convenient point and take public transport into the city. It is British Rail's responsibility to provide and to fund such facilities. That is exactly why we are here today.
  The Secretary of State trotted out a few supposed facts and figures about new lines and stations. He should check his brief better before he reads it. I make allowances for the fact that somebody else wrote it. If he wrote it himself, he is more worthy of castigation than my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East suggested—no Observer mace for him. Although his delivery was excellent, I cannot give him more than two out of 10 for content.
  Mr. Gregory rose—
  Mr. Snape: I will deal with York shortly; I am dealing with the more important speeches.
  The Secretary of State made great play of the railway lines that had been opened under the Government.
  Mr. Gregory: And country stations.
  Mr. Snape: Country stations as well, yes.
  1178
  In the 1980s, several former freight-only lines were opened or restored for passenger use. Apart from one stretch of line provided by British Coal, all the other services have been paid for by British Rail from its own resources or, more usually, by BR and local authorities. None of the lines has received any direct support from the Government. If the Secretary of State, who I notice is getting a little restless, has contrary information, he should give it to us.
  The Secretary of State said that about 163 stations had opened or reopened since the sad day when the Government were elected. More than half have been paid for in whole or in part by passenger transport executives. Most of the other stations were paid for by county councils and a handful of British Rail. None has been opened thanks to any direct Government help, so although it is a fine debating point, and perhaps worth three out of 10 in the debating competition, it is not valid in debates on financing railway lines and stations.
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) talked about the teething troubles on the east coast main line—at least, I hope that is what he talked about. It is early days, and we hope that the investment in that line will result in faster and more reliable services. He also spoke of cuts in rural services and of the dilemma that we face in trying to obtain information from the Government and that British Rail's management face in running services despite an ever-declining PSO grant. I hope that the Minister will reply to that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke of bus substitution and early and late services. Regional railways must save money on the periphery of their operations simply because it is so tight. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us whether the passing of this financial measure will ease that burden.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) understandably talked about the channel tunnel and the high-speed link. I hope that he will not feel that I am being unduly cynical if, while congratulating him on the assiduous way in which he represents his constituents' interests, I say that, if everyone behaved as he did, there would never be a tunnel rail link. The general view appears to be that such a link is necessary but not in one's own constituency.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: Although I and my constituents do not think that the link should run through south-east London because that is the wrong route, other districts are saying, "Please come through our constituency," because they can benefit from it. This is not a NIMBY syndrome but a PIMBY syndrome—please come through my backyard.
  Mr. Snape: Transport planning cannot be decided properly on the basis of which hon. Member wishes the rail link to pass through his constituency, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's case that the link should not pass through his part of London. The sooner there is a statement and the sooner we are put out of our misery the better, so I hope that the Minister of State will give us some idea of when a statement will be made.
  I deal now with the contribution of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who I know is anxious to intervene again to give us the benefit of his great knowledge, which was no doubt acquired while playing

  1179
  trains with his nanny in the nursery many years ago. The facts and figures that he trotted out were united by one factor—they were all wrong.
  He talked first about the progress that Amtrak had made when compared to British Rail. The hon. Member for Christchurch put him in his place rather cruelly, although what he said was true. If Amtrak demonstrates the financial prowess of the private sector railroad system in the United States, the hon. Member for York is turning reality on its head. If the hon. Gentleman could tell me between which two American cities Amtrak provides a service that is even remotely comparable to that between York and King's Cross, I should be surprised.
  Mr. Gregory rose—
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman then spoke about British Rail's disability panel and said that there was no blind person on the panel. That is wrong: there is at least one blind member. He went on to speak about punctuality and stated that inter-city trains that arrive within 20 minutes of the book time are regarded as being on time. That is also wrong, because the time allowed is 10 minutes—it used to be five minutes, but it is now 10.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned compensation and the citizens charter, and said that the Prime Minister was the first person to think of such a charter. However, we strongly suspect that he had not thought of a citizens charter until he read about it in a Labour party policy document. The hon. Gentleman was wrong about money. He said that all inter-city trains must have two men in the cab, which is true only for trains travelling at, I think, more than 100 or 110 mph. It was largely at the insistence of the railway inspectorate that there must be two qualified drivers in the cab, because it is said that that is a safer way to proceed.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the need for more commercialism at railway stations. He is such a philistine that I can hardly wait for Mr. Hugh Bayley to be elected as the Member of Parliament for York, and I have a feeling that that will not be too long. York station is one of the few to have survived the architectural nonsense of the 1960s and 1970s. The original building is largely intact, and the fact that the hon. Member for York wants to fill it with shops selling ties, knickers and hot dogs to the detriment of those of us who wish merely to buy a ticket and catch a train—these days, we are usually the last people to be considered at railway stations—merely illustrates the depth of the intellectual buffoonery in which the hon. Gentleman indulges.
  Mr. Gregory: I shall be as brief as I can, and I shall not descend to personal abuse. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will shortly be returning to the signal box which he left to come here.
  I shall answer his questions as quickly as I can. He asked for an example of a good service provided by Amtrak, and I commend to him the journey between Boston and New York, which would honour any two inter-city stations. I am afraid that, on the matter of punctuality, the hon. Gentleman cannot have been following parliamentary questions very carefully. I refer him to the parliamentary answers given on 20 March 1991 and 8 December 1988, which refer to 10 minutes on either side. That comes to a total of 20 minutes, which is on time.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to commercialisation. We are debating the Second Reading of an important Bill
  1180
  dealing with the further funding and financing of British Rail. I trust and hope that a happy partnership between the private and public sectors will be in the best interests of York aned other cities. Finally, I hope that I shall continue to represent the great city of York for many years to come—long after the hon. Gentleman has retired from the House.
  Mr. Snape: I was fascinated by that intervention. Two 10s do make 20; it is perfectly true. But if I am to return to my signal box, I must say that, with clock-watching like that, I am certainly not having the hon. Member for York as my signal box lad. I fear that the train register book would be conspicuous by its inaccuracy if I passed the hon. Gentleman a biro and let him anywhere near it.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend gave a comprehensive account of the faults of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory). Does he recall that the hon. Gentleman referred to the sole cafeteria on York station? That does not suggest a close or intimate knowledge of York station. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman goes more frequently by road when he makes his somewhat tardy journeys. There are two cafeterias on York station, both of which provide a decent service to those who trouble to go to the station in the first place.
  Mr. Snape: It would seem that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic regarding the number of cafeterias is at least as good as his clock-watching capability.
  Mr. Prescott: Perhaps it is in two halves.
  Mr. Snape: The restaurant is probably in two halves, and that makes only one in the quaint system of mathematics that the hon. Gentleman uses.
  Mr. Cryer: They are six platforms apart.
  Mr. Snape: They are six platforms apart, as my hon. Friend said.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) who, alas, is not with us, gave us a proper definition of the EC proposals, which are not about rampant privatisation, as the Secretary of State suggested earlier.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) also asked some questions about the provision of freight facilities in the north-west. We understood that an announcement was imminent in respect of Guide Bridge or any other site in the north-west. I should be grateful if the Minister could let us know exactly what the situation is with regard to channel tunnel freight facilities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) gave us a comprehensive list of the railway deficiencies in Wales and, again, I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that, welcome though iris, the Bill will go only a small way towards remedying those deficiencies. We need far more.
  I hope that, given the comprehensive nature of the reply that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East gave to the Secretary of State earlier, we shall hear from the Minister a little less of the politicking of which his right hon. and learned Friend was guilty earlier and a little more detail of exactly how the money that we are to approve tonight will be spent. It is a new departure for a least some of us to be united about the need for the proper financing, both public and private, of Britain's railway network.

  1181
  Notwithstanding the attitude of some of the neanderthals on the Government Back Benches, there was much cross-party agreement about the necessity for the Bill. That is why Opposition Members welcome and support the Bill and hope that, in the Government's last few months in office, we shall get some more sensible and comprehensive plans for the future of our railway industry than we have had for the past decade or more.
  9.53 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Let me reassure some of my hon. Friends that I do not intend to seek to compress my reply into six minutes. Given that the 10 o'clock business motion will be moved, I am sure that the House will want me to deal properly and succinctly with the points raised. That is precisely what I intend to do. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) chided me earlier, saying that, at a recent conference, I had spent all my time trying to answer the points that had been raised—in a sense, winding up the conference. I make no apologies for that, or for seeking to answer the points that have been raised tonight. That is the purpose of a parliamentary debate.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked about investment projects. It might be for the convenience of the House if I remind hon. Members that on order at the moment for delivery within the next three years are 112 locomotives, 1,361 coaches and 700 container wagons. With regard to major infrastructure projects for completion within the next three years, there are the platform extensions and other works in preparation for the introduction of Networker trains amounting to about £100 million; the construction of the Waterloo international terminal and the North Pole maintenance depot near Willesden amounting to £200 million; new sections of track and improvements to the existing track and signalling for the Waterloo approaches which will cost about £38 million. There will also be resignalling between Paddington and West Drayton. Those are some of the investment projects that will be covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Roger Moate: With regard to investment projects, will my hon. Friend the Minister help me and other Kent Members and explain why it is taking so long to get the Networker express project under way? I have campaigned for the project for months, yet my hon. Friend informed me in a written answer the other day that British Rail has still not even presented a formal investment proposal to the Government. We can see no reason why there should be a delay. Is there something wrong with the procedures which have caused us to become tied up in endless bureaucracy before that important project can get under way?
  Mr. Freeman: The investment programme for the Kent link trains—trains from the suburbs and the towns closest to London—is likely to cost about £700 million. Most of the carriages are on order, although some vehicles remain to be approved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Once the ordering programme is complete, BR can, and I am sure will, consider the Kent coastal trains. It will take about two years to build the
  1182
  rolling stock. Even if the order was placed within the next few months, the trains would not come into service much before 1993–94.
  I can confirm that the project is a high priority for British Rail. I have visited some of the stations and met some of my hon. Friends and I know how important the improvement of the service is to them. However, it is for British Rail to prioritise its investment. I hope that in reviewing its investment programme following this year's autumn statement, British Rail might be able to make more positive progress with that particular project.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked where we stood on several important projects. British Rail has made good progress in negotiations with other European railways on a consortium order of intermodal wagons for the channel tunnel. I expect an investment proposition in the autumn, when negotiations are complete. Most of the freight terminals for the channel tunnel will probably not require investment approval by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
  The current cost estimate for Ashford is £150 million. British Rail is looking very carefully at whether it is possible to separate that part of the expenditure needed in anticipation of the high-speed rail link and that part which is needed simply to service trains when the channel tunnel opens. That work has not finished yet. The sum of £150 million for a terminal to allow trains simply to stop at Ashford as soon as the tunnel opens is a very expensive proposition. We could not allow BR to begin the programme without knowing whether it could finish it.
  I expect an investment proposition for night trains to be put before the Department of Transport very shortly. Negotiations with GEC Alsthom continue for the seven day trains north of London that will be required. There has been no investment proposition yet from British Rail for the west coast mainline 250 service, although it is working on it. That is a programme for the mid-1990s.
  British Rail pays 20 per cent. of the cost of the Heathrow express project, and I hope that construction will begin very shortly. It is intended to deposit a Bill on the crossrail in November.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also referred to Treasury rules. As it is a most important point and I am sure that he would like there to be clarity on the subject, I have refreshed my mind about the speech that he made on the channel tunnel at the conference of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities on 4 July, when he said:
  "We will change the constraining Treasury rules to allow BR to raise money on the commercial markets".
  The House needs to know precisely what the hon. Gentleman, the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary have in mind—[Interruption]. I am trying to answer the question that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me about Treasury rules. He argued that at present there is constraint in the Treasury rules on borrowing—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Freeman: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on the business motion.
  The question whether British rail is allowed to borrow in the private market is not the central issue. It has that power today and borrows overdraft moneys from the private sector. It can borrow long term from the national loans fund because that is the cheapest form of gilt-edged borrowing. It is cheaper than borrowing in the market. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East can answer my question. If he cannot do so tonight, I shall write to him and seek his response in writing. The question is: if there was private sector borrowing of financing leases, which would be included in British Rail's balance sheet, would those be counted as public sector obligations and therefore controlled by the normal external financing limit rules?
  Mr. Prescott: The Minister must be aware of the Commission's recommendations on this point. It has stated that railway companies must have a compatibility in their financial frameworks and technical competency. Like all other European railways, British Rail should be able to go to the private market for finance. The Minister is trying to change the structure of those public sector industries by adjusting the equity capital base so that he knows the true asset value. The Minister may have to make those changes, and that may involve joint venture projects. As the Minister knows, I have mentioned two or three different schemes in various speeches.
  More importantly, are the Government saying that they are not prepared to adopt or even to think about any of those alternative ways of raising money from the private sector? British Rail is prevented from raising that money at present because of Treasury rules with which no other European railway has to contend. Those are the constraints that I want to change. Are the Government not prepared to consider that possibility?
  Mr. Freeman: The Government are anxious to promote —and do promote—true joint venture projects with the private sector. There are many examples of that, ranging from the extension of the docklands light railway to the construction of toll bridges.
  The hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. I asked him specifically: if British Rail borrowed from the private sector and that debt was on its balance sheet, would the shadow Chief Secretary and shadow Chancellor count that as a public sector obligation? Yes or no? The hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should answer the question—yes or no?
  Mr. Prescott: It is not a matter of a strict yes or no —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Those who know anything about financing such matters know that it is a question of judging whether such expenditure is considered to be part of the borrowing requirements that the Treasury is obliged to finance. It is a question of interpretation. It is not necessary for some arrangements because if British Rail was privatised completely and wanted to borrow [Interruption.] Does the Minister want to listen, or is he content just to look around proudly? It is strange that an accountant should think that questions about the financing of British Rail can be answered with a straight yes or no, when the very body to which he has referred has produced 40-odd pages to explain it. That
  1184
  work has been carried out by the top 100 firms of accountants in this country. It is all there if the Minister wants to read the technical jargon. He could, of course, read what I stated in the document, "Moving into Europe", which deals with the financing of the channel tunnel link, and which his Department bought off me for £75.
  Mr. Freeman: I am afraid that the House is still not enlightened. Perhaps I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman. The report to which he has referred does not answer the question. That is why it is wrong—
  Mr. Prescott: No.
  Mr. Freeman: But the report does not seek to answer the question. That is why I am answering the question that the City and taxpayers will ask and which the hon. Gentleman cannot answer.
  Let me make progress and answer some of the other points which have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked for a clear statement on the role of the railways. I am glad to repeat on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that we believe that rail has an important role to play in this decade, in not only relieving congestion on the roads but moving the freight of industry. It is a vital artery for the movement of our products abroad through the channel tunnel. We believe that rail has a most important part to play.
  My hon. Friend raised the investment appraisal regime. Now is not the time to go into the detail of the pros and cons of the present system of appraising rail investment projects versus road investment. The Department will publish shortly an academic paper which will explain how the present procedure works and why it is not possible to compare road investment programmes directly with rail investment programmes. I hope that the paper will help my hon. Friend.
  If we appraised road investment on a cost-benefit basis and appraised rail investment on exactly the same basis, what would happen? We would substantially increase the amount of road building. That is not what my hon. Friend wants and, I suspect, not what the House wants. At the end of the day, the balance between road and rail investment is a matter of ministerial judgment. For the next three years, as my right hon. and learned Friend has already announced, the balance is clearly on the side of rail investment. In the next three years, it is possible that British Rail, London Underground and light rapid transit systems will invest more than the total investment in the trunk road programme in England for the first time in 25 years.
  Mr. Snape: On the Minister's last point, is he telling us that, if the notional value of the time saved by every public transport passenger was treated in exactly the same way as the notional value of the time saved by every car driver, we would still spend far more on roads than railways?
  Mr. Freeman: The straight answer is yes. When one evaluates road investment, one evaluates both user and non-user benefits. One seeks to ascribe to all motorists benefits in speedier journeys. The plain fact is that, if one appraised rail investment on exactly the same basis as we presently appraise roads and ignored the fare contribution by passengers, we would build more roads.
  Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Freeman: If my hon. Friend will permit me, I will answer the points that he made in the debate before I give way. That will be the last time that I give way, because the House is anxious to make progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] At least the House is anxious to make progress so that I can deal with the other relevant points that were raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch drew a distinction between the various sectors of British Rail and the different competitive forces that act on it. He was right to do so. The competitive pressures on InterCity are great. It faces competition not only from aircraft but from long-distance coaches and cars. Network SouthEast is virtually a monopoly and the competitive forces are different. If one seeks to create competitive pressures on British Rail, one must think about different solutions for different sectors. It may be difficult, if not impossible, to introduce competitive pressures on a mass transit railway such as Network SouthEast. Yet for InterCity, it is important to appreciate that there are healthy pressures on it as an operation.
  My hon. Friend also asked me about the citizens charter and its relevance to rail transport. He will have to await the publication of the citizens charter in due course, but we and British Rail accept the importance of improving the quality of information available to passengers, the accountability of management, the reward for good performance by management, redress procedures and, indeed, compensation.
  Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend's officials will have told him, as they have told all his predecessors, that it is not possible to establish an honest and fair comparison of the true costs of rail and road. Why do the German Government seem to have found no difficulty in doing that? The Government railway commission set up by Chancellor Kohl is specifically charged with bringing out all the facts of this matter, so that German politicians can make decisions based on honest and straightforward comparisons.
  Mr. Freeman: I, too, have talked to officials and politicians in Germany about this. They are very worried about the parlous financial state of the German railways' excessive debt structure and about the sizeable subsidy, which is much larger than ours. Part of the remit of the commission is to determine whether it can emulate the experience of other countries, including our own.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) read a speech about the disabled, which I shall study and discuss with officials responsible for our disablement unit. Our public transportation leads Europe in what we do for the disabled. It is not good enough yet, but we have a good record. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman after I have studied his speech and taken advice on it.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for reminding the House of the investment record—£800 million in the year just ended, and about £1 billion for the year just begun. It is useful to remember that British Rail already compensates people in certain circumstances. Under its ex gratia scheme, £2.5 million a year in cash and vouchers for rail journeys is paid out, and £4 million a year is spent on extending season tickets.
  1186
  I apologise for missing the speech by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) asked me to deal with the public service obligation. We do not agree with the CTCC's argument that the PSO can be disaggregated into line-specific grants. It is a grant made in aggregate for a level of service provided by the supported sectors, Network SouthEast and the regional railways. We measure it using the best available yardstick, which is the number of train miles run. I accept that that means that British Rail can vary the level of service on some lines—it can reduce services if there is a lack of demand, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, it sometimes increases services too.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) advanced arguments for the Ove Arup route which I well understand. The Government will take decisions as soon as possible on the right route to recommend for further consideration. King's Cross is not a buffer station, and whichever route is chosen to come into King's Cross it is intended to run services beyond King's Cross to the north, up the east and west coast main lines.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) talked about running buses to supplement rail services—an interesting and constructive point on which I shall reflect. If it is impossible for legal reasons for British Rail to offer such bus services, I shall pursue the matter further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is not in his place, mentioned the length of time taken to reach a decision on the channel tunnel rail link. But the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is arguing the case for another six months in a new Parliament to reach a final decision on the link. The Government, taking the matter more seriously, will try to reach a decision as quickly as possible, and we shall certainly not defer it for as long as the hon. Gentleman implied.
  The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to the Guide Bridge terminal. I shall repeat the assurance that I have already given him. I understand the significance for British Rail of making a decision between Stafford Park and Guide Bridge, and I repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend said—the decision will be taken by BR by the summer. I shall be visiting Manchester later in the summer, and I am sure that a decision will have been taken by then. I was not aware of the sleeper train problem, but I shall look into the matter and perhaps even use the service myself. I shall examine the problems raised by the hon. Member on behalf of himself and his colleagues and write to him.
  The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) implied that the reorganisation of British Rail into business sectors was aimed at fattening up British Rail for privatisation. He is wrong. The process was begun by the first Bob Reid in the early 1980s, and it has been continued logically by the present chairman. The reorganisation of British Rail is inconsistent with some of the forms of privatisation suggested for British Rail. The Government have not yet reached a decision on the timing or the form of privatisation but the reorganisation is not tied up with privatisation.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South raised a number of points, and I shall deal briefly with the most important, Bradford electrification. We provided £26 million resource cover for the infrastructure on the assumption that the

  1187
  West Yorkshire passenger transport authority would be happy to proceed with leasing. For understandable reasons, it chose not to run the risk that, when the stock was bought, the lease would be classified as debt. Because there was a slight risk of that, it preferred, although there would be a delay, to seek the credit approval route. I understand that there may be an increase in the cost of the rolling stock, and I shall take that into account. I hope that there will not be. I hope that the tender price will be extended to October. I am prepared to consider the balance between trading and non-trading credit approval for the balance of the rolling stock, which I hope that the West Yorkshire PTA will be able to proceed with.
  Mr. Cryer: When will the Minister tell the West Yorkshire PTA when he will make a decision about the rolling stock? As he knows, with the question mark over leasing, it is important for the PTA to know when it can go ahead. It has already incurred almost £200,000-worth of .design expenditure for the electrification scheme, and it always seems to be hanging in the balance. It wants certainty pretty soon. Furthermore, the sooner that it can get cracking, the sooner the scheme can be completed and put into operation.
  Mr. Freeman: I have already told the West Yorkshire PTA that I cannot give it any assurances until the public expenditure survey round is completed, and that comes to fruition at the time of the autumn statement in the first week in November. I can do nothing about that timetable.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East asked about the public service obligation grant. This was increased to £600 million in 1990–91. It was up to £100 million in the year. This year, it will be at least £775 million. If the hon. Gentleman had read the summer supplementary estimate, he would have seen provision for an increase in the PSO. It may be higher. The balance of the division of the increase in the external financing limit between the PSO and debt has not been decided. It depends on agreement between BR and the Government. We are prepared to increase the PSO where that is justified. As we have made clear over the past six months, Network SouthEast's PSO is a target. It will be extremely difficult to achieve break-even by March 1993. Therefore, my right hon. and learned Friend, in the context of this year's autumn statement and as settlement of the internal:finance round for the next three years with British Rail, will discuss with British Rail what is a realistic target. If changes have to be made, they will be made.
  Mr. Prescott: There is no point in saying that we must wait for the public expenditure round, because the Secretary of State changed that a few weeks ago by going for the extra money.
  Some of what has been said today is to be welcomed and shows a serious approach to the problem. However, can I press the Minister on an issue that is important to both sides of the House? He said that the Opposition had claimed that the review of the channel tunnel plans would lead to a delay. That is a bit cheeky, because, when we advocated that all the routes should be looked at before a decision was reached, the previous Secretary of State said that that would cause a delay, so he would not do it. However, now there is to be a review. It is important that the reports on the review are made available so that we
  1188
  understand the judgments. We reserve the right to look at the judgments, because there has been a great deal of controversy about the cost structures involved.
  Will the Secretary of State make a statement before the House rises for the summer recess on the channel tunnel investment? Am I correct in believing that at the Association of Metropolitan Authorities conference, which the Minister and I attended, the hon. Gentleman said that the environmental assessment of the route would take the best part of two or three years, and that the Government would not have to make a decision before then? If that is so, a six-month review within that period is not such a big deal, especially if we get the decision right.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said at the conference. I cannot give him the assurance that my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement before the end of July. It is important to get the decision right. I said at the conference that the environmental impact assessment of the western portion of the route would take about a year. An environmental impact assessment can be written only when we know which route we are assessing.
  The hon. Gentleman withdrew the earlier Labour party support that the newspapers thought it was giving for the route through Stratford. The hon. Gentleman reserved his position on all the preferred routes, which is to be welcomed, as it shows that he has an open mind.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: On the question of rail freight and the channel tunnel, I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the problems that face my constituents; indeed, he has taken a great deal of trouble in considering them. The impact for my constituents will come as soon as the channel tunnel is opened. Under current arrangements, much of the rail freight is due to rumble over the already congested lines through my constituency. Has British Rail carried out a proper survey of the length of line between Tonbridge and Reading, which would provide an alternative route for a great deal of the freight?
  Mr. Freeman: British Rail is well aware of the Tonbridge-Reading route for freight. When a decision is taken on which preferred route to recommend for further study, including planning permission, the transportation of freight will be an important consideration that my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues will take into account.
  I commend the Bill to the House. The Conservative party has the right policies for railways. We have clearly declared our policy for transferring more freight from road to rail, and we have confirmed the emphasis that we are placing on combined transport. We have said that we want to end BR's monopoly over both passenger and freight services. We have policies for the privatisation of British Rail, and they are supported by even more of the electorate than was evident six or 12 months ago. We welcome that support.
  We have a massive investment programme, which I have outlined tonight. Some £500 million per year was spent by the Labour party when it was in government in the 1970s, but expenditure is now running at £1 billion per year—a substantial increase.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister said that the Government want to transfer freight from road to rail whenever

  1189
  possible. What does he think about British Rail's policy on Speedlink, and is it not ironic that the demise of Speedlink comes just as we are having this debate?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman's point is a fitting one on which to end, because the attitude to Speedlink separates the parties. Speedlink, with a revenue of £45 million this year, would have lost £40 million—[Interruption.] It was £30 million last year, and it would have been £40 million this year. Speedlink was a service intended to take single wagons from terminals through marshalling yards to other destinations. It was a service more appropriate to the 1950s than to the 1990s—similar to the ideology of some Labour Members. British Rail must now convert that freight into train load freight, which is much more competitive than road freight. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that 70 per cent. of the Speedlink services have been converted into train load
  1190
  profitable freight. That reflects not only British Rail's positive attitude, but the Government's positive attitude towards rail. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Wood.]
  Further proceedings postponed pursuant to Order [5 July]

BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (FINANCE) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from British Railways Board (Finance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable under any other enactment out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund, being an increase attributable to any provision of the Act increasing the limit in section 42(6) of the Transport Act 1968 to £3,000 million or such greater sum not exceeding £5,000 million as the Secretary of State may by order specify. —[Mr. Wood.]

British Railways Board (Finance) Bill
Postponed proceedings resumed.
Bill immediately considered in Committee pursuant to Order this day.
[MISS BETTY BOOTHROYD in the Chair]

British Railways Board (Finance) Bill
  Clause 1

    INCREASED BORROWING LIMIT FOR BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    10.26 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: In the past few hours the House has enjoyed a wide-ranging debate on part of our national heritage—our railways. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State and even more pleased to see the Minister for Public Transport who has been present for nearly all the proceedings and who, characteristically, always gives a good parliamentary reply.
    Britain's railways are owned by the public and, in the end, accountability for their operation and investment in their infrastructure and equipment finishes here. In that cause, we are being asked considerably to increase British Rail's borrowing limits. It is no secret that the Bill has come as something of a surprise to the Government and to the public.
    There has been much controversy about British Rail's funding and the extent to which it has so far relied on the sale of real estate. I understand that the crisis has come about not because of a reduction in traffic or in estimated revenue from the rail business, but as a result of a turn down in the income from real estate, something which it shares, alas, with the health service.
    We can hardly oppose the investment which will arise from the clause—at least I cannot—but there are many questions to be asked about the quality of management and, in particular, the structure that the Government place around the management.
    I am sorry to see the Secretary of State leaving, because I particularly want to refer to his recent speech. But if he is not able to be present perhaps we can pursue the matter in correspondence.
    It is essential that the House has confidence in the investment. We are now authorising money as if we were shareholders of a firm. I want to put before the House some reasons why we should not invest that money without asking some severe questions.
    Some of those questions relate to management and some to the Government. I must confess that it is sometimes difficult to establish where the boundary between them lies. Even the Minister may not know, because such decisions have taken place over several years, long before he took up his present office.
    The first matter that I wish to raise—this is why the Secretary of State's departure is unfortunate—is the claim that the Government are now changing direction and emphasising and looking to freight. I did not get that message from the Secretary of State's speech today. I understood the Secretary of State's speech to be about the British Rail monopoly, as he called it, and the means of breaking a monopoly, which I do not believe exists. Nowhere, except in London for commuters and for
    1192
    specialised traffic such as post—that is not a monopoly —does British Rail have a monopoly. The Secretary of State talked, as far as I understood it, about permitting different types of operator to operate trains or services over British Rail track in a way not carried out before. I see the Minister nodding. Has he not heard of Foster Yeoman? Its operation is well known and may be controversial. I see no distinction between what Foster Yeoman is doing and what the Secretary of State purported to want.
    10.30 pm
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked the Secretary of State about the fate of Speedlink. The Minister of State said, using British Rail statistics which may be right—let us hope that they are better than British Rail's timekeeping—that 70 per cent. of Speedlink is retained. He said that the system had been changed to whole trains. Axing Speedlink, which was as easy to remember as a label as InterCity, sends out the wrong signal. At the very time at which the Secretary of State says, "Let us transfer freight to the railways", Speedlink is axed.
    If 70 per cent. of Speedlink is being retained—I hope that it is—surely there should be an announcement that from now on, Speedlink will be confined to full trainloads, which may come under a different business division, but which will keep the same brand names although wagons will no longer be collected from private sidings. There would have been relatively little fuss. Either the Government or the management have kicked themselves in the teeth.
    Mr. Cryer: The Minister talked about 70 per cent. of Speedlink being retained in full trainloads. He did not say what was happening in rural areas, such as Cornwall or in Scotland. He did not say how many extra wagonloads will be put on to the roads in the areas in which trainloads are most likely to be rare—that is, in the very rural areas in which the roads are too narrow and restricted adequately to carry any increase in lorryloads.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The estimated cost of collecting wagons and taking them into marshalling yards or into full trains may not be the real cost. The Minister is an accountant and he knows that one can do all sorts of things with figures and produce all sorts of results which are difficult to challenge, but not difficult to create.
    As the Minister says, we are investing in freight. The history of cross-channel freight is extraordinary. We have known that there will be a channel link, whatever its merits, for the five or six years since the direct decision was taken in Canterbury. Even today, as was instanced by the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and the Minister, British Rail has not designated the locations of its freight depots or villages, although it may have suggested broadly the areas in which the depots will be. My information is that British Rail is conducting a Dutch auction. It is trying to get various public and private bodies to put up money for the investment required. As usual, British Rail wants to carry out the work with the lowest amount possible from the public purse, which has meant a delay in the timetable.
    Boardrooms are deciding now what to do about transport. Every hon. Member has received a glossy publication advocating the great cross-channel freightway.

    1193
    British Rail has not said where the freight collection centres will be. I do not know whether that is the responsibility of the Government or of the management. However, it must be a combination of both, or one or the other. Is that the sort of management in which we can have confidence? I suggest that a big question mark lies over both intranational and international freight.
    Only today, I heard a report that a plant supplying BR with some 700 tonnes of liquid a week in seven bogey wagons—I will not name the plant, because I must check the facts—can no longer send it by rail. BR says that that the cost of sending the locomotive to take the train out of the depot, no doubt paid by the public, is too great, and that the cargo must be sent by road in future. As I have said, I will not name the plant, but I shall talk to the Minister about it.
    The circumstances are not even the same as those applying to Speedlink. Although seven wagons may not sound very many, 700 tonnes of liquid is about double the weight carried by a typical InterCity passenger train. If the report is true, the management must give some reason for the decision. It may be said that this is an extraordinary development, given that Government policy is moving in the opposite direction, but I have enough experience of British Rail management to know that such extraordinary things do happen.
    I am not a wholehearted admirer of traditional British Rail management; there is always room for improvement. Management has not been adventurous enough in certain respects, and has been illogical in others. That does not mean, however, that the current changes are necessarily right.
    Last week, Sir Bob Reid—as distinct from Sir Robert Reid—was examined by the Select Committee on Transport. He admitted that the day trains north of London would not be ready in time for the opening of the channel tunnel. Let me give a cricket commentator's welcome to the arrival of the Secretary of State, who has just returned to the Chamber. That admission needs some explanation: it is down to either the Government or BR's management, and at some stage the Committee will need to know the details. The time flow—as it is called in business—for creating the tunnel is far longer than that for creating rolling stock.
    What is even worse is that Sir Bob had to admit—I was sitting at the back, but I believe that I heard him correctly —that the sleeper trains north of London, and those operating from London, would not be ready in time either. He also said—an extraordinary statement, coming from a railwayman—that the bulk of the sleeper traffic would come from north of London anyway. I find that hard to credit: London and the south-east have a huge market for sleeper trains to Rome, the alps and the French riviera, not to mention Brussels. I should have thought that the London area would provide a very good ready market for sleeper trains travelling all over the Continent. That, too, does not fill me with confidence in the management.
    The Minister mentioned Heathrow. Anyone who has attended railway debates here will be astonished at the amount of time devoted to the Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill. What was the objection? There was not enough railway. Proper junctions with Southern and Western region, enabling InterCity to run trains from all
    1194
    parts of Britain—or allowing a fast inter-urban Network South East service to operate—are not being provided. The line is being installed not as a proper railway to serve Heathrow, but as a rail shuttle for central London. This is not a railway plan in the classical sense of the term. Mr Hudson, or whatever his name was, would have done better in York 150 years ago: he had more vision then than the Government have today. The Government do not appear to have much vision in that respect.
    The Minister referred to crossrail, which we all welcome. However, it only duplicates what the Metropolitan railway did over 100 years ago. A little-known fact is that Liverpool Street was linked to the Metropolitan. The services stopped around 1890. The traffic went all the way through to Paddington, so it is not a new concept. So far, the plan is not to use the continental gauge, despite the great open spaces of Brunet's Great Western Railway main line that could be linked to it, were it to be built to that gauge.
    I turn to our Adjournment debate on 7 June last, concerning reorganisation. The investment of money in stock and people depends on the efficiency of British Rail's organisation. I shall not rehearse that debate in full. The courteous Minister said that the Opposition are wedded to the idea that what is good for British Rail is good for everybody but that the Government believe in reorganising British Rail to serve the needs of the traveller. On the face of it, that appears to have merit. I am not convinced, however, that traditionally, British Rail's management has served the needs of the traveller.
    Tonight the Minister for Public Transport said that the separation of the business into separate businesses has been under consideration for about 10 years and that Sir Robert Reid, mark 1, began to introduce it. If the so-called organisation for quality programme had been known in 1981 or 1982, I do not think that it would have got very far. It contains very good elements, but it ought not to be taken too far. If one travels from King's Cross to Doncaster or from St. Pancras to Kettering, one wants certain facilities to be provided. InterCity Ltd., as it used to be, from Cardiff to Paddington, was taken over and became a brand image—rather like Pulman. People knew what they were getting. If a train is on time and properly rostered, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a good marketing technique. But to take a much bigger step is something which I question.
    I hope that Sir Bob Reid will find my oil industry example to be appropriate in this context. Oil business money comes mainly from bulk users of fuel in factories, garages and industry. That does not mean, however, that one puts skilled marketing men in charge of an oil refinery. Petrochemical engineers are the people who have to work it. One has to blend the experience of the technicians who run the refinery with the marketing skills of those who have to sell the fuel. Up to a point, that is what InterCity and the suburban railways did.
    For Sir Bob Reid to tell the Select Committee last week that British Rail intended to have seven distinct businesses that would make a nonsense of the old geographical distribution of the railway network and that it would create within those seven businesses 30 profit centres is going far too far and is creating tensions and difficulties that otherwise would not exist. That was all aired in the debate on 7 June and was put to Sir Bob mark II in the hearing before the Select Committee last week. "Ah" said Sir Bob, "Now we will have single responsibility instead of

    1195
    the matrix." That matrix is the double layer of management that has caused some difficulty. It has caused difficulty because it has been taken too far. Now, it is being taken to extraordinary lengths. Again, I dealt with that in the debate on 7 June and I shall not enlarge upon it now.
    10.45 pm
    The railway is now having its coherent operation disrupted. A railway consists of the skills of civil engineers, telecom and signal men, the design and supply of mechanical engineering stock, the maintenance of that stock and the running of the stock by crews. It is a complex operation, usually spread over many hundreds of miles and running 24 hours a day among a shifting group of people. To smash up the historic organisation of our mainlines and pretend that one can share King's Cross between two different businesses—or, as I explained in the Adjournment debate, in the case of Stratford, two railway divisions and six profit centres—is asking for trouble. We have trouble. Experienced railway men who will not be brow beaten by the dangling of promotion prospects—we all know how important promotion prospects are in public life—have created internal problems in the management of British Rail. Those problems have been well ventilated in the Sunday press and were covered in an article in The Independent on Sunday last week.
    I ask myself what analogues there are in the world for the investment that we are about to approve and for such a novel means of railway operation. I have scanned all the railway literature from Mr. Welsby and Sir Robert Reid and I find no voluntary announcement of any analogue to this remarkable managerial revolution. The only one that I can think of, in a semi-amateur way, is the United States. In the United States railway investment is in the hands of private enterprise, but it is co-ordinated by the inter-state commerce commission. That has always been the case because the federal Government believe that proper investment in the railways and federal supervision are necessary for the nation's economy.
    There are many different railways and different users hiring trains or using railways over enormous distances. They probably run a train a day or perhaps two a week. I suppose that Amtrak is something like InterCity, perhaps running one or two trains a day or two trains a week over different tracks. That is a distinct business, although it is heavily subsidised by the federal Government.
    If that is the only example that anyone can dredge up, it is not an analogue at all because of the intense operation of British Rail over a small area relative to the United States. We do not know whether the Government will proceed to privatisation, because it depends on the outcome of the next general election. However, if they do and if the new reorganisation in which we are putting money tonight is in place and is not working well—let us hope that my fears are wrong—we will have scrambled the eggs. It will be difficult to alter the proposals that will result in changes in the coming months. It is no use the Minister thinking that that can be stopped, because it has been prepacked, people are in place, equipment has been bought and offices and posts have been offered and accepted.
    I have grave doubts about the receptacles into which we are pouring investment. We all want that investment, but the Government's track record on the railways does not inspire confidence. BR's management structure, as approved by the Government and defended by Sir Bob
    1196
    and his friends, is market oriented. Markets are important, but should they overcome the technical and logical necessities of a complex operation such as a railway? I would say not. The optimum combination of both is important, but alas, we do not have that.
    Mr. Gregory: In speaking to this crucial clause, I should like to comment on how property will be affected.
    The Bill raises the ceiling of the borrowing ability of the British Railways Board. It is interesting to explore whether the Bill's provisions on property sales are necessary. Last year, property sales and lettings amounted to £223 million, which, sadly, was down from £412 million. Revenue from property sales and development premiums fell a staggering 60 per cent. to £121 million.
    I find it strange that only one new office project—in St. Albans—was started last year. One wonders what British Rail's property board was up to and whether it was gainfully employed. Station trading, which it organised, rose only 6 per cent. to £31.1 million, which was pretty pathetic compared with the good results of other parts of the high street network. If the Committee agrees to increase the board's borrowing ability, will station trading, improve?
    I am pleased that traders invested £3.5 million in modernising station retail and catering outlets last year. That is the right approach—a joint partnership. I should have liked the clause to provide for greater participation, but, as no amendment was tabled, it would be inappropriate to suggest such a change. It is unfortunate that we have not had such an opportunity. It is right to mention that and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it.
    More property developments and joint participation will lead to an improvement in British Rail because it will become more customer-oriented and because there will be less pressure on the public purse.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We are being asked to sanction a significant increase in expenditure on British Rail, but will extra investment be made in areas that have not received it in recent years or in areas where it has been inadequate?
    I make no apology for the fact that I shall plead for Scotland and especially for the north of Scotland where we are extremely worried about whether the rail network will survive at all in view of the way in which it has been treated by British Rail in the past few years. I have listened to many debates on railways and I have heard some hon. Members bleat and complain about the poverty of their service, but they do not know how lucky they are. In terms of quality, speed and efficiency the service to the north of Scotland was substantially better 120 years ago than it is today. The same could be said for the volume of the service, although the reason for that is more understandable. However, that is not proof of a commitment to quality or investment.
    One relevant factor that I have tried to persuade Sir Bob Reid that he should be more apprised of than most people is the fact that it has traditionally been accepted from the day the line was laid that the east coast main line ran from London to Aberdeen. It no longer does so; it effectively terminates at Edinburgh where the electrification of the line finishes. I have had some extraordinary exchanges with British Rail about the implications of that fact. I have been told, for example, that the electrification

    1197
    of the line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen would make no noticeable difference to the service. If that were true, why have we spent so much money on electrifying the line between London and Edinburgh? It is a preposterous proposition. It is true that the speed of the journey was significantly less a hundred years ago than it is today and that electrification will add to the journey time from Aberdeen to London.
    There is now one sleeper from Aberdeen to London and, in my view, it starts in the middle of the afternoon. How many people want to take a sleeper at 9.20 pm? The last sleeper to the north leaves at 10.5 pm. I cannot believe that it is impossible to provide a sleeper that meets the public's needs. The timing is, of course, deliberate. It is timed to leave when no one wants to use it; British Rail say that there is no demand and so it is cancelled.
    We are told that it is a matter for British Rail—if it can establish a scheme that brings a return of 8 per cent. on investment, all to the good. That is a matter of opinion. Independent, non-railway people have shown a better rate of return than British Rail, but the question is whether we provide a service to main centres. If the returns had been the only criteria, one wonders whether the lines to the north of Scotland would have been built. People had more vision in earlier times than they do today.
    Such investment as has been made in Scotland has been a considerable embarrassment to British Rail. It has introduced super new sprinter trains and express trains. They are wonderful when the doors stay shut and when the carriages stay coupled, but it is a lottery to drive such a train, because one is never sure what will go wrong. We were told that the great thing about the new sprinter trains was that they had a compartment for two bicycles. Unfortunately, the European Community introduced hygiene regulations which meant that it was no longer possible to serve sandwiches in the existing conditions. British Rail decided that the way to solve the problem was to prohibit bicycles and to install extra refrigeration facilities for sandwiches. I am pleased to say that a sustained campaign by the cycling community in Scotland has forced British Rail to reverse that policy, although, presumably, there will now be no sandwiches. It would be hilarious if it were not a serious indictment of the quality of service that is supposed to be provided.
    Mr. Cryer: It is the EEC.
    Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman, from his known anti-European position—
    Mr. Cryer: Anti-EEC.
    Mr. Bruce: Oh, anti-EEC. Never mind; from his anti-Labour party policy—currently, at the moment, position—
    Mr. Cryer: The leadership has changed; I have not.
    Mr. Bruce: That is true; I give the hon. Gentleman credit for that.
    One would have assumed that British Rail might have had some idea of the forthcoming regulations when it ordered the trains.
    1l pm
    Mr. Spearing: Has the hon. Gentleman heard the accusation by Mr. Peter Rayner that, alas—contrary to what had happened with previous sorts of stock—there was not sufficient testing, and that the design of the train that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and other trains, was forced on British Rail, via the engineers, by people who perhaps did not have the right sort of experience? Is not that a possible reason for the problem?
    Mr. Bruce: It is a possible reason for the problem, but the thrust of my argument is that I suspect that it was budgetary constraints that forced British Rail to design the trains to a budget specification that did not really meet the operating requirements. Basically, we have rolling stock on the cheap which, ultimately, may cost us very much more than it would have cost to design rolling stock equipped to do the job. That is the fundamental point which I am anxious to convey to the Minister.
    We seek a commitment from British Rail and the Government. The argument between the two is not an edifying spectacle, and it is certainly not one which makes Conservative candidates in the north of Scotland comfortable. I do not really care whether British Rail can find an 8 per cent. rate of return, or whether the Government come up with a direct grant to make that happen. What I do care about is that given the contribution that the north of Scotland makes to exports in the United Kingdom, and from the United Kingdom, it deserves a decent rail service and it is not getting one. There is no evidence whatever that the extra money that is to be voted through tonight is likely to make the slightest bit of difference. That is my fundamental concern.
    I make no apology for saying that Scotland has a unique export record. The north of Scotland in particular has an export-led economy. A substantial proportion of the output of our industries in the north of Scotland goes direct to the European Community markets. I believe that people who serve those markets are entitled to be connected properly to the European rail network. They are not being given that opportunity at present, and they are well aware of that fact. I can assure the Minister that the campaign will not abate or go away.
    I have in my constituency the line from Aberdeen to Inverness, which I accept, in the simple narrow determinants of British Rail policy, is not a profitable line. But I must tell the Minister that it is an absolutely essential line, and I am absolutely sure that any economist would be able to prove conclusively that, in terms of the broad benefit to the community, that line is an economic asset. After all, we also have a road network in the north of Scotland which does not benefit from the investment offered elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As statistics that I managed to squeeze out of the Scottish Office proved, the A96 between Aberdeen and Inverness has the worst accident record per vehicle mile of any road in Scotland, and an investment commitment that is not comparable. This is not a debate about roads, but my point is that the competition between road and rail has to be seen in the light of where the investment is going. In our area, it is not going into either sector to any significant extent.
    Under pressure, the director of ScotRail admitted to me that, in terms of demand, he could operate more trains between Aberdeen and Inverness. The trouble is that putting on an extra train costs money, and that is an

    1199
    investment which the director is not prepared to make because it is a step: he has to guarantee a full train. Suppose that he has one and half train loads of people. If he decides to put an extra train on and gets only 1.6 train loads, he may not make enough money to justify the investment. The fact that he is leaving 60 per cent. of the people at the station, or driving on the roads, may not be a matter of concern to him, but it is a matter of concern to the local community.
    People in my constituency have informed me of instances of British Rail staff going along the platform at certain stations at certain times, saying, "We advise you not to board this train as we do not consider the load is safe." Whether or not the staff had the power to do that, they were obviously genuinely concerned about the level of overcrowding.
    I raised that matter with the junior Minister some time ago and his written answer was breathtaking. II boiled down to the fact that there was no evidence. The Clapham junction crash was cited in support of the argument that one was less likely to suffer serious injury when a train crashed if one was standing than if one was sitting. That is impossible to believe. We have only this month introduced the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars. If it is not safe to sit in the rear of a car without a seat belt, how can it be safe to stand in an overcrowded train? That kind of argument does not stand up to analysis.
    Far from getting extra trains, BR has decided I hat the way to get out of the bind is to increase fares to deter people from using its trains so that overcrowding can be reduced. Instead of adding to the service, BR has decided to deter passengers in an attempt to eliminate the overcrowding problem. There is no evidence that the Government are addressing that problem.
    This is the Government's responsibility. It is no good the Minister saying that management is a matter for BR. The evidence that I have quoted shows that BR's management may be perfectly reasonable in terms of BR's objectives of solving a problem or reducing liability, but the Government must determine whether the service is being provided, whether the demand is being met and whether the wider community needs have been considered.
    I regret to say that all the correspondence and contacts that I have had with Ministers show that they have 'washed their hands of the matter and passed the buck straight back to BR which effectively passed it back to the Government, saying that the level of support that it receives does not allow it to deal with the problem and that the criteria and operating circumstances are such that it cannot provide a viable service.
    The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) referred to the Speedlink service. The implications of that closure are particularly critical for areas like the north of Scotland. I accept what the Minister says about a service with a turnover of £45 million that is losing at least £30 million or £40 million. That is an unconscionable amount of money in proportion to the total turnover. Clearly such losses cannot be sustained indefinitely. I do not have a problem with that. However, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, simply to terminate the service gives the wrong signals, but it does more than that in areas like the north of Scotland. The opportunities for securing train loads is somewhat limited. It is not impossible and some operators are trying to put train
    1200
    loads together. However, they are being quoted prices that in some cases are 110 or 115 per cent. more than they were before. That is a substantial additional charge to absorb.
    An operator in my part of the world said that the consequence of being kicked off Speedlink would be an extra 20,000 lorries a year on the road between Durham and Aberdeen. That is not BR's responsibility, but it is a matter of considerable concern in terms of safety and efficiency of transport and travel to those who will be stuck behind those lorries.
    There are some meetings of minds with the Government about whether there should he a role for the private sector. My party and I have no difficulty in being prepared to discuss with Ministers how we might expand that role to improve the service and increase efficiency. I would go further: it takes an unconscionable talent to lose the amount of money to which I have referred on that degree of turnover. No one could do worse. However, we must explore ways of attracting traffic back on to the railways instead of giving it up. Clearly, that course is not being pursued.
    I am somewhat sceptical about supporting clause I. If I can be literally boorish and speak in terms of pigs and troughs, we in the north of Scotland are pretty fed up with not getting the degree of investment that is in accordance with the economic contribution that we make to the United Kingdom economy, to our exports, and to the importance of the industries that we sustain, among which are the oil and gas industries, and the paper and whisky industries. Both the Government and British Rail have shown an utter inflexibility in accepting that we are entitled to a constructive response. People in the north of Scotland are looking, first, for the continuation of the existing rail network; secondly, for an investment in rolling stock, in terms of both quality and quantity, that will meet the genuine demand and, thirdly, for full integrated access to the European rail network that will be opened up by the channel tunnel. We are not getting any of those things. My regret is that tonight we shall be supporting a clause that substantially increases British Rail's borrowing, but which leaves our part of Scotland continuing to be deprived of anything like the investment that we need if we are to make the contribution that we can make and are making to the national economy.
    Mr. Cryer: On Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether the expenditure that is listed in clause 1 contains sufficient provision for the amount of money that British Rail will need to contribute to the Bradford electrification scheme. I am not asking, "How much?" because that has not yet been negotiated, but I should like the confirmation that the Minister probably forgot to give when he replied earlier.
    I am extremely disappointed that we have to wait until the November Treasury round. As lawyers say, that shows "beyond peradventure" that the Department of Transport is tied hand and foot by the Treasury. The scheme is all ready to go; £200,000 has been spent on the design work, but nothing can happen because of the Treasury restrictions that it must be included in the general round of expenditure. Given the proximity of a general election, the Government will be more likely to approve than to reject it.
    I hope that the Minister will answer my next points because I should like them to be on the record. I refer first to his closing comments on Second Reading when he said

    1201
    that Speedlink divides the Conservative and Labour parties, as though he were proud of closing Speedlink. I shall remind him what that means. First, it means that some freight that is now carried by rail will have to be carried by road on lorries. The claim that the Conservative Government are seeking to move freight from road to rail is belied by the closure of Speedlink. Secondly, the Minister said that single wagon loads would be moving along the railways, through marshalling yards on to sidings. That is absolutely right. With the closure of Speedlink, that infrastructure will almost certainly go too. Although points, signalling equipment and rails seem perfunctory items, they have a value and, because of the financial pressures on British Rail, it will rip them out and realise their scrap value or perhaps even their transfer value for other sections of track. That will mean more costs in the future when whichever party is in government will have to come here to obtain a similar authorisation in its determination to move freight from road to rail. Single wagon traffic cannot be eliminated from British Rail, even if we have to accept that there is a cost in that over and above the bare minimum cost of transferring freight to rail.
    But what about the people who live in hamlets and who want to stop the 38-tonne gross vehicle weight lorries thundering through their narrow lanes? What about the children who, to get to school, have to cross the roads down which those lorries thunder? What about the town or village traffic lights where the lorries bunch up? What about the people who are trying to sleep early in the morning as the lorries start off in first gear and rev up through the gear box, with their great weights or, if they are empty, with banging rear axles that produce a cacophony? What about the growl of the diesels, the dirt, the noise and the intrusion? Everyone realises that under the Conservatives there has been an increase in heavy lorry traffic on the roads to an unconscionable and, in many places, unacceptable degree.
    In some, but not all, areas, we could reduce the amount of lorry traffic by pushing that traffic from the road on to rail. The ending of Speedlink is a move away from that desirable aim. As I said, if Speedlink is removed it will become more costly and difficult to restore the service. Many of the facilities will be sold off, again under financial pressure. British Rail will be under pressure to sell the land on which the sidings stand.
    11.15 pm
    It is almost certain that to close down Speedlink will be a waste of public expenditure. Grants have been provided by the Government for private sidings. They were introduced by Labour, of course, because we were genuinely committed to moving freight from the road on to rail. Those grants are now wasted. The sidings will be pulled out because there will be no traffic. In some cases, the sidings will not take whole train loads because they will not be long enough to accommodate them.
    If the Minister wants to go into the next general election on a transport policy of standing by the closure of Speedlink, we shall be happy to fight on it. We are committed genuinely to move freight from road to rail and to make it succeed.
    Mr. Freeman: I know that the House will want me to answer hon. Members' points extremely briefly.
    The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to Speedlink, as did the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). British Rail expects half a million tonnes of freight to move from rail to the roads. That is equivalent to only 80 heavy lorries a day. The hon. Gentlemen can do the maths. I calculate that, at £30 million, that is a subsidy of £1,000 per lorry journey. That is not sensible. I am sure that the hon. Gentlemen would join me in wanting that money to be spent on moving the traffic that should not be thundering down the Ml, M25 and M20 to the channel tunnel and, through proper investment, moving more freight via combined transport terminals.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is a serious point. The transport users in my area have complained, first, that their costs have been increased by over 100 per cent. and, secondly, that the transitional arrangements are offered only for a year. Can the Minister assure us that the figures that he quoted will still be applicable at the end of that year? Or will a lot more traffic go in after a year when no one is looking?
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about a specific customer or issue, I shall look into it. I am glad that Tigerail is now shipping for west country customers. I gather that there is good news in prospect for the grain merchants and the whisky distillers in Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me with a specific example of traffic that is not being taken up by either British Rail or the private sector running freight trains on British Rail track, I shall certainly pursue it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) referred to property receipts. It is true that they have fallen. That is one reason why we increased the external financing limit by £400 million. We certainly want more property receipts in future years when the property market recovers.
    The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) talked about Edinburgh-Aberdeen electrification. We are well aware of the arguments. For InterCity we have an investment appraisal test of 8 per cent. He is right in saying that it is the same for the TGV investment in France. Exactly the same financial rate of return is required, so I am not ashamed of 8 per cent. However, for the supporting railways—I am not familiar with the line between Aberdeen and Inverness, but I imagine that it is a regional railway—as the hon. Gentleman will know, appraisal of new investment is on a cost-benefit basis. If there are non-user benefits, we shall take them into account when approving new investment.
    I apologise to the hon. Member for Bradford, South for not answering his point about British Rail's contribution to West Yorkshire's electrification. I can confirm that there are unlikely to be problems. It is a relatively small direct contribution for track and vehicles, and I see no reason why British Rail would not be able to honour its commitment to a scheme which I hope will proceed in the next financial year.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 2

    INCREASED LIMIT RELATING TO COMPENSATION
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Prescott: The Minister will know that money has been used from the PSO grant for safety measures at level crossings. The Health and Safety Executive is undertaking an inquiry into problems with the doors on some inter-city trains. The Government have always said that money will be provided if that is necessary for safety reasons, so if the inquiry finds that work must be done on the doors for safety reasons, will the money be forthcoming?
    Mr. Freeman: In the past financial year British Rail spent about £140 million on safety, and it is likely to spend more than £200 million on it in this financial year. When we receive the results of the HSE's investigations into the various tragic accidents, I can confirm on behalf of British Rail that if expenditure is needed to save lives, it will be given a very high priority. The Secretary of State is on his sleeper en route to Edinburgh now, and I apologise on his behalf for his absence from the final stages of the debate, but, on his behalf, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend will certainly look supportively on any such investment.
    Mr. Gregory: There are international agreements in respect of compensation for air and sea travel, but not for rail travel. The Government have been in the forefront of extending the Athens and Warsaw conventions—
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine his remarks to the clause stand part debate.
    Mr. Gregory: I was under the impression, Sir, that clause 2 deals with compensation. I wanted to ask my hon. Friend whether he was thinking of following the aviation and maritime examples rather than resorting to civil litigation methods. Might we have a code of practice or guidance under the clause to assist those who lose loved ones or who are injured on the railways?
    Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly look into that and write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Beith: I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber to deal with a query from an hon. Member who occupies a position of great power and influence in the building—he deals with accommodation matters.
    Will the Minister look again at the public service obligation covered by the clause and at the extraordinarily illogical position in which the Government and British Rail find themselves? The Government say that they are not concerned about the service on any particular part of the network covered by the PSO; they are concerned about whether the aggregate of service overall corresponds with the total service provided in 1988, now the base year for the public service obligation. If the only issue is how many miles are run by trains on the regional railway network, why do we have to pay this money at all? What is the point of the PSO as set out in the clause?
    If the invitation is thus extended to railway managers to attract as many people as they can by putting the trains where the largest number of people are, and reducing the mileage that they have to travel and thereby reducing the costs by running twice the number of trains between close
    1204
    urban points, rather than providing, at greater expense, a service to rural areas, why should the taxpayer subsidise that? Why should we pay for that? Why should it not be subject to the same requirements of breaking even as other parts of the railway network, or be subsidised only so far as it is a means of making the infrastructure costs correspond to the level of those borne by road services?
    Surely the purpose of the public service obligation is to ensure that the railway system continues to provide services over a wide area of the country, particularly rural railways. The Minister must take account of what the Central Transport Consultative Committee told him, which is that in rural areas, 48 per cent. of the services were running on reduced services. That is 48 per cent. of services for which the grant under this clause will be paid. That is almost half the services. In some cases, as the committee pointed out, reductions were to the point at which closure was being avoided by the technicality of running a single train.
    What sense does that make? The Minister must tell BR that if it wants to close the line, it should come to him with closure proposals. It should not ask him to give it taxpayers' money so that it can spend it somewhere else, while pretending that it is running a service on one of the many lines covered by the network as it was in 1988. The Minister has not answered this question. He cannot regard the CTCC as a firebrand hooligan body that never makes sensible proposals. This is a serious criticism of the Government's attitude to the PSO.
    I ask the Minister again. Why have a PSO if its purpose is not to maintain the broad totality of the rail network? Why not measure the money that he is handing out against some kind of performance indicator that examines whether the service is provided over the whole of the network? If it is his view that the 1988 network is no longer appropriate, and that some of the services should not be there at all, why is that issue not considered by closure proposals and the normal process of advice? Why does he allow BR to run services down to the point of one train in one direction a day? Ought not BR to be encouraged, where it has a network to run under a PSO, to run one that meets local needs and is marketed to maximise the support for it in that area? That is not happening. If the service were marketed, that might reduce the call on the PSO for the regional railways as a whole.
    There is a crisis in regional railways, and the Minister cannot dismiss it by saying that the measure is the aggregate number of miles run. This process could go a lot further. It would not be difficult for the managements of regional railways further to concentrate all the existing rolling stock in a limited number of urban areas, where there are additional passengers to be obtained. By that means, they might attempt to meet the target to reduce the PSO money referred to in the clause. Is the Minister content to let that happen?
    Mr. Freeman: There is clearly a difference between the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the Government about how one fixes the PSO grant. I have made it plain that we disagree with the CTCC's view that there should be route or line specific PSO grant system. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will remember that that was how the system was organised about 15 years ago. It was hopelessly bureaucratic and complicated. The hon. Gentleman must be saying that that is the way that he wishes to go, because that is the only

    1205
    alternative to the present system, in which the setting of the PSO is an iterative process. Perhaps I should briefly explain that. We do not set the PSO grant at the beginning of the year and say to British Rail, "Fix a service that suits that." British Rail has an obligation to run a system measured, broadly speaking, in train miles, as was provided on 1 April 1988. That gives BR the ability to change services and increase or decrease them on any particular line.
    11.30 pm
    On the question of marketing services and how we might change the PSO grant, I ask the hon. Gentleman to await our announcement on the way forward with privatisation, as we envisage it, and the way that it might affect regional railways. It is bound to involve a rediscussion of the whole issue of how the PSO grant—the social subsidy—is fixed and determined. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman wants a system not too dissimilar to the subsidising of rural bus services, where there is a specific subsidy to protect a specific service, including frequency. We have not reached that stage yet, but I hope that we will have an opportunity to debate that in greater detail on another occasion.
    Mr. Beith: I must press the Minister. What is the point of paying millions of pounds to British Railway so that it can run X thousand train miles? What social purpose, what public good is served, by expending a subsidy on the achievement of a certain number of train miles? It is not a social purpose; it is not an assessment that the community needs X thousand train miles.
    The PSO grant was devised on the assumption that the country needed a rail network, providing trains between various places. When Fred Mulley first set out the provision, he did not say to the House, "What this country needs is for 50,000 train miles to be run every few months."
    1206
    His concept was for an overall network. It does not make sense to pay out money to BR simply to achieve a mileage target. It would make sense if it were to retain a network with a reasonable level of services. It might make sense to do it in a number of other ways. I can see logic in changing the system in various ways and I can see logic in the way that the system was being run, but I cannot see any logic in saying to the taxpayer, "We will spend your money so that a certain number of miles per year will be achieved by BR."
    I think that the Minister is a sensible enough economist and accountant—we both read economics in the same place at the same time—to realise that that is nonsense. It certainly does not meet the needs of those in rural areas whose services are being whittled away. I am confident of one thing—that the one train that now runs from Chatshill northwards will remain in the timetable.—[Interruption.] It is the normal custom for an hon. Member to ask another hon. Member to give way, rather than to make the intervention first. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) must have pulled the signal levers early sometimes—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall recall his days with the railways at Macclesfield.
    That one train a day will remain in the timetable not because it is sensibly timed, not because anyone who uses it can get back from wherever he has gone, but because the only alternative is for BR to put forward closure plans. BR is dodging the requirement for closure proposals and using PSO money to run railway services where it can get the largest number of people on to them. That is not a sensible way to manage a public subsidy, and I cannot imagine that the Minister can, in any sincerity or seriousness, defend that.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Children (Deafness)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
11.34 pm
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I am pleased to raise in this Adjournment debate the question of the early diagnosis of deaf children. It is important that there should be maximum public awareness of the problem. I hope that tonight's debate, in conjunction with last night's programme on BBCI entitled "The Visit" by Desmond Wilcox, will help to highlight in the public mind the importance of the early diagnosis of deafness among children.
First, I want to give to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), a well-respected Member of the House who is also president of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, who wishes to support my arguments tonight but is unable to be here to do so in person.
The early diagnosis of deaf children, the prescription of hearing aids, the immediate provision of education and speech training are essential if children with hearing loss are to develop communication skills and not be severely handicapped as a result of deafness.
The central message of tonight's debate is the need to establish efficient screening, diagnostic and referral services and the publication of the outcome of the results. The provision of those services is an essential pre-condition for improvement in the education of deaf children.
Arguing and campaigning for the provision of those basic services is not new. The National Deaf Children's Society and the Health Visitors Association have been campaigning for years for an increase in screening and the publishing of the results. For example, in 1979, the society held a conference in association with the department of audiology at Manchester university on early diagnosis, and in 1980 it published a booklet entitled "The screening of hearing impaired children" setting out the problem and suggesting guidelines for improvement.
Later research, particularly a paper on the subject in the British Medical Journal in 1982 entitled "Auditory screening of schoolchildren—Fact or Fallacy" suggested that in one area the
"school health service programme of auditory screening was ineffective and unreliable."
I know that there is some debate about that study because of the small sample involved, but the research emphasises the need for national screening and that the results should be published.
I emphasise that the point of this Adjournment debate is to put high on the public agenda the need for parental awareness of the importance of the early diagnosis of deaf children. We are in no way trying to minimise the hard work and effort of the health visitors and the majority of local authorities who do all that they can to discover deafness at an early stage.
It is easy, as we have witnessed in many policy areas, particularly in the past decade, where a problem is defined and responsibility for the implementation of that policy is given—in this case to a regional health authority—for the adequate funds to perform that task not to be provided.
1208
The responsibility is delegated, but the funds needed to do the task properly are not available. Therefore, the attempt to achieve adequate diagnosis is left to a later stage.
I make it clear that I make no criticism of health visitors or, for the main part, of the regional health authorities. I have raised the subject on the Adjournment at the wish of a family in Redcar, in my constituency. In that, there is no criticism of Cleveland county council, which has one of the best records in the United Kingdom for educational facilities for disadvantaged groups.
What primarily concerns me is that much of the research that I have read and my own experience with my constituents is that there are many problems relating to individual children which cannot be ignored. Despite the hard work carried out by many individuals, it is still clear that all is not well and that many hearing-impaired children are being diagnosed far later than they could be. The National Deaf Children's Society, as the only national charity specially concerned with deaf children and their families, knows better than anyone the extent of the problem. It warns of the far higher incidence of hearing loss in children than we are aware of which remains undetected and untreated. Figures are difficult to come by, but, based on the survey resear4 available, a conservative estimate of more than 500,000 children is not unreasonable.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, the main cause of the hearing problems is glue ear. The condition is thought to be caused by a malfunction of the Eustachian tubes which results in a build-up of fluid in the middle ear. In many children, the condition resolves itself, but if it is prolonged it can cause serious learning difficulties. About one in three children has glue ear, which is the equivalent of saying that for one in three children listening is experienced as if they have their head in a bucket of water. That is the impact of having glue ear. What concerns me is that late diagnosis means that those children are handicapped in terms of their learning ability and they work at a disadvantage that will put them back as their learning experience goes on in school. That concern makes early diagnosis essential.
The existence of a hearing problem should not, if awareness is high enough, be difficult for parents or teachers to detect. As we all know, if children have a hearing problem, they may appear listless, they may be inattentive in class, they may seem to be disobedient or wilfully misunderstand and their behaviour and responses may be erratic. Speech difficulties are another good indicator, as are reading problems, especially those associated with phonetics. General learning difficulties can arise from prolonged hearing loss.
Asking for this Adjournment debate was the result of the hard work and persistent campaigning of one of my constituents in Redcar, Kathy Robinson. It is difficult to pay tribute to her work and she would not like it. She has worked hard for many years to publicise the plight of deaf children. She has especially campaigned for simple and straightforward improvements in the diagnosis of deafness among young children. I know from talking to her how frustrated she gets because what she asks for is so minor. However, in some senses, that is only one of the many frustrations that she has gone through in her life. The first frustration was the late diagnosis of Sarah, her first child, as deaf, followed 18 months later by the late diagnosis of her second child, Joanne. The learning difficulties compounded by late diagnosis are all too apparent to

1209
anyone who stops to think. The fact that months of learning have been stopped by people not being aware that the children were deaf has caused much frustration to Kathy Robinson and her husband Mick, and to other parents.
The best way to put the matter is in Kathy Robinson's own words. She says:
"Sarah was diagnosed as deaf at 21. She was almost 3 before she knew she had a name or that people had names. She was a nobody in a world of other nobodies. In time she began to recognise that the sounds she heard, Eh-Ah, meant her, Sarah. It was a long time to wait three years. And what was it like for her all that time, and afterwards as well—when she couldn't say she had a pain in her tummy because she didn't know it was a pain or that she had a tummy? Once she was smacked for not coming when she was called. Why didn't they know she couldn't hear? Because she was bright and alert —and her record said hearing normal."
We must think not only of the frustrations experienced by parents but of that felt by the deaf children themselves. The Robinson family got through those early days, tough and traumatic though they were, by persuading one of the local schools, Sacred Heart—thanks to Cleveland health authority—to accept Joanne and Sarah as pupils. That meant that they were part of the community from an early age.
Kathy Robinson has also worked hard to publicise the plight of deaf children. Her book "Children of Silence" was published by Penguin. She says that it took her seven years to write, along with 16 rejections, but she was determined that others should know about the world of childhood deafness. The family's struggles were portrayed very well on the television last night.
The family have not given up, although Joanne and Sarah are now moving on to higher education and, in a sense, beginning to grow apart from them. Kathy is now campaigning to raise £9,700 to introduce a deaf tutor into a hearing school for five to seven-year-olds. She is also becoming something of a campaigner on behalf of sign language. I am sure that she will persuade me to take it up soon: I learnt the basics as a girl guide, and I think that the pressure is now on for us to learn much more than that.
Yes, children's hearing is tested when they are approximately eight months old; yes, it is tested again when they are at primary school. But the years lost in between are years in which a deaf child, through late diagnosis, may lose many years of educational advantage in the future. The voluntary sector is doing an excellent job in trying to make the public aware of the issues: The National Deaf Children's Society now provides postcards and offers a good deal of information, as does the General Practitioners Council for the benefit of doctors. Individuals such as Kathy Robinson and her family continue to campaign. Now, however, it is time for the Government to take some responsibility and to provide a greater chance of early diagnosis of deafness in young children.
We have two simple requests. First, we want a national policy, recognised in law, that would provide a standardised approach to screening. Records of screening should be available at national level, the results being monitored and published annually to show the percentage of children tested, referred for diagnostic assessment and shown to have a hearing loss needing medical and/or educational treatment. That would give us the picture
1210
nationally: it would show us what is being done, and would allow us to compare one authority or area with another.
Secondly, we ask for the introduction of compulsory training for all GPs who undertake screening as part of child surveillance. As we all know, GPs work very hard, often under considerable strain, and the combination of work load and time constraints means that they do not always have the chance to listen to patients' worries, as they would like. We therefore ask for the option of standard procedures for referral or open referral for patients. The need for patients to self-refer, or have additional referral, is very great: tragically, 41 per cent. of deaf children pass their first hearing tests. That is what worries parents such as the Robinsons so much.
I have cited the Robinsons as an example of families who fight and conquer the problems of deafness. Now Sarah and Joanne are making their own way in the world, despite the handicap that no one can see. In a sense, that will become marginalised if the basic principles and approaches to the condition do not change. The changes that I have outlined are simple, the costs would be minimal, and the result of a correct early diagnosis of deafness is so crucial to a child's later ability to learn and participate in society that I hope that the Government will consider implementing my proposals.
11.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) follows her predecessor as Member of Parliament for Redcar in raising this matter on the Adjournment of the House. I think that Mr. Tinn raised it on three separate occasions. Members of Parliament for Redcar traditionally draw attention to a matter that undoubtedly should be an important national health service priority, in terms of its responsibility for child health.
Earlier today I heard about the experience of a grandmother whose grandchild had suffered a hearing loss that had not been diagnosed as quickly as it ought to have been, with the result that the child's mother thought that her child was, in her own words, being defiant and that she would have difficulty in handling the child. The fact was, however, that the child's hearing difficulty had not been diagnosed soon enough for the parents and those outside the immediate family to take remedial action. The hon. Lady was right to stress the importance of ensuring that there is effective screening for deafness in young children at the earliest possible time. That commitment is not disputed. We entirely endorse the hon. Lady's commitment to that objective and we have taken steps towards achieving it.
I hope that I shall not appear to be complacent if I refer to measures that we have taken, but that is not to suggest that everything that should be done has already been done. Further action can be taken in order to achieve that objective, but the earliest possible diagnosis of deafness in children is a shared objective. Allowance must be made for it and treatment must be offered that results in the child suffering no long-term effects. Delayed diagnosis can result in long-term damage to a child's hearing. There is a definite clinical reason for early diagnosis. The commitment, I repeat, is clear and is not in dispute.

1211
It is legitimate for me to draw attention to an element that we have included in the new general practitioner contract that has been in operation for 15 months. We took steps to extend the involvement of GPs in child health surveillance, in the belief that, through their regular contacts with the parents, they are particularly well placed to pick up concern about children's health. The new contract, introduced in April 1990, provides for a special payment to be made to eligible GPs to undertake child health surveillance work, in collaboration with health visitors. Eligibility is determined by training and by the experience of the GP in child health. That answers, at least in part, one of the hon. Lady's points.
The involvement of GPs in child health surveillance does not come just like that; GPs have to demonstrate competence before they are eligible for the specific payment for child health surveillance work. Therefore, it is a reflection of a GP's competence in child health surveillance. The new arrangements have led to the development of additional training opportunities for GPs to meet precisely the point that the hon. Lady has rightly identified.
So far, some 70 per cent. of GPs within the MIS have been accepted as eligible to undertake child health surveillance because they have demonstrated the necessary competence. To become accredited, many of those doctors will have undertaken updating training, including training in screening for hearing impairments. As a result, many families will now have a choice between the child health clinic and their GP when arranging child health surveillance. Some may find the clinic more convenient, but others may prefer the continuity and familiarity that comes with the established contact between the family and its general practitioner. That is one thing that we have done which demonstrates our commitment to efficient screening.
Another important idea, which perhaps goes some way to meet the hon. Member for Redcar's proper concern to ensure that the issue is constantly to the fore in not only the child's early years and at school but in the interim years, is the development of parent-held child health records. In that way, if the family or the child are seeing health professionals, there is a better chance that the complete health record and the results of every visit to a surveillance clinic or health professional are available.
Record keeping is a vital part of child health surveillance. Often, physical or sensory impairments are revealed only through close monitoring of the child's development over a period of time. However, surveillance programmes are vulnerable to interruptions due to missed appointments or the family moving from one district to another and the records not moving as fast as the family. To underline the importance of records and, equally importantly, to involve the parents in the surveillance work and the preparation of records, there have been a number of local initiatives to introduce parent-held child health records. Recently, a working party led by the British Paediatric Association reviewed the local initiatives and produced a model personal child health record. The record requires the parents to record key events in the child's development—for example, when the child says its first understandable word—and any concerns that they may have about the child's health. The record also contains health promotion advice on subjects such as feeding, immunisation and accident prevention.
1212
The house visitor or doctor uses the record a background to their examination of the child and enters the results of any tests they undertake as well as general observations about the child's development. The research shows that parents and health professionals welcome the use of those records and that they contribute to better co-operation and understanding of the diagnosis of various childhood disabilities. It uses the fact that parents have far more intense exposure to the child and may be aware of problems that they cannot link to a correct clinical diagnosis. However, those incidents can he entered into the child's record so that the health professional can make the necessary linkages.
It is also important to recognise that early diagnosis of deafness is not necessarily as easy as it might sound. It is not simply a matter of attending a clinic and seeing whether the child responds to a particular noise or test. Hearing ability will not be the same from one day to another, particularly in the case of children suffering from glue ear, who, as the hon. Member for Redcar rightly said, make up the majority of children suffering from deafness. To some extent, it is a fluctuating condition. Therefore, parental involvement and surveillance over a long period should not be underestimated if we are to have an effective means of tackling the problem.
The hon. Member for Redcar also asked about the national commitment, which she said that we should write into law, to early diagnosis and giving practical effect to that and the collection of statistics. 1 recognise that on the collection of effective epidemiological information on a nationwide basis we have some way to go before we can produce figures with which we can all be happy and which record accurately and at the earliest possible moment the incidence of deafness in children. The purchaser obligation under the new management structures of the health service places on district managers the obligation that the hon. Lady sought to ensure that priorities are recognised and followed through.
One of the specific issues that must be addressed in all child surveillance work is the link between child surveillance teams in community health departments and in primary health care. I am prone to ask about the difference between community health and primary health. I have asked that question more often than I have received an answer that I found convincing. I am more convinced that it is a distinction without a difference. In future, one of the priorities of health service managers will be to ensure more effective delivery of the old aspiration of a seamless service between the primary health system, which is led by GPs, and the community system, which is the responsibility of the district health authority. By far the biggest difference between the systems is that they are run by two different bureaucracies.
Ms. Mowlam: As the witching hour comes, I seek a point of clarification from the Minister. He said that he sees some advantage in publishing screening statistics, although there is some way to go, and questioned the need for a statutory base. Would it be fair to say that he sees it as advantageous in the long run and that he would encourage the publication of such statistics, albeit on a regional basis and in a non-statutory way? Is there a willingness to see that in the public domain?
Mr. Dorrell: There is a willingness to find ways of presenting that information in a scientifically rigorous

1213
manner. The problem is defining the information to be published and ensuring that it is published in a usable form. I strongly support the provision of sufficient scientifically robust information to allow those who are interested to compare the performances of different health districts so that it can be seen which are effective in delivering the objective that the hon. Lady and the
1214
Government share of an efficient early diagnosis system. Once we know which districts are efficient in delivering that objective, we shall be nearer to taking the necessary steps to ensure that the less efficient become more efficient. By raising the subject on the Adjournment, the hon. Lady has demonstrated that commitment and it is shared by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table otherwise comparable to that provided in his answer of 17 April,Official Report, columns 184–85, to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) showing reductions in payment per year in successive increments of £10 from £0 to £140 for (i) charge payers and (ii) pensioners.

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

  Reduction in payment per year Bottom of range £

  Charge payers (millions)

  Pensioners(millions)

  0

  1·1

  0·1

  10

  2·5

  1·2

  20

  4·7

  2·6

  30

  1·0

  0·2

  40

  0·9

  0·2

  50

  1·1

  0·2

  60

  1·7

  0·3

  70

  1·6

  0·2

  80

  1·4

  0·2

  90

  1·5

  0·3

  100

  1·2

  0·2

  110

  1·0

  0·1

  120

  0·8

  0·1

  130

  0·8

  0·1

  140

  14·2

  1·9

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 2 July, how much of the special waste produced in the United Kingdom annually is disposed of by incineration.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 13" published by HMSO in 1991 included in figure 5·3 an estimate that about 5 per cent. of the special waste produced in the United Kingdom in 1988 was disposed of by incineration. This figure is probably typical for any 12-month period in recent years.

  Parish Election Expenses
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue regulations to effect the release of money held by district councils on account for parish councils to be used by them for parish election expenses.

  Mr. Key
  The treatment of any money held by district councils relating to balances on parish accounts is a matter for the authorities concerned.

  Planning Inquiries
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on the lastest year's figures available for England and Wales what were the mean, median, longest and shortest lengths of time that were taken to make a decision about whether or not to issue a call-in notice under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, previously section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, following an article 14 direction.

  Mr. Yeo
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Panning Applications
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on the latest year's figures available for England and Wales, how many planning applications were subject to an article 14 direction; how many were subsequently the subject of a call-in under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, previously section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and what both these figures were as a percentage of the total number of planning applications submitted.

  Mr. Yeo
  In England in 190–91, a total of 182 article 14 directions were made; 70 planning applications were called in following such directions; a total of 532,000 planning applications were received by local planning authorities. In Wales in the same year, the corresponding figures were 13; 2; 39,000.

  Planning applications which were the subject of article 14 directions or were called in by my right hon. Friends in 1990–91 were not necessarily received by local planning authorities in the same year.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Sir Richard Luce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 587, if he will set out in detail the formulae for the criteria which are required in assessing the standard spending assessment for a district council.

  Mr. Portillo
  The formulae for assessing the standard spending assessment for a district council are set out in paragraphs 3.33 to 3.36 and 3.48 to 3.58 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England) as amended by paragraph 9 of the Revenue Support Grant Distribution (Amendment) Report (England). Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Venezuelan Environment Minister
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he held an official meeting with Snr. Enrique C. Finol, Minister for the Environment for Venezuela, during his recent visit to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Trippier
  A meeting was planned, but did not take place owing to a change in the Venezuelan Minister's programme.

  Commonhold Legislation
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is his intention to include a right to buy the freehold for existing long leaseholders in the forthcoming commonhold legislation.
  415
  Mr. Yeo
  We hope to make a statement on commonhold very shortly.

  Housing, Tower Hamlets
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rent of local authority homes in the London borough of Tower Hamlets in 1978 and in each subsequent year.

  Sir George Young
  Information on average weekly unrebated rents in April of each year is published annually by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy in "Housing Rents Statistics" for those authorities which respond to their annual survey. Copies of this publication for 1978 to 1990 are in the Library.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new homes were started and completed in the London borough of Tower Hamlets in each year since 1974; and how many of these were local authority or housing association homes for rent.

  Sir George Young
  The London borough of Tower Hamlets has not sent the Department any statistical returns about housebuilding in the area since 1984. The available information as reported by the borough for 1980 onwards is shown in tables 1.1 to 1.5 of "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Areas 1980 to 1989". Tables 3.1 to 3.6 show housebuilding in Tower Hamlets by the Greater London council. Figures for 1974 to 1979 are shown in tables 5 and 7 of the following issues of "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales": volume numbers 33, 37, 41, 45, 49 and 53, respectively. No completions have been reported of dwellings built specifically for sale by local authority or housing associations in Tower Hamlets.

  Copies of the above publications are in the Library.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are taken to ensure that planning inspectors with interests in property development and building firms do not hear appeals concerning major development proposals.

  Mr. Yeo
  Inspectors are not allocated cases where it is clear that they have a personal involvement or interest that might bring into question their impartiality. If an inspector is allocated a case where he has a personal interest that could conflict with his official duty, he is required to inform the Department. Another inspector will then be appointed in his place.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what register of interests exists for planning inspectors.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Department does not keep a register of inspectors' interests. It does however, maintain a list of areas in which inspectors will not be allocated work. This list normally includes the local authority area in which an inspector lives, or has been recently employed, and any other area where he has interests that could conflict with his official duties.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 20 December,Official Report, columns 273–74.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The following surveys carried out by my Department since 20 December 1990, include questions to individuals about their opinions:

  Survey of Single Homelessness.

  Survey of Housing Association Tenants.

  Study of Under-Occupation in the Social Rented Sector.

  Evaluation of the Impact of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

  Study of Conversions of Houses into Flats in London.

  Evaluating the Impact of Block Action.

  Appraisal of assisted Agency Services.

  Polish Economic Adviser
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he held an official meeting with Dr. Tomasz Zylicz, economics adviser to the Polish Minister for the Environment during his recent visit to London.

  Mr. Trippier
  No.

  United Nations Environment Programme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he had an official meeting with Dr. Yusuf Ahmad of the United Nations environment programme executive directorate during his recent visit to London.

  Mr. Trippier
  Dr. Ahmad is a frequent visitor to the Department. My officials keep in touch with him on a number of international environmental issues on which he has much valued expertise.

  International Biotechnology Workshop
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the international biotechnology workshop held at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 17–19 June.

  Mr. Baldry
  Further to my reply of 14 May to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the workshop was mounted under the auspices of the United Conference on Environment and Development—UNCED—and attended by some 50 senior international experts from about 30 countries. My Department contributed $80,000—£44,700—towards its cost.

  Under the chairmanship of Dr. Nay Htun of the UNCED secretariat, the workshop considered a wide range of factors affecting the assessment and management of risks in biotechnology. The expert advice given will form the basis of proposals to be presented to the UNCED preparatory committee at its third session in Geneva next month.

  The encouraging progress made at the workshop augurs well for the consideration of the environmentally sound management of biotechnology at the UNCED "Earth summit," to be held in Brazil in 1992. The United Kingdom will continue to work hard to prepare the ground for the agreement of a set of principles for risk assessment and management as a basis for the development of international guidelines on biotechnology safety.

  Thorne Moor
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Thorne moor has been designated under the Ramsar convention.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: No. The former Nature Conservancy Council identified Thorne—and Hatfield—moor as a potential Ramsar site but the Government have not received any formal recommendations from English Nature.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he is considering for the storage of compressed carbon dioxide waste gases from coal gasification in depleted gas fields, as part of the programme for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Energy's Chief Scientist's Group at the Energy Technology Support Unit is evaluating, in collaboration with industry, a number of options for the recovery of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion and, inter alia, its disposal in disused natural gas fields. My Department is also seeking collaboration, under International Energy Agency auspices, with up to 14 other countries in an assessment of the feasibility of removing, utilising, transporting and disposing of carbon dioxide produced in fossil fuel power generation.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table of the total grants given by each local authority social services department in England to voluntary organisations for the last year for which the information is available;

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 5 July 1991]: I have been asked to reply.

  The latest year for which information is available is 1988–89. The information is given in the table.

  Local Authority Contributions to Voluntary Organisations in 1988–89

  £000

  Metropolitan Borough Councils

  Bolton

  80

  Bury

  166

  Manchester

  0

  Oldham

  177

  Rochdale

  407

  Salford

  85

  Stockport

  101

  Tameside

  133

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  196

  Knowsley

  415

  Liverpool

  924

  St. Helens

  0

  Sefton

  25

  Wirral

  366

  Barnsley

  10

  Doncaster

  214

  Rotherham

  27

  Sheffield

  1,460

  Gateshead

  371

  Newcastle

  1,503

  North Tyneside

  19

  418

  £000

  South Tyneside

  31

  Sunderland

  0

  Birmingham

  4,564

  Coventry

  805

  Dudley

  248

  Sandwell

  91

  Solihull

  0

  Walsall

  120

  Wolverhampton

  1,014

  Bradford

  725

  Calderdale

  164

  Kirklees

  497

  Leeds

  1,281

  Wakefield1

  Inner London Boroughs

  City of London

  212

  Camden

  2,216

  Greenwich1

  Hackney1

  Hammersmith1

  Islington

  3,278

  Kensington

  1,238

  Lambeth1

  Lewisham

  1,466

  Southwark

  1,839

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  Wandsworth

  266

  Westminster

  2,560

  Outer London Boroughs

  Barking

  0

  Barnet

  532

  Bexley

  310

  Brent

  2,244

  Bromley

  321

  Croydon

  0

  Ealing

  403

  Enfield

  72

  Haringey1

  Harrow

  57

  Havering

  25

  Hillingdon

  300

  Hounslow

  0

  Kingston

  298

  Merton

  0

  Newham

  462

  Redbridge

  2

  Richmond

  0

  Sutton

  245

  Waltham Forest

  0

  Shire Counties

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Bedfordshire

  215

  Berkshire

  418

  Buckinghamshire

  1,510

  Cambridgeshire

  1,345

  Cheshire

  605

  Cleveland

  638

  Cornwall

  125

  Cumbria

  19

  Derbyshire

  945

  Devon

  924

  Dorset

  0

  Durham

  105

  East Sussex

  877

  Essex

  810

  Gloucestershire

  742

  Hampshire

  1,547

  Hereford and Worcester

  217

  Hertfordshire

  0

  Humberside

  0

  Isle of Wight

  48

  Kent

  1,268

  Lancashire

  490

  Leicestershire

  2,157

  Lincolnshire

  307

  419

  £000

  Norfolk

  1,329

  Northamptonshire

  1,607

  Northumberland

  48

  North Yorkshire

  359

  Nottinghamshire

  1,889

  Oxfordshire

  555

  Shropshire

  74

  Somerset1

  —

  Staffordshire

  229

  Suffolk

  953

  Surrey

  55

  Warwickshire

  1,229

  West Sussex

  18

  Wiltshire

  1,311

  Source: local authority revenue outturn forms 1988–89

  1 Completed form not received by 1 August 1990

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Government of the People's Republic of China with regard to the detention of the Right Reverend Joseph Fan Zhongliang.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made no specific representations about the detention of Bishop Fan Zhongliang.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in clarifying technical disputes regarding the CFE treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At an extraordinary conference of the CFE signatories in Vienna on 14 June, the Soviet Union made a statement regarding the treatment of equipment in coastal defence, naval infantry and strategic rocket force units. The extraordinary conference concluded that a satisfactory basis existed for proceeding toward ratification and implementation of the CFE treaty. The agreement reached will ensure that the Soviet Union will in practice comply with the limits, including zonal and active unit sublimits, established by the treaty.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 71.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No further public opinion surveys have been carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since my answer of 17 December 1990.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 24, if he will list the commencement date and duration of the publicity campaign to which he refers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The publicity campaign aimed at British travellers abroad is a continuous one.
  420
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 24.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No such companies are employed or involved in these campaigns.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his most recent assessment of the dangers faced by the refugee Shias in southern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are very disturbed by recent United Nations evidence of renewed Iraqi action against those Iraqi Shia who have taken refuge in the marsh area of southern Iraq. We have made our concerns known to the head of the Iraqi interests section in London and to the Iraqi permanent representative at the United Nations and have urged the Iraqis to allow humanitarian relief into the area quickly.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what powers executive agencies have to change their financial regime without first amending their framework document.

  Mr. Renton
  Agency chief executives keep their financial and other management regimes under review, with the aim of developing the framework best suited to their business needs. Significant changes in an agency's financial regime would require the agreement of the responsible Minister and the Treasury. In many cases, there will be sufficient flexibility in the framework document to allow for changes, so no further amendment is required. But where such changes are not covered the framework document will need to be revised.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the agreed expenditure for investment on the Circle line of London Underground over the next three years; and whether he has any plans to increase it.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government do not set levels of investment for individual Underground lines. However, London Underground is in the process of refurbishing the entire fleet of Circle line trains. It is also looking at ways of improving the line's service reliability by combining its running with that of the Hammersmith and City line.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he is having with the Health and Safety Executive in connection with each of the short and long-term recommendations listed in sections 7 and 8
  421
  of the May 1991 independent report by consulting engineers on the gantry accident of 4 September 1990 on the Severn bridge.

  Mr. Chope
  The recommendations are under discussion within the Department. The Health and Safety Executive will be consulted before final decisions are reached.

  A6 Chapel Bypass
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the final price paid to the construction company involved in the A6 Chapel bypass as compared to the original contract price.

  Mr. Chope
  The original tender sum for the contract was £17·031 million. The total contractor's account was settled at £43·703 million.

  M11 Link Road
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton of 3 July, on the M11 link road, if he will list those standards established in the case of the M40, referred to by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) in the debate on the New Roads and Street Works Bill in Standing Committee E on 14 March,Official Report, column 25, which can be applied to urban roads such as the M11 link road.

  Mr. Chope
  As is made clear in the answer to which the hon. Member refers, the measures taken to mitigate any evironmental impact of a new road depend on the individual nature of each project.

  Maidstone Bypass
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to let a contract for the widening of the M20 Maidstone bypass; and what completion date will be specified.

  Mr. Chope
  The contract for the widening of the Maidstone bypass section of the M20 between junctions 5 and 8 was let on 4 July to Balfour Beatty Ltd. Work will begin before the end of July for completion by the spring of 1993.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 59–60.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department regularly commissions surveys. A list of all surveys is maintained but it is not possible to identify easily from this list those surveys which have included questions of opinion. My hon. Friend's answer of 20 December 1990 referred to 370 surveys of all types reported in the years 1985 to 1989. A further 101 surveys were reported in 1990 and I am sending a list of these to the hon. Member.

  British Rail (Safety)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there are any plans to change British Rail's quality of service objectives to take account of the case for manning 422
  of rail stations in London by British Rail staff during the hours that such stations are timetabled to receive trains, and the provision at all stations of security cameras and emergency telephones.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The staffing of stations is a matter for the BR board.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many assaults have taken place at unmanned British Rail stations in the past five years, and how many such stations had no security cameras and no emergency telephones.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: In 1989 and 1990 four assaults, of which one was serious, occurred at unmanned stations in the Greater London area. Figures for previous years and other areas are not readily available.

ENERGY

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many blocks of the United Kingdom continental shelf have been licensed for oil and gas exploration within the past 10 years despite sustained objections from the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Nature Conservancy Council has registered concerns about a number of blocks offered for oil and gas licensing in the past 10 years. These concerns have been met by applying conditions and restrictions to activity under the licences or by not offering the relevant blocks. In this period, the Nature Conservancy Council has objected to the offer for licensing of six blocks or pairs of blocks. Three of these were offered in the 10th round, but not subsequently licensed; three were licensed in the 12th round of offshore licensing.

  Radioactive Waste (Contamination)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether radioactive wastes contaminated with plutonium arising from the reprocessing of foreign spent fuel at(a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay are covered by existing nuclear safeguards agreements.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  All civil nuclear material is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom-Euratom-International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards agreement. The UK-Euratom-IAEA safeguards agreement provides, however, that safeguards shall be terminated when the material has been diluted to the point at which it is practicably irrecoverable.

  Nuclear Electric
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for what reason he prevented Nuclear Electric from launching a publicity and advertising campaign in July.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The decision to postpone a proposed advertising campaign was taken by Nuclear Electric plc.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he last discussed directors' pay with Nuclear Electric;
  423
  (2) whether it is his policy that the pay of the directors of Nuclear Electric should be comparable with that of directors of the privatised electricity companies;

  (3) what criteria he uses when determining the pay of the directors of Nuclear Electric.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I last discussed pay with members of the board of Nuclear Electric on 4 June 1991. Our approach in respect of all publicly owned companies is to pay salaries sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate the manpower the company needs.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions paper for the printing of share certificates for the flotation at the electricity distribution companies was returned to the paper suppliers; whether any financial loss occurred to the Department as a result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. All the paper ordered for the printing of interim share certificates required in the regional electricity companies share offers was either used, returned to the supplier at no cost, or sold to a third party without loss.

  EC Energy Ministers
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet his opposite numbers in other European Community countries; and what will be discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I expect to meet my opposite numbers at the next Energy Council, on 29 October, when we will discuss a number of energy-related subjects.

  I also hope to have separate meetings later this year with the German Minister for Economic Affairs, the Dutch Minister for Economic Affairs and the Portuguese Minister for Industry and Energy. In each case, European energy matters will form the basis for discussion.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 39.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The only advertising agency currently employed in any of the campaigns listed in my earlier answer is Laing Henry for the United Kingdom offshore supplies industry. My Department does not usually retain companies in a purely promotional or public relations role.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the cost, and the benefits, of his Department's exhibit on renewable energy resources at the recent exhibition on the environment, wildlife and conservation at Olympia.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The total cost of the Department of Energy's participation in this exhibition is expected to be £24,000. This event forms part of the programme for promoting renewable energy, including the raising of 424
  public awareness and the involvement of industry in the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. An analysis of inquiries will be carried out to assess the effectiveness of the material provided.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 13.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 39, if he will list the commencement date and duration of each publicity campaign.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The energy efficiency, offshore supplies industry and renewable energy campaigns are ongoing, and have been running for a number of years. The joint campaign with the Department of the Environment is expected to commence in the autumn of 1991 and continue until 1993–94.

  Fourth Landward Licensing Round
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the response to the fourth landward licensing round.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The fourth landward licensing round which closed at noon on 20 June attracted 35 applications for exploration licences from 39 companies or groups of companies. I will now be considering all the applications on their merits. The new licences resulting from this round, which I hope to announce towards the end of the summer, should help to maintain the momentum of exploration onshore in Britain.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the public opinion surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of, the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Law Officers since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 1, giving the date and purpose of each survey.

  The Attorney-General
  No national public opinion survey has been conducted by, for or on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department or any of the Departments for which I am responsible since 17 December 1990. No records are held centrally of any local surveys that may have been conducted by area staff of the Crown prosecution service, and such information could be acquired only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Bank and Building Society Lending
  Mr. Lawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annualised percentage growth of bank and building society lending was, seasonally adjusted, over the six months to(a) May 1991 and (b) June 1991.
  425
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  For the six months to the end of May 1991 the banks' and building societies' lending to the M4 private sector annualised growth rate was 7·1 per cent. (seasonally adjusted).

  The June 1991 figure is not available yet. It will be given in line 23 of table A of the Bank of England's monetary statistics notice, due for publicaton on 29 July 1991.

  NUCPS (Pay Dispute)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his reasons for refusing to refer the pay dispute with the National Union of Civil and Public Servants to the Civil Service Arbitration tribunal; and if he will now reconsider that decision.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Under the terms of the long-term pay agreement with the NUCPS, arbitration is an option only if both parties agree. Arbritration was rejected because pay should reflect what is needed to recruit, retain and motivate staff within what can be afforded. The offer took these factors into account and is within the parameters of the pay agreement.

  The NUCPS has now accepted the offer.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet building society representatives to discuss the Government response to the Woolwich judicial review result.

  Mr. Maples
  I have no plans to do so. The Building Societies Association has not asked for such a meeting.

  Obscene Publications
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many imported publications deemed to be obscene have been seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in the past five years; how many persons have been prosecuted for this trade; and what punishments were imposed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the five years 1986 to 1991 a total of 157,689 publications deemed to be indecent or obscene were seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. 373 persons were prosecuted leading to a total of 36 years 9 months imprisonment (including 18 years 1 month suspended sentences), seven years probation and fines and costs totalling £183,171.

  Public Servants' Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the Government's policy of abating the pensions of public servants who are re-employed in the public service after retirement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government have completed their review of the current abatement policy.

  My hon. Friend the then Economic Secretary announced on 21 December 1989 at col 370 that the pay or pension of retired public servants would no longer be subject to abatement if they were re-employed in a different public service after retirement. This change did not extend to those who retire early from one public service and are subsequently re-employed in another. They
  426
  continue to be subject to abatement until they reach the normal retirement age in the public service from which they first retired.

  The Government have now given further consideration to the abatement arrangements for those who are re-employed in the same public service from which they draw pension. Here, re-employment is a continuation of the employment from which the pension derives and we have concluded that a public service pension should not normally be payable where the employee has not genuinely retired from that public service. Circumstances may occur in the future in a particular public service for which a relaxation of abatement might be appropriate but no such case has been made so, for the present, we do not consider that any significant change is warranted in the current policy or its application. Abatement will generally continue to apply for those who are re-employed in the same public service from which they draw pension. There will, however, be some minor changes to remove anomalies which will ease the effect of abatement in some cases and will simplify administration.

  Civil Service Employees
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers, locations and departments of all civil servants employed in Gwent and Glamorgan.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 9 July 1991]: At 1 April 1991 the number of non-industrial civil servants employed in Gwent and Glamorgan was 22,165. Analyses by location and by department are given in tables 1 and 2 respectively. No figures are held centrally of the number of industrial civil servants employed in Gwent and Glamorgan.

  Table 1

  Numbers of non-industrial civil servants in Gwent and Glamorgan Staff in post at 1 April 1991

  Location

  Headcount

  Gwent

  3,304

  of which:

  Blaenau Gwent

  203

  Islwyn

  104

  Monmouth

  443

  Newport

  2,149

  Torfaen

  405

  Glamorgan

  18,861

  of which:

  Cynon Valley

  234

  Merthyr Tydfil

  349

  Ogwr

  384

  Rhondda

  166

  Rhymney Valley

  247

  Taff Ely

  930

  Cardiff

  9,354

  Vale of Glamorgan

  621

  Afan

  262

  Lliw Valley

  5

  Neath

  154

  Swansea

  6,155

  Source: Mandate.

  Table 2

  Numbers of non-industrial civil servants in Gwent

  Department

  Staff in post at 1 April 1991 (headcount)

  Central Statistical Office

  789

  Customs and Excise

  48

  Crown Prosecution Service

  32

  427

  Table 2 Numbers of non-industrial civil servants in Gwent

  Department

  Staff in post at 1 April 1991 (headcount)

  Ministry of Defence

  135

  Employment Department Group

  390

  Home Office

  401

  Inland Revenue

  326

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  102

  Department of Social security

  581

  DTI

  435

  Department of Transport

  28

  Welsh Office

  18

  Other departments

  19

  Total

  3,304

  Source: MANDATE.

  Numbers of non-industrial civil servants in Glamorgan

  Department

  Staff in post at 1 April 1991 (headcount)

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  38

  Customs and Excise

  405

  Crown Prosecution Service

  184

  Ministry of Defence

  713

  Employment Department Group

  1,558

  Department of the Environment (excluding PSA)

  14

  PSA

  280

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  693

  HMSO

  17

  Home Office

  480

  Inland Revenue

  3,261

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  511

  Land Registry

  737

  Mint, Royal

  371

  Ordnance Survey

  30

  Department of Social Security

  2,321

  DTI

  1,139

  Department of Transport

  4,343

  Welsh Office

  1,740

  Other departments

  26

  Total

  18,861

  Source: MANDATE.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Environmental Aid Projects
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria his Department's Overseas Development Administration uses to judge appropriate time horizons when considering the funding of environmental aid projects.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Consistent with the principles of sustainable development, we aim to take a long term view of every environmental impact of projects we finance, and pay special attention to any possible irreversible effects. No generally agreed criteria exist for judging appropriate specific time horizons and qualitative judgments are often needed especially where it is not possible fully to quantify environmental costs and benefits. We have financed work by the Overseas Development Institute, published last month as a book "Values for the Environment: A Guide to Economic Appraisal" by J. T. Winpenny, which will provide guidance on these issues to ODA economists and others. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the sums committed by Her Majesty's Government in humanitarian assistance to Iraq(a) for relief operations for refugees and (b) in total.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Since 4 April 1991, the Government have committed £61·5 million for Iraqi refugees. The Government also committed £18·37 million during 1990–91 for humanitarian assistance to refugees in the Gulf crisis area.

  Malawi
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of human rights in Malawi.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Observance of human rights in Malawi is showing welcome improvement. A total of 88 detainees have been released so far this year. The Malawi Government have told us that all remaining cases of detention without trial are under review. We seek an end to detention without trial in Malawi as elsewhere.

  World Bank Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy to assist in the widespread distribution in the United Kingdom of the forthcoming annual world development report of the World Bank on environmental and development matters.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The 1991 World development report, "The Challenge of Development", was published by the World Bank on 8 July. I endorse its main thesis that successful development requires the public and private sectors each to play an appropriate role, and to do so effectively. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The 1992 report will deal with development and the environment and will be published next April.

  World development reports deserve to be widely distributed and the World Bank already has machinery in place to achieve this.

  Contraceptive and Infant Health Care Advice
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance in regard to contraceptive advice and infant health care is made available by Her Majesty's Government to nations covered by the Lomé convention in the Pacific, Caribbean and Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A specific focus on population and demography is included for the first time in the fourth Lomé convention signed in December 1989, although under earlier conventions the EC financed a number of projects in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the health sector. The Commission is now preparing projects reflecting the new focus in co-operation with Governments of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Iraq
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made by the United Kingdom Government either individually or in conjunction with the international community to meet the humanitarian requirements of the Shi'ite population in southern Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The relief programmes of the United Nations and the Red Cross and Red Crescent provide humanitarian assistance to displaced people throughout Iraq. Britain has so far contributed US$16 million to the UN appeal launched in May and £2·5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross. A UN mission is currently in Iraq to assess the situation particularly in the southern part of the country. We shall give its report our full consideration.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export of Goods Order
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the amendments made to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989; and if he has any plans to make any further amendments.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Seven amendment orders to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 have been made:

  Amendment No. 1 came into force 14 February 1990

  Amendment No. 2 came into force 30 April 1990

  Amendment No. 3 came into force 15 April 1990

  Amendment No. 4 came into force 11 August 1990

  Amendment No. 5 came into force 31 August 1990

  Amendment No. 6 came into force 21 December 1990

  Amendment No. 7 came into force 10 July 1991

  It is planned to introduce a consolidated order incorporating these amendments later this year. Additional amendments to export controls reflecting agreement reached in various international regimes of which the United Kingdom is a member are anticipated.

  Insurance Selling
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he intends to take to ensure that the coverage of the Association of British Insurance code of practice guidelines for general insurance selling are(a) complete and (b) enforced and whether he has any plans to refer this matter to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Redwood
  All Association of British Insurance members agree to adhere to the provisions of the code. Its operation is overseen by an independent monitoring committee on which my Department is represented. I believe that the code is working satisfactorily, but the monitoring committee will be undertaking a full review next year. Any evidence to the contrary should be sent to the monitoring committee. I have no plans to refer the code to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Maintenance Contracts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about alleged unfair terms in maintenance contracts for office and industrial equipment, excluding photocopier leasing agreements.
  430
  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has received three complaints over the last three months alleging unfair terms in maintenance contracts for office equipment other than photocopiers. All three complaints have been about maintenance and leasing agreements for facsimile equipment.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 18 March 1991, Official Report, columns 23–24. That statement applies equally to all maintenance contracts for office and industrial equipment.

  Fraud
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to bring forward proposals to place a duty on auditors to report fraud, or suspicion of fraud.

  Mr. Redwood
  As the Government made clear in their response to the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee on company investigations, we do not believe that a statutory duty should be imposed on auditors to report fraud, or suspicions of fraud, to the authorities. We believe that the action to be taken by auditors in respect of fraud is best left to professional guidance and we welcome the profession's initiative in publishing last year the auditing guideline on the auditor's responsibilities in respect of fraud, other irregularities and errors, which all auditors are expected to follow.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether export licences are required for the sale by British companies of(a) technology, (b) engineering design and (c) building design blueprints or plans, where the development of such blueprints or plans involves military equipment or premises.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 8 July 1991]: In 1989 the export controls covering military equipment to certain countries were extended to include all products involving the combination and construction of metallic or non-metallic materials specially designed to provide ballistic protection for military systems. Similarly, all technology engineering design and building design blueprints or plans relating to these products now require a licence.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to initiate legislation for the reform of friendly societies.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) on 3 June 1991, Official Report, column 23.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Services
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of fire engines and average populations served by each fire brigade station in London for each year since 1979.
  431
  Mr. John Patten
  The number of front-line pumping appliances based at each fire station in the London fire brigade for each year from 1979 to 1991 is shown in the table. Information about the population served by each

  Front line pumping appliances based at London fire stations, 1979–1991

  Fire Station

  Year 1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Acton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Addington

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Barbican

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Barking

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Barnet

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Battersea

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Beckenham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Belsize

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bethnal Green

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Bexley

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Biggin Hill

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bow

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Brixton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Bromley

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Cannon Street

  2

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chelsea

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Chingford

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Chiswick

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Clapham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Clerkenwell

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Croydon

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dagenham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Deptford

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dockhead

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Dowgate

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Downham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Ealing

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  East Greenwich

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  East Ham

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Edmonton

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Eltham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Enfield

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Erith

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Euston

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Feltham

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Finchley

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Forest Hill

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Fulham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Greenwich

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Hainault

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hammersmith

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Hayes

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Harrow

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Hendon

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Heston

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Hillingdon

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Holloway

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Homerton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Hornchurch

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Hornsey

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Ilford

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Islington

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Kensington

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Kentish Town

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Kingsland

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Kingston

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Knightsbridge

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lambeth

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Lambeth River

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lee Green

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Lewisham

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Leyton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Leytonstone

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Manchester Square

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Mill Hill

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Millwall

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Mitcham

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  New Cross

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  New Malden

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Norbury

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North Kensington

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  432
  fire station in the London fire brigade is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost
  433

  Fire Station

  Year 1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northolt

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Old Kent Road

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Orpington

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Paddington

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Park Royal

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Peckham

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Plaistow

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Plumstead

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Poplar

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Purley

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Richmond

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Romford

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Ruislip

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sanderstead

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shadwell

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shooters Hill

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Shoreditch

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Sidcup

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Silvertown

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Soho

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Southall

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Southgate

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Southwark

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Stanmore

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Stoke Newington

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Stratford

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Surbiton

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Sutton

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Tooting

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Tottenham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Twickenham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Wallington

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Walthamstow

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Wandsworth

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Wennington

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Wembley

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  West Hampstead

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Westminster

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  West Norwood

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Whitechapel

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Willesden

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Wimbledon

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Woodford

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Woodside

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Woolwich

  2

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Notes:

  1. These figures do not include special appliances, such as hydraulic platforms or turntable ladders, nor pumping appliances maintained as part of the Brigade's reserve fleet.

  2. The figures shown in this table derive from establishment returns submitted by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority relating to the establishment on 1 January each year.

  Junior Crime Prevention Panels
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the presentation of his awards to the west midlands junior crime prevention panels.

  Mr. John Patten
  Although my right hon. Friend has made no awards of prizes to west midlands junior crime prevention panels, I acknowledged and thanked those involved for the valuable work which they undertake during my address to the crime prevention conference "A Matter of Youth" held at Edgbaston on 18 October 1990. Home Office grants totalling £6,155 have been made under the safer cities programme to support and promote the work of junior crime prevention panels in the west midlands.

  Refugees (Legal Advice)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration was given to the obligations in the international conventions on refugees 434
  that there should be no discrimination in access to legal advice and assistance in proposing the ending of green form legal advice and assistance to refugees.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In their review of asylum arrangements the Government have taken full account of the United Kingdom's international obligations. The planned change in eligibility for green form legal aid, which relates to all immigration matters, is compatible with these obligations. In this area the primary remedy lies in appeals to the immigration appellate authorities, for which free advice and representation is available from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. We have no plans to alter access to the High Court in these cases or eligibility for legal aid for litigation there.

  Mr. Paul Cleeland
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for his Department's document on Paul Alexander Cleeland's trial to be further
  435
  amended in respect of the comments of the preparer of the document so that it refers only to the summing-up of the trial judge.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following my reply to a question from the hon. Member on I May 1991 at column 178, a copy of the revised Home Office memorandum on Mr. Cleeland's conviction was placed in the Library. We are now considering whether there are grounds to justify the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the conviction of Mr. Cleeland. As part of the review of the case, we will consider whether any further amendments to the Home Office memorandum on Mr. Cleeland's conviction are necessary.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 4.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Department has carried out four public opinion surveys since 17 December 1990:—two surveys of attitudes to crime and crime prevention among adults, done before and after Crime Prevention Week in April 1991;
  —two surveys about crime prevention, carried out in March and May 1991, as part of a series of surveys to test the effectiveness of crime prevention publicity.

  Some questions on attitudes to punishment were also put to 12 to 19-year-olds in May 1991 in an omnibus survey.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in which Mr. Charlie McGhee (MM2170) has been held in the six weeks up to 5 July; and if he will give reasons for transfer in each case.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Charles McGhee—MM2170—who is a category A prisoner, was transferred on three occasions in the six weeks up to 5 July 1991. On 7 June, Mr. McGhee was transferred to Frankland prison from Full Sutton prison in the interests of maintaining good order and discipline. On 23 June, following an incident at Frankland prison, it became necessary to move a number of prisoners, including Mr. McGhee, who was transferred to Long Lartin. On subsequent review, it proved necessary to move him again, in the interests of good order and discipline, and on 28 June he was transferred to Wakefield prison.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those countries with which the United Kingdom has a prisoner transfer ratification agreement; how the parole systems in each country are affected by transfer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The following countries have joined the United Kingdom in ratifying the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons:

  Austria

  Belgium

  Canada

  Cyprus

  Denmark

  Finland

  France

  Greece

  Italy

  436

  Luxembourg

  Malta

  Netherlands

  Spain

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Turkey

  USA

  A bilateral agreement has also been signed with the Government of Thailand.

  We do not have comprehensive information about the parole systems in other countries. The necessary details are established when an application for transfer is received.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of I July,Official Report, column 4.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office uses the following advertising agencies:Collett Dickinson Pearce and Partners Limited—Crime Prevention
  FCO Limited—Fire Prevention and Safety, Electoral Registration, Absent voting Riley Advertising—Police Recruitment: Graduate/Ethnic, Police Special Constable Recruitment, Prison Service Recruitment BMP DDB Needham Worldwide Limited—Passports
  My Department does not use public relations companies. We do not currently use a promotional agency, although we did engage Clarke Hooper Consulting Limited for last April's Crime Prevention Week.
  "Civil Protection Magazine" is produced by the Home Office and the Central Office of Information.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  SERC Projects
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the practice for the Science and Engineering Council in setting up a capital project with regard to estimating and recording the actual manpower used at the end of a project.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have been informed by the SERC that under arrangements now in force for consideration of major capital projects, full account is taken of the estimated direct and indirect manpower costs involved. Detailed arrangements for subsequent monitoring during project construction also apply.

  Education Resources
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his reply of 21 February,Official Report, columns 235–36, he will publish the same tables with deductions for capital expenditure from the appropriate heading.

  Mr. Fallon
  The figures published in my reply of 21 February already exclude capital expenditure. The potential schools budget is the general schools budget less expenditure on five items excepted from delegation: capital; government specific grants; home to school transport; school meals; and transitional exceptions.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to inquire into the activities and costs of educational institutes following the Government's decision that the language in the national curriculum report was not of an adequate standard to merit publication.

  Mr. Eggar
  No such inquiry is necessary. My right hon. and learned Friend has decided that the materials should not be published so that they would be used only for their intended purpose and not used in the classroom as teaching materials.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what action he is taking to recover the full amount spent on the unpublished language in the national curriculum report from educational institutes and other bodies engaged in its preparation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Language in the curriculum is a three-year training programme for teachers, now entering its final phase. The cost of producing the training package used in the programme was about £120,000. The question of recovering costs does not arise.

  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has held with Nottingham university concerning research contracts between his Department and the university following his decision in respect of the language in the national curriculum report.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no discussion with the university of Nottingham concerning research contracts.

  Salaries
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy on parity of salaries between clinical academic staff and their NHS counterparts.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, as the representatives of university employers, to settle the pay levels of clinical and other academic staff within the aggregate resources available. The Government take account of relative pay and price costs and other relevant factors in determining aggregate public funding for the universities.

  Medical Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the British Medical Association on the impact on medical education of underfunding of universities; and how he has responded.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Two letters about university funding and other matters have been received recently from the medical academic staff committee of the BMA. In reply, we have made clear that it is for individual universities to determine the funding of medical schools within the aggregate resources at their disposal, including the planned increase in available public funding in 1991–92 of some 10 per cent. for the second year running.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December 1990,Official Report, column 41.

  Mr. Eggar
  Further policy evaluation projects of the kind described in my reply on this subject on 17 December, which we have commissioned from the relevant budget since then are:

  Effective management in schools.

  Employment and development of teachers after long INSET courses.

  Follow-up of a survey service on bully/victim problems.

  Family expenditure survey 1991/92 (DES contribution).

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) in determining the percentage of his contribution towards any additional capital costs of establishing the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college, what account he will take of the Haberdashers' Company's agreement to underwrite extra sponsorship income for the college during the period in which the initial capital works will be completed;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 March, Official Report, column 187, what percentage up to 80 per cent. he will agree to contribute towards any additional capital costs of establishing the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college;

  (3) what additional capital costs, beyond those specified in paragraph 8(ii) of the funding agreement signed on 21 December 1990, are expected to be incurred in establishing the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college;

  (4) over what period he anticipates that the initial capital works for establishing the Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college will be carried out.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am discussing possible design changes to proposed capital works with the sponsors. I am not yet in a position to confirm the extent of any changes, associated costs and their apportionment.

  British Nuclear Fuels plc
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assistance is provided by his Department to British Nuclear Fuels plc in support of its educational programme for school governors.

  Mr. Fallon
  As part of our general programme of support for school governors, the Department and Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools participated last December in the annual seminar organised by British Nuclear Fuels plc for its employees who are governors.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 43–44.

  Mr. Eggar
  The teacher recruitment campaign has been designed by Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising Limited.
  439
  No company has yet been selected to undertake the publicity campaign to provide parents with information about changes in the education system.

  The services to business campaign, run as part of the Department's professional, industrial and commercial updating (PICKUP) programme, is managed by Quadrangle Communications Limited.

  Voluntary Aided Schools
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools applied to become voluntary aided schools during each of the past four years; in how many cases were the applications supported by the local education authority; and how many of these applications were subsequently approved by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information on the number of independent schools which have applied to the Secretary of State since 1987 for voluntary-aided status is provided in the table.

  Year proposals published

  Number of proposals published

  Number supported by LEA

  Number approved

  1987

  2

  2

  1

  1988

  0

  0

  0

  1989

  1

  0

  1—

  1990

  1

  1

  0

  1991

  1

  0

  1—

  1 Still outstanding.

  Nuclear Physics, Daresbury
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the total manpower costs for nuclear physics at Daresbury for each year since 1974.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not held centrally by the Department. The hon. Member may wish to direct his question to the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the annual extra overhead costs to be borne by the remainder of Daresbury laboratory as a result of the ending of the NSF contributions to those overhead costs.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not held centrally by the Department. My hon. Friend may wish to direct his question to the Science and Engineering Research Council.

  British School
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, if he will make additional provision for construction costs of the British school in Armenia in 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Parliamentary approval for my Department to make final payments for the Armenian school project will be sought in a winter supplementary estimate for the schools, research and miscellaneous services vote (class XI, vote 1). This will provide mainly for some minor remedial work to complete the contract liabilities. The expenditure will be offset by a saving 440
  elsewhere on the vote. Pending Parliament's approval, urgent expenditure will be met by a repayable advance of £7,000 from the contingencies fund.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he intends to publish for consultation the draft order with attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today published for consultation a draft order with an associated document setting out attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages in the national curriculum for pupils aged 11 to 16, as I am required to do by section 20(5) of the Education Reform Act 1988. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The draft order has been prepared following advice to me from the National Curriculum Council, in the light of its consultations on the proposals made by the former holder of my office and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am most grateful to the council for its advice.

  I have accepted the council's recommendations for attainment targets and programmes of study as a basis for further consultation. The National Curriculum Council has recommended a reduction in the total number of statements of attainment from 144 to 102. I have accepted this change and believe that it will be helpful in reducing the assessment load on teachers. I have however, made a few minor changes of wording, particularly to the non-statutory examples.

  The draft order for modern foreign languages sets out a range of essential language competences; concentrates on the ability of pupils to use foreign languages effectively for communication; highlights the importance of cultural awareness as an integral part of language learning and ensures that all pupils will receive a stimulating and worthwhile challenge in order to raise standards and stretch even the most able learners at the upper levels of attainment.

  The period for consultation on the draft order will end on 4 October 1991. I intend to make the final order in November 1991 in good time for schools to begin teaching national curriculum modern foreign languages to pupils aged 11 from the following autumn.

  I have also accepted the national curriculum council's recommendation that the format of the order made under section 3(2)(b) of the Education Reform Act be amended from two schedules to a single list of specified languages. I intend to make a new section 3 order at the same time as the final order in November 1991.

  Truancy
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take to reduce truancy rates in schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  [pursuant to the reply, 15 April 1991, columns 51–52]: My right hon. and learned Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales have today laid before Parliament regulations on pupil registration and the publication of information about rates of unauthorised absence. These require that from the

  441
  beginning of the next school year, schools distinguish in their attendance registers between authorised and unauthorised absences of pupils of compulsory school age and from August 1992 maintained schools' prospectuses and annual reports include specified information on rates of unauthorised absence.

  These regulations have been laid after a two-month consultation period in which widespread support was expressed for our proposed action on school attendance. They will stimulate all schools to give a high priority to attendance. Schools in turn should be able to look to parents to shoulder their responsibilities to secure their children's attendance at school.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environment Exhibition, Olympia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost and the benefit of his Ministry's exhibit at the recent exhibition on environment, wildlife and conservation at Olympia; and what special literature was produced for the event.

  Mr. Curry
  The cost of the Department's exhibit at the Sunday Times exhibition on environment, wildlife and conservation at Olympia, was £100,000 of which £27,000 was for site rental. The exhibit explains how MAFF, in association with other Government Departments and agencies, works to achieve a balance in the use of the countryside and surrounding rivers and seas. A brochure entitled "Balance in the Countryside" is being used to support the exhibit.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 72.

  Mr. Curry
  Current publicity campaigns are based on the opinion surveys commissioned by the Department prior to 17 December 1990. No further surveys have been undertaken since that date.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent on the United Kingdom set-aside scheme for each year since 1989–90; what are his estimates for 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what account in these estimates has been taken of the agreements reached at the Agriculture Council meeting in May.

  Mr. Curry
  The table shows the actual amounts paid to United Kingdom participants in the 1989–90 and 1990–91 financial years and the estimates of payments to be made in the period 1991–92 to 1993–94. The estimates do not take account of the agreement reached at the Agriculture Council meeting in May.

  Financial years

  £ million

  1989–90

  19·84

  1990–91

  119·11

  1991–92

  2227·92

  442

  Financial years

  £ million

  1992–93

  2249·37

  1993–94

  2248·91

  1 Actual.

  2 Estimated.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the results of inspections his Ministry has carried out on the set-aside scheme including(a) the number of farms visited and (b) the percentage visited of the total in set-aside; and how many breaches of regulation have been identified, for each year of the scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The Community set-aside rules require member states to inspect a minimum of 5 per cent. of holdings on which land is being set aside under the scheme. It is not departmental policy to indicate the expected or achieved levels of inspection in the interests of proper enforcement. In the United Kingdom, in the first year of the scheme, significant irregularities were found on 2 per cent. of the holdings inspected.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the five-year set-aside scheme in 1991–92; and whether he will allow the use of set-aside land to grow non-food crops.

  Mr. Gummer
  The five-year set-aside scheme will be open to new applications from 1 August 1991. The only changes to the rules of the existing scheme will be to provide for the partial refund of cereals coresponsibility levy paid between 31 July 1991 and 30 June 1992 to set-aside participants. The refund is expected (subject to detailed Commission rules) to amount to £2·68 per tonne. Application forms and explanatory booklets will be available from local divisional offices at the end of this month. These forms must be returned by 30 September 1991.

  I have consulted interested bodies on the EC regulations permitting member states to permit the growing of cereals for non-food uses on set-aside land. In the light of that consultation and the report to the House of Lords by the Select Committee on European Communities (Sub-Committee D) on non-food uses of agricultural products I have concluded that we should not introduce such a scheme in the United Kingdom. I will, however, continue to keep the possibility under review.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the uptake of the set-aside scheme, including the number of farms and the area of land set aside in hectares in England in 1990 and 1991;

  (2) if he will list the numbers of farms, the numbers of hectares and the average area per farm in hectares which are in the set-aside scheme in each county in 1991;

  (3) what amount of land in (a) hectares and (b) percentage terms in set-aside was used for different land use options in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the press release dated 17 December 1990, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Cereals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the hectareage of land in the United Kingdom under cereals in 1991.

  Mr. Curry
  The preliminary estimate of the area sown to cereals in the United Kingdom for the 1991 harvest is 3·6 million hectares.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 75.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has employed no advertising, promotional or public relations companies in connection with these campaigns.

  Design and production of the touring exhibition was carried out under contract by Interactive Learning Productions; and design work on the revision of food publications is being carried out under contract by Trickett and Webb Ltd.

  Residues (Meat)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce further controls on residues of veterinary medicines in meat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am issuing a consultation document today on our proposals and I intend to introduce regulations under the Food Safety Act which will significantly strengthen existing controls on the presence of veterinary medicines in meat and meat products. There has been concern that the mis-use of veterinary medicines can pose a threat to the health of consumers through residues passing into the food chain.

  The new measures will contain the following key elements:
  to make it an offence to submit an animal for slaughter containing residues in excess of prescribed maximum limits;
  to make it an offence to sell meat or meat products with excess residues;
  to make it an offence to fail to observe the withdrawal period stipulated in the literature associated with licensed veterinary medicinal products;
  to enable carcases found to contain excess residues to be immediately condemned as unfit for human or animal consumption;
  to enable animals found to contain illegal beta-agonists or other unlicensed veterinary medicinal products to be compulsorily slaughtered other than for human or animal consumption.

  The consultation document has been issued to interested parties and copies have also been placed in the Library of the House. Consultation with the European Commission will also be necessary. I expect to be able to lay the final regulation before the House in October.

  The British agricultural industry has a fine reputation for the safe use of veterinary medicines. These measures will protect that reputation and I hope that other countries in the European Community will be prepared to take and enforce similar measures.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all those voluntary organisations which are receiving grant aid from his Ministry in 1991–92 and his estimates for 1992–93; and if he will list the amounts which each organisation is to receive.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following voluntary organisations will benefit from grants made by my Department in 1991–92. Estimates for 1992–93 are also given.

  Organisation

  Grant for 1991–92

  Estimated grant for 1992–93

  £

  £

  Dartington Institute (Project Sylvanus)

  5,050

  2,300

  Farming and Wildlife Trust

  276,500

  1—

  National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs

  19,436

  19,922

  National Proficiency Tests Council

  75,000

  37,000

  Rural (Responsible Use of Resources in Agriculture and on the Land)

  2,500

  1—

  1 These grants are under review.

  2 £6,500 of this is a subscription.

  Blue Ear Pig Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which counties restrictions on pigs are in force due to blue ear disease; which counties were included in his chief veterinary officer's notification of the disease to the EC under Commission decision 91/237/EEC dated 1 July 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 24 June at column 383 and the information placed in the Library of the House accordingly.

WALES

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the amounts of hazardous waste imported into Great Britain for incineration through Welsh ports from the Irish Republic in each year since October 1988.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is as follows.

  Waste (tonnes)

  1 October 1988 to 31 March 1989

  43·0

  1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990

  316·4

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  501·2

  School Meals
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage of school meals received by pupils per local education authority in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools for each of the years since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information, as at September of each year, is given in the table.
  445

  Number of pupils receiving school meals, as a percentage of the pupils present

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Primary

  Clwyd

  69

  48

  46

  55

  62

  58

  56

  54

  53

  48

  49

  49

  Dyfed

  86

  67

  74

  75

  75

  73

  70

  67

  66

  61

  62

  62

  Gwent

  66

  61

  63

  63

  64

  64

  61

  61

  62

  59

  61

  57

  Gwynedd

  85

  70

  71

  68

  71

  70

  67

  67

  68

  63

  62

  61

  Mid Glamorgan

  68

  58

  63

  62

  66

  68

  64

  63

  63

  59

  59

  57

  Powys

  85

  66

  88

  78

  79

  69

  62

  64

  63

  62

  64

  66

  South Glamorgan

  64

  49

  50

  43

  46

  48

  48

  48

  48

  46

  46

  47

  West Glamorgan

  67

  48

  58

  56

  60

  53

  51

  51

  49

  45

  45

  45

  Wales

  71

  57

  61

  60

  64

  62

  59

  59

  58

  55

  55

  54

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  44

  31

  34

  30

  39

  51

  43

  42

  43

  43

  38

  41

  Dyfed

  54

  66

  65

  69

  67

  72

  69

  69

  70

  67

  66

  65

  Gwent

  33

  35

  40

  39

  46

  53

  44

  49

  52

  50

  52

  56

  Gwynedd

  59

  52

  58

  56

  55

  56

  53

  54

  51

  48

  41

  48

  Mid Glamorgan

  48

  43

  46

  49

  47

  55

  43

  45

  44

  40

  44

  45

  Powys

  58

  45

  49

  53

  60

  65

  49

  50

  49

  48

  55

  54

  South Glamorgan

  37

  31

  37

  31

  36

  39

  34

  35

  38

  36

  38

  36

  West Glamorgan

  40

  34

  40

  43

  49

  62

  57

  56

  56

  55

  47

  54

  Wales

  44

  41

  45

  45

  48

  55

  48

  49

  50

  48

  47

  49

  School Sport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the state of sport in schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend is jointly, with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, considering the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee report on sport in schools. They are also considering the final report of the physical education working group set up to advise on a national curriculum for PE in schools.

  As part of the Government's current review of its policies towards sport and active recreation we are also looking at ways in which children of school age can be encouraged to participate in sport both during and outside school hours, including through the further promotion of links between schools and local sports clubs.

  Housing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he proposes to tackle the housing needs of(a) the homeless, (b) young families, (c) vulnerable single people and (d) those with special needs.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I have today announced a personal initiative for single or other homeless people with special or severe difficulty. Local authorities have been invited to submit proposals for a pilot scheme to develop new measures of support and make the best use of existing resources, in partnership with other relevant local statutory and non-statutory bodies. Resources of up to £800,000 are to be allocated over a period of three years to fund the scheme.

  Local authorities have also been invited to bid against a capital reserve of £2·88 million and revenue support for local voluntary bodies of £150,000 for homelessness projects. The reserve is designed to complement authorities' own efforts in dealing with cases of homelessness, within the context of the approach to partnership with housing associations and voluntary bodies which is developing strongly in Wales.
  446
  These measures are additional to plans in hand with Housing for Wales to increase the total housing association stock by over one third by 1993–94, so directly benefiting a range of groups including families and those in special need.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) council, (b) private and (c) housing association houses have been completed in each of the last 10 years in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the numbers of farms, the numbers of hectares and the average area per farm in hectares which are in the set-aside scheme in each county in 1991;

  (2) what was the uptake of the set-aside scheme in (a) the number of farms and (b) the area of land set aside in hectares for 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Fifty-three farms had entered the scheme by the end of the 1990–91 scheme year. Details are given in the table.

  No. of Holdings Participating

  Area Set Aside (ha)

  Average Area set Aside per Holding (ha)

  Gwynedd

  4

  99·33

  24·83

  Clwyd

  4

  98·63

  24·65

  Powys

  4

  74·16

  18·54

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  1

  148·67

  143·67

  West Glamorgan

  3

  175·87

  58·62

  Gwent

  6

  319·38

  53·23

  Dyfed

  31

  884·10

  28·52

  Total

  53

  1,800·14

  33·96

  Cardiff Barrage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has received from the Countryside Council for Wales concerning the proposed Cardiff barrage; and if he proposes to accept its advice.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials have begun discussions with officers of the Countryside Council about issues arising out of the proposed Cardiff barrage. I shall take account of recommendations emerging from these discussions in finalising my proposals.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, columns 35–36.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Advertising and promotions companies employed by or on behalf of the Welsh Office on the campaigns detailed in the reply I gave on 1 July 1991 are:

  McCann Erickson Payne Golley—Enterprise Wales

  Dragon Advertising—Road Safety

  The Department has not yet appointed any advertising, promotions or public relations contractor to undertake drugs and alcohol misuse work this financial year.

  Tai Cymru
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the real terms funding for Tai Cymru in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the approved gross development programme for Housing for Wales, which includes receipts. The initial allocations, which exclude resources transferred from local authorities, at 1991–92 prices are as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  83·017

  1990–91

  109·336

  1991–92

  117·414

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the salaries of the board members of Tai Cymru.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The remuneration of the board members of Housing for Wales, effective from 1 April 1991, is as follows:

  £

  Chairman

  26,750

  Deputy Chairman

  8,280

  Members

  3,625

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of the chairpersons of training and enterprise councils he has appointed in Wales, stating the salaries payable to them and, for each of them, the experience, qualifications and interests which qualified them for appointment.
  448
  Mr. David Hunt
  Training and enterprise council boards are responsible for the appointment of their chair persons. To be eligible a chair person must be a chief executive of a company; a top operational manager at local level of a major company; or the senior partner in a professional partnership. The appointment is unpaid. The Welsh TEC chairmen are as follows:

  Mid Glamorgan
  Mr. John W. Phillips (Managing Director, Reliance-BarkerDavies Ltd.).

  West Wales
  Mr. Robert C. Hastie (Chairman. Bernard Hastie and Company Ltd.).

  North East Wales
  Mr. John Troth (Managing Director, Dennis Ruabon Ltd.).

  South Glamorgan
  Mr. Roger G. Helliwell (Group Director, William Cowlin and Son Ltd.).

  North West Wales
  Mr. Trefor Jones (Chief Executive, Pilkington Optronics Division).

  Gwent
  Mr. Geoff Canning (Works Manager, British Steel Tinplate).

  Powys
  Mr. David Margetts (Chairman, Elkay Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd.).

  Trawsfynydd Lake
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further studies he is carrying out on radioactivity in Trawsfynydd lake; and when he expects the results to be available.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The fisheries radiological inspectorate—FRI—of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provides scientific advice to the Welsh Office which is responsible for radioactive waste disposal authorisations in Wales. The FRI operates a continuing programme of monitoring of radiation dose rates and measuring radioactivity in a variety of environmental materials in the environment of Lake Trawsfynydd. The results are published in the FBI's annual reports of monitoring of radioactivity in surface and coastal waters of the British isles and copies are available in the Library of the House.

  An enhanced programme has been set up to obtain samples of sediment cores, in which radioactivity can be measured in specific layers. The results of this additional work will be published in due course; meanwhile, the results so far are comparable where appropriate with the results of the regular monitoring programme.

  Oral Surgery
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the date and venue of each of his visits to oral surgery departments in hospitals in Wales since his appointment.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend has not made any specific visits to oral surgery departments in hospitals in Wales, but in my capacity as Minister of health in Wales, I visited the dental hospital at the University hospital of Wales on 15 March 1991.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 3 July 1991]: In their responses to similar questions from the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. and hon. Friends have set out the Government's key policies and programmes in relation to the groups whose needs are referred to in the disability manifesto. Most of these policies and programmes, including in particular the improvements to social security arrangements and employment opportunities, will benefit equally people with disabilities in Wales.

  We have a complementary programme to meet the distinctive needs and circumstances of Wales, the aim of which is to enable people with disabilities to play the fullest possible part in the life of their communities.

  We have placed particular emphasis on the development of services for people with physical or sensory disabilities in our guidance on the development of social care plans. In Wales these are being prepared jointly, under the leadership of social service authorities, by local health authorities and other agencies, working in close consultation with representatives of the users and carers. The first social care plans will be published in April 1992 and will be available to the public so they can see what services are available, how to gain access to them, and what proposals are being made for their development.

  These developments in social care planning build on existing distinctive policies and initiatives in Wales which will continue. These include the all-Wales mental handicap and mental illness strategies under which we are providing £39 million in 1991–92 to promote new patterns of more local and accessible services. We are also continuing our initiative on the elderly under which we are providing £2·38 million in 1991–92 to promote innovation in service delivery which enables people to remain in comfort and dignity in their own homes and communities. Further to encourage the development of more flexible forms of community care for elderly people and those with physical or sensory disabilities, we have introduced in 1991–92 a new grant scheme. Under this almost £1·6 million is being made available, much of it for services provided by voluntary bodies.

  On the housing front, local authorities are being encouraged, through their involvement in social care planning, to assess the current and future housing needs of disabled people within their areas. In most cases, it is expected that housing needs will be met by making repairs and adaptations to individuals' existing homes. The recent changes to the disabled facilities grants will ensure that the maximum assistance, up to the total cost of adaptations, will go to those in greatest need. In addition, Housing for Wales has a policy of devoting 10 per cent. of its programme to supported schemes for people with special needs. In the current year it is expected that this will lead to the provision of in excess of 330 new homes, many of which will be for people with learning or physical disabilities.

  The Welsh Office is sponsoring once again this year the access award scheme, run by the Wales Council for the
  450
  Disabled, to encourage good building design with the aim of ensuring that buildings are accessible to people with disabilities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister, when he will next pay an official visit to south London.

  The Prime Minister
  I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to include south London among them.

  Share Shops
  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments have participated in the Government's review of high street share shops as a distribution method for privatisation issues and other equities.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is considering, in consultation with interested colleagues, proposals from the private sector for a retail share distribution network.

  China (Visit)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to raise the matters of global warming and climate change, and ozone layer depletion, when he meets members of the Chinese Government during his forthcoming visit to China.

  The Prime Minister
  Plans for my visit to China are still at an early stage of preparation. The Government are in regular contact with the Chinese authorities to discuss climate change, ozone layer depletion and other international environmental issues.

  Environmental Conferences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government were represented at the Ecoasia '91 conference held in Japan in early July.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the new policy proposals on the environment he made to the conference on global problems and solutions on 8 July.

  The Prime Minister
  Copies of my speech are available in the Library.

  World Conservation Monitoring Centre
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what use is ma de by departments of Her Majesty's Government of the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge; and what funds are provided by Her Majesty's Government to support the centre.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to page 52 of the Environment White Paper (Cm. 1200), where attention is drawn to the Government's five-point plan for the conservation of biological diversity in developing
  451
  countries. The first of the five points relates to a major study on the status of the world's biodiversity which is being carried out for the Overseas Development Administration by the world conservation monitoring centre. The centre is an independent charity established by leading agencies in the conservation movement including the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (I UCN) and the United Nations environment programme (UNEP), both of which are supported financially by Her Majesty's Government.

  United Nations Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what annual contributions have been made by the United Kingdom since 1979 to the man and biosphere interdisciplinary sciences and natural resource programme of the United Nations Education and Science Organisation; and what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from the contributions made.

  The Prime Minister
  Until the United Kingdom withdrew from the United Nations Education and Science Organisation (UNESCO), in December 1985 no separate contribution was made from aid funds to the man and biosphere (MAB) programme. An assessed contribution was made annually to the UNESCO programme of which MAB is an integral part.

  Since our withdrawal from UNESCO research related to the MAB has been maintained through a grant from the Overseas Development Administration to the National Environment Research Council (NERC). The sums given over the past five years are as follows:

  £

  1986–87

  89,185

  1987–88

  98,600

  1988–89

  98,700

  1989–90

  100,000

  1990–91

  100,000

  Work on the MAB within NERC is undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. The institute benefits from these contributions by being able to maintain its research capacity in areas overseas which might not qualify for funding from its other sources. This strengthens the United Kingdom institutional capacity to maintain a broad experience in environmental disciplines and increases our knowledge of the environmental problems affecting other countries, whose perspectives and priorities in addressing environmental issues may differ from those of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to propose to the United Nations that a new agency for the promotion and establishment of new and renewable energy sources be set up under the auspices of the United Nations.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations already has a committee on new and renewable sources of energy, which has achieved little of value. The question of future United Nations institutions in this area is likely to form part of the subject matter of the United Nations conference on environment and development to take place in Rio de Janeiro next year.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects Her Majesty's Government to publish the results of its monitoring of the implementation of carbon dioxide emission reduction policies; and if he will indicate the cost to date of such monitoring.

  The Prime Minister
  United Kingdom carbon dioxide emission figures are published annually in the Department of the Environment's "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics". The first set of measures to curb emissions was published last September in the Environment White Paper (Cm 1200). We will publish a report in the autumn on progress towards our carbon dioxide target.

  It is not possible to estimate separately the cost of monitoring progress on carbon dioxide as monitoring forms part of a wider programme of work on the United Kingdom's response to the threat of climate change, involving a number of departments.

  "Our Common Future"
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when Her Majesty's Government intend to publish their review of progress in the implementation of the action points set out in the White Paper "Our Common Future" and what has been the total cost to date of the actions taken to implement the proposals and commitments.

  The Prime Minister
  The first full progress report on the Environment White Paper (Cm 1200) will be published later this year. The essence of the White Paper commitments is the integration of environmental concerns throughout Government policies. The cost of implementation is therefore reflected across a wide range of spending priorities and an all-inclusive figure for the costs of the action taken to date is not readily available. Among the more substantial expenditure committed is:Water investment by the water companies of £28 billion from 1990 to 2000;
  An extra £23·1 million grant-in-aid in 1991–92 for the National Rivers Authority;
  £30·2 million representing a rise of 35 per cent. grant-in-aid to the Countryside Commission for 1991–92;
  Increase of £4 million for research on renewable energy;
  An extra £133 million credit approval for local authorities over the next three years to improve recycling and waste disposal.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to enhance biodiversity and the protection of the rain forests in south America, south-east Asia and Africa.

  The Prime Minister
  On biodiversity, our activities are summarised in "Biological Diversity and Developing Countries: Issues and Options", which was published last month and which is in the Library.

  British bilateral aid contributions to forest projects in progress or under consideration as at early 1991 are as follows:
  453

  Number of projects

  Estimated aid programme costs (£ million)

  South America

  12

  10·5

  South East Asia1

  9

  9·4

  Africa

  74

  28·2

  1 Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand.

  Environmental Protection and Enhancement Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the consultation paper on his proposals for an environmental protection and enhancement agency, announced on 8 July.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 8 July 1991 at column 279 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe).

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 July.

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

HEALTH

  Chronic Sick and Disabled Units
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young chronic sick and disabled units have closed in the past five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our figures show the number of units recording patient activity, not the number of units closed.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of people cared for in young chronic sick and disabled units for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The available information is given in the table. The figures from 1980 to 1986 refer to deaths and discharges from units for younger physically disabled and spinal injury units. The information for 1988–89 and 1989–90 is the estimated number of finished ward stays of patients in these units. The figures are not directly comparable.

  Year

  Units for younger disabled

  Spinal injury units

  Total

  1980

  4,383

  1,867

  6,250

  1981

  4,936

  1,973

  6,908

  1982

  5,340

  2,134

  7,474

  1983

  6,239

  2,023

  8,262

  1984

  6,576

  2,021

  8,597

  1985

  7,251

  2,338

  9,589

  1986

  8,904

  2,359

  11,263

  1987–88

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1988–89

  10,913

  1,358

  12,271

  1989–90

  10,922

  2,081

  13,003

  Source SM12: 1980–1986 Form SH3.

  1988/89–1989–90 form KP20
  454
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young chronic sick and disabled units currently exist within each regional health authority.

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

  Number of Younger Physically Disabled and Spinal Injury Units by Regional Health Authority 1989–901

  Region

  1989–90

  Northern

  8

  Yorkshire

  10

  Trent

  11

  East Anglian

  3

  North West Thames

  5

  North East Thames

  11

  South East Thames

  9

  South West Thames

  4

  Wessex

  5

  Oxford

  6

  South Western

  5

  West Midlands

  4

  Mersey

  3

  North Western

  6

  SHAs

  —

  Total

  90

  Source: SM12 KHO3Q

  1 The count is based on bed availability in the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1990.

  Tower Hamlets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of people employed in Tower Hamlets in(a) Tower Hamlets health authority, (b) Royal London hospital trust, (c) family practitioner service, (d) dental service and (e) other health-related occupations for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Stephen Dorrell
  The table provides the figures requested in Tower Hamlets authority from 1982, the earliest date available, to 1989, the latest available. Figures up to 1985 include family practitioner committee staff. It is not possible now to distinguish between family practitioner committee and district health authority figures for those years. On 1 April 1985 family practitioner committees became independent employing authorities. District health authority figures after that date, therefore, exclude FPC staff. Information in respect of the number of people employed by family practitioner committees since 1985 is not held centrally.

  Information about the numbers employed by the Royal London hospital trust and other related occupations is not collected centrally.

  Tower Hamlets health authority hospital and community health service staff in post1 30 September each year.

  Whole time equivalent2

  1982

  5,470

  1983

  5,492

  1984

  5,202

  1985

  5,024

  1986

  5,049

  1987

  4,865

  1988

  4,969

  1989

  4,896

  Source: Department of Health annual census of medical and non-medical manpower.

  Notes:

  455

  1 Figures include Medical and Dental Locums and agency locums and Nursing and Midwifery agency staff, and Permanent paid Honorary staff.

  Figures exclude Consultants and Senior Registrars in Non-Teaching District Health Authorities and Senior Registrars in Teaching District Health Authorities. These still have their contracts with the RHA.

  On 1 April 1985 Family Practitioner Committees became independent employing authorities. Figures after that date therefore exclude FPC staff.

  2 Figures are independently rounded to the nearest whole-time equivalent.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of reported cases of theft and fraud in the Tower Hamlets health authority in each year since 1979 showing(a) the total number of cases reported, (b) the total number of prosecutions and (c) the total number of convictions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Tower Hamlets health authority was established on 1 April 1982 following the abolition of area health authorities and consequently 1982–83 is the first year for which information is available.

  The annual statement of losses included with the authority's annual accounts, records the number of reported cases in the category of loss of cash, equipment and property in stores and in use arising from theft, fraud, arson, neglect of duty or gross carelessness as follows:

  Year

  Number of cases

  1982–83

  33

  1983–84

  40

  1984–85

  28

  1985–86

  51

  1986–87

  84

  1987–88

  45

  1988–89

  25

  1989–90

  33

  Health authorities are required to report to the Department annually all instances of alleged fraud and Tower Hamlets health authority has made no reports of fraud since its inception.

  Information on the numbers of theft cases reported to the police, and of any resultant prosecutions and convictions is not collected centrally by the Department.

  Nurses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many enrolled nurses in the national health service have expressed interest in converting to state-registered nurse status; and how many conversion places from enrolled to state-registered nurse status have been offered for national health service staff;

  (2) what steps he has taken to create and co-ordinate a national stratagem for enrolled nurse conversion courses; and what funding is available for the provision of enrolled nurse conversion courses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for regional health authorities, in consultation with employers, to plan for enrolled nurse conversion as part of their responsibility for identifying the level of demand for qualified nurses and for allocating appropriate budgets.

  In addition, plans submitted to the Department for the implementation of Project 2000 nurse training are expected to contain firm proposals to increase the number of conversion places. Central funding has been made available to facilitate this.
  456
  The number of conversion courses approved by the English national board has increased from six in March 1985 to 241 in April 1991. Flexible methods of conversion have also been introduced which will help speed up the rate of conversion. The United Kingdom central council has changed its rules to allow enrolled nurses who have failed first level training three times to have three further attempts at passing their examinations.

  Figures are not held centrally on the numbers of enrolled nurses who have expressed interest in converting to first level status, or on the number of conversion places which have been offered for national health service staff.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the effect of the placing of adverts for grade D nurses only on the right of other enrolled nurses to apply for posts in the national health service; and what provisions are included in Whitley council agreements governing the placing of adverts for D grade nurses only.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for health authorities to determine the appropriate grading for advertised nursing posts, in the light of the grading definitions agreed by the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council, and to decide what qualifications and experience are required. It is open to any nurse who meets those requirements to apply for such a post.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the merging of nursing departments arising from implementation of Project 2000 has on restricting the number of nursing places available for conversion courses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no evidence to suggest that the merging of colleges of nursing has restricted the number of nursing places available to enrolled nurses for conversion courses.

  Ashington Hospital
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions govern the requirement to employ a fully qualified head of clinical chemistry at relevant hospitals; what restrictions have been placed on clinical chemistry services in Ashington hospital in the absence of a suitably qualified person; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The qualification requirements for clinical scientists of all grades employed within the NHS are set out in advance letter (SP) 1/90, a copy of which is available in the Library. There are no restrictions placed on the clinical chemistry services at Ashington hospital in Northumberland. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Carr, the chairman of Northumberland health authority, for details.

  Abortions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on health authorities refusing to undertake a second national health service abortion for women who have a clinical need for them; if he will issue guidelines to health authorities on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are not required to collect such information. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific case in mind, the district general manager of the relevant health authority should be able to provide details.

  Tobacco Labelling
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in implementing the EC directive on the labelling of tobacco products.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have now made regulations under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act and section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 which have been laid before Parliament today. They will come into effect on 1 January 1992 and will fully implement the EC directive on the labelling of tobacco products. The regulations were subject to consultation in draft and as a result I have made the health warnings on cigarette packets larger and clearer than originally proposed.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 63–64.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information readily available relates to the register of surveys maintained by the Central Statistical Office. Titles of surveys carried out since my earlier reply are as follows:

  Cold Weather Publicity Evaluation 1991

  Drugs Information 1991

  Nursing: TV Creative Developments

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 54.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The companies currently employed by, or on behalf of the Department's information division who are involved in the campaigns listed in my earlier reply are as follows:

  Central Office of Information

  FCO

  Ogilvy and Mather

  Laing Henry

  Peter Cundall Associates

  Media Systems

  NML Presentations Ltd.

  BMP DOB Needham

  Barkers Human Resources Advertising Ltd.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what measures he will take in the light of his proposals for the future of the independent living fund, to ensure that adequate funds are made available to local authorities to meet the personal assistance needs of severely disabled people.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are committed to providing adequate resources for all aspects of community care. Decisions on resources for 1993–94 will be taken during the 1992 public expenditure survey, in the light of discussions with the local authority associations.

  Centre for Applied Microbiological Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the costs of the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research relate to(a) work carried out for, on, or on behalf of, Porton International Ltd. and related companies and (b) the public health laboratory service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 July 1991]: In the last financial year work for which Porton International was invoiced represented approximately 20 per cent. of the Centre for Applied Microbiological Research—CAMR —costs this year. In the same year the Public Health Laboratory Service bore approximately 40 per cent. of the Centre for Microbiological Research's costs. Funding from other Government Departments and grant-giving bodies comprised the remaining 40 per cent.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Operational Strategy
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of the operational strategy in each financial year from 1991–92 to 1998–99(a) gross and (b) net of savings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 1988–89 prices the flow of gross costs and net of savings for the operational strategy, from 1991–92 to 1998–99, are currently estimated to be:

  Gross £ million

  Net of savings (net cash flow) £ million

  1991–92

  224·4

  -35·4

  1992–93

  122·9

  107·9

  1993–94

  98·7

  148·6

  1994–95

  92·5

  161·9

  1995–96

  93·4

  162·5

  1996–97

  94·6

  161·3

  1997–98

  91·3

  166·7

  1998–99

  98·6

  197·2

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the costs and savings of the operational strategy(a) gross and (b) net of other savings for each financial year since its inception indicating the proportions and sources of the savings.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 1988–89 prices the latest estimate of the costs and savings of the operational strategy(a) gross and (b) net of other savings (ie excluding staff savings) from 1985–86 to 1998–99 are in the table.

  The proportions and sources of the three savings categories other than staff savings are as follows:

  i. Contribution from DHSS Northern Ireland—4·3 per cent.

  ii. Residual value of buildings and equipment—10·3 per cent.

  iii. Non-salary cost savings—85·4 per cent.

  459

  £ million

  Costs

  Savings

  (a) Gross

  (b) net of savings other than staff savings

  (a) Gross

  (b) Net of other savings (i.e. = Staff savings

  1985–86

  21·5

  21·5

  0·0

  0·0

  1986–87

  59·4

  58·5

  16·5

  15·7

  1987–88

  95·1

  91·2

  28·4

  24·5

  1988–89

  150·4

  128·6

  66·3

  44·6

  1989–90

  243·2

  203·6

  82·4

  42·8

  1990–91

  269·1

  243·2

  106·7

  80·8

  1991–92

  224·4

  199·5

  189·0

  164·1

  1992–93

  122·9

  91·5

  230·8

  199·4

  1993–94

  98·7

  71·6

  247·3

  220·1

  1994–95

  92·5

  65·8

  254·4

  227·7

  1995–96

  93·4

  66·7

  255·9

  229·2

  1996–97

  94·6

  67·8

  255·9

  229·2

  1997–98

  91·3

  62·5

  258·0

  229·2

  1998–99

  98·6

  32·0

  295·8

  229·2

  Departmental Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of each agency in his Department as an executive agency; and whether the cost was borne by his Department or the new agency.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Expenditure on events and publicity material surrounding the launch of each of the Department's executive agencies is a matter for each agency's chief executive. For the Benefits and Contributions Agencies, I refer the hon. Member to Mrs. Robinson's letter of 4 June and Miss Chant's letter of 30 May respectively to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), copies of which are in the Library. For the Information Technology Services Agency, Mr. John Kenworthy, the chief executive, will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and Public Information Office. There was no such expenditure in relation to the Resettlement Agency.

  Any expenditure incurred was borne by the agency itself.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish details of the group bonus scheme in operation in each agency in his Department, including the cash amount per person awarded in the last year for which figures are available, and the conditions attached to its award.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Of the Department's four agencies, only the Information Technology Services Agency operates a group bonus scheme. The scheme operated in 1990–91. Payments, ranging from £50 to £1,500 have been made to a total of 155 staff at a total cost of £32,325. Awards were made for the achievement of specific objectives which produced improvements in service or cash efficiency savings. This pilot scheme is part of an Information Technology Services Agency group bonus scheme which also provides for total bonus payments of up to £400,000 to be paid in 1991–92 in respect of work done in 1990–91. The conditions are that the agency achieves efficiency savings, over and above those required in the Department's management plan, of at least four times the intended bonus payments, while maintaining agreed levels of service. No payment can be made until it is verified that the conditions have been fully met. Payments to any individual are subject to a maximum limit of £5,000.
  460
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appointments from the private sector have been made to each agency in his Department at grade 7 or above since its establishment as an agency; and if he will list the post, grade and maximum salary payable including the performance-related element.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not usual to reveal details of the pay arrangements of individual officers, other than chief executives of Next Steps agencies. Within that constraint, the information requested is as follows:

  Information Technology Services Agency:
  Three appointments have been made at grade 6, the salaries for which are all within the normal civil service range for the grade outside London. One appointment has been made at grade 5, the salary for which is above the normal civil service range for the grade.

  Benefits Agency:
  Three appointments have been made, one at grade 5 and two at grade 6. These appointments arc within the normal civil service range for the grade within the London pay area.

  No such appointments have been made in either the Contributions Agency or the Resettlement Agency.

  Plawsworth Resettlement Unit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many places for men are currently provided at the Plawsworth resettlement unit; how many are occupied; and if he will list the numbers and locations of the replacement facilities for men within the Northern region.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The management of the resettlement unit replacement programme is a matter for Mr. Tony Ward, the chief executive of the Resettlement Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 66, if he will list the commencement date and duration of the publicity campaign to which he referred.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No commencement date has been agreed. The duration of the campaign is still a matter under consideration.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the advertising, promotional or
  461
  public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July, Official Report, column 66.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Central Office of Information supervises our major advertising campaigns. Our appointed agency is currently BMP DDB Needham.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 18 December,Official Report, columns 140–41.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Public opinion surveys carried out by the Department since 18 December 1990 are listed in the table.

  1. Disability working allowance—Customer opinion of the assessment form proposed for use in repeat claims to DWA.

  2. Attitudes towards personal pensions and other types of pension provision—Self-explanatory.

  3. Customer perceptions of resettlement units—Views of the customers of resettlement units about the services provided.

  4. National customer survey—Customer opinion of benefits delivered by local and central offices of the Benefits Agency.

  5. Savings limit publicity—Evaluation survey.

  6. Benefits Agency logo—Customer opinion of new agency logo.

  7. Disability freeline evaluation—Second survey.

  8. Family credit campaign—Continuing evaluation of campaign.

  9. Customer market survey for the Contributions Agency —Customer opinion of service provided and future requirements.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new child support agency is likely to come into operation, and where the administrative staff are to be located.

  Mr. Jack
  We plan to establish the Child Support Agency in early 1993—subject to the successful passage of the Child Support Bill. Most of the agency's staff will be located in six child support offices, each capable of housing some 500 staff. There they will do the bulk of processing and assessment work which does not require face to face contact with the customer. Negotiations are taking place which, if concluded satisfactorily, would site offices in Belfast, Birkenhead, the Black Country (Dudley area), Falkirk, Hastings and Plymouth, creating job opportunities for the local communities. Around one third of the agency's staff will be co-located in Benefit Agency offices to conduct interviews, visit customers, pursue local inquiries and offer advice and guidance about the agency's services.

  Personal Pension Schemes
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of personal pension schemes he expects to opt back into the state scheme within the next five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. Any estimate would be highly speculative given the large number of variable factors that 462
  individuals must consider before exercising their choice. However, the Government Actuary provided some forecast of trends in the personal pension market in his "Second Quingennial Review of the Long Term Financial Estimates of the National Insurance Fund" published on 25 July 1990 (HC 582), a copy of which is in the Library.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the main training programmes and numbers involved in each of the last three years on offer to people in the(a) Sheffield TEC area, (b) Manchester TEC area, (c) Birmingham TEC area, (d) Leeds TEC area, (e) Glasgow LEC area and (f) in each of the London TEC areas; and how that is planned to change in the current financial year in the same format as his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 15 May, Official Report, column 214.

  Mr. Jackson
  Table A shows the main training programmes available in Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Glasgow area offices for each of the last three years of their operation and the average numbers involved in training.

  Table B provides similar information for London region only. This is because the complex nature of programme and boundary changes compounded by the differing TEC operational dates invalidates a further division of data.

  Table C shows the numbers planned in 1991–92 for the London region and for each of the other TEC areas by name. Plans for 1991–92 for Glasgow LEC is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to answer. The tables do not reflect numbers likely to be involved in employment action.

  It is not possible for realistic comparisons to be made between operational TECs and former area offices. Because of boundary changes none of the TEC areas coincide with the former area office boundaries, and in addition there have been many changes to the programmes provided.

  Table A

  Sheffield

  1988–892

  1989–901 3

  1990–911 3

  Youth Training (YT)

  8,456

  5,491

  3,009

  Adult Training (AT)

  41,190

  3,856

  3,400

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS)

  1,694

  960

  770

  1 Sheffield TEC became operational on 1 October 1990.

  2 1988–89 relates to Sheffield and Rotherham areas.

  3 Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 relate solely to the Sheffield TEC area.

  4 Adult Training for 1988–89 excludes Community Programme (CP).

  Leeds

  1988–892

  1989–901 3

  1990–911 3

  Youth Training (YT)

  8,739

  4,881

  3,500

  Adult Training (AT)

  41,350

  2,957

  2,500

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS)

  2,644

  1,103

  776

  1 Leeds TEC became operational on 15 October 1990.

  2 1988–89 relates to the Leeds and North Yorkshire area.

  463

  3 Figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 relate solely to the Leeds TEC area.

  4 Adult Training for 1988–89 excludes Community Programme (CP).

  Manchester area office

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  Youth Training (YT)

  N/A

  6,508

  5,438

  Adult Training (AT)

  23,944

  4,410

  4,096

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS)

  2,117

  1,817

  1,148

  N/A = Not available.

  1 Manchester TEC became operational on 12 November 1990.

  2 Adult Training for 1988–89 excludes Community Programme (CP).

  Note: The figures for YT and AT are based on the average number in training. The figures for EAS are based on the actual numbers joining.

  Table C

  Average anticipated number of people on the main programmes in 1991–92

  Sheffield TEC

  Leeds TEC

  Manchester TEC

  Birmingham TEC

  London region

  Youth training (YT)

  2,788

  3,200

  6,525

  6,398

  21,316

  Adult training (AT)

  2,405

  2,319

  7,850

  4,343

  15,681

  Enterprise allowance (EAS)

  900

  644

  1,300

  1,105

  5,927

  Note:

  YT and AT data are anticipated in-training

  EAS data are anticipated numbers joining

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will explain under what circumstances refugees are eligible to join employment training and youth training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department will shortly be advising TECs that for 1991–92 they will be able to allow refugees with indefinite or limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom access to employment training and youth training, subject to their meeting the normal eligibility criteria.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) to whom he has awarded the contract to carry out the manpower survey currently being undertaken by his Department into the manpower pre and post-abolition of the dock labour scheme; what is the full cost of the survey to his Department; and when he intends to publish the findings of the survey;

  (2) which companies, trade unions and organisations it is intended to interview as part of the manpower survey with regard to the abolition of the dock labour scheme; and what part recently set up labour agencies will contribute to the survey;

  (3) if he will list each of the terms of reference of the manpower survey with regard to the abolition of the dock labour scheme, and place in the Library a copy of the full remit;

  (4) what scope the manpower survey has for assessing the incidence of the use of casual labour.
  464

  Table A

  Birmingham Area Office

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  Youth Training (YT)

  8,579

  7,929

  5,417

  Adult Training (AT)

  27,539

  6,734

  5,310

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS)

  2,196

  1,807

  764

  1 Birmingham TEC became operational on 12 November 1990.

  2 Adult Training for 1988–89 excludes Community Programme (CP).

  Table B

  London Region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Youth Training (YT)

  20,941

  20,700

  20,609

  Adult Training (AT)

  115,114

  20,102

  19,573

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme (EAS)

  2—

  8,999

  7,047

  1 Adult Training for 1988–89 excludes Community Programme (CP).

  2 Not available.

  Note: The figures for YT and AT are based on the average number in training. The figures for EAS are based on the actual numbers joining.

  Mr. Forth
  In conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I have commissioned MDS-Transmodal and PIEDA plc to undertake a wide-ranging research project into the effects of the abolition of the dock labour scheme in 1989.

  The terms of reference of the study, which is expected to cost £140,000 and to take about 15 months to complete, are:
  "To assess the economic and social implications of the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme, by means of a review of existing sources and the collection of fresh data, including attitudinal information, both in the docks and in the wider port areas".

  I am placing in the Library a copy of the invitation to tender and the research specification for the project, which includes an examination of the rationalisation of labour practices in the docks since the abolition of the scheme.

  It will be for the consultants to decide which organisations to interview during this research project.

  I would expect the main findings to be published shortly after the completion of the final report.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 83.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department's various research branches do not commission public opinion surveys as such. However, they do carry out research projects on a variety of employment-related issues which involve
  465
  surveys of individuals I list those research studies, commissioned or partly funded by the Employment Department Group (ED, Employment Service, and Health and Safety Executive), which have involved surveys of individuals carried out since 17 December 1990.

  The British Social Attitudes Survey

  Changes in Young People's Career Aspirations in the Late 1980s and Early 1990s

  Claimants Who Experience Repeat Spells of Unemployment

  Cohort Study of Claimants in Leicester

  Employment and Handicap Follow-up

  Literacy Issues in Recruitment and Selection for Unskilled Jobs

  National Child Development Study-5th Stage Region-Urban Unemployment in Manchester and Liverpool

  Scottish Young People's Survey

  Study of the Effects of Noise in the Workplace

  Unemployment and Labour Market Flexibility

  Youth Cohort Study—England and Wales

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the advertising promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 72.

  Mr. Jackson
  GGT Advertising is employed by the Department in connection with the career development loans and national training awards campaigns, referred to in the answer of 1 July.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each of the 82 training and enterprise councils or employment service administration regions(a) the number of youth training places available, (b) the number of young people seeking a place and (c) the number of young people who left school last summer and are still without an offer of a youth training place.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 July 1991]: Information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will(a) make a statement on the delivery of the youth training, (b) list the training and enterprise councils where the youth training is not being met and (c) list the representations he has received regarding the delivery of the youth training guarantee.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 July 1991]: The Government are fully committed to the YT guarantee and will see that it continues to be met. The guarantee of an offer of a suitable YT place applies to young people under 18 years who are not in full time education or a job and are seeking training under YT. The local delivery of the guarantee is a matter for TECs who must investigate and resolve any difficulties a young person within the guarantees group may experience in securing a YT place locally.

  Young people in the guarantee group can seek to join or rejoin YT at any time and are entitled to continued reoffers while they remain within the group. At any time of the year there are therefore young people seeking to join YT. I am not aware of any TECs which are currently
  466
  failing to meet the guarantee but I am aware that the choice and availability of placements with employers may be being affected by the current recession.

  In these circumstances I strongly endorse the Construction Industry training board's recent call for its industry's employer bodies to promote YT to its members and deplore the decision by the Transport and General Workers unions to seek to reduce the number of opportunities available to young people.

  Departmental records do not separately identify representations about the YT guarantee and this information could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the number of young people on bridging allowance for each of the employment scheme administration regions by providing a comparison of change and percentage change for the period January 1991 to May 1991 and January 1990 to May 1990, including the totals and the average.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 July 1991]: Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service Executive Agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline the procedure involved in ensuring training and enterprise councils deliver the youth training guarantee; and whether independent organisations are being used to monitor the performance of TECs in the delivery of the guarantee and to resolve any differences between the Department and the TECs regarding what constitutes the guarantee being met.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 8 July 1991]: Provision for meeting the YT guarantee is made by TECs in their corporate and business plans which are agreed with the Department. TECs are obliged to use their best endeavour to meet the guarantees. Ensuring that TECs deliver the guarantee is therefore part of the overall contract management of TECs, which is the responsibility of the Department's regional directors. From time to time the Department employs independent consultants to examine and advise on various aspects of the Department's relationships with TECs or TEC performance. Monitoring the performance of TECs in relation to the YT guarantee or in other respects is however, a matter for the Department. Decisions as to what constitutes the guarantee being met are taken in the context of the Department's contract with TECs.

SCOTLAND

  Bird Killing
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of licences issued under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to permit the killing of(a) cormorant, (b) goosander and (c) red-breasted merganser in (i) Scotland and (ii) the Tweed catchment, for each year between 1985 and 1991, to date, to prevent serious damage to fisheries.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The details are as follows for the period 1985–91:
  467
  1. The number of licences granted for one or more species in Scotland were:

  Number

  1985 (January-December)

  59

  1986 (April-June)

  49

  1987 (April-June)

  44

  1988 (February-April)

  41

  1989 (February-April)

  37

  1990 (February-April)

  42

  1991 (February-April)

  50

  2. The licences granted for one or more species in the River Tweed catchment were:

  Number

  1985

  2

  1986

  2

  1987

  2

  1988

  2

  1989

  1

  1990

  1

  1991

  1

  The Nature Conservancy Council (NCC) has been consulted in advance of each shooting season. It was agreed with them and fishery interests in 1986 that any shooting under licence of these species should be restricted to April-June which coincided with the peak period of the smolt run on which the birds predated. In 1988 relevant interests agreed that shooting under licence should be restricted to the months of February-April on the ground that it would be less cruel to shoot birds outwith their breeding and nesting season.

  It was decided in 1989 with the agreement of the NCC that the number of licences issued for the Tweed area should be restricted each year to one. This policy gives the licensees, the River Tweed Commissioners, overall responsibility for the control of birds causing damage to fisheries in the area.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of(a) cormorants, (b) goosander and (c) red-breasted merganser killed under licence in (i) Scotland and (ii) the Tweed catchment for each year between 1985 and 1991, to date, to prevent serious damage to fisheries.
  468
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The details are as follows for the period 1985–91:

  1. Birds reported killed under licence in Scotland.

  Cormorants

  Goosanders

  Mergansers

  1985 (January-December)

  500

  224

  451

  1986 (April-June)

  134

  194

  263

  1987 (April-June)

  195

  175

  274

  1988 (February-April)

  221

  429

  204

  1989 (February-April)

  112

  383

  247

  1990 (February-April)

  335

  673

  421

  1991 (February-April)

  381

  504

  235

  2. Birds reported killed under licence in the River Tweed catchment

  Cormorants

  Goosanders

  1985

  19

  —

  1986

  36

  —

  1987

  29

  28

  1988

  50

  258

  1989

  5

  30

  1990

  17

  264

  1991

  26

  164

  No application has been received to shoot mergansers in the Tweed catchment during this period.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amounts of hazardous waste imported into Great Britain for incineration through Scottish ports from the Irish Republic in each year since October 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office does not hold information on the amounts of hazardous waste imported from the Irish Republic through Scottish ports for disposal of incineration in England and Wales. No such waste has been imported for incineration in Scotland since the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 came into force.

  A96 Survey
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber on 27 June,Official Report, column 535, whether he will state the date and time of day at which the survey of pedestrian/vehicle flows on the A96 at Fraser park, Nairn, was undertaken.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The survey was undertaken on Friday 16 November 1990 between 8 am and 5 pm following representations to Highland regional council from a Nairn district councillor in October 1990.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of health visitors employed by Greater Glasgow health board in April and November of each year beginning in April 1988.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available for the months requested. The number of health visitors employed by Greater Glasgow health board at 31 March and 30 September for the years requested is shown in the table:

  Whole-time equivalent

  Number

  March 1988

  278·2

  291

  September 1988

  289·0

  301

  March 1989

  276·6

  291

  September 1989

  299·3

  313

  March 1990

  281·3

  295

  September 1990

  265·7

  279

  March 1991

  286·3

  301

  The figures exclude combined and triple duty nurses.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland further to his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 365, if he will identify the national health service hospitals in Scotland where waste incinerators have difficulties in complying with current pollution control legislation.

  Residents in Mental Illness Hospitals and Psychiatric Units as at 31.12.90 with an Admission Diagnosis of Senile Dementia (I.C.D. 290) by Health Board of Residence, Age and Sex.

  Male

  Female

  less than 65

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  Total

  less than 65

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  6

  23

  46

  13

  88

  4

  32

  105

  80

  221

  Ayr and Arran

  5

  23

  34

  12

  74

  9

  29

  68

  42

  148

  Borders

  1

  7

  22

  1

  31

  3

  9

  52

  40

  104

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  9

  16

  5

  31

  2

  10

  62

  33

  107

  Fife

  3

  16

  49

  26

  94

  4

  37

  142

  112

  295

  Forth Valley

  3

  5

  24

  9

  41

  8

  26

  66

  71

  171

  Grampian

  4

  31

  76

  38

  149

  9

  39

  188

  201

  437

  Greater Glasgow

  17

  77

  154

  54

  302

  31

  93

  408

  330

  862

  Highland

  2

  7

  30

  12

  51

  4

  13

  42

  41

  100

  Lanark

  5

  24

  51

  12

  92

  11

  36

  100

  72

  219

  Lothian

  12

  28

  103

  33

  176

  17

  63

  243

  210

  533

  Orkney

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  6

  34

  61

  32

  133

  5

  43

  172

  176

  396

  Western Isles

  1

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1

  11

  7

  19

  Scotland

  66

  285

  667

  248

  1,266

  107

  431

  1,659

  1,415

  3,612

  Outwith/N.K

  2

  0

  5

  0

  7

  1

  1

  4

  4

  10

  Total

  68

  285

  672

  248

  1,273

  108

  432

  1,663

  1,419

  3,622

  470
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two clinical waste incinerators are experiencing difficulties in complying with current pollution control legislation. These are located at the Western and Royal Infirmaries in Glasgow. Greater Glasgow health board is pursuing a vigorous course of action to deal with these difficulties.

  Hospitals (Waste Disposal)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what special instructions have been issued for the adequate disposal of waste resulting from treatment of patients suffering from serious contagious diseases in Scottish national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A code of practice entitled "Hospital Infection Manual" has been issued to health boards. This code contains guidance on the disposal of waste resulting from treatment of patients suffering from serious contagious diseases in Scottish national health service hospitals.

  Senile Dementia
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the health board areas the number of males and females suffering from senile dementia aged(a) up to 65 years, (b) 66 to 75 years, (c) 76 to 85 years and (d) over 86 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no nationally maintained register of persons suffering from senile dementia in Scotland. Figures are however collected on people with dementia who are resident in, or who have been discharged from, NHS hospitals; and these are set out in the following tables. I must emphasise that studies of the prevalence of dementia in the population over 65 indicate that these figures represent only a small proportion of the total number of people suffering from senile dementia.
  471

  Number of persons with Senile Dementia First1 Discharged from Acute and Long-Stay Units in General Hospitals in 1989: By Age, Sex and Health Board of Residence.

  Males

  Females

  less than 65

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  Total

  less than 65

  65–74

  75–84

  85+

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  2

  14

  51

  23

  90

  4

  18

  93

  96

  211

  Ayr and Arran

  3

  13

  30

  16

  62

  3

  17

  69

  60

  149

  Borders

  0

  2

  14

  7

  23

  0

  2

  13

  22

  37

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  7

  33

  13

  54

  2

  8

  52

  42

  104

  Fife

  0

  10

  27

  16

  53

  2

  16

  61

  34

  113

  Forth Valley

  1

  9

  26

  10

  46

  4

  4

  55

  50

  113

  Grampian

  2

  23

  60

  37

  122

  4

  26

  133

  145

  308

  Greater Glasgow

  6

  33

  82

  34

  155

  7

  28

  187

  199

  421

  Highland

  5

  13

  34

  11

  63

  1

  11

  50

  45

  107

  Lanark

  7

  18

  40

  11

  76

  5

  25

  112

  81

  223

  Lothian

  10

  39

  109

  44

  202

  7

  34

  265

  264

  570

  Orkney

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1

  5

  2

  8

  Shetland

  0

  1

  2

  2

  5

  0

  0

  7

  4

  11

  Tayside

  2

  9

  52

  27

  90

  3

  14

  98

  101

  216

  Western Isles

  1

  0

  10

  3

  14

  2

  2

  11

  15

  30

  1 Figures are based on linked data and exclude persons with an earlier discharge in the period 1985–1989.

  Alcohol Abuse (Deaths)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many deaths took place in national health service hospitals in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole with the principal diagnosis relating to alcohol abuse or misuse for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The figures requested are set out in the table. The causes of death included have been selected by the Registrar General as being the most relevant, based on current medical advice, and are shown below the table.

  Deaths in National Health Service hospitals from selected causes, Strathclyde and Scotland, 1979–90

  Year

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1979

  234

  389

  1980

  233

  371

  1981

  247

  398

  1982

  225

  400

  1983

  209

  376

  1984

  200

  364

  1985

  219

  396

  1986

  209

  343

  1987

  210

  366

  1988

  227

  384

  1989

  201

  386

  11990

  238

  405

  1 Provisional.

  Causes included:

  ICD1 Code

  Cause

  291

  Alcoholic psychoses

  303

  Alcoholic dependence syndrome

  305.0

  Non-dependent abuse of alcohol

  425.5

  Alcoholic cardiomyopathy

  571.0–571.3

  Chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis, alcohol reported as a cause

  571.4–571.9

  Chronic liver diseases and cirrhosis, alcohol not specifically reported as a cause

  E860

  Accidental poisoning by alcohol not elsewhere classified

  1 International Classification of Diseases (9th Revision).

  Fishing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what time scale has been set for the conclusion of the EFTA negotiations relating to fishing opportunities in the Community; and if he will give details;
  472
  (2) whether his Department has carried out an analysis of the impact on Scottish fishermen of any liberalisation of the trade in fish between Norway and the Community resulting from the EFTA discussions; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions he has had with Scottish fishing interests in connection with the likely outcome and impact of the current European Free Trade Association negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is hoped that the current EC-EFTA negotiations will be concluded by the end of July.

  These negotiations cover a wide range of commodities and the Government are taking careful account of the potential impact of any agreement on the industries affected. This of course includes the fishing industry and officials have discussed these negotiations with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

  Further Education
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of male and female children aged 16 to 18 years in Inverclyde remained in full-time education for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information at this level of detail is not held centrally.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were registered unemployed in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow in each year since 1980, by electoral ward.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The available information, from June 1983, for electoral wards defined on the basis of 1984 ward boundaries, can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary.

  Renaval Programme
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the local programmes, in the Inverclyde district, which are to receive financial support by way of the European Community's Renaval programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Projects to be funded under the Strathclyde Renaval programme will be decided by a programme monitoring committee which will be established once the Commission approves the programme.

  Employment Training
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of employment training placements for the last available financial year were in work places; and what percentage were in project-based schemes in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  April 1990-March 1991

  Per cent.

  Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll

  Glasgow City

  Ayrshire, Dumfries and Galloway

  Lanarkshire

  Estimated percentage of Scottish Employment Training placements in workplaces with employers, located in Training Agency area office areas

  9·4

  18·7

  12·5

  8·0

  Estimated percentage of Scottish Employment Training placements in project based schemes, located in Training Agency area office areas

  7·7

  18·2

  13·2

  9·7

  River Clyde (Discharges)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases there have been of unauthorised discharges into the River Clyde in the last 10 years; of these how many led to court proceedings and convictions; and what was the average fine imposed against such miscreants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Some information on these matters is contained in the annual reports of the Clyde River Purification Board, copies of which are in the Library. More detailed information, however, is held only by the board and I have asked it to write to the hon. Member.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 91.

  Mr. Lang
  I shall place a list of surveys in the Library as soon as possible.

  Playgroups
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps he has taken to determine the financial impact of the imposition of registration and inspection fees on non-profit-making play groups, mother and toddler groups and under-fives groups in Scotland;

  (2) whether he will bring forward proposals to exempt non-profit-making play groups, mother and toddler
  474
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information for Scotland as a whole is set out in the table.

  April 1990-March 1991

  Per cent.

  Estimated percentage of Scottish Employment Training placements in workplaces with employers

  19·6

  Estimated percentage of Scottish Employment Training placements in project based schemes

  40·0

  The information sought is not available for areas within Scotland either in the form requested or for the precise areas stipulated. It is possible to disaggregate information only by former Training Agency area office areas and to provide figures only as a percentage of the Scottish total.

  Information on this basis for 1990–91 for the Training Agency area office areas which encompass Inverclyde district and Strathclyde region is set out in the table.

  groups and under-fives groups from registration and inspection fees under section 10 of the Children Act 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  When the Children Act 1989 comes into force on 14 October, fees payable by applicants for registration will be prescribed by regulations, as will annual inspection fees. The Government have not yet decided on the level of fees. We fully recognise the value to children and their families of the services provided by local playgroups, often within very tight budgets. We shall take this into account when we come to prescribe fees.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers of farms, the numbers of hectares and the average area per farm in hectares which are in the set-aside scheme in each region in 1991.

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

  1Region

  Number of Farms

  Area set aside (ha)

  Average area/farm (ha)

  Borders

  37

  2,261

  61·1

  Central

  19

  709

  37·3

  Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles2

  9

  104

  11·6

  Fife

  20

  1,269

  63·5

  Grampian

  337

  10,796

  32·0

  Highland

  50

  2,240

  44·8

  Lothian

  18

  1,327

  73·7

  Strathclyde

  37

  665

  18·0

  Tayside

  90

  3,662

  40·7

  Scotland

  617

  23,033

  37·3

  475

  1 Information is provisional pending the processing of the 1990–91 set-aside claims.

  2 Data for these regions have been grouped together for reasons of confidentiality.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the uptake of the set-aside scheme in(a) the number of farms and (b) the area of land set aside in hectares for 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In 1989–90, the second year of the set-aside scheme, a cumulative total of 498 farms in Scotland set aside 18,840 hectares of land. This increased in 1990–91, to 617 farms setting aside 23,033 hectares.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Compensation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 13 June,Official Report, column 653, when the hon. Member for Linlithgow may expect a letter on his assessment of the size and number of other estates in a similar position to Glenlochay.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I expect to be in a position to write to the hon. Member very shortly, once some necessary information has been obtained from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.

  Playgroups
  Mr. Wray
  To asks the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in implementing section 10 of the Children Act 1989, he will make sure that no fees for registration and inspection are charged to non-profit playgroups with charitable status.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Playgroups provide a valuable service for children and their families, often within very tight budgets. In fixing the fees for registration and inspection, which will be prescribed by regulations under the Children Act 1989, we shall take account of the position of playgroups.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of mortgage repossessions in Northern Ireland in 1990.

  Mr. Needham
  Repossessions statistics are not provided by the mortgage lending institutions on a regional basis. National totals are published by the Council of Mortgage Lenders in its GB quarterly publication "Housing Finance".

  Constitution
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland to discuss constitutional matters.

  Mr. Brooke
  On Wednesday 3 July.

  Anglo-Irish Conference
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Ministers from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland Governments will next meet within the context of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  476
  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy).

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the Government of the Republic of Ireland regarding co-operation in security matters.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cross-border security co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental conference on 26 April measures to enhance security co-operation were discussed in detail with Irish Ministers. At that meeting, both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to continue to work together to counter terrorist violence. My right hon. Friend intends to return to those discussions at the next meeting of the conference.

  Armagh Four
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the imprisonment of Winston Allen, Noel Bell, James Hegan and Neil Latimer, known as the Armagh Four; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend has, in addition to a petition and numerous letters from the public, received representations from Members, Lords, churchmen and others about the case. These have generally sought to encourage him to exercise his discretionary power to refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, which he would do only if some new evidence or consideration of substance is produced.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the disruption of rail services in Northern Ireland arising from both acts and threats of terrorism.

  Mr. Needham
  In spite of acts and threats of terrorism, Northern Ireland Railways continues to provide an important service to people on both sides of the border. Those who seek to disrupt it, not only cause needless hardship and inconvenience but put lives at risk.

  Political Talks
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the response to his latest political initiative.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks between the Northern Ireland political parties on the future of the Province.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the current talks over political progress in the Province.
  477
  Mr. Brooke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to introduce national health service trusts into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Department of Health and Social Services is consulting on an application from the Royal group of hospitals for health and social services trust status which, if successful, would result in the creation of a trust. Varying degrees of interest in trusts status have been expressed by other hospitals.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has finalised the date for the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Subject to the necessary legislation being approved by Parliament, the Government hope to be in a position to complete the sale of the power stations in spring 1992, and aims to float the remainder of NIE's business on the stock exchange later in the year.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the level of home ownership in Northern Ireland since 1979.

  Mr. Needham
  The growth in home ownership in Northern Ireland since 1979 has been a noted success. In that year the total number of owner-occupied properties was 256,500 which represented 52 per cent. of the total housing stock. By the end of 1990 this figure had risen to 347,500 or 66 per cent.

  Conservative Party
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to meet representatives of the Northern Ireland Conservative party to discuss the talks on the future of the Province; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I shall be meeting representatives of the Conservative party constituency associations in Northern Ireland in the near future for a general exchange of views on Government policy.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has had about the prevention of terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government regularly receive and consider representations from a wide range of bodies and individuals about the prevention of terrorism.

  The Government remain determined to defeat terrorism through the even-handed and energetic
  478
  enforcement of the rule of law. The RUC, supported by the Army, continue to make progress to this end, in the knowledge that Government will provide them with adequate resources, including legal resources. The Emergency Provisions (N.I.) Act, which received its Royal Assent on 27 June, is a further example of this support.

  However, the prevention of terrorism will not be achieved by security measures alone. The Government are also working, therefore, to implement effective measures in the political, social and economic fields.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of the Stevens inquiry to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I understand that up to 3 July the cost of the Stevens inquiry has been £868,480.

  Mr. John Stevens, the deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire, at the request of the chief constable of the RUC, conducted an inquiry into allegations of collusion between members of the security forces in Northern Ireland and loyalist paramilitaries. After a most thorough examination, he presented his report to the Chief Constable on 5 April 1990. Action on the report's conclusions and recommendations is being taken by the police and Army.

  Publications
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all publications relating to Northern Ireland ordered to be stocked by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, in each of the last five years; the total cost of each publication; and who was awarded the printing contract.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  A search of HMSO's title database shows the following number of publications with Northern Ireland or Ulster in the bibliographic details:

  Year of Publication

  Number

  1986

  512

  1987

  653

  1988

  642

  1989

  765

  1990

  699

  This does not, of course, represent the totality of HMSO publications that may relate to Northern Ireland in some way but it would involve disproportionate cost to examine each of the over 40,000 new items published by HMSO over this period for specific relevance.

  Similarly, the other details requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Colin Wallace
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will make a response to the most recent representations he has received about the case of Colin Wallace.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend replied to a letter from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on 5 July.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of people employed in shipbuilding and shiprepair in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  At 31 May 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, some 2,458 people were employed in shipbuilding and shiprepair in Northern Ireland.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that draft copies of the Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1991 are available to the House when it considers the draft Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  I have arranged for copies of the draft Fair Employment (Monitoring) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1991 to be placed in the Library to facilitate debate on the Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Health and Social Services Councils
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has given consideration to the extent to which funding will be required for health and social services councils, in order that they may fulfil their functions and meet the requirements to reflect the interests of the consumer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes. I recently met the four health and social services council chairmen to discuss finance and asked them to draw up budgets for the current financial year and for 1992–93, taking account of advice from the health and social services boards and the Department of Health and Social Services. I have undertaken that the councils will be adequately funded to represent the interests of the public in the health and personal social services in their areas.

DEFENCE

  Challenger 2 Tank
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has yet placed the production contract with Vickers for the Challenger 2 main battle tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Yes. Contractual negotiations have been successfully concluded between my Department and Vickers and the contract for two regiments of Challenger 2 main battle tanks was placed on Friday 28 June.

  Attack Helicopter
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procurement of a new attack helicopter for the Army.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Following our withdrawal from the collaborative Al29-LAH studies, we have decided that the attack and armed reconnaissance roles would be best met by separate helicopters. We plan to replace the Lynx in the 480
  anti-tank role by an off-the-shelf purchase towards the end of the decade. To this end, we propose to issue a request for proposals against a cardinal points specification in the spring of 1992. The requirement for an armed reconnaissance helicopter will be considered separately.

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the former RAF bases which have closed since 1987(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Since 1987 the former RAF bases at Barnwood, Bawdsey, Binbrook, Bishops Court, Hendon and North Coates in the United Kingdom have closed. There have been no overseas base closures in this period. We have also announced our plans for the full or partial closure of RAF Abingdon, RAF Biggin Hill, RAF Church Fenton, RAF Ely, RAF Halton, RAF Hullavington and RAF West Raynham in the United Kingdom, as well as the cessation of flying at RAF Gutersloh and RAF Wildenrath in Germany.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by location the RAF bases in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) abroad.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following is a list of active bases where there is a permanent RAF presence:

  (a) In the United Kingdom

  RAF Abingdon

  RAF Aldergrove

  RAF Amport House

  RAF Ash

  RAF Bampton Castle

  RAF Benbecula

  RAF Benson

  RAF Bentley Priory

  RAF Biggin Hill

  RAF Boddington

  RAF Boulmer

  RAF Bracknell

  RAF Brampton

  RAF Brawdy

  RAF Brize Norton

  RAF Buchan

  RAF Cardington

  RAF Carlisle

  RAF Catterick

  RAF Chilmark

  RAF Chivenor

  RAF Church Fenton

  RAF Coltishall

  RAF Coningsby

  RAF Cosford

  RAF Cottesmore

  RAF Cowden

  RAF Cranwell

  RAF Digby

  RAF Ely

  RAF Finningley

  RAF Flyingdales

  RAF Halton

  RAF Harrogate

  RAF Headley Court

  RAF Henlow

  RAF Hereford

  RAF High Wycombe

  RAF Holbeach

  RAF Honington

  RAF Hullavington

  RAF Innsworth

  RAF Jurby Head

  RAF Kemble

  RAF Kinloss

  481

  RAF Leeming

  RAF Leuchars

  RAF Lindholme

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  RAF Locking

  RAF Lossiemouth

  RAF Lyneham

  RAF Machrihanish

  RAF Manston

  RAF Marham

  RAF Mount Batten

  RAF Neatishead

  RAF Newton

  RAF North Luffenham

  RAF Northolt

  RAF Oakhanger

  RAF Odiham

  RAF Pembray Sands

  RAF Pitreavie Castle

  RAF Portreath

  RAF Quedgeley

  RAF Rosehearty

  RAF Rudloe Manor

  RAF St. Athan

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Saxa Vord

  RAF Scampton

  RAF Sealand

  RAF Shawbury

  RAF Spadeadam

  RAF Stafford

  RAF Stanbridge

  RAF Stanmore Park

  RAF Staxton Wold

  RAF Stornoway

  RAF Swanton Morley

  RAF Swinderby

  RAF Tain

  RAF Turnhouse

  RAF Upavon

  RAF Uxbridge

  RAF Valley

  RAF Waddington

  RAF Wainfleet

  RAF Wattisham

  RAF Watton

  RAF West Drayton

  1 April 1990

  1 April 1991

  Command

  Staff

  Command

  Staff

  Royal Navy

  Vice Admiral

  9

  3

  9

  3

  Rear Admiral

  18

  17

  17

  17

  Commodore/Senior Captain

  36

  50

  36

  51

  Royal Marines

  Lt. General

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Major General

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Brigadier/Colonel

  2

  6

  2

  7

  Army

  Lt. General

  5

  4

  6

  4

  Major General

  22

  37

  22

  39

  Brigadier

  97

  110

  99

  107

  Royal Air Force

  Air Marshal

  5

  4

  5

  5

  Air Vice Marshal

  9

  28

  10

  28

  Air Commodore

  24

  86

  22

  82

  Civilian

  Admin.

  Sc/Eng.

  Admin.

  Sc/Eng

  Grade 2

  6

  5

  6

  4

  Grade 3

  30

  28

  29

  25

  Grade 4

  12

  12

  12

  9

  Grade 5

  133

  126

  130

  120

  482

  RAF West Raynham

  RAF Wittering

  RAF Woodvale

  RAF Wroughton

  RAF Wyton

  (b) overseas

  RAF Akrotiri

  RAF Ascension Island

  RAF Belize

  RAF Bruggen

  RAF Gatow

  RAF Gibraltar

  RAF Gutersloh

  RAF Laarbruch

  RAF Mount Pleasant

  RAF Nordhorn

  RAF Rhendahlen

  RAF Sek Kong

  RAF Troodos

  RAF Wegberg

  RAF Wildenrath

  Manning Levels
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish with the Statement on the Defence Estimates the current and planned totals for(a) three-star posts, (b) two-star posts and (c) one-star posts, distinguishing military and civil posts, and distinguishing for military posts between command and staff appointments and for civilian posts between scientific-engineering posts and administrative ones.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Much work still has to be clone to establish the future requirement for starred posts. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 4 July, at column 213, it is planned to reduce the uniformed and civilian top structure in headquarters by about 20 per cent. Related reductions will be made throughout the services and among civilian staff. The current number of posts, and the corresponding data for 1990, is as follows. The figures do not include officers undergoing training, on handovers or on terminal leave.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position with regard to the closure of International Military Services Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been decided that International Military Services Limited is to cease trading on 31 July 1991, but the company will remain in being until all its current obligations are discharged.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 4 July to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), (1) whether he has any plans to offer civil servants premature voluntary release packages as part of his plans to reduce the number of MOD civil service staff;

  (2) what are the grades of civil service jobs that are due to be eliminated, and the numbers in each grade;

  (3) whether he has plans to make compulsory redeployments of MOD civil servants;

  (4) what plans he has to make MOD civil servants redundant; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what discussions he has had with civil service trade unions regarding his planned reductions in the size of the civil service;

  (6) what agreements have been reached with civil service trade unions regarding his planned reductions in the size of the civil service;

  (7) what plans he has to allow MOD civil servants to transfer to other areas of the civil service.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  On 4 July representatives of the departmental trades unions were informed about our plans for a reduction in the size of the MOD headquarters. The trade unions were invited to comment on the plans in accordance with agreed consultative procedures. They are also being consulted about reductions in civilian staff outside headquarters under "Options for Change", as our plans develop. It is intended to bring about the required reduction in numbers by a variety of means, including a reduction in recruitment, natural wastage, transfer to other Government Departments if possible, and voluntary early retirement. Where necessary, civil servants in mobile grades will be expected to honour their mobility obligation. Everything possible will be done to avoid compulsory redundancy, though this may not be possible for all grades. Further work is continuing to identify the precise numbers and grades affected.

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been made regarding the method and timing of reductions in British treaty-limited items of military equipment that are due to take place as part of the CFE treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Reduction of United Kingdom treaty-limited equipment—tanks and armoured combat vehicles—will be carried out by explosive demolition, as described in the protocol on reduction. The necessary reductions will be completed within 40 months of the treaty coming into force, as specified in the treaty.

  Service Redundancies
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy to extend the 28-day training period for personnel leaving the services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are reviewing future resettlement provision. I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 2 July,Official Report, column 136, to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs), if he will provide further details on the nature of the advice and counselling given to those leaving the services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel may seek advice from their units resettlement or education officers at any time during their careers, and there is also provision for more formal interviews during the last 18 months of service. The guidance provided in these ways is intended to inform personnel about the opportunities and problems likely to be encountered in making the transition to civilian life and, more specifically, about the range of resettlement briefings and training options that are available. The briefings are organised on a collective basis at various locations, and cover such matters as applying for a job; specific civilian careers; life in different regions; and other facets of civilian life, such as purchasing a home and managing one's finances. Such briefings last one or two days, and personnel may attend a number of them, in addition to the 28-day training period.

  RAF Closures
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the strategic rationale behind the disbandment of No. 16, No. 58 and No 63 squadrons RAF Regiment;

  (2) what is the strategic rationale behind the closure of (a) RAF Hullavington, (b) No. 7 flying training school at RAF Church Fenton and (c) RAF Abingdon.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 2 July, at column 138, and to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991".

  Operation Granby (Injuries)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of service personnel being treated for physical injuries or illnesses resulting either wholly or partially from Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have had some form of treatment for physical injuries or illnesses resulting either wholly or partially from Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 7 of the box entitled "Medical Support" at page 19 of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991"—Cm. 1559–1.

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 133, what action has been taken as a result of the complaints of racial harassment recorded in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All complaints of racial harassment which came to the attention of Ministry of Defence headquarters during the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and, to date, in 1991 were investigated and the results were as follows:

  Complaints substantiated

  Punishment

  Complaints unsubstantiated

  1988

  1

  12 offenders fined

  23

  1989

  1

  11 offender fined

  3

  1990

  —

  —

  33

  41991

  —

  —

  1

  1 All fined for common assault.

  2 Includes 2 complaints subsequently withdrawn.

  3 Includes 1 complaint subsequently withdrawn.

  4 1991 to date.

  Recruitment
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown by region of recruiting figures to the British Army.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Regiments
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is currently held centrally regarding(a) the running costs and (b) the operational effectiveness of individual Army regiments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None; there is no requirement for information at this level of detail to be held centrally.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the regiments in the Army and where they are currently serving.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The following table lists all Regular Army combat arm major units and their current base locations.

  Title

  Location

  Infantry—Regular battalions

  1 Grenadier Guards

  Munster

  2 Grenadier Guards

  Caterham

  1 Coldstream Guards

  Wellington Barracks

  2 Coldstream Guards

  Chelsea

  1 Scots Guards

  Hohne

  2 Scots Guards

  Hounslow

  1 Irish Guards

  Berlin

  1 Welsh Guards

  Pirbright

  1 The Royal Scots

  Werl

  1 The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Oakington

  1 The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  Edinburgh

  1 The Black Watch

  Ballykinler

  1 Queen's Own Highlanders

  Munster

  1 The Gordon Highlanders

  Fort George

  1 The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  Minden

  1 The Queen's Regiment

  Minden

  2 The Queen's Regiment

  Canterbury

  3 The Queen's Regiment

  Cyprus

  1 The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  Tidworth

  486

  Title

  Location

  2 The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  Bulford

  3 The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  Hemer

  1 The Royal Anglian Regiment

  Colchester

  2 The Royal Anglian Regiment

  Celle

  3 The Royal Anglian Regiment

  Londonderry

  1 The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  Colchester

  1 The King's Regiment

  Ballykelly

  1 The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  Osnabruck

  1 The Green Howards

  Catterick

  1 The Royal Irish Rangers

  Warminster

  2 The Royal Irish Rangers

  Lemgo

  1 The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  Weeton

  1 The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  Tern Hill

  1 The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  Cyprus

  1 The Royal Hampshire Regiment

  Colchester

  1 Staffordshire Regiment

  Fallingbostel

  1 The Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment

  Catterick

  1 The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  Bulford

  1 The Cheshire Regiment

  Chester

  1 The Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  Berlin

  1 The Royal Regiment of Wales

  Hong Kong

  1 The Gloucestershire Regiment

  Catterick

  1 The Light Infantry

  Berlin

  2 The Light Infantry

  Tidworth

  3 The Light Infantry

  Paderborn

  1 The Royal Green Jackets

  Osnabruck

  2 The Royal Green Jackets

  Omagh

  3 The Royal Green Jackets

  Dover

  1 The Parachute Regiment

  Hollywood

  2 The Parachute Regiment

  Aldershot

  3 The Parachute Regiment

  Aldershot

  1 2nd King Edward VIIs Own Gurkha Rifles

  Hong Kong

  2 2nd King Edward VIIs Own Gurkha Rifles

  Brunei

  6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles

  Hong Kong

  7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles

  Church Crookham

  10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles

  Hong Kong

  Royal Armoured Corps Regular Regiments

  The Life Guards

  Sennelager

  The Blues and Royals

  Windsor

  1st The Queen's Dragoon Guards

  Tidworth

  The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

  Fallinbostel

  4th/7th Royal Dragoon Guards

  Detmold

  5th Royal Inniskilling Dragoon Guards

  Paderborn

  The Queen's Own Hussars

  Hohne

  The Queen's Royal Irish Hussars

  Fallingbostel

  9th/12th Royal Lancers

  Wimbish

  The Royal Hussars

  Munster

  13th/18th Royal Hussars

  Wolfenbottel

  14th/20th King's Hussars

  Munster

  15th/19th The King's Royal Hussars

  Detmold

  16th/5th The Queen's Royal Lancers

  Herford

  17th/21st Lancers

  Tidworth

  1 Royal Tank Regiment

  Hildesheim

  2 Royal Tank Regiment

  Bovington/Catterick

  3 Royal Tank Regiment

  Hemer

  4 Royal Tank Regiment

  Osnabruck

  Royal Artillery Regiments

  1 Royal Horse Artillery

  Hohne

  3 Royal Horse Artillery

  Colchester

  7 Royal Horse Artillery

  Aldershot

  2 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Munster

  4 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Osnabruck

  5 Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  Dortmund

  12 Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  Dortmund

  14 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Larkhill

  16 Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  Kirton Lindsey

  487

  Title

  Location

  19 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Topcliffe

  22 Air Defence Regiment Royal Artillery

  Dortmund

  26 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Gutersloh

  27 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Dortmund

  29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery

  Plymouth/Arbroath

  32 Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  Dortmund

  39 Heavy Regiment Royal Artillery

  Sennelager

  40 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Hohne

  45 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Paderborn

  47 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Thorney Island

  49 Field Regiment Royal Artillery

  Lippstadt

  50 Missile Regiment Royal Artillery

  Menden

  Royal Engineer Regiments

  21 Engineer Regiment

  Nienburg

  22 Engineer Regiment

  Tidworth

  23 Engineer Regiment

  Osnabruck

  25 Engineer Regiment

  Osnabruck

  26 Engineer Regiment

  Iserlohn

  28 Amphibious Engineer Regiment

  Hameln

  32 Armoured Engineer Regiment

  Munsterlager

  33 (EOD) Regiment

  Chattenden

  35 Engineer Regiment

  Hameln

  36 Engineer Regiment

  Maidstone

  38 Engineer Regiment

  Ripon

  39 Engineer Regiment

  Waterbeach

  The Queen's Gurkha Engineers

  Hong Kong

  Army Air Corps

  1 Regiment Army Air Corps

  Hildesheim

  3 Regiment Army Air Corps

  Soest

  4 Regiment Army Air Corps

  Detmold

  7 Regiment Army Air Corps

  Netheravon

  9 Regiment Army Air Corps

  Topcliffe

  Special Air Service Regiment

  22nd Regiment Special Air Service

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the release of de-classified information on the safeguarding of nuclear weapons against(a) theft and (b) unauthorised use to his counterparts in other countries.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Any such case would be considered on its merits giving due regard to United Kingdom national interests and international obligations.

  MOD Land
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has established targets for the sale of surplus MOD property and land either(a) to housing associations or (b) on the open market.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) the relevant local authorities and (b) his United States counterpart regarding the future employment and housing needs of civil service personnel employed at RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My Department has discussed various issues arising from the United States withdrawal from RAF Bentwaters and RAF Woodbridge with Suffolk county council and Suffolk coastal district council.

  Army Resettlement
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of staff in the Army resettlement employment liaison cell, the titles and grades of staff attached to the cell and its current average annual running cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Army resettlement employment liaison cell comprises one lieutenant colonel, who is the senior employment liaison officer, assisted by one major, one executive officer and two administrative assistants. Annual running costs are of the order of £200,000.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amount of funding has been provided to the Officers Association and the Regular Forces Employment Association in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The funding provided to the Officers' Association and the Regular Forces Employment Association in each year since 1970 was as follows:

  Year

  Officers' Association £

  Regular Forces Employment Association £

  1970–71

  27,500

  15,100

  1971–72

  27,500

  18,700

  1972–73

  27,800

  38,800

  1973–74

  40,866

  43,500

  1974–75

  44,538

  52,780

  1975–76

  47,400

  76,000

  1976–77

  63,960

  91,000

  1977–78

  72,098

  98,700

  1978–79

  86,214

  146,500

  1979–80

  65,694

  193,800

  1980–81

  72,379

  241,000

  1981–82

  88,694

  263,600

  1982–83

  96,331

  323,600

  1983–84

  97,261

  359,400

  1984–85

  103,748

  399,400

  1985–86

  111,841

  415,800

  1986–87

  128,000

  431,140

  1987–88

  132,800

  453,400

  1988–89

  117,000

  496,100

  1989–90

  141,120

  523,600

  1990–91

  155,400

  557,600

  11991–92

  200,700

  605,300

  1 Forecast.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy to increase(a) the size of the Army resettlement employment liaison cell and (b) the level of funding provided to the Officers Association and the Regular Forces Employment Association.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The size of the Army resettlement employment liaison cell, which is part of the tri-service resettlement organisation employment unit, and the level of MOD grant to the Officers Association and the Regular Forces Employment Association are kept under review in the light of the demand on their services. The MOD will be discussing with both associations the level of funding necessary in the light of "Options for Change".

  RAF Hullavington
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has had with North Wiltshire district council regarding the future employment and housing needs of MOD personnel employed or stationed at RAF Hullavington and the barracks at Colerne;

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) housing associations and (b) private firms regarding the future of the barracks at Colerne and RAF Hullavington.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None. Discussions will be held with North Wiltshire district council regarding the future of the sites.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with North Wiltshire district council regarding planning permission.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Discussions are held with local authorities as required on planning matters relating to MOD sites.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, columns 5·7.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The opinion poll surveys conducted by, for or on behalf of the Ministry of Defence since December 1990 are as follows:

  Date

  Subject

  Public Attitudes to Defence

  Annual

  RAF Statement of Equality Research

  1991

  Research at Welbeck College on recruitment to the Army

  1991

  RAF—Strategic Research

  1991

  Target

  Market Exploratory Research (Navy)

  1991

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the advertising, promotional or public relations companies employed by, or on behalf of, his Department who are involved in the campaigns given in his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 82.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Royal Navy
  Production of a television recruiting advertisement and television advertising campaign.—Young and Rubican Ltd. Advertising Agency to be responsible for television advertising campaign. Contract not yet placed for television recruiting advertising.

  Army
  Production of a television/cinema recruiting advertising and television/cinema advertising campaign. Press campaign in support of the above.—Advertisement produced by Sid Roberson Films. Delaney, Fletcher, Slaymaker, Delaney & Bozell Advertising Agency responsible for advertising campaign.

  Territorial Army

  1. A combined TV/Press recruitment campaign highlighting the range of weekend activities in the Territorial Army.
  490
  —Advertisement produced by Ridley Scott Associates. Delaney, Fletcher, Slaymaker, Delaney & Bozell Advertising Agency to be responsible for advertising campaign.

  2. A press campaign to recruit specialist personnel.—Delaney, Fletcher, Slaymaker, Delaney & Bozell Advertising Agency.

  Purcell Miller Tritton responsible for production of posters in support of 1 and 2 above.

  Tri-Service

  1. Press campaign to thank employers for releasing Volunteer Reserve Forces personnel for service during the Gulf crisis.—Young and Rubican Ltd. Advertising Agency.

  2. Campaign to increase public awareness of Volunteer Reserve Forces and employers' support for them.—Young and Rubican Ltd. Advertising Agency.

  Gurkhas and RAF Regiment
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many infantry battalions or manpower equivalent are contained within the establishment of the Brigade of Gurkhas and the RAF Regiment;

  (2) how many British infantry battalions equate, in terms of manpower, to the Brigade of Gurkhas and the RAF Regiment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are five infantry battalions in the brigade of Gurkhas together with supporting units. United Kingdom infantry battalions vary in size according to role and differences in peace and war establishments. The RAF Regiment is not structured on the basis of battalions. It is not meaningful, therefore, to draw comparisons in this way.

  Army
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the men of the Brigade of Gurkhas and RAF Regiment meet his infantry criteria of universality of posting both in terms of geographic location and type of duty, including armoured formations;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the quality of soldiering now being provided in the Household Division, Light Division and the Parachute Regiment;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the British Army is able to meet its present role and tasks;

  (4) how many battalion year tasks will be relinquished as a result of his recent assessment of the new military threat now facing the United Kingdom; and if he will list them;

  (5) what assessment he has made of whether the training of the officers and men of the Household Division, Light Division and the Parachute Regiment currently fit them to meet his criteria of universality in terms of geographic location and role, including armoured formations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to make a statement on the restructuring of the Army before the House rises for the summer recess. It would not be appropriate to comment on these matters until then.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secetary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on regimental restructuring in the Army.
  491
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the House on 2 July, he hopes to make a statement on Army restructuring before the summer recess.

  Infantry
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the contribution of the infantry to the modern hi-tech battlefield.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has a vital contribution to make.

  Support Services
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secetary of State for Defence if he will list the current peace-time establishments, by rank of the medical, catering and ordnance support arms of each of the three services and their annual cost in terms of salary.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secetary of State for Defence what is, in his reorganisation of the armed forces, his policy on retention by each of the three armed-forces of its own individual medical (including dental), communications, mechanical, catering and ordnance supporting arms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In looking for savings in support commensurate with those in the front line, we are examining the scope for rationalisation in all areas. The services will retain individual supporting arms where it is operationally necessary and cost-effective to do so.

  Type 2075 Sonar Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations influenced his decision to terminate the contract for the development of the type 2075 integrated sonar suite.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to my answer of 17 June to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) at column 67.

  Location

  Strike/Attack

  Tornado GR1

  9

  Sqn

  RAF Bruggen

  14

  Sqn

  RAF Bruggen

  15

  Sqn

  RAF Laarbruch

  16

  Sqn

  RAF Laarbruch

  17

  Sqn

  RAF Bruggen

  20

  Sqn

  RAF Laarbruch

  27

  Sqn

  RAF Marham

  31

  Sqn

  RAF Bruggen

  617

  Sqn

  RAF Marham

  Buccaneer

  12

  Sqn

  RAF Lossiemouth

  208

  Sqn

  RAF Lossiemouth

  Offensive Support

  Harrier

  1

  Sqn

  RAF Wittering

  3

  Sqn

  RAF Gutersloh

  4

  Sqn

  RAF Gutersloh

  Jaguar

  6

  Sqn

  RAF Coltishall

  54

  Sqn

  RAF Coltishall

  Maritime Patrol

  Nimrod MR

  42

  Sqn

  RAF St. Mawgan

  Type 2076 Sonar Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the type 2076 sonar programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Sonar 2076 is the programme to update the sonar suites of the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class submarines. This programme will ensure that these submarines remain effective and capable throughout their lifespan. We have recently awarded contracts for the project definition phase of the programme to Marconi Underwater Systems Limited and Ferranti-Thomson Sonar Systems Ltd.

  Communications Project Definition Studies
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the integrated external and internal communications project definition studies.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman shortly.

  Light Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future requirements of the Army for light armoured vehicles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We are continuing to review our requirement for light armoured vehicles as part of the "Options for Change" process.

  RAF Squadrons
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the operational squadrons in the Royal Air Force and where they are currently stationed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The front-line squadrons of the RAF as of 1 April 1991 are listed at Annex D to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991" published on 9 July. Their peacetime locations as of the same date are as follows:
  493

  Location

  120

  Sqn

  RAF Kinloss

  201

  Sqn

  RAF Kinloss

  206

  Sqn

  RAF Kinloss

  Reconnaissance

  Jaguar

  41

  Sqn

  RAF Coltishall

  Tornado GRla

  2

  Sqn

  RAF Laarbruch

  13

  Sqn

  RAF Honington

  Nimrod R

  51

  Sqn

  RAF Wyton

  Canberra PR9

  1

  PRU

  RAF Wyton

  Air Defence

  Tornado F3

  5

  Sqn

  RAF Coningsby

  11

  Sqn

  RAF Leeming

  23

  Sqn

  RAF Leeming

  25

  Sqn

  RAF Leeming

  29

  Sqn

  RAF Coningsby

  43

  Sqn

  RAF Leuchars

  111

  Sqn

  RAF Leuchars

  Phantom FGR2

  19

  Sqn

  RAF Wildenrath

  56

  Sqn

  RAF Wattisham

  74

  Sqn

  RAF Wattisham

  92

  Sqn

  RAF Wildenrath1

  Bloodhound

  85

  Sqn

  RAF West Raynham2

  Rapier

  16

  Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Wildenrath

  26

  Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Laarbruch

  27

  Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Leuchars

  37

  Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Bruggen

  48

  Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Lossiemouth

  63

  Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Gutersloh

  Skyguard

  2729

  Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF Waddington

  2890

  Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF Waddington

  Airborne Early Warning

  Shackleton AEW

  8

  Sqn

  RAF Lossiemouth3

  Airborne Radio Relay

  Andover

  115

  Sqn

  RAF Benson

  Air Transport

  VC10

  10

  Sqn

  RAF Brize Norton

  Hercules

  24

  Sqn

  RAF Lyneham

  30

  Sqn

  RAF Lyneham

  47

  Sqn

  RAF Lyneham

  70

  Sqn

  RAF Lyneham

  Tristar

  216

  Sqn

  RAF Brize Norton

  HS125/Andover/Gazelle

  32

  Sqn

  RAF Northolt

  Andover

  60

  Sqn

  RAF Wildenrath

  Chinook

  7

  Sqn

  RAF Odiham

  18

  Sqn

  RAF Gutersloh

  Wessex

  72

  Sqn

  RAF Aldergrove

  Puma

  33

  Sqn

  RAF Odiham

  230

  Sqn

  RAF Gutersloh

  Tankers

  Victor K2

  55

  Sqn

  RAF Marham

  VC10 K2/K3

  101

  Sqn

  RAF Brize Norton

  Search and Rescue

  Sea King

  202

  Sqn

  RAF Lossiemouth

  RAF Boulmer

  RAF Leconfield

  RAF Manston

  RAF Brawdy

  Wessex

  22

  Sqn

  RAF Leuchars

  RAF Coltishall

  RAF Chivenor

  RAF Valley

  Ground Defence

  1 Light Armour Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Laarbruch

  2 Light Armour Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Hullavington

  3 Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Aldergrove

  51 Light Armour Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Catterick

  58 Light Armour Sqn RAF Regt

  RAF Catterick

  2503 Field Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF Waddington

  2620 Field Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF Marham

  2622 Field Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF Lossiemouth

  494 495

  Location

  2623 Field Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF Honinglon

  2624 Field Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF Brize Norton

  2625 Field Sqn R Aux AF Regt

  RAF St. Mawgan

  In addition, normal deployment outside the NATO area was:

  Cyprus

  Wessex, 84 Sqn; 34 Light Armour Sqn RAF Regt

  Hong Kong

  Wessex, 28 Sqn

  Falkland Islands

  1 Fit Phantom FGR2; 1 Fit Hercules; Chinook; Sea King; RAF Regt Rapier

  Belize

  1 Fit Harrier; 1 Fit Puma; RAF Regt Rapier

  1 92 Sqn is disbanding from 1 July.

  2 85 Sqn was retired on 1 July.

  3 The Shackleton was retired on 1 July. 8 Sqn is being re-equipped with E-3D Sentry aircraft based at RAF Waddington.

  RAF Capability
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration he is giving in "Options for Change" to medium-level capability for the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As clearly demonstrated by the operations in the Gulf, the RAF maintains an effective medium-level capability. This will not be affected by "Options for Change".

  Naval Landing Platforms
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Royal Navy's landing platform dock replacement programme.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We expect to place the contract for project definiton of the design of two new assault ships shortly.

  Tornado
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the GR4 version of the Tornado aircraft to be fully operational.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Tornado GR4 is planned to enter service in the second half of the decade.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and locations of all those MOD properties in the Caradon area that are vacant at present; what is the length of time that they have been unoccupied; and what are his intentions for these properties.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are currently 12 vacant married quarters in the Caradon area at Torpoint. These have been vacant for fewer than three months. Eight of the properties are undergoing works and four will be alloted to incoming service families. In addition, one former married quarter is in the process of being sold.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Population Control Programme
Viscount Craigavon Viscount Craigavon asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to meet requests from developing countries for aid and advice in family planning in the 1990s.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have responded and will continue to respond positively through our overseas aid programme. That gives high priority to providing developing countries with support for their population programmes. Our expenditure on multilateral and bilateral population programmes amounted to some £24 million in 1990, an increase of 28 per cent. in real terms on the previous year.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Does he accept that many of us agree that the Government's contribution and the recent increase have been very helpful, particularly as regards the past year? Does the Minister also agree that all the evidence points to the fact that there is a steadily growing demand for contraceptive services in developing countries? Is he aware that over the next decade it has been estimated by the major multilateral organisations such as the UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation that the increase in the number of couples who wish to use contraceptive services will be approximately an additional 200 million to the existing number of users? Can the Minister say whether the Government will give a lead in the matter by providing substantially increased funds in future and set an example, particularly to our Western European partners, in trying to deal with this very urgent problem?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House agrees with the last remark made by the noble Viscount: it is an urgent problem. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that he asked his Question on UN World Population Day. I confirm that there is an increasing demand from developing countries for population assistance. Surveys have shown that 100 million couples who want to use family planning services currently have no access to them.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, in view of the fact that most of the pictures that we all too frequently see of death and starvation come from Africa, does the Minister agree that the European Community has a very special responsibility for that continent in view of the long colonial history between
1506
Europe and Africa? Does the Minister also agree that most of the problems arise in Africa, and that they are a cause of grievous anxiety for the future?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly Africa has its troubles; but the rest of the world also has to be considered. I reaffirm to the House that we are the second largest contributor in the aid programme to the Horn of Africa in trying to solve the current crisis. I hope that more countries follow our lead.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in deciding how best to help people in the third world countries, will my noble friend bear in mind that millions of them cannot afford contraceptives? Does my noble friend agree that contraception is the most important way in which the Government can arrange help with the co-operation of the governments of the countries concerned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend makes a most important point. That is certainly one of the areas in which we are working hard in the ODA.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the United Nations Population Fund, to which the Government contribute about half of the amount that Denmark contributes, has been enormously successful in its programmes in Mexico and Sri Lanka in bringing down the birth rate even where the standard of living is low? Can the Government be a great deal more generous instead of quoting the rises in the small amount that they give?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am delighted to receive another question from the noble Lord that requires more taxpayers' money to be spent. I have already explained to the House that there has been a substantial increase—28 per cent. in real terms—on last year's figures regarding population programmes.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most effective and long-term means of reviewing the family planning issue in developing countries is to focus on the education and training of women so that they can take control of their own lives?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is why we try to involve women at all stages and all ODA projects and programmes are assessed for their impact on women. We have to try to improve the status of women throughout the world in the law, in education and in health so that women can play a full role in society.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this subject is one of the major problems facing many of the developing countries, and that it will have a very serious impact on the environment of some of the countries? Does he further agree that some of the issues we are worried about in other respects are also connected with overpopulation? Therefore, does my noble friend agree that more resources should be urgently made available through the ODA? I hope that is the message that can be sent through him.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, certainly an increase in population is taking place in the developing countries. We expect an increase of about 1 billion in the world population over the next 10 years. We anticipate that 95 per cent. of that increase will take place in the developing countries. At the moment the world population stands at about 5.3 billion. Therefore, my noble friend is right in saying that it is a problem not only for the developing countries but for the whole world to try to resolve.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, has the Minister seen the recent UN population report which states that the demand for contraception will increase substantially over the next few years because of the rapidly increasing number of women reaching child-bearing age? Equally worrying is that the report states that the population programmes—including that of the United Kingdom—have decreased in real terms. That contradicts what the Minister said in his Answer. When are the Government going to take the population explosion seriously? The Minister said that today is World Population Day: therefore, today would be a very good day to start.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Government already take this question very seriously, as the noble Lord knows full well from the replies I gave when he asked a Question on the subject.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the only long-term answer to over-population is the improvement of living standards? Living standards are in inverse proportion to the growth in population.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the improvement of living standards is certainly a most important element in trying to solve the problem; but there is a whole range of other subjects that we are concentrating on, including health and education.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the fact that Mr. James Grant, the executive director of UNICEF, called for an increase in family planning users from 326 million to 525 million, does the Minister agree that this will depend to a large extent on aid-givers? Therefore, can the Minister say what percentage of the British aid programme goes to family planning? Can he also say when Her Majesty's Government will discuss with our EC partners the inter-relation between poverty and population?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the net aid programme is currently £1.27 billion. The £24 million spent in 1990 was on activities directly related to population concerns. I know the House will agree that it is all the other ODA programmes that reflect on that in the health and training of women—to answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Denton.

Motor Vehicle Insurance: Offences
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
In how many vehicle accidents in the last three years have one or more parties been found not to be properly insured.
Earl Howe: My Lords, figures for the number of convictions in England and Wales for using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risk are as follows:

Number

1987

200,309

1988

208,568

1989

210,551

Figures for 1990 are not yet available.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, does he agree that the number of defaulting motorists is unacceptably high? Is he aware that in France—and possibly many other countries—motorists have to display in their car windscreens a small uniform coupon which is detached from the insurance certificate. That facilitates enforcement and makes for greater compliance. Police time is not wasted by people having to show an insurance certificate at a police station and nothing is added to bureaucracy or administrative costs. Does the Minister agree that that would be good for this country, too?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I share my noble friend's disquiet at the figures I have quoted. In order to make my Answer completely clear I should point out that it is not possible to provide statistics in the precise form that she has requested. I turn now to her second point. A scheme of the kind outlined by my noble friend has an element of attractiveness in terms of compliance. However, there are also disadvantages. Motor insurance in the UK relates more to the driver than the vehicle. Insurance policies often cover a person to drive more than one vehicle, or vehicles owned by other persons subject to the owner's permission. Insurers would therefore have to issue several windscreen discs per policy holder, or one disc which could be transferred from vehicle to vehicle. In either case, the effectiveness of a disc for enforcement purposes would be seriously weakened.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend will be well aware that it is quite possible to relicense a vehicle with only a short time left to run on the insurance. Will Her Majesty's Government give consideration to making certain that the time for the insurance to run should be for the whole time of the licensing of that vehicle?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very interesting suggestion, which I shall happily pass on to my right honourable friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in view of the quite extraordinary statistics revealed by the Minister which

1509
indicate a very serious state of affairs, does the Minister feel that it is appropriate to undertake a full investigation into all possible ways of reducing the incidence of this crime—and it is a crime? Does he agree that, quite apart from the valuable suggestion put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, all methods should be investigated? I ask that having particular regard to the fact that at present, as I understand it, the Motor Insurers' Bureau compensates only for injuries sustained and not for damage to property. That can be very serious for the victims in such circumstances. Will the Minister undertake to have these matters investigated thoroughly?
Earl Howe: My Lords, what the Government can do, and have done, is to create a framework of legislation which makes it less tempting to dodge the requirement for insurance while at the same time seeing to it that as far as possible there are no innocent victims of road accidents involving uninsured drivers. The first aim is achieved through stiffer penalties, and the second through the Motor Insurers' Bureau, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred. It is not true to say that the Motor Insurers' Bureau will not compensate for damage to property. The victims of uninsured drivers who are denied access to compensation can claim compensation from the MIB, which will compensate the victim for injury in full and damage to property other than the first £175 of the claim, provided that the other party was negligent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for being so frank in the first part of his answer. However, the framework undertaken by the Government has hardly been successful in the light of the evidence which he has himself adduced. Therefore, will he look again at this matter without delay?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the easiest way to answer the noble Lord is to say that the Road Traffic Bill, which has just completed its passage through your Lordships' House, considerably increases the penalties that are applicable to this type of offence. It remains to be seen how that will work out.

Nuclear Weapon States
3.21 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many and which countries are currently believed to have nuclear weapons.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are five declared nuclear weapon states; that is, states which exploded a nuclear device before 1st January 1967. The nuclear weapon states are the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say what other states have nuclear facilities? I believe the number to be seven but I should like to know which they are. Is it not now clear that the monitoring and supervision provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, signed by 141 countries, are being flouted? The
1510
most recent example is Iraq, where the facilities turned out to be far more extensive than had hitherto been thought?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Argentina, Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan and South Africa have significant nuclear facilities. I am glad to inform the House that I have just heard that South Africa has now joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under Article 3, South Africa now has 18 months to sign up to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Furthermore, Korea, which, as the House knows, is not recognised as a state by Her Majesty's Government, also has significant nuclear facilities. We hope that the countries that have not yet joined the NPT will do so in the near future. With regard to strengthening the NPT, yes, we certainly wish to strengthen all existing regimes and restrictions of control.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that some of the countries which the noble Earl has named as being on the verge of producing nuclear weapons have unstable governments? Does this not pose a serious threat to the world? Can he say whether the Government believe that the Non-Proliferation Treaty is effective; or does a further step need to be taken through the Security Council of the United Nations to probe the possibility of creating a more effective restriction? Finally, can he say what are the prospects of creating a nuclear free zone in the Middle East?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and asked whether it needed to be strengthened. We shall seek further accessions to the NPT. We will wish to strengthen the international safeguards administered by the IAEA and we wish to harmonise and improve existing export controls through the Zangger Committee and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. That, we hope, will take care of some of the noble Lord's anxieties.
The noble Lord asked about a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. We would support that in principle, provided all the states therein could agree to it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend did not mention Libya, about which there have been a number of rumours. Can he tell us anything about that?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I did not mention Libya. I do not have the information to give your Lordships.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Iraqi nuclear installations were inspected by the IAEA not many months before her invasion of Kuwait, are the Government satisfied that the IAEA has enough authority and personnel? What exactly are its functions with respect to the NPT? In our case, we opened the majority of our nuclear installations. There are no safeguards so far as I can see—I should like to be reassured that I am wrong—that when the IAEA goes out to inspect a suspected nation it is given real access.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord puts his finger on a very important point. It is true that the IAEA inspected and checked the facilities in Iraq which it was shown. But it has come to light subsequently that the IAEA was certainly not shown all the facilities. A new inspection is taking place which is due to end tomorrow. The IAEA will report back to the Security Council under Security Council Resolution 687. I agree with the noble Lord that it is one of our intentions to strengthen the international safeguards administered by the IAEA.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain why the intensive and prolonged bombing of Iraq's nuclear facilities was not more successful? How do the Government now assess Iraq's capability for producing nuclear weapons? Do the Government feel the time might come when further military action was needed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this work is being carried out by the special commission to which I have already made reference. Security Council Resolution 687 provides for the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We are waiting for the report about the commission's recent work.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will not think this too wide of the Question on the Order Paper, as we are talking about weapons of mass destruction. Can he confirm that there are also 20 nations, many of them third world nations with unstable governments, with a chemical warfare capability?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which specifically refers to nuclear weapons.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether inspection of nuclear facilities also includes the inspection of delivery systems?
The Earl of Caithness: Not without notice, my Lords, but I shall try to find out and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend give wide publicity to these serious facts? That might encourage more of the 151 Labour MPs who are still members of CND to speed up their resignations and follow the example of Mr. Kinnock himself.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we certainly seek to publicise the information that is available to us. We wish that more of the countries I have mentioned would sign up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that this matter is far too grim and serious to become the subject of petty party politics?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what is absolutely clear is that everyone in the country wishes to know where each party stands.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the UN Security Council aware of the grave possibility of terrorist
1512
organisations managing to get hold of nuclear weapons to threaten governments—even governments with whom we may not agree? Is this not a matter for the Security Council to consider in order to prevent the possibility of a terrorist organisation getting hold of nuclear weapons?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we certainly wish to prevent any such possibility occurring.

Higher Education: Teachers' Pay
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they will not establish an independent statutory pay review body or bodies for teachers in higher and further education.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, universities do not rely exclusively on public funds for their income. Accordingly, the Government have no plans to extend the proposed review body for school teachers to cover the pay of teachers in higher and further education.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. However, does she acknowledge that in the Statement made by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on 17th April giving reasons for the establishment of a review body for school teachers, he said:
"We want to raise still further the esteem in which the teaching profession is held in our society"?—[Official Report, Commons, 17/4/91; col. 433.]
Should not that statement have equal application to teachers in universities, polytechnics and colleges of higher and further education and be validated by a policy that enables all teachers to have their pay determined in the same way?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The standing and status of teachers, whether in the university, polytechnic, higher education, further education or, indeed, the school sector, is most important. Nevertheless, there was a real understanding of a particular problem as regards the perception by the public and parents of the teaching profession. It was especially to address that point that the Secretary of State introduced the pay review body.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that her first Answer is wholly beside the point? Although it is true that universities receive funds for research and through contracts, the basic staff—that is, the professors and lecturers—live, as other people do, on their salaries. Those salaries have declined relatively in regard to the rest of the teaching profession and relatively in respect of wages and salaries in general over a long period of time. How can my noble friend justify that discrimination at a time when higher education is being asked to absorb an ever larger number of students?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the distinctions that I made are, nevertheless, very real. Recruitment and

1513
retention are not a general problem with higher education. However, there are particular problems with some areas of teaching. The Government are doing their best to introduce flexibility into the pay of teachers in higher education in order to address merit, recruitment and retention of teachers. But one cannot avoid the fact—and this, again, is another distinction—that university teachers have opportunities outside their profession which are not open to school teachers.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that all institutions in higher education—that is universities, polytechnics and colleges—are now independent institutions? Therefore, their employees are not employed by the Government but by institutions. If they want to have their ray and conditions negotiated separately, they have a perfect right to make that decision. Moreover, when the further education colleges become independent shortly, they will also, if they so wish, be able to negotiate their own pay and conditions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right; they do indeed. In fact, the Government believe that the negotiating machinery is a matter for the higher education sector and that negotiations should take place predominantly between employer and employees. The interest that the Government have in the macro situation is that government money made available to the higher education sector has to be protected. There has to be accountability.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as a university teacher I must, of course, declare an interest. Is the noble Baroness aware that her first Answer gave the appearance of encouraging universities to increase their income not derived from public funds? Is she further aware that if much more of this were to take place, it could be at the expense of UK students and therefore prove an obstacle to the expansion which the Government wish to see?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl sees far more in my first Answer than is the case. I believe that he infers from it an undercover message. I said that,
"universities do not rely exclusively on public funds".
That is a fact. There was no hidden meaning in my Answer. Moreover, there is no suggestion that anything that is happening in the higher education sector is being done at the expense of students.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the extent to which such a review body would take pressure off the universities, which are already struggling with hard decisions as they try to meet the Government's objectives for a major expansion of the university system? It would remove the threat of possible confrontations with staff year by year and would make a major contribution to the efficiency of universities.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note and understand my noble friend's point. Nevertheless, it is true that
1514
my right honourable friend has determined that the pay review body for this particular group of employees shall not be extended.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are now well into the month of July and there is still no settlement of university teachers' pay, which should have been resolved soon after April? Does she agree that this is a wholly unsatisfactory situation for which there are two reasons? The first is that the current negotiating machinery is inadequate; the second is that the universities have been inadequately funded to meet the perfectly reasonable demands of university teachers that their pay should at least be increased in line with inflation if not catch up with the other groups to which noble Lords have referred.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards funding, university teachers' pay has increased in real terms by 14.5 per cent. since 1979. That does not include flexibility payments. At the same time, for the past two years, pay for the university sector (which is £2.3 billion for this year) has increased by 10 per cent. So far as concerns the negotiating machinery, the Government will always consider changes which the university sector presents to them. Thus far, the alternatives suggested have called for unconditional funding; that is, automatic settlements based on formula. I am afraid that that is a proposition which the Government will not accept.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I, too, should declare an interest as some of my salary is paid from such funds. Is it the Government's position that if the universities set up a pay review body that would be perfectly okay?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords; that is not what I said. The higher education sector is about to be restructured. I said that it could determine its own machinery for negotiation.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can consider two suggestions. First, in view of the concern which has been expressed on all sides of the House in this matter, will my noble friend convey the same to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State? Secondly, while accepting the decision that has been taken at present, will she agree that, once the new machinery is working and operating, the matter should be reconsidered?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I always refer back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and report fully the views expressed by noble Lords in this House.

Summer Recess
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday 25th July and return on Monday 14th October. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday 25th July.

Ports Bill
3.39 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Transfer of undertakings]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 23, at end insert:
("and
(c) all functions conferred on the authority by section (Environmental duties) of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 24 and 25. We have, of course, alluded to this matter during earlier debates both on Second Reading and in Committee. There is an important divide not simply on party political grounds but also as regards those who believe that the Bill is not environmentally neutral, as the Minister persistently argues. No doubt he will insist again on that being the case.
I shall deal briefly with the purposes of the amendments. A general environmental duty should apply to appropriate Ministers, port authorities and successor bodies. There should also be safeguards for land of special interest when transferred from a port authority to a successor body, or when subsequently disposed of by that body. Those are essential matters, especially in respect of SSSIs and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
There is undoubted anxiety that environmental difficulties could arise as a result of the operation of the Bill upon its enactment. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wade, patiently waiting to rebut those arguments. I do not accept that he is a barbarian, as has been suggested in the past, but it is wrong to suggest that there is a competitive element between industrial advance and environmental advance. The two should be able to march purposefully together. I cannot understand why the Minister is so hostile to the conceptions advanced, not merely by the Opposition but by noble Lords on all sides of the House and by reputable conservation agencies and other environmental bodies, whose anxieties have not been assuaged by anything said by the Government and some of their supporters during these debates.
The issue can be best summarised by something said by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in briefing material sent to noble Lords. It said that it found great difficulty in persuading ports in general to care for the natural environment. That is its experience. It continues:
"There are frequent differences of opinion, mainly relating to development ambitions or dredging programmes".
It then says, and this is the point that I underline:
"Inevitably the trust ports are more accommodating than private operations. Particularly good relations have been fostered with the Harwich, Poole, Chichester, and Langstone Harbour Authorities, all of which have incorporated concern for the natural environment into their decision making processes".
It adds:
"On privatisation, relationship with ports such as these will be placed in jeopardy".
That is a genuine worry. It is not one that should be lightly fobbed off with suggestions that the Bill is not about the environment and that it is merely about the change of ownership of ports.
No one seems to be persuaded by the Minister's suggestion that the Bill is environmentally neutral or that the planning laws are sufficient to safeguard the environment once development is contemplated, and—I am giving a resume of what the Minister said—that it would be wrong to single out privatised ports for special environmental attention.
I shall deal with those arguments in the order in which I have put them. It is the potential change of ownership of the trust ports, which have an excellent record in that connection, and the breaking of a link with the surrounding community and local authorities—which are of course accountable to the communities that they serve and which have a close and binding interest, as have the port authorities—in the area surrounding the port that causes anxiety. It is because of those facts that reputable national and local environmental organisations and conservation groups are deeply worried.
Those anxieties are not confined to the RSPB. English Heritage and the National Trust have also written to your Lordships about the matter. As I said, nothing that the Minister said has assuaged those anxieties, especially when he warmly embraces the arguments put forward by his noble friend Lord Wade. Those people are fearful that the prime purpose those ports fulfil will be diminished, at the very least. They worry about the reduced commitment of interests that may come from overseas which will have no relationship with surrounding areas. They worry, although the Minister does not, about the line property developers may take, being rather more interested in property development than in port development.
I do not dissent from the Minister when he says that land which is surplus to the ports' requirements should not remain undeveloped. That would be absurd. We must worry a little about what is meant by surplus to requirements, because it is all too easy to see that a port authority may be tempted by an offer to buy valuable land even though it may lead to a reduction in the development of the port itself.
The Minister says that the Bill is environmentally neutral. It is possible developments subsequent to a change of ownership that give rise to the belief that it would be naive of the House to accept that assertion. The Opposition do not. The Minister said that planning laws provide the required protection. If that were the case, we should not have had the splurge of activity by the Department of the Environment which produced the White Paper The Common Inheritance on Britain's environmental strategy. The DoE does not appear to be prepared to accept the status quo and nor should the Department of Transport when it comes to deal with such a matter.
I carefully looked through the Government's document which deals with transport policy and the environment. I searched high and low for any reference to the environment and the ports. All I could find was a brief reference under "Ports" which states:

1517
"The shoreline is environmentally sensitive. Ports must maintain a balance between their vital economic role and the effect of their operations and the development on the environment".
That was that. That is all that the Government could say in a substantial document. One doubts the Government's credibility on these matters, especially when one has regard to the views adduced by the RSPB in Turning the Tide: A Future for Estuaries. I want to quote three short extracts dealing with special protection areas from page 22 of that report. It states:
"Progress towards listing as special protection areas has been painfully slow and has, if anything, slowed down in recent years. The UK now lags behind other EC member states in the area of land protected as SPAs".
The re port continues:
"Not only has progress in making designations to safeguard our wildlife heritage been lamentably slow, but the designations themselves once applied have also proved to be no guarantee of protection".
It then states:
"The UK Government is manifestly failing to protect sites of international value".
In the light of that and the fact that the Government have found little time to mention anything about ports and the environment in their most recent document or in The Common Inheritance, the Government's credibility in that regard is in issue. They should therefore do something to rectify the situation.
I do not believe that any of the concerns that have been expressed would place undue strain on the privatised ports. The duties that would be imposed would not be unconscionable for them and there has been no evidence to the contrary. It is for the Minister to support us and say why those obligations would be so crippling. At the very least they would set a useful precedent. I believe that the obligations should apply to all ports. I wish to hear from the Minister whether he has any plans to introduce legislation that would apply not simply to the privatised ports that would be affected by this but to all ports. I believe that that is overdue.
In the previous debate we cited precedents which it would be open to the Government to use on this occasion. I listed the eight or nine different enactments where a not dissimilar proposition was accepted by the Government and inserted into the various Acts. The Minister chose to select only one in his reply, the Water Act 1989. However, there were also the Opencast Coal Act right back in 1958, the Agriculture Act 1986, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Electricity Act 1989. I believe that those precedents ought to be followed. I am not convinced that it would be inappropriate in this instance to follow the same pattern. I do not understand what prejudice would flow if that were the case.
I sha11 leave it to others to argue the case for the special ports. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Murton, has good reason for not being here today, but he has expressed the deepest anxiety on behalf of the Poole harbour authorities. Poole is a remarkable place, for which my noble friend Lord Shackleton has deep concern. He may wish to intervene in the debate, because people in Poole are deeply worried.
I end on this note. I believe that there is a compelling case to take a different attitude on
1518
environmental matters from the one so far evinced by the Government and in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. We must take every opportunity to show that we genuinely believe in environmental protection where it is required. The evidence that has been adduced by the conservation organisations to which I have alluded shows that there is not only anxiety but a need to abate the anxiety by introducing into the Bill provisions which are, if not necessarily completely along the lines we have drafted, very similar. We therefore wait to hear whether the Government are prepared to embrace the principle underlined in the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as I am associated with some of the amendments which have been grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I wish to support what he proposed.
This is one of the most important issues relating to the Bill—the question of environmental responsibilities. I was surprised at the way in which our discussions on the subject went at the previous stage. The Government have emphasised time and time again their commitment to improving the environment. We have had the White Paper, which was perhaps the largest and most impressive document on the subject ever issued by any government in this country. We have debated and referred to it in the House on a number of occasions.
However, the White Paper was a blueprint and in order to carry out its environmental objectives, what it seeks to do must be enshrined in legislation when appropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, clearly pointed out, this has been done on a number of occasions in the past, particularly with regard to the privatised public utilities. Here we are talking about a process of privatisation. It seems to me that in pursuit of their policy of support for the environment the Government should lose no legislative opportunity for introducing that objective.
The term "environmentally neutral" has been introduced. I find that a totally unacceptable term these days. Legislation which touches on the environment should be environmentally positive from now on. It should make the point that to be successful enterprise and industry have, among other things, to have full regard to the environmental imperative.
That brings me to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred. I listened with great care to what he said at Committee stage. He is a successful entrepreneur for whom I have great regard. But I have also had considerable experience in industry, both public and private. These days, more and more we have regard to the environmental consequences of our actions. This is happening anyway. However, the Government must play their part as well. It is not enough to leave it to people on their own. We must take action together. There is a government role, the role of the citizen and the role of enterprise. I should have said that the amendments to the Bill proposed in this group are totally appropriate and entirely in line with precedent and with what the Government have said are their objectives for the improvement of the environment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment which has been so ably moved by my noble friend. Over the approximately 15,000 kilometres of coastline around Great Britain, there are many sites of international importance under the RAMSAR convention, the wild birds directives and other international agreements. So far, our history of protection of some of these areas is not good. As we have heard, our coasts are constantly under pressure from commercial and leisure activities. Such protection as exists is fragmented among numerous authorities and limited by conflicting interests.
There are no truly effective safeguards for the public interest in conserving the natural and built environment, whether it be on the coast or anywhere else. There is not a single designation available to conservation authorities in this country which is inviolate. That is just part of the general picture in which the Government say that they have this great commitment to the environment. Ministers make tremendous speeches here, there and everywhere. But when it comes to the nuts and bolts of legislation it is almost impossible to get anything through.
We have made several attempts recently to persuade the Government of the pressing need to introduce a system of coastal zone management; for example, during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Bill and by way of a number of parliamentary Questions. The Minister who answered on each occasion always assured us that the matter was under review. I am now beginning to wonder, somewhat cynically, I have to confess, whether "under review" is shorthand for, "Let's get the ports privatised without encumbrances", because that is what it is beginning to look like.
Yesterday I attended an environmental exhibition in the Great Hall at Olympia. The Department of Transport has a large and grand stand there, much larger than many others. I stopped to talk to some of the bright young men manning the stand. They made all the right noises about the environment. To talk to them one would think that the Department of Transport was way ahead of every other department on environmental matters. However, in the dealings I have had with the department over the past few years, it seems to me that the Department of Transport is the last stronghold of anti-environmentalism—I hope noble Lords will forgive that word—in this House. The attitude that has been taken on this set of amendments is typical of the attitude that the department takes in other matters.
I beg the Minister to take this chance to implement these measures. At this stage we are not asking for inviolate protection for these areas, although I wish that were the case. We are asking modestly for environmental issues to be taken into consideration. That is all we are asking. It seems a small request in view of the great commitment which the Government constantly claim they have as regards environmental matters.
4 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, from these Benches I wish to express my support for some of the motives which lie behind these amendments. I believe that the amendments address some of the concerns that I have as a person who has had an involvement in environmental matters both as regards the work of the National Trust in East Anglia and as regards other environmental societies that are active in the area.
I have three reasons for expressing my concern. My first worry is the state of our estuaries, particularly in eastern England. There has been a profound change in the direction of our foreign trade over the past 20 years or so as a result of Britain joining the European Community. The effect of that has been to transfer trade from our western ports such as Bristol, Liverpool and Glasgow to the haven ports on the east coast of East Anglia and on the adjoining estuaries such as the Orwell. That has led to a great increase in maritime activity in those estuaries. The navigation channels are being dredged much more intensively now and the river banks are suffering from erosion. That has been confirmed by a recent survey conducted by the Suffolk Wildlife Trust. A study was undertaken of material dredged from the Orwell which showed that no less than about 30 per cent. of it came from eroded mud flats.
The mud flats are particularly rich in the small invertebrates on which many sea birds depend. The estuaries also suffer from the discharge of oil and from damage caused by other chemicals associated with shipping. The expansion of port facilities has reduced—and no doubt will reduce further—the remaining areas of salt marsh. There are therefore quite serious grounds for concern about the state of those estuaries.
My second cause for anxiety is the economic environment in which the privatised ports will operate. After privatisation those in charge of the ports will understandably be concerned with the need to demonstrate their economic efficiency by turning all their assets into profitable sources of income at an early stage. They will have to do that as they will consider it to be their job. Indeed I do not dispute that it is their job. However, many of the ports will be fighting for their lives. They may find it difficult to maintain their independence. They may be concerned at the prospect of being gobbled up by some of their larger neighbours or by other conglomerates. The managers of the ports will view their main priority as obtaining financial returns from the assets they control. Their main priority will not be the environmental values which many of us have at heart.
My third area of concern relates to the role that the public authorities can play in meeting our environmental worries. Earlier this week the Prime Minister announced the creation of a new national environmental agency. It appears that that agency will affect the role that the National Rivers Authority has hitherto taken. The creation of a new environmental agency may be a good thing but I feel that the disturbance created to the NRA so early in its life is regrettable. I hope that the change in institutions,

1521
about which we have few details at the moment, will not lead to any diminution in the NRA's role of protecting our coastal waters and estuaries.
A further cause for worry are the statements in the recent consultative document issued by the Government on the reorganisation of local government. The document expresses a clear preference for a single tier of authority. It is widely assumed—I do not know whether this is correct—that the Government would prefer the district councils to have greater authority and for the county councils to have less. If that is the case, I am even more worried, as in my experience the county councils have played an active and helpful role in environmental matters, particularly as regards areas of special interest on our coastline where they have made a great contribution.
I believe that at an earlier stage of the debates on this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, informed the House of the Government's power to make orders on environmental grounds on matters relating to harbours. I have received advice on this and I believe it may be difficult for the Government so to act on environmental grounds alone. The state of the regulatory field gives us reasons for genuine and impartial concern as regards the way the coastline and our ports and estuaries will be affected as a result of the privatisation of the ports.
I hope that it will be recognised that my concerns arise from a genuine anxiety about environmental matters. I hope that it may be possible for the Government to reassure us that the worries have been addressed more directly than they appear to have been on the face of the Bill.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I am tempted to tell the House a story but I shall not tell the entire story as that would not be appropriate. It ends along the lines of someone saying to someone else, "I would not come if I were you because your name has been mentioned several times tonight already". I feel rather like the person in the story. Perhaps it would have been better if I had not entered the Chamber at all.
We are not discussing whether something is environmentally acceptable. I may be branded as a barbarian, but I assure your Lordships that I am as anxious as any other noble Lord to see the environment maintained in as attractive and perfect a state as possible. We are discussing how to achieve the right balance to enable the environment and commercial development to develop side by side. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to his concern about environmental issues. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has just said that he too has anxieties about environmental issues. However, noble Lords must understand that many people have similar anxieties about the need for economic growth unhampered by unnecessary rules and regulations. We are not really talking today about our desire to see a beautiful environment, to see buildings looked after in an efficient way and to see our wildlife protected. However, I must stress that I am as much a defender of the environment as anyone else. What concerns me is that in this country the balance in our legislation has tilted too far in the direction of environmental
1522
concerns and away from the need to obtain the growth, investment and money we need to be able to protect the environment.
In different debates many noble Lords have complained about agricultural buildings and the state of the rural economy. They give the impression that the rural scene now should be the same as it was 100 years ago. However, 100 years ago there were no planning requirements whatsoever. People who had the resources built whatever they wanted to build. People do not set up enterprises as a result of Bills and legislation but because the business environment prevalent at the time allows them to set up enterprises.
I am sympathetic to the arguments that have been put forward but I believe we have reached the stage when we can no longer tilt the balance of legislation towards imposing more and more restrictions on buildings and developments. It would be wrong of me to pretend that I feel differently about this issue. We should tilt the balance of legislation towards measures that will enable people to invest in projects and make profits from their investments. We must encourage commercial investment that leads to employment opportunities.
There must be a balance between those two elements. In my view greater environmental control will do more harm than going too far the other way. I sympathise particularly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, wants to achieve. However, this is a Bill for privatising ports. If every time we introduce a Bill which enables someone to do something commercially we then put a shackle round his leg and say, "You can do so much, but, by God, we shall not really let you do it", because other aspects which are not commercial are more important to the Government; that is wrong. We have to strike the correct balance between the two issues.
The noble Lord referred to legislation. Much legislation already applies to all ports to ensure that there is no pollution, that the environment is protected, that the waterside remains undamaged and that wildlife is cared for. It is all there. I could quote reams of legislation falling within the countryside and planning Acts which impose controls on everybody.
Only yesterday I accompanied other noble Lords to the port of Liverpool. Although it does not come within the Bill it is a privately run port. All of the legislation which would apply to these ports already applies to Liverpool. Its encouragement of the improvement of the environment in recent years has been considerable. I do not know whether many noble Lords have been to Liverpool lately, but it is not the place we are given to understand it is by the newspapers.
Noble Lords may have seen a few weeks ago a photograph on the front page of the Sunday Times showing rubbish which appeared to be piled up in front of the Liver Building because the workers in Liverpool were not clearing it. The photograph was taken with a telephoto lens from the Birkenhead side of the Mersey. It was taken in such a way as to show a rubbish tip on the Birkenhead side of the river apparently in front of the Liver Building. That is a perfect example of how a totally false image has been

1523
given of the city. Developments and improvements have taken place in that port without any new legislation or special rules and regulations having to be discussed in this House. They were undertaken because a port, which is now making the profits to allow it to do it, wanted to do it.
I hope that noble Lords will not be persuaded by siren voices demanding that we have legislation to ensure that everywhere there are beautiful flowers on the verges and the birds are singing. Life is not like that. Noble Lords talk about our being naive, but it is they who are naive if they think that through legislation they can achieve what one can never do through legislation. It takes people, motivation, encouragement and enthusiasm to create the environment which they and I want to see.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, why does the noble Lord then think that the Government have made such play of legislation which they have recently introduced, however ineffective it may be, and have also gone to the trouble of producing a White Paper which envisages further legislation at some time? Does the noble Lord divorce himself from the Government's intentions?
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I have already agreed that the importance of the environment has grown enormously in the past 10 years. It is right that it should. Clearly, the Government have to take the lead and the initiative in the proper place. However, a Bill to privatise the trust ports is not the place to include further restrictions on those who are trying to create employment, extra business and work for the country. It is a question of arbitrating betwixt hope and fear, as we do many times in life. I would rather that we legislated for hope rather than for fear.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he clarify one point in his eloquent speech? He spoke of being opposed to regulation, restriction and controls. I understand that. The amendments before us ask the Minister, in five of six paragraphs, to have regard to and to take into account environmental matters. In opposing the amendment, as against opposing all restrictions, regulations and controls, is the noble Lord saying that the Minister will take account of those matters anyway, that they should not be taken into account or that they will be taken into account in other legislation? I was not sure which of the three he meant.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, there is a range of legislation which already has to be taken into account. All of the existing ports which are not trust ports are controlled by legislation which ensures that they maintain certain environmental standards. That legislation exists. The amendments suggest further legislation applying specifically to the trust ports. I do not agree. What is proposed is entirely unnecessary. General legislation which ensures good environmental practice, and the very forces which noble Lords have expressed, are all that is necessary without placing
1524
further shackles round the legs of those whose prime purpose ought to be running businesses. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will continue to resist the amendments.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a splendid and passionate description of the dangers of too much legislation. There is a lot to be said for his case. However, the amendments are very reasonable. I wonder whether the noble Lord feels that the requirement that certain matters should be considered by ports which have been privatised is a terrible infringement of their freedom. I find it very difficult to accept that.
The Government are interfering grossly with certain activities in trust ports. I have in mind, as always, Poole, which is a wonderful port. It is admirably run by a trust and ought to be left alone. It is run perfectly adequately. I have been involved with Poole and the protection of Brownsea Island and the struggle to ensure that there is protection.
The amendments are exceedingly reasonable. I cannot see what the noble Lord objects to. I agree that there are extreme environmentalists who rather turn us off. That is a danger. However, this is not extreme. It is a very moderate series of proposals which I should have thought the Government could accept without too much difficulty. I urge them to do so in the light of the fact that they are potentially interfering with activities in ports which are run commercially, economically and environmentally, like Poole.
Poole Harbour is a wonderful place. I am terrified by the danger contained within the Bill. I want to do everything I can to provide protection of the kind which my noble friend has proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, was anxious to put a case, which he did with great eloquence. Unfortunately, he failed to convince me that he felt other than emotionally that something was wrong. I do not know how far he has considered the amendments. I am sure that he has. They seem to me to be very reasonable, and I hope that the Government will listen to the House on this occasion.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, introduced the amendment he rightly paid tribute to the environmental record of the trust ports. However, he did not allude to the equally fine environmental record of those ports already in the private sector. They comprise over 50 per cent. of our ports and include such large ports as Felixstowe, Southampton and Hull, all of which have outstanding records on the environment. Therefore, it is quite wrong to make out that only trust ports have been doing a good job when it comes to the environment.
Port managements have a powerful tradition of encouraging partnership with the local community to look after and enhance the environment. I see no reason why that tradition should not be extended into the private sector by the trust port managements. Perhaps I may take one example. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Napier can enlarge on this. Felixstowe went out of its way to build a new 200 acre nature reserve when it built a new terminal a few years ago. That has all worked out satisfactorily.

1525
I object to the amendments because they deal with only 30 to 35 per cent. of our ports. Mention has been made of previous privatisation measures, but they were across the board. If we are to put environmental measures into any Bill concerning ports it should be done across the board, perhaps by amending the Harbours Act. It is manifestly unfair to put those obligations on to what amounts to about one-third of our ports rather than all of them. That is my main objection to the amendments.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my intervention will therefore be that much shorter. The track record of private ports in environmental matters is extremely good. It is good from a historical point of view and from a practical point of view. The owners of those ports know very well that if they are not minded in an environmental way the environmental associations will come at them and be round their necks as though there were no tomorrow. That is the position from a practical point of view, let alone from an environmental and aesthetic point of view.
In addition, again from a practical point of view—my noble friend Lord Wade alluded to this point—there is already a great deal of legislation, particularly in the planning field. I know very well that, if you want to do something with a port, the very first people to whom you must talk, if you have any sense at all, are the environmental agencies. Again from a practical point of view, if you do not do so you know perfectly well that they will object right, left and centre and either delay the project almost indefinitely or kill it.
To revert to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, this is not the Bill in which to put that kind of legislation into effect, admirable though it may be. I do ibt whether anyone in the House objects to the motives behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but this is not the place for them.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, suggested that there may be some noble Lords who come from Liverpool or who visit Liverpool. Perhaps I may claim to visit Liverpool more frequently than does the noble Lord. Three weeks ago he regaled the House with true stories about the Merseyside Development Corporation and the wonderful work that it has done on Merseyside.
My memory goes back much further than the Merseyside Development Corporation. There are two ports in Liverpool: the port of Liverpool (most of which it;, incidentally, in Sefton) and the port of Garston. If anyone wants an example of how the environment has been neglected, I suggest that they go to Garston. The dock is completely under the control of the port authority. Nothing has been done and nothing will be done. The very fact that we had to establish a development corporation in Merseyside to clear up the dereliction shows that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board had not done anything about it. The harbour board was completely responsible for seven miles of dockland and had been urged over and over again to do something about the south docks. Even the local authority knew that the south docks
1526
were reaching the end of the line. The harbour board consistently refused to work in partnership with the local authority and the area became derelict because there were certain workhouses on that three-and-a-half mile stretch of dockland for which the harbour board received rent.
That is the issue that we are discussing. It is not a question of how a port is run and the effect on the environment. It is a question of the financial interests of the people who may take over the ports and their land and then use them to make a profit. Noble Lords should go to Liverpool and look at the port. The points praised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, are not achievements of the port but of the Merseyside Dockland Development Corporation. There is a big question on Merseyside as to the correctness of spending thousands of millions of pounds on the development corporation which, ultimately, has become necessary only because the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Board was not administered properly and did not have regard to the environment. My experience in Liverpool and Merseyside tells me that the more precautions that are written into the Bill in order to prevent that situation arising elsewhere, the better.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I too was privileged yesterday to join my noble friend Lord Wade on a visit to the Merseyside Dock and Harbour Company. During that visit I took time off to speak to the secretary of the company and discuss with him his views on the environmental issues brought forward in the Bill. I regard him as a man of integrity, who is in daily contact with the issues that we are discussing. He believes that the existing environmental protection Acts are more than sufficient to deal with any problems that might ensue from use of the facilities in Merseyside. He cited to me the Environmental Protection Act and the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations which definitely apply to ports. As a result of those measures, it has had to tidy up its act. It has become aware of its responsibilities and it is showing a definite lead to a great number of ports in the way in which it controls pollution and other attendant problems associated with port work. I might add in support of what my noble friend Lord Wade said that our visit to Liverpool yesterday could not have been described as anything other than a great success. We saw no rubbish and the place was as tidy as one could wish to find anywhere in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have had a good debate on this series of amendments. I am fully aware of the importance that the House attaches to the need to protect the environment. That concern is fully shared by the Government and—I say this especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol—especially by the Department of Transport. She may disagree, but that is the case. I therefore welcome the opportunity that we have had today for a further debate on the subject.
However, I must continue to regard provisions of the kind proposed as inappropriate to the Bill. I do not

1527
dispute the contention of the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Ezra, that similar provisions exist in other recent legislation, but I have considered the circumstances and context of those provisions and believe them to be materially different. The noble Lord and I have already agreed to disagree as to whether Section 8 of the Water Act 1988 forms a precedent. Let us take one of the other statutes mentioned by the noble Lord; namely, the Coal Industry Act 1990. Section 5 of that Act requires the British Coal Corporation or other relevant persons, in terms very similar to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, to have regard to environmental factors:
"In formulating any proposals as to the working of coal by opencast operations or the carrying out of operations incidental to such working or the restoration of land affected by such working".
It must clearly be the case that, if someone undertakes an activity such as restoring land affected by open cast coal mining operations, they should have regard to the environmental results once it is finished. The same considerations would apply to proposals to install overhead power lines, which are dealt with in Schedule 9 to the Electricity Act 1989, again in terms similar to those in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
But the functions imposed in this Bill on Ministers, port authorities and successor companies are nothing remotely like that. For instance, in preparing a transfer scheme a port authority will formulate workable proposals for transferring its existing business to a wholly owned subsidiary company and ensuring that that company is appropriately established to attract investment and hence pass successfully into the private sector. That is why the provisions in Part II of Schedule 1 deal with matters such as accounting procedures and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.
But these matters have no bearing on or implications, either favourable or unfavourable, for the environment. The simple point is that the Bill is very different in its scope from the earlier legislation in which provisions of the kind proposed by the noble Lord were included. As has been said before, this Bill is about a change of ownership of the ports and carries no implications about activities of the kind to which the environmental provisions in that earlier legislation were directed.
So I do not share the apprehension evidently felt by some noble Lords and organisations outside this House that the privatisation of individual trust ports will result sooner or later in significant damage to the environment.
Trust ports are not the only ports to have reached accommodations on environmental issues. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned in particular the case of Felixstowe. No doubt we all recall the passage of that Bill through the House and the establishment of the nature reserve when the port was expanded in recent years. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Geddes also mentioned other cases of company owned ports which have just as good a record on environmental matters as any of the trust ports. When
1528
we consider the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, we shall discuss the measures for environmental protection which apply directly to the ports. But I do not accept that separate statutory provisions concerning the environment should be applied to the limited number of ports that are likely to be privatised under the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, they would apply to only a small proportion of our ports and could place unnecessary obstacles in the way of individual port privatisations.
I have already stated my opposition to proposals of this kind which would effectively place additional and potentially onerous obligations not on the entire ports industry but on a relatively small number of ports within it. In the present case I believe that it would be wrong to place constraints of the kind suggested on transfers of a port authority's property and on disposals by a successor company of what these amendments call "protected land".
Environmental and conservation issues should be addressed more specifically and directly than these amendments suggest. For example, I believe that the system of environmental assessments, which already applies generally to proposals for development within the ports field, is a much more effective and properly directed approach to environmental concerns than are the amendments which are now before us. Environmental assessments are already required in three separate situations. My noble friends Lord Wade and Lord Oxfuird have touched on them.
The first situation arises where a harbour authority, which may be a trust port, a private port, a private company port or a local authority harbour, wishes to carry out works for which a harbour revision order or harbour empowerment order is necessary. The Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 lay down that the Secretary of State should determine whether a project falls within certain categories of the EC directive on environmental assessments—for example, the creation of a new harbour or additional works in an existing harbour—and is likely to have significant environmental effects. That determination of the Secretary of State decides whether an environmental assessment has to be prepared. If so, that assessment may give rise to an objection to the order which, if it is not withdrawn, will become the subject of a public inquiry.
The second situation that I should mention is where proposals for harbour works below low water which need neither a harbour order nor planning permission are subject to the Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) (No. 2) Regulations. In this case the conservation bodies, and just the type of bodies which have been mentioned by noble Lords today, are consulted on the basis of the environmental assessments and again a public inquiry may follow.
The third case is where authorisation is being sought for harbour works under private Bills. These too in future will be subject to environmental assessment before they are considered by Parliament. The Government have announced acceptance of that recommendation in the report of the Joint Committee

1529
on Private Bill Procedure. It will involve amendments to Standing Orders in this House and, as noble Lords will know, those are to be debated on Monday.
It is just not true to say that there are no environmental measures which bite on ports. There is a whole raft of legislation which controls activities of ports in such matters as the disposal of dredge sediments, the prevention of pollution from shipping and coastal and estuarial management. The National Rivers Authority also has responsibilities to cover the pollution of our coastal waters. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
The noble Baroness Lady Nicol said that environmental protection was too fragmented at the moment. But to burden a small proportion of one type of port with substantial environmental duties will tend to fragment further the responsibilities and not coalesce them. This is relevant to the question of the land being transferred from the port authority to its successor company, which both before and after privatisation will continue to operate and maintain the harbour undertaking.
So far as concerns onward disposals of land by the successor company, the clawback levy provisions in the Bill, although they do not bear specifically on environmental matters, are designed to minimise the prospect of excessive windfall profits on land sale for development purposes. More generally, however, it would surely be quite wrong to place that restriction on successor companies in perpetuity simply because the land in question once belonged to a trust port. In the case of land being sold by other ports, normal planning controls apply—as is logical—not at the point of intended change of ownership of land, which in itself has no direct effect on the land use, but at the point where a specific proposal for development is formulated. I do not see why in this situation as in others the point at which environmental interests are addressed should not be the point at which a change in land use or permission for development is sought rather than at the point of the disposal of the land. Finally, there seems to me to be no good reason why these provisions about the disposal of protected land should apply only to trust ports privatised under this Bill when they will not apply to other harbour authorities.
I hope that what I have said has reassured noble Lords that the Government take environmental issues very seriously, and that the ports—whether they be in the private or the trust port sector—should both have applied to them the same environmental considerations. For those reasons I must ask noble Lords to reject the amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, this has been an interesting and varied debate. I listened carefully to the Minister and also to those noble Lords who spoke against the amendments which were argued so forcefully and eloquently by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. The noble Lords' arguments do not pass muster, either logically or environmentally.
The Government say that the Bill is environmentally neutral. How can that be? What is the point of
1530
privatising ports unless the object is the expansion of the industry and activity of the ports? That is fine, but if so, it becomes even more important that the protection of the environment, both natural and built, should be carefully studied. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, when he referred to Amendment No. 18, the Secretary of State should have the duty to exercise any power to have regard to and to take into account the protection of the environment.
In my view these are mild amendments. Some noble Lords might have preferred something a little stronger but the provisions should not be turned down. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to Felixstowe dock. I do not know whether he is aware that the RSPB reports that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has destroyed a large part of the Orwell estuary, the SSSI, and has extended its activities on the boundary of an area of outstanding natural beauty. With great respect therefore one cannot leave such matters to chance.
I wish to highlight an area of potential damage which I do not believe has been dwelt on at any length. I refer to the potential for damage to the archaeological and historic interest of land in the vicinity of the ports. Perhaps noble Lords will consider Amendment No. 18 on the Marshalled List. Subsection (1) (b) of the amendment refers to,
"protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural or historic interest".
I draw particular attention to that, because we have, not unnaturally, been dealing mainly with areas of natural beauty in the countryside.
Subsection (2) (b) has regard to,
"the desirability of maintaining the availability to the public of any facility for visiting … any … sites".
That is important. It is an issue about which we have gone to a great deal of trouble in this country in other areas. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, which states that English Heritage strongly supports these amendments. Such support is not by a few way-out people or mavericks, but by organisations very closely connected with the subject.
The problem to which I refer has three aspects. There is the threat to the setting of important historic buildings from shoreline development of inappropriate scale or unsympathetic character. Once that damage has been done—we have seen this occur in other areas—one cannot re-stitch or put back the damage. There is too the threat to the archaeological importance of the area surrounding the port and the shoreline of the harbour in general arising from similar development but also from related building or excavation work and the need to construct access roads. Those are areas of great potential damage. There is the threat to the harbour floor from expanded dredging activities and the need to provide materials for harbour defences or the reconstitution of beaches. The noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, referred to that aspect in Committee.
All those threats are real and carry greater significance when one considers the area. My noble friend Lord Shackleton referred to Poole. Its surrounding area contains a wealth of Iron Age, Roman and more recent remains, many of which have been especially well preserved because of the nature of

1531
the heathland in which they are found, which has acted as a protection, and through the relative lack of disturbance which they have suffered until now. Should the port expand beyond its present boundaries—we have all heard how tight it is for land available within its immediate environs—it would be difficult to avoid construction on the immediately adjacent Iron Age and Roman sites. Careful archaeological excavation and recording work will be carried out to ascertain what damage may be done and what should be avoided at all costs, but some losses will be inevitable. Those are areas which relate to our distant history. I do not believe that there is any difference between us: we all wish to preserve and conserve such areas and ensure that they do not suffer unnecessary damage. There is the possibility of expansion in the next two years in the area of Poole should a proposal be pursued to build a bridge across nearby Holes Bay to facilitate a new road. The need has arisen as a direct result of increased traffic generated by the port.
The amendments that we propose, and in particular that relating to the general environmental duties placed upon trust ports, successor bodies and Ministers, will, we believe, achieve a guarantee of protection. With respect, I do not consider that there is much value in the argument as to why the position should affect only a few ports at present, and why such a guarantee should start with those. We have to start somewhere. We are dealing with a Bill which relates to ports. There is no reason why one should say, "We must wait until we have the ports marshalled together like a regiment of soldiers before we do anything about them". We should start now and as opportunities arise we should bring in others. If not, I do not know where we shall start. The environmental input will slip.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give way for one moment? The process has been started. All the types of work that the noble Baroness described already have to pass through the various tests that I described in my winding up speech.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the Minister will bear with me for one moment I was coming to that point. I agree that such tests are applied project by project. However, the Government state that existing legislation is already adequate. It is not. Harbour authorities are exempt from many types of development control which would otherwise be covered in planning legislation. That has been made clear. This issue is quite different. It has already been made clear that legislation covering ports and the empowerment of works orders arising from them preclude provision for environmental protection within the programmes of work. The Minister said that regulations concerning environmental assessment of works provide precisely the form of protection to which I refer. But again that is not the case. Environmental assessment deals only with specific
1532
projects or schemes of work. It does not force the authorities concerned to consider their programme of work as a whole.
In other words, the amendments take the matter back one step and make provision not to deal with the different projects piecemeal. I should have thought that most reasonably minded people would understand that that is a better method. We have found in other areas of our national life that that is better when one is dealing with environmental issues rather than dealing with them piecemeal in this limited way. Such assessment does not force authorities to consider the means of implementing their proposals in practice. That can be all important. It does not allow Ministers to vary the schedule of works proposed on nature conservation and environmental grounds alone. Unless individual port authorities conclude separate protective agreements with the relevant conservation bodies, ports are clearly not adequately covered by the environmental duties that we seek and which are so necessary. I am sorry to disagree so strongly with the Minister. I believe that he will find that what I have said is absolutely true.
If the Minister does not consider the Bill an adequate vehicle for filling an obvious gap in our environmental protection legislation, in what vehicle does he believe that it could appropriately be carried? For example, will the Government use the opportunity afforded by the proposed legislation on Private Bill procedure later in the year? Do they simply not believe environmental protection to be appropriate in this instance?
I believe that it will be difficult to change the Minister's mind, but it is not too late. He could still take the issue away to consider it. We had a very short debate late at night on the matter in Committee. This is the first time that we have debated the whole issue on both the natural and the built environment aspects. I hope that he will reconsider the issue. If not, we must test the feeling of the House.
4.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. I) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Amwell, L.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Aylestone, L.

Ezra, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkland, V.

Birk, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Galpern, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bottomley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Bridges, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

[Teller.]

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Grey, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hampton, L.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

David, B.

Hughes, L.

Desai, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

1533

Jay, L.

Phillips, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

John-Mackie, L

Prys-Davies, L.

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Richard, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Rochester, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Russell, E.

Longford, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McCarthy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L.

Stedman, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stokes, L.

Mayhew, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Underhill, L.

Mishcon, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Mulley, L.

White, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Northfield, L.

Willis, L.

Ogmore L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Poston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Astor, V.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Marlesford, L.

Belstead, L.

Melville, V.

Blatch, B.

Merrivale, L.

Blyth, L

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morris, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Carnock. L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Nelson, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Newall, L.

Conesloe, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Park of Monmouth, B.

Denham, L.

Pym, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Quinton, L.

Dilhorne V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dormer, L.

Reay, L.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elibank, L.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rochdale, V.

Erne, E.

Rodney, L.

Erroll, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Flather, B.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shannon, E.

Gainford L.

Sherfield, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grantchester, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gray, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Halsbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thurlow, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ullswater, V.

Ironside, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Killearn, L.

Waddington, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Knollys, V.

Young, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.57 p.m.
Clause 5 [Control by appropriate Minister over exercise of authority's functions under sections 3 and 4]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 13, leave out from ("disposal") to end of line 14 and insert ("of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the successor company to—

(a) managers or other persons employed by the company; or

(b) another company the whole or a substantial part of whose equity share capital is owned by managers or other persons so employed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 38. These amendments aim to rectify a possible shortcoming in the Bill's provisions enabling support to be given to a management and employee team engaged in bidding for a port. Where such a situation exists it is normally the case that the managers and employees involved, rather than acting as a group of individuals, will form a company to act as a vehicle for making the bid. It was possible that on a strict interpretation of the Bill's provisions such a company would not have qualified for support because the wording used, "managers and other persons employed", could have been held to refer only to individuals.
This group of amendments is intended to preclude that possibility by referring to a management and employee team in terms of individuals and as the owners or part owners of a company. Amendment No. 2 covers the situation where the Minister is required to have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of a successor company's equity share capital to managers and other employees in Part I of the Bill. Amendment No. 30 deals with the corresponding provision in Part II. Amendment No. 38 similarly widens the interpretation in the Bill of the references to maximising employee participation in share ownership in the successor company which occur in the provisions enabling a port authority to reimburse the costs incurred by a management and employee team. In line with the existing provisions the new interpretations indicate how a port authority should decide which management/employee-owned company to support should there be more than one of them. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not dispute the purport of what the Minister seeks to do. But I wish to raise a small point which perhaps I should have raised earlier but as the phrase is repeated in this amendment it is relevant. What does the Minister mean by a "substantial part of the equity"?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, at this stage I cannot give a percentage figure to describe a substantial part of the equity. At an earlier stage I said that it might be possible that a management and employee team would not buy the whole of the equity of the company because part might be bought by institutions, local shareholders or someone else.
I am now advised by my noble friend that a substantial part will be at least 10 per cent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, so that is a substantial part, is it? How will a court define that? Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to indicate that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, how will a court define what?
Lord Clinton-Davis: The word "substantial".
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I can go no further than I already have.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister has merely said what he believes the situation might be, but surely that is not good enough for legislation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I gave a figure of 10 per cent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If that is the case, why has the Minister not put it on the face of the Bill but has left the matter so vague? He will know that courts cannot look to Ministers' speeches in this House to obtain benefit and guidance. Will the Minister think again about the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Of course I shall think again. If there is anything that I can add to what I have said I shall write to the noble Lord before the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert ("; and pursuant thereto the Minister shall be satisfied that such managers or such other persons shall individually have received or had the opportunity of receiving independent and objective professional advice concerning the desirability of such disposal to them and that the expenses incurred in providing such advice shall have been discharged by the authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 36 and 37. I raised this matter in Committee. I shall try to summarise the arguments because we feel strongly about this issue.
The Government's intention, as stated repeatedly, is to maximise the possibility of management or employee buy-outs. This amendment tests their credibility because we are saying that such buy-outs can be very risky. One must concede for the benefit of argument at this stage—although I am by no means satisfied with the Minister's last reply, as he will know —that we may be talking about 10 per cent. or more as regards the equity in terms of the interests of employees.
On any showing, each and every participant in an employee buy-out may well be risking a significant part of his or her savings. For that reason we say that professional, objective, independent and competent advice will be needed. The Minister agrees with that and says that there is provision for that in the Bill. He says that as regards collective groups there is provision for an indemnity for at least some of the costs. I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough because it is extremely difficult for a potential investor—an employee in the company—to divulge to a group
1536
of people anxieties which depend upon personal commitments in order to make a judgment as to whether it is appropriate for that person to participate in the buy-out.
I should have thought it axiomatic that individuals who have spent a lifetime working in the ports and who have a deep and abiding interest in them wish to see the ports succeed and, for that very reason—I was able to witness this when I went to Tilbury—are very anxious about other potential buyers. Those people who for those reasons want to participate in an employee buy-out will wish to have clear advice given to them individually. That is what Amendment No. 3 seeks to achieve.
People in that category are very different from people who engage in share buying in a privatisation exercise. They are different because they have given their working lives to the enterprise in question. They are not just in it to make a quick buck or in order to sell at the earliest opportunity and make a small profit. They are in it because they perceive it as a way of protecting their interests in the future.
I know that that is not necessarily the view of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, because in Committee he said—and he will correct me if I mis-state his observations—"We see no reason to provide any assistance at all for anyone who wishes to indulge in the luxury of independent advice as distinct from the collective arrangements which we are prepared to authorise". I do not believe that that is the best way of maximising employee participation in an employee buy-out.
We then come to the proposition which the Minister has stated that effectively it will be for the port authority to be able to exercise its sole discretion on whether the indemnity as regards costs should be provided wholly or in part. I believe that that provides the port authorities with far too wide a discretion. Consequently, we seek to rectify that by importing the word "reasonably".
I agree with the Minister that it would be unfair for an individual, or these collective groups of employees or managers, to go on a frolic of their own without incurring any expense in seeking advice. Consequently, only reasonably incurred expenses should be covered. In order to meet the eventuality of a dispute as to what may or may not be reasonable in the circumstances, we have provided for a form of arbitration procedure.
In short, that is the purport of this group of amendments. I hope that the Minister will be more responsive than he was on the previous occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for explaining again to us the purpose that he has in mind in putting forward these amendments. However, I am afraid that I cannot give him a different answer from the one which I offered in Committee.
I agree, and I am sure that noble Lords generally will agree, that the employee of a trust port needs to give serious thought to the matter when he is considering whether he should put his own money into the shares of that port. He will need to appreciate that

1537
it is not a sure-fire route to riches and that the value of shares can go down just as it can go up. He will, however, have two advantages in making up his mind. First, through working for the port he will have his own view about its efficiency, how secure its trade position is and how good its management is. Secondly, he will know that, if the buy-out is successful, he will be able through his own efforts to affect the efficiency of the port and to help it to prosper. He will know that other employees who have invested in the port will be in the same position and will be motivated to make the port a success in a way in which those who do not have a stake in the port may not be motivated.
A further point is that we should not underestimate the extent to which share ownership is now a familiar concept to a large section of the community. Shares in many industries which have been privatised by this Government have been taken up by private individuals, and they have learnt that even the bluest chips can lose some of their value from time to time. This is not a novel thought to the population at large, which has learnt a good deal over the past decade about both the benefits and the hazards of share ownership. This is one mark of the Government's success in broadening the spread of share ownership. I think therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, adopts a slightly patronising view of port employees when he suggests that Ministers should ensure that each employee has been given proper financial advice about his personal circumstances before his is allowed to invest in his own port.
Putting together a buy-out bid is not something which would be done overnight. The employees will talk together about it and those organising the buy-out bid, and the financial advisers whom they will employ, will need to put the facts before them. That will be an important part of putting together the bid, and clearly those organising it will need to be able to answer the concerns of the employees. They will have no interest in trying to dragoon employees against their wills into a management and employee buy-out, because, if the buy-out is successful, they will not want to be faced with a discontented workforce which complains that it was misled in being persuaded to join in the buy-out.
I am sure that any buy-out team worth its salt will, with its financial advisers, be concerned to give proper advice to employees who are considering joining in the buy-out. I see this as an integral part of setting up the buy-out, and under the Bill the port authority will be able to reimburse the costs involved. It would be quite inappropriate for Ministers to act as nannies to the employees in the way that these amendments suggest.
I feat that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has overlooked some of the background behind the provisions in both parts of the Bill enabling a relevant port authority to support its management and employees' bid for the port undertaking. My honourable friend the Minister for Shipping was asked in another place if he would include in the Bill a provision giving a port authority quite wide discretionary powers to reimburse a management and employee team's expenditure in mounting a bid. He did this to the apparent satisfaction of all sides. Now
1538
the noble Lord's amendment proposes that the provision is in fact too wide and needs to be made more restrictive in case a port authority, perhaps ill-disposed to its management and employees, withholds from them financial support which in some way it ought to provide.
I must admit to being apprehensive about the effect of Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 32 and 33. First, the substitution of the more nebulous term "reasonable" gives one cause for concern. As the Bill stands, it is abundantly clear that expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the management and employee proposal qualifies for reimbursement. Substitute "reasonable" and you open up the prospect of disputes between the authority and its managers and employees as to both the scope and the amount of expenditure which may qualify. Indeed, it may be impossible for complete agreement to be reached as to what type and amount of expenditure should be regarded as reasonable, and hence reimbursed by the authority. What will happen then? Under Amendments Nos. 20 and 32 the authority would be faced with an all-or-nothing decision as to reimbursement. If there was no agreement on what was reasonable, the authority, no doubt concerned about its fiduciary duties, would probably be obliged to choose not to support the proposal at all, and the net effect of the amendments would be to have reduced the chance of a successful management and employee buy-out of the port.
As for Amendments Nos. 22 and 36, these would impose an extra duty on the authority to consult independent accountants before deciding which management and employee proposal to support. If a trust port board could not decide which of two proposals was likely to maximise employee share ownership in the new company, I am sure it could be relied upon to consult the independent financial advisers whom it will in any case have certainly engaged to assist it in the sale of its undertaking, but I think this is a matter which we should leave to the ports themselves. I most cases I submit that the decision will be quite clear and that the noble Lord's amendment would impose on the ports an unnecessary further piece of bureaucracy. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that these amendments are therefore unnecessary, as are the others the dangers of which to the success of management and employee teams I have tried to make clear.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 37 serve only to reinforce my concern that, by removing the simple and flexible provision enabling a port authority to reimburse any part of the management and employee team's expenditure—which gives the authority the best chance of reaching an agreement with the team which is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case—the noble Lord has fallen into a maze of bureaucracy that requires numerous alterations to be made to the Bill, not least the addition of these two new clauses providing for arbitration of disputes between an authority and a management and employee team.
I cannot share the concern expressed by the noble Lord that the existing provisions in the Bill are likely

1539
to work to the detriment of the management and employees. Port authorities intending privatisation will, to the best of my knowledge, be as keen to support a management and employee team to help it bid for the port as the team itself will be to purchase it: the fact that expenses incurred by the authority in reimbursing the team's costs will be deductible from the Government's levy and not from the assets of the successor company, is likely to be a further encouragement in the process.
These arrangements seem well devised. We have heard no complaints about them from either port authorities or the individuals intending to participate in management and employee teams. I cannot envisage what disputes between port authorities and the management and employees teams are likely to arise which they cannot sort out between themselves. Certainly, I see no need for a statutory arbitration procedure. If the noble Lord fears that a port will give preference to a management-led bid over a bid promoted by other employees, I must refer once again to the provision in Clause 40 of the Bill which stipulates the involvement of the greatest possible number of managers and other employees. This clearly makes it impossible for a port to favour a management-orientated buy-out over one which provides for greater employee involvement.
I have necessarily dealt with this large number of amendments at quite considerable length. To summarise, I have to say that I regard the amendments as unnecessary, and I shall not be able to advise the House to accept them.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister has misunderstood—either wilfully or innocently, I know not—the anxieties that I have sought to portray. To introduce words like "patronising" when one is concerned to ensure that proper protection is afforded to individuals is unnecessary. There is no suggestion of "a maze of bureaucracy" here. Those are all words which would have been better left out. However, the draconian consequences to which the Minister refers are part of his imaginary processes, because arbitration as to the interpretation of what is reasonable does not have to hold up anything. One does not wait for arbitration. Whether the costs have been incurred reasonably or not is a matter which can be dealt with subsequently.
The point I am making here, I think with some justification —particularly after having had the advantage of going down to Tilbury and talking to the people there, which the Minister has not done—is that there is concern about this. This is not a point that I have just dreamed up. It arose directly out of discussions that I held with people who said "We do have a problem here". The Minister has shown no interest in recognising that there is a problem on the question of costs. It is that of putting far too great a responsibility, free of discretion, on the port authority to determine under Clause 19(2) whether it is the whole or any part of the expenditure which it is prepared to undertake. I do not believe that that is
1540
right. If the Minister is to be believed on the matter of seeking to maximise employee buy-outs, it is the converse of what he has been trying to portray.
In parenthesis, it is fair to point out that the Government forgot to introduce anything about management and employee buy-outs when the Bill was introduced. It arose only as a result of pressure in another place. The Government responded, but it was amazing to forget. One would have thought that the provision was fundamental to a process of this kind. However, there was a complete omission. It is fair to note that. Late in the day the Government had second thoughts and I welcome that. When the Government talk about an amazing bureaucracy it is well to have regard to the fact that they were not prepared to have any bureaucracy as regards management and employee buy-outs.
The Minister casts aspersions on the use of the word "reasonable". He responded positively to the introduction of the word in a not dissimilar context although it was not about management and employee buy-outs. My noble friend Lord Underhill will remember well that this arose when we were dealing with the New Roads and Street Works Bill. The Government again forgot to do something which was subsequently put right. The whole process of arbitration was introduced. I can assure the noble Lord that the word "reasonable" is not unknown in English law. The courts and arbitrators have to interpret what is reasonable in given circumstances. It is not impossible by any manner of means to do so here. The Minister's suggestion is unworthy. He is doing something here which is unhelpful. That being so, we feel that we should test the opinion of the House.
5.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Airedale, L.

[Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Hampton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birk, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Bottomley, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jay, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Judd, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Longford, E.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McNair, L.

Ennals, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Ezra, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkland, V.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mulley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Nicol, B.

1541

Northfield, L.

Shackleton, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stedman, B.

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Phillips, B.

Tordoff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Redesdale, L.

White, B.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Willis, L.

Russell E.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby. of Megiddo, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Amwell, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Arran, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Lye11, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Belstead, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blyth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Caithness, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Carnoclk, L.

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Craigavon, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pym, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Erne, E.

Renwick, L.

Flather, B.

Rochdale, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rodney, L.

Gainford, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Gainsborough, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gray, L

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Ironside, L.

Waddington, L.

Kimball, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
("Guidance note on procedure for sale
.—(1) Not later than 42 days after the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall issue a guidance note concerning the procedure for the sale of trust ports.
(2) No guidance note shall be issued under subsection (1) above unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of this section a guidance note shall be treated for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 as if it were a statutory instrument.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing amendment. The Minister will recall that the Secretary of State's guidance note gave rise to certain problems
1542
when we were debating these matters in Committee. Since then I understand from the Minister that he has been distributing these guidance notes like confetti at a wedding and that they are now available everywhere, including places of divine worship! But the guidelines are only a draft. I think I am right in saying that. My argument is that this is a matter which should be very carefully considered. The Minister was kind enough to ensure that I had my copy just before this debate took place, but I am not sure when the document was ultimately available in this form in the Printed Paper Office.
We on these Benches think that this is a point of considerable anxiety which deals with many matters that are important to potential buyers and to the port authorities themselves. It may well be that this form of the document will change. We take the view that it is right that considerations that will guide the Secretary of State in the sales of the trust ports are matters which should be widely known. The Minister says in paragraph 4 of the guidelines:
"If there is to be fair competition between all bona fide potential buyers it is essential that all such potential purchasers have equal access to information about the successor company".
That is indeed critical. One can go right through this document and see how critically important are some of the other considerations to which reference is made. I note that in paragraph 5 the Minister says:
"Such objectives might for example relate to plans for the future of the port".
That is something which needs to be taken into account. I should have thought that that is a matter of overriding concern rather than the way in which it is put in this particular paragraph. It is clear that the financial resources of the prospective purchasers will need to be taken into account in considering a bid. That hardly needs to be stated. Of course, nothing is said—one would not have expected it from the environmentally orientated Department of Transport—about the desirability of an environmental audit. We shall come to that later.
The burden of my remarks is that this document is of considerable significance and ought to be discussed in Parliament. The matter is so significant that, in our view, the guidance note should be a matter which requires approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is not particularly onerous. It is not appropriate for the matter to be the subject of a negative resolution—an affirmative resolution would do. I believe that that would in no way inhibit the Government's intentions. At the moment this is a document which can be varied at any time the Minister desires. However, Parliament ought to have a hand in this, and that is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I leave it entirely to my noble friend the Minister to refer to the proposed subsections (2) and (3). However, I cannot help but think that he will reject the suggestion that such guidelines and guidance notes should come before Parliament. I can imagine the precedent that that might set in many other fields.
The reason for my intervention is two-fold. First, I hope that we are all referring to the guidelines that

1543
went under cover of a letter dated 10th July; at least we shall all be talking about the same document. If that is the version then the first sentence of the covering letter states:
"I attach the final version of this Guidance Note".
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, implied that the note was still in draft form. Can my noble friend the Minister address himself to that point as to whether this is the final draft or the final version? Be that as it may, this version gives me no more comfort than I had at Committee stage in that it still remains ambiguous and rather cloudy on the extent to which the Government will or will not support management and employee buy-outs. There are contradictions within this version of the guidance note just as there were in the version which I had at Committee stage; at least, the early part of Committee stage. I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address himself to that point.
Secondly—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will not accuse me of being either pedantic or semantic—in the version that we looked at during the Committee stage paragraph 17 was headed "Management and Employee Buy-Out". In the time available I have tried to see what happened to that paragraph 17. The answer appears to be that it has disappeared. There is a paragraph 17, but it deals with a completely different subject. I therefore found that the second part of the old paragraph 17 has been incorporated—and very rightly so—into paragraph 15. The new paragraph 15 finishes with the sentence:
"The Secretary of State will be prepared to consider a limited price preference"—
of the kind referred to above—
"in individual cases".
However, the first part of the old paragraph 17 read,
"the Secretary of State will have particular regard to the desirability of encouraging the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of the successor company's equity share capital to managers or other employees of the company".
I stress in that draft the words "The Secretary of State will have regard". I think I finally found similar words in the latest version towards the middle of paragraph 5. However, in that paragraph it reads:
"In framing their draft objectives ports should have regard to the desirability of encouraging"
I do not know whether there is anything significant in that change. However, to my mind it certainly reduces the impact in that the words "Secretary of State" have been deleted and the word "ports" has been inserted. Perhaps my noble friend can reply to that point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in moving the amendment and to the points made thereafter by my noble friend Lord Geddes. I shall attempt to deal with them during the course of my remarks.
I do not accept that the guidance note in any way constitutes a fundamental statement of government policy. It is in fact almost entirely a procedural document intended to indicate to port authorities which are considering privatisation of their undertaking what procedures they should follow in organising and carrying out the sale. Thus, for instance, it spells out the required timetable for the sale, the necessary
1544
procedures to ensure that all bidders have equal and adequate access to information, what should be done in the event of a possible conflict of interest, and so on. In so far as it provides the indications of government policy necessary to clarify certain aspects of the procedure, these statements either replicate what is provided for in the Bill, such as the support being given to management and employee buy-out teams, or reiterate statements made from time to time by Ministers both in this House and in another place during the Bill's passage through Parliament. In that context I refer to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Geddes about management and employee buy-outs and the Secretary of State having particular regard to them. That requirement is on the face of the Bill and one cannot have it much stronger than that. On examination, my noble friend will find that this final draft of the guidance note is in fact, if anything, more encouraging towards management and employee buy-outs than the previous one.
Although the details of some of the required procedures have changed to some extent over the months, these basic policy statements have remained virtually unaltered since the initial draft of the note was placed in the Library of the other place by my honourable friend the Minister for Shipping as long ago as March and then by myself in the Library of this House in May. I cannot therefore accept that it is necessary or appropriate to promulgate a note of this kind as a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution procedures, a process that would normally apply to documents of the status of, say, the Highway Code or the codes of industrial practice under the Employment Act 1980. In any event the powers already in the Bill will allow the note to be issued in the form of a direction, but I believe that the less formal form of the guidance note is entirely suitable.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord help the House and another place in this way? Will he give an undertaking to ensure that, if there are any variations of this document, those variations will be made available at the earliest opportunity in the Printed Paper Office here and in the Vote Office in another place?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would give that undertaking if it were necessary. I hope to be able to satisfy the noble Lord on that point.
There is the issue of what effect the noble Lord's amendment would have on the privatisation programme under the Bill. As matters stand, the note is now in its final form, and copies were placed in the Printed Paper Office and in the Library of the House yesterday at the same time as it was sent to the British Ports Federation. Nevertheless, if the House accepts the amendment, the note will of course need to be laid before Parliament for approval. That could not be done until after the Bill had received Royal Assent, yet not a single port could begin its privatisation until the note had been approved by Parliament. In the current circumstances, that would in effect prevent any voluntary move towards privatisation for many weeks, a delay of benefit to no one wishing to see privatisation.

1545
Perhaps I may add to what I said to my noble friend Lord Geddes. We need to consider the extent to which we will support management buy-outs in the individual circumstances of each case. The significance of moving the part of the document about management buy-outs (paragraph 5) is to give the management buy-out preference more prominence in the discussion of the objectives. There is no significance in now saying that the ports should have regard to the objectives. They will be agreed by the Secretary of State and he expects the port to have regard to encouraging management buy-outs in proposing these objectives. Indeed, as I have already pointed out, that is on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have put noble Lords' minds at rest.
Loud Shackleton: My Lords, if a trust port like Poole has already been privatised and wishes to turn itself from a limited company into a trust, is there anything to stop it doing so? No one in Poole wants to abolish the port's trust status.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that is a different issue. We have not decided whether Poole should be privatised at this stage.
Lord Shackleton: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the helpful way in which he has dealt with the matter. However, my worry has not totally abated. The Minister said that this is his final version, but that might be like Frank Sinatra's final appearance. If the department feels that it has made a mistake and it wants to alter the position in some way, there is nothing to stop the Minister doing so. I return to the matter in the hope that the Minister will intervene again. I do not intend to divide the House. I should like art assurance that, if there were to be a situation such as I have predicated, he would respond positively to my suggestion.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, I certainly would This is the final version. But if under any circumstances another version were produced, I would immediately ensure that copies were not only placed in the Library but sent to all noble Lords who have taken an interest.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would affirm with a nod of the head that a good way of doing that would be to make the document available in the Printed Paper Office here and in the Vote Office in another place. I see that he affirms that. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Schemes made by a relevant port authority]:
5.45 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 34, at end insert:
("(1A) A scheme prepared under subsection (1) above shall include a requirement that the following criteria will be met to the existing standards of the authority—
1546

(a) the functions of improving and maintaining the port;

(b) conservation and environmental protection including provision for an environmental audit;

(c) provision of facilities to local users of the port; and

(d) provision of working conditions.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 27. This amendment relates to a scheme prepared by a port authority for submission to the appropriate Minister for the transfer of the property and so on of a company set up under the Bill. It requires that certain criteria will be included in the scheme so as at least to conform to the existing standard of the particular port authority.
There can be little, if any, criticism of the criteria listed in the amendment. On the previous amendment the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said that the trust ports already have certain responsibilities. It will be seen from the criteria listed in the amendment that some are already the duties and responsibilities of trust ports. The criteria include improving and maintaining the port and the provision of facilities to local users of the port. In view of its recent document, I am certain that the Department of Transport would completely agree with paragraph (b) regarding conservation and environmental protection.
A similar amendment was considered in Committee but rejected by the Minister. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that he did not believe that the amendment would serve any useful purpose. He said:
"Clause 2 already provides that the present statutory functions, powers and duties will pass to the successor companies".
He added:
"These will include functions of the kind mentioned in these amendments".—[Official Report, 26/6/91; col. 653.]
It may be useful if I turn up the actual provision as set out in the Bill. Clause 2(2) (b) states:
"all functions conferred or imposed on the authority by any local statutory provision … are transferred".
It will be noticed that there is no reference there to powers or duties. I submit that that is not good enough. That is why the criteria set out in the amendment are necessary. We want to ensure that there is no diminution of existing standards. I am certain that, as the Minister did not argue against the actual criteria listed in the amendment put forward at the Committee stage, he will not argue today that the criteria are not correct. In fact, from his own words, he would appear to accept the general principle of the criteria laid down in the amendment.
The amendment is drafted in precisely the same terms as Amendment No. 27 to Clause 22. It refers to the transfer by the PLA of the company set up to dispose of the port of Tilbury. I believe that it is generally agreed that the PLA operates satisfactorily. The amendment seeks to ensure the standards of that authority are kept by the successor company by introducing exactly the same criteria into the scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it seems to me that this amendment represents what is in the spirit of the Bill. However, as we are now dealing with the scheme of transfer, it seems quite appropriate to spell out what

1547
is intended in the detail set out in the amendment. The scheme document will be of considerable importance. The guidance document has been issued and we have just debated it. But, in addition, there should be reiterated here, in greater depth than in the earlier part of the Bill, the criteria which would need to be met to conform with the existing standards of the authority. Nothing more is being asked than to maintain the existing standards in the important respects specified. I should, therefore, like to express my support for the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his explanation of the amendment. As he said, it was considered in Committee. However, I think that we need to be clear about the context of these amendments. The noble Lord has incorporated a number of interesting and important items such as employment conditions and the environment into his proposed requirement for the transfer scheme.
When speaking to the amendments in Committee, and again today, the noble Lord expressed dissatisfaction with the provisions in the Bill relating to the contents of the scheme of transfer as these are primarily financial and legalistic and make no specific mention of any duties and requirements on the successor company. I believe that that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
There is, of course, a very good reason. The scheme is intended as an essential but necessarily rather technical preliminary to the privatisation. It enables the port authority to transfer its undertaking to the successor company it has set up for the purpose. It is not intended to provide for substantive alterations in the duties or functions of the port because Clause 2 of the Bill already provides that all the present statutory functions, powers and duties will pass to the successor company. All that the scheme really does is to allow the authority to cast its undertaking—or in the case of the PLA, which is referred to in the second amendment, a specified part of the undertaking—into a form which will be suitable for privatisation.
I do not, therefore, see the scheme as being a suitable vehicle for significant, if very generally expressed, additional duties to be imposed on the successor company. I am also concerned, as I have said before, about the partial nature of such an application, which would leave a handful of newly privatised ports labouring under requirements not applied to others. In addition, the obligations, as expressed in legislative terms, would be extremely vague. I ask again: how could these things be measured? Who could say, for instance, whether the successor company was improving the harbour to the same standard as the authority had improved it.
The Government intend to agree with each port which comes forward for privatisation the objectives for its sale. These objectives will be used as the criteria against which bids for a port will be considered. We recognise the extent to which the trust ports differ from one another and we intend to agree these objectives on a port-by-port basis, tailored to the circumstances of each port. We believe that this is a
1548
much more sensible approach than attempting to set out a list of general and vague obligations, some of which might be of little relevance to an individual port.
I do not believe that what is proposed would benefit the Bill as it stands. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his support. Of course, as he attached his name to the amendment, I fully expected him to support it. I note that he stressed the importance of these schemes and the fact that what the amendment seeks to do is at least to preserve existing standards. I was surprised that the Minister did not stress that aspect in his reply.
I noted carefully that the Minister referred to "duties and powers" under Clause 2. I am sorry that it seems he did not take note of what I said when moving the amendment. Therefore, I shall read again to the House Clause 2(2):
"Subject to subsection (3) below, on the date on which the scheme takes effect—

(a) all property, rights and liabilities of the authority"— although we are not concerned with that in this criteria—

"(b) all functions conferred or imposed on the authority by any local statutory provision".

There is no reference to duties or powers. Yet the Minister in Committee referred to "duties and powers". Moreover, he has again done so today, despite the fact that I made my point quite clear in my opening remarks by reading paragraph (b) of subsection (2). Therefore, if that is one of the reasons for the Minister's rejection of these amendments, I am rather disappointed.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord will give way for a moment. If noble Lords care to look at Clause 40 which deals with the "General interpretation", they will find set out at line 29 the explanation that "functions" include "powers and duties".
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. I am always prepared to admit that I have missed a particular point. However, why did not the Minister refer to that clause instead of quoting subsection (2)? It seems to me he should have referred to Clause 40 at the outset. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his correction. That does not alter the fact that I believe the criteria laid down in the amendment are most important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that these are important matters which should be included in such schemes. As I have no intention of seeking the opinion of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert ("which shall include a provision requiring an environmental audit to be prepared annually.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 28. I can be quite brief.

1549
However, it is a different point. We are now dealing with the memorandum and articles of association of the successor company. Having regard to the points made in an earlier debate, we know that many ports are situated in environmentally sensitive areas. It is my contention that it would be highly appropriate if the ports concerned were to lead the way in being required to import into their memorandum and articles of association such requirements as are set out in the amendment; namely, that an environmental audit should be prepared annually.
The gravamen of the Minister's previous remarks has been that our proposals would mean importing into the Bill heavy environmental obligations for the trust or the privatised ports singularly. I do not accept that. Of course, in relation to the previous context and the amendments we discussed, the burdens were somewhat heavy; but we are now talking about an environmental audit. Environmental audits are becoming more and more popular. I predict that over the course of the next decade most reasonable companies will wish to undertake environmental audits as part of their ordinary procedures. However, the laggers will not necessarily follow that procedure unless the force of legislation makes it mandatory for them to do so.
Therefore, why not take this opportunity to impose a requirement—it is not too onerous and would not be very costly—to ensure that an environmental audit is undertaken as part and parcel of a port's activities on an annual basis. Indeed, it is quite as important as the accountancy provisions for an annual audit. Those are commonplace and are required by law. I believe that this is a matter where the Minister could show his bona fides in terms of environmental protection and securing an advance. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment for the same reason as I opposed the amendments relating to the environment: it is wrong to deal with such a matter piecemeal. If we are to introduce these provisions, they should apply to all companies, as the noble Lord suggested. It would be much better to deal with the subject through a new environment Bill. It is wrong to impose the duty on a few ports and ignore the rest.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, moved similar amendments in Committee, I spoke against them. I have subsequently had the opportunity to ponder the arguments used by the noble Lord on that occasion and now to listen to them afresh, but I am afraid that the more familiar I become with the proposal the more opposed to it I am.
First, I make the point that the memorandum and articles of a new company would be an inappropriate place for a general environmental commitment of this sort, which would lie outside the scope of the company's normal port operations and commercial activities. Secondly, and more importantly—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway—we should be using the handful of ports likely to privatise under
1550
the Bill as a sort of legislative testing ground for the use of environmental audits in the ports industry. In Committee. the noble Lord sought to justify his proposal by claiming that the Bill devised a new concept in relation to ports, and thus presumably required a new concept in relation to legislative provision on the environment.
The Bill does not do anything of the kind: it is a privatisation measure, designed merely to enable change in ownership to take place in certain ports. With over half of the ports industry, measured by tonnage handled, already in the private sector, I tend to see this as a tidying up measure, not "a new concept". To claim therefore that what a number of the trust ports wish to do is so conceptually novel that it requires burdening the new port companies with the legislative precedent of an environmental audit which would not apply to the rest of the ports industry, whether within the private sector or not, seems unnecessary, nor do I believe that the noble Lord's proposal would aid the cause of environmental protection. There is already a raft of environmental safeguards concerning the activities of the ports industry, we discussed these earlier. I do not believe that the introduction of environmental audits would add anything of substance to them. Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I had hoped to hear from the Minister—not that I expected, even in my wildest fancies, that he would accept the amendment —something about environmental orders vis à vis this industry. I hoped that he might say that, although he could not accept the amendment, the idea that advanced parts of the industry would adopt the procedure that is emerging, is something that would have Government support and something that the Government would welcome. We do not have to impose a legislative burden upon the industry to do that; but there was not a word from the Minister to that effect. I ask the Minister, with the leave of the House, to answer the point that I just made, before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if a port company—a presently privatised port, a future privatised port or a trust port—wished to undertake an environmental audit as part of its annual process, the Government would have no objection. In fact, we should be pleased to see it happening; but it should not be imposed upon one small section of the industry and not the rest.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in the last part of the Minister's answer, when he said that the Government would be pleased to see it happening, we ferreted out a significant point. If the Government would be pleased to see it happening, I hope that they will advertise that fact. They would not impose a compulsory environmental audit, but would give companies an incentive which is what we are looking for. I am encouraged by what the Minister has just said. He looks surprised at the fact that I am encouraged. I am encouraged, and I am entitled to be

1551
encouraged, without having any legislative requirement imposed upon me. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Schemes initiated by the Secretary of Stale]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 45, after ("until") insert:
("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Similar amendments were tabled in Committee. Amendment No. 7 is a paving amendment to bring in Amendment No. 10, which introduces a new clause. The amendments relate to the compulsory purchase provisions of the clause, which will take effect at the end of two years and after Parliament has approved a compulsory company formation order.
The proposed new clause provides that before such an order is made the Secretary of State shall bring before Parliament a report setting out the matters listed in subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the new clause. The compulsory company formation order is an important document. In Committee, I stressed that Parliament was fully entitled to have the information included in subparagraphs (a) and (b). They cover the number and names of the authorities which have exercised their powers, first, in relation to companies for transfer; secondly, the transfer of such undertakings; and, thirdly, the disposal of successor companies.
Subparagraph (c) requires information to be given in the report as to the contribution the exercise of those powers has made towards a national ports policy and broader transport policies. That is a logical request. Subparagraph (d) requires that the Secretary of State should give reasons to the port authority for exercising his power of compulsion.
Amendment No. 9 provides that the order shall be approved by each House of Parliament. The proposals are reasonable. In Committee, I received a disappointing reply from the Minister. The reasons he gave were that the amendments would not add anything helpful to the Bill; and that before directing a port authority under the compulsory provisions there should be consultation with that port authority. We fully appreciate the value of consultation, but in various amendments moved in Committee attempts were made to widen the degree of consultation by involving other important relevant bodies. Those proposals were rejected repeatedly by the Minister.
The Minister also rejected a proposal that the Secretary of State should give reasons for his exercise of the compulsory power to privatise a particular trust port. He made an amazing justification for his rejection. He said that he was sure that the Secretary of State would be called upon to explain his reasons in parliamentary debates. The Minister is certain that matters will be raised in parliamentary debates and for
1552
that reason he refused to accept that the provision should be written into the Bill. It will depend merely upon what Members of Parliament raise in debates.
In a later alternative argument, the Minister said that matters proposed in the amendment could be raised when the necessary affirmative instrument was debated. If he loses in one way, he hopes that the matter will be raised when the affirmative resolution is before the House. Why should not the amendment, which requires that these matters be included in a report that the Secretary of State presents to Parliament, be accepted? I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, many people have been worried about the compulsory powers contained within the Bill. While it might have seemed reasonable for trust ports to use the rights given to them under the Bill to convert their operations to those of quoted companies, it seemed wrong that compulsory powers should be used when they did not exercise their option. Therefore I fully support the various attempts which have so far been made to try to limit that compulsion. The amendment is the latest in a series of attempts that have been made in the other place and have been ventilated at Second Reading and Committee stage here to try to minimise that compulsory power. I therefore support it.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, these amendments were proposed in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, and we now have another opportunity to debate them. I should therefore like to reiterate some of the points I made then.
The Secretary of State is already required under the Bill to undertake a full process of consultation with any port authority before directing it to begin the process of privatisation. In addition and importantly, any order that he makes confirming a transfer scheme made under the reserve power is subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Ezra, will acknowledge that. Clearly, as part of that process the Secretary of State will almost certainly be called on in debate to explain his reasons for privatising a particular port. I do not feel ashamed of making that point again. At that stage I believe that the relevant points at issue, and in particular the arguments that will be of concern to the port itself, will be concerned not so much with how a change in its own status, let alone previous changes in the status of other ports, will relate to some national transport policy. They will be arguments about the position of that port, which will no doubt have been brought into play during the consultation period and which the Secretary of State may be asked to explain in the parliamentary debates on the order.
The view of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is apparently that that position is inadequate and that any aspect of privatisation that is important enough for possible subsequent debate in Parliament should be included in the Bill from the outset to make sure that Parliament does not forget what it should consider when the time comes. That is not a particularly constructive way of proceeding if we are

1553
trying to keep the scope of the Bill within reasonable limits. It was not, I should point out, the view put to the Government by the British Ports Federation, a body which is particularly qualified to consider ports from a national perspective. What the federation felt was wanted was that the confirmation, or indeed the making of a transfer scheme by the Secretary of State under the reserve power, should be subject to an affirmative order procedure. The federation's views were taken into account in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Shipping, and the Bill amended accordingly. I hope it will be accepted that the Government have provided for the requirements of the ports industry in respect of Parliament's involvement in any subsequent privatisation under the aegis of the reserve power. I do not believe that the privatisation of a port, even under the compulsory power of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, needs two orders to be debated in this House and in another place. That would be the effect of the amendment. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Ezra, will see the force of that argument.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, once again I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I draw attention to the opening words of Amendment No. 10:
"Before making a compulsory Company Formation Order the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report stating',
then vie go on to the points that I mentioned.
The Minister said there was no reason to have two debates. There is indeed no reason. He could present the report at the same time as he presents the order. We are now complaining about the attitude. We are satisfied that matters will be raised in debates. If we did not expect that, then Members of Parliament would not be doing their duty, and there is therefore no need to make provision for this. We believe that such a report should be presented to Parliament. Parliament has a right to have it at the same time as it discusses the company formation order.
The noble Lord referred again to the extensive consultations that will take place with the port authority. I note that he did not make any reference to the point I made—we sought to extend the consultation because it goes far beyond the authority. There are other important bodies which should be consulted on a company formation order: for example, the users of the port, the local authorities, which play a big part in the formation of the trust ports in most cases, and other bodies ought to be considered.
The Minister dismissed rather offhandedly our suggestion that we should question whether the ports played a part in national transport policies. I am not surprised that he took that attitude, but I am disappointed. It is something that Parliament needs to know.
The noble Lord said that the view of the British Ports Federation was taken into account. I noted that carefully because in another amendment I shall refer to the attitude adopted by the British Ports Federation and shall ask whether the Government will take its
1554
view on that amendment into consideration. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply but I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 45, leave out ("two") and insert ("five").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish also, with the leave of the House, to speak to Amendment No. 31. The amendment relates to the provision in subsection (1) of Clause 10 that the compulsory provision shall not take effect,
"until after the end of the period of two years".
A similar amendment was raised at Committee stage. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked why the Government had decided on a two-year period. Why should the Secretary of State interfere with the judgment of those responsible for the administration of the trust port—that is, the trustees and perhaps the commissioners—who would know what was best for their port?
A number of trust ports, particularly the larger ones, dislike the compulsory element. That point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. They may support privatisation, and many do, but they wish to consider the matter in their own time. That is the view clearly expressed by the British Ports Federation but the Government have not noted it.
The Minister stated in his reply during the Committee stage on 26th June 1991 (at col. 663 of Hansard):
"A two-year delay before the reserve power becomes operative should allow ports which may be uncertain about privatisation to get some idea how those in the van are faring as a result of privatisation and to judge the likely shape of the market and its competitive pressures and opportunities as more ports privatise under the Act. For that purpose, two years should be sufficient".
The proposal in Amendment No. 8 is to extend the waiting period for the ministerial direction on the compulsion from two to five years. That would give the port authority a better opportunity to carry out the Minister's intentions which I quoted. A port authority should be able to act earlier if it so desires. It has the authority to do so. It does not have to wait for the two years. We say that the two-year period should be extended to five so as to give the port authority longer to consider two questions: first, does it wish to go into privatisation at all; secondly, when and how should it do so?
Amendment No. 31 proposes a similar provision relating to the Port of London Authority. In this case the turnover of the PLA exceeds £50 million. It is suggested that there is the opportunity for consider-able expansion. The PLA should have some provision to determine its future in the same way as other trust ports. That is why we shall move a similar amendment for other trust ports. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sound reason why we should not extend the period to five years. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment; I believe that two years is rushing matters. If the intention is to enable the trust ports to gain by the experience of those that have opted to put forward

1555
schemes and become privatised, in my opinion few will be able to do it in the time. Let us consider what must happen. In the first place the ports will have to make up their minds to take this step. They may not take the decision immediately. Secondly, they will have to prepare a scheme and submit it to the Minister. That will have to be considered in due course. Thirdly, they will have to put the proposal out to tender. They must consider whom they wish to negotiate with. Having decided those factors, there will then be all the usual due diligence procedures and the other matters tied up with the sale of an enterprise. I am familiar with how long it takes to submit that information to a Minister and obtain his approval without having to prepare preliminary schemes.
I believe that the two-year period is totally inadequate if it is intended to give the trust ports the opportunity of considering privatisation as experienced by other ports. I do not believe that many trust ports, even those that wish to privatise, will have built up any kind of experience upon which a judgment can be reached in the period due to the length of time of the transfer negotiations. I therefore urgently press the Minister to extend the period of two years if it is his genuine intention that experience of privatisation should be gained.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, the compulsion element is perhaps the least attractive in the Bill. However, it is worth bearing in mind that we are approaching 1993. If everything goes according to plan, we shall enter a totally different ball game in 1993. It is not unreasonable that pressure should be applied to certain of our trust ports to encourage them to fall into line with some of the other ports that will have already taken the plunge by that date.
That brings me to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on the Port of London and Tilbury. I believe his remarks on those ports were rather misplaced. Tilbury already has its feet on the starting blocks and is anxious to press ahead as soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent. There is no question of Tilbury wanting to delay matters.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in previous debates we have debated the subject of compulsion at length. Noble Lords will be familiar by now with the reasons why the Government consider that the reserve power is necessary. However, I hope the House will bear with me while I reiterate some of the main points involved. This is necessary to place in context the issue which noble Lords have raised of whether the reserve power of compulsion should be available to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State two or five years after enactment of the Bill.
We believe that a reserve power is necessary if the Government are to build on the benefits arising from the abolition of the dock labour scheme by opening up the ports industry more fully to market forces. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred aptly to the situation that will apply in 1993. He said in effect that 1993 is just around the corner. We believe that to achieve that objective of opening up the ports industry the major trust ports should be in the private sector.
1556
On a number of occasions we have emphasised that we fully appreciate the extent to which the circumstances of individual ports differ. That is why the Bill departs so importantly from the normal approach to privatisation by being primarily an enabling measure instead of being the instrument for transferring this whole sector of the industry into the private sector. By accepting that there may be good reasons why some even of the major trust ports should not be privatised, at least for the time being, the Government have endeavoured to act in the longer term interests and efficiency of the ports industry as a whole and not simply on an ideological basis. We recognise therefore that both government and individual trust port boards should be involved in any future decisions about privatisation. The Secretary of State will not after two years set off on some sort of shopping expedition to privatise every qualifying port that remains a trust. Some ports may have what they regard as compelling reasons against privatisation. The port of Poole has been mentioned in this regard during our debates. We shall listen to those arguments very carefully before reaching any decision and in any case, where the decision reached is in favour of privatisation, that decision will ultimately be put before both Houses of Parliament in the form of the Secretary of State's order confirming the necessary transfer scheme.
I now move to the question of the two-year gap before the reserve power becomes enforceable. I explained to the House when we debated these same proposed amendments in Committee that a two-year delay before the reserve power becomes operative should allow ports which may be uncertain about privatisation to get some idea of how those in the van are faring as a result of privatisation and to judge the likely shape of the market and its competitive pressures and opportunities as more ports privatise under the Act. For that purpose two years should be sufficient. Many ports have already been considering the possibility of privatisation for many months. Another five years is a very long time: within two years we hope that the leading ports will have been operating as private companies for perhaps 18 months and it should by then be possible for others to draw their own conclusions. I disagree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on that matter.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I believe that it is setting an impossible task to expect all those procedures to be completed in a six-month period.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred to the Port of London Authority in this connection. He said it should be privatised within such a period. However, we shall have to wait and see what happens.
In Committee it was said that a two-year period might cause uncertainty. It was precisely in acknowledgment of the need to avoid unnecessary uncertainty that we introduced in Committee the amendments providing for a five-year moratorium on the reserve power for a particular port once the Secretary of State had decided not to apply it to that

1557
port. This amendment, by contrast, would increase the uncertainty by greatly lengthening the time during which a port would live under what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to in Committee as the sword of Damocles. Surely, if a port believes that it has convincing arguments why it should not be privatised, it will want to persuade the Secretary of State of this when the two years are up and have the assurance that the question of privatisation will not be raised for a further five years. If the power of compulsion were not available for five years, that would greatly extend the period of uncertainty for ports.
I submit that the Bill as drafted achieves the right balance. It gives ports two years to consider their position in the light of the development of the ports industry during that time. If after the end of the two years my right honourable friend the Secretary of State consults a port about its privatisation and decides against privatising it, the port will know that the matter will not be raised for a further five years. I think that these arrangements are very reasonable and I ask noble Lords to endorse them.
The amendment also sought details of the criteria to be used in deciding whether to invoke the reserve power. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will appreciate that this cannot be a matter of providing some sort of standard list, given the greatly differing circumstances of different ports. It will be for each individual port to put forward its own arguments against privatisation, and I am sure that it would be wrong for either the Government or for noble Lords to anticipate what these might be in each individual case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, opposed as I know he is to the principle of "Whitehall knows best", would have approved of that.
There are two critical points to bear in mind. First, if we had believed that after two years we were going to privatise all ports above the £5 million threshold, we would not have introduced the five-year moratorium into the Bill. Secondly, and most importantly on the issue of compulsion, if we had intended to privatise all ports with a turnover of over £5 million we should have introduced a Bill which did exactly that. However, we have not done so. For those reasons I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining fully his reasons for rejecting the amendments. However, I am surprised that greater notice was not taken of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Whereas I am speaking as an amateur, from a political viewpoint, with the aid of information that has been supplied to me and with the aid of knowledge gained from discussions I have participated in, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, speaks from his commercial experience. He believes that two years is inadequate for the necessary discussions and for the consideration which will have to be given to such an important matter.
We are not discussing the principle of compulsion. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, made it quite clear that he regards the question of compulsion as being the least desirable feature of the Bill. That issue was
1558
dealt with at Committee stage when we discussed hether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We are discussing whether two years is sufficient time for all the discussions and consideration which will be necessary before the Secretary of State decides to proceed with the privatisation of a particular port.
I noted that the Minister did not comment on my remark about the attitude of the British Ports Federation although I gave him the opportunity to do so in the debate on the previous amendment. The federation is very much concerned about the principle of compulsion. It believes in privatisation but it believes that each port should have the fullest opportunity to consider in its own time the steps it wishes to take.
The noble Lord referred to the moratorium which the Government have introduced. We are pleased that the Government have done so. It means that, if the Government discuss the question of privatisation with a port and decide not to go ahead, then the matter cannot be raised again for a period of five years. Therefore, the Government recognise that there will be circumstances in which more than two years will be essential for the consideration of this very important matter.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that all major ports should be in private hands. We shall discuss a later amendment in which the Government emphasise that they want to see the 14 major ports covered by the privatisation measures as soon as possible.
For the reasons which I have mentioned, I am sorry that the Government are not moving in this direction. However, I shall not press the matter to a Division and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Clause 11 [The annual turnover requirement for the purposes of section 10]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Clause 14 [Payment of levy]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 16, at end insert ("and on receipt he shall take full account of the need for investment in the national ports infrastructure").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at Committee stage this amendment was tabled but was not moved because of the lack of time. The amendment deals with an important matter and that is why it is brought forward again today. It relates to Clause 14(1), which reads:
"Levy chargeable on a disposal shall be paid to the appropriate Minister by the former relevant port authority by whom the disposal was made".
The amendment proposes to add:
"and on receipt he shall take full account of the need for investment in the national ports infrastructure".
As the receipts will be derived from the sale of a trust port it seems common sense that the receipts should be used for the furtherance of the ports industry. One of the objectives of a private port is the development of its port undertaking. As mentioned at Second Reading the ports may not make a profit. They have to use any surplus for port development or

1559
to reduce charges. The amendment will be in line with the purposes of trust ports, all of which were introduced by Private Bills.
I hope that the Minister will appreciate the common sense of the amendment and that money which is derived from such sales should be invested in the port structure of the nation. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may touch briefly on the Government levy. The government levy was introduced because the lack of any beneficial owners of the trust ports opened up the possibility of those who bought the ports making excessive windfall profits. In effect, without the levy, the ports would be given away for nothing because the whole of the purchase price would revert to the new owner of the port who had paid the price. The concept of a 50 per cent. levy was designed to establish a balance between the respective interests of the taxpayer and the new owners of the ports. Clearly, there would have been no point in establishing that balance if the money was then to be pumped back into the ports. On what basis would it be allocated? Would it be invested in the ports being privatised, thus partially reintroducing the windfall gain that it had been designed to remove? Or would it go to other ports?
I must in any case point out that, as the amendment stands, it has little meaning, since the Bill makes it clear, in Clause 16, that the levy receipts will go to the Consolidated Fund, no matter what Ministers happen to be considering at the time those receipts are paid. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out during the Committee stage when he asked me to explain to him the meaning of one of his own amendments, the Government have better facilities than most for ensuring that drafting and continuity are as clear as possible. Even allowing for that, I find an amendment which would simply require the Minister to ponder ports industry investment while taking the levy receipts from a port authority and paying them into the Consolidated Fund difficult to understand and, indeed, meaningless. Presumably what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has in mind in moving the amendment is that the Government should decide what investment is needed in which ports. That shows the gulf which exists between the philosophy of this Government and of noble Lords opposite. We touched on that in earlier debates. We believe that, like other industries, the ports industry is a competitive industry and that it is for the boards and management of the various ports to take decisions about the investment in their ports. Noble Lords opposite seem to believe that the man in Whitehall, or perhaps even the man in Walworth Road, knows best and that he should decide in which ports there should be further investment and presumably which ports should continue in being and which are surplus to requirements. That is something which we on this side of the House must reject. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I shall not accept the Minister's challenge to justify the Labour Party's
1560
transport policy. I would welcome the opportunity to do so, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. However, I should like to say that a national transport policy should have regard to the development of the ports industry. There is a national ports industry, not merely an association of individual ports.
The Minister asked how the money would be allocated. Surely I do not have to spell that out in the amendment. We say that the Minister should take full account of the need for investment in the national ports infrastructure.
I said that I would not enter into the argument of the difference between the philosophies of the Conservative Government and the Labour Party. We have a certain philosophy, but throughout we have tried to make the Bill a better Bill. We have not continued to argue against privatisation. In order to make the Bill more workable, we have tried to deal with some of the factors about which many of the ports themselves have anxieties.
I have listened to what the Minister had to say and I shall read carefully in the Official Report what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Information for purposes of levy]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("£300") and insert ("£3,000").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the House if, in moving Amendment No. 15, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
This series of amendments gives the House the opportunity to hear from the Minister the result of his excursion into the Treasury to have discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the nonsensical position which had arisen in relation to the application of the Taxes Management Act 1970 as amended by the Finance Act 1989 to the provisions of this Bill.
One only has to see how absurd the penalties are. It is a pity that the Minister was not in the House the other day when we were considering the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill. He would have heard the Treasury roundly traduced by noble Lords on all sides of the House. It was an interesting exercise.
Here we have the Minister using these two Acts as a precedent. First, I do not see that they are necessarily applicable. One would have thought that it would be appropriate here not to use them as a precedent but to try to draw a distinction, which would not be too difficult. Secondly, to provide, as in those Acts, the same penalty for fraud as for negligence is to perpetuate an absurdity. If someone undertakes a fraudulent activity for the purpose of deception, he deserves inevitably and ineluctably a higher penalty than someone who makes a mistake through negligence. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, made some telling observations. He supported in substance the proposition that I advanced then and I hope that he is still with me now.
I trust that the Minister will say that, as the Bill must be considered in the light of the Government's own amendments, they will think again about the

1561
proposition. That is why I have moved the amendment in this way. It is different from the amendment that I tabled last time because it draws a distinction between fraudulently furnishing and negligently furnishing. I beg to move.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I was with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, previously and I continue to be with him in the spirit of his amendments. However, I did not agree with him in Committee, and I still do not, that a precedent should be set in the Bill. He misinterpreted what I said in Committee and my noble friend the Minister rightly corrected him at col. 670. However, that apart, I strongly endorse the thrust of the amendments. They are derisory penalties under the Taxes Management Act as amended by the Finance Act. I hope that my noble friend will give the House some comfort following any conversation that he or his department may have had with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, these are similar amendments to those we debated in Committee, with the important distinction that he mentioned. As I explained on that occasion, the penalties derive ultimately from the Taxes Management Act 1970, as amended by the Finance Act 1989, which lays down standard penalties for failure to supply accurate information in respect of liability to taxation. Those Acts also provide for similar penalties in respect of both negligence and fraud. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has criticised those precedents as irrelevant but, as the nature of the offence in each case is exactly the same as those in the earlier Act, I simply cannot accept that. The question of whether the original penalties themselves, despite the uprating in 1989, are adequate is a rather different matter.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Geddes asked me to consult my colleagues in another place. I shall indeed draw the points that noble Lords have made to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, as I said in Committee, I cannot promise that he will be persuaded. Be that as it may, it remains the case that these are the standard penalties for failing to provide adequate information in respect of liability to taxation. It hardly seems justified that, in this particular case, persons contravening the provisions of the Bill should be required to pay 10 times as much as other persons who incur penalties in respect of, for example, corporation tax returns.
Whatever view noble Lords may have about the penalties laid down in the Bill, I hope that they agree that it would be wrong to use the Bill set a new precedent concerning penalties for failure to provide information in the taxation area. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not totally convinced, but I await with interest, as will the media, the visit that the Minister makes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if possible before we reach the end of the Bill. Otherwise, we shall not have the benefit of it.
1562
So it is next week or nothing. He must ensure that his secretary is quickly on the phone to make the necessary appointment. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be only too anxious to assist the Minister so that he can come back next week and say that he is in total agreement with me and that he will change the situation unilaterally. He would then have my full support. I await with interest what he will have to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Financial assistance for proposals to maximise employee participation in equity of successor companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Supplementary Provisions with respect to Transfers under section 2]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Power of Port of London Authority to form a company to operate the port of Tilbury]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 19, line 19, after ("activities") insert ("within the curtilage of the Port of Tilbury").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar amendment was moved in Committee. The amendment seeks to define the port of Tilbury. In view of the Minister's reply, it is appropriate to run through what has transpired in various debates at different stages of the Bill.
On Second Reading in another place the Secretary of State said in his opening speech that the Bill provides for the privatisation of a trust port in its entirety except in the case of the Port of London Authority. He added that the PLA is empowered to sell off its commercial docks but will retain its conservancy and other statutory functions as regards the River Thames as a whole. He referred to factors peculiar to London, the first being the sheer size of the area for which the PLA is responsible—150 kilometres of river. When explaining Part II of the Bill, the Secretary of State did not help further. As noble Lords will know, Part II is concerned with the sale by the PLA of the port of Tilbury.
Questions were asked in Commons Standing Committee as to how the Minister proposed that the Port of London should be split and how much would be transferred to the port of Tilbury. The Opposition accepted that there are various pieces of land not within the boundary of Tilbury but connected with it. It was urged that the Minister be specific in order to ensure that Tilbury continues as a successful port. In reply, the Minister, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, certainly did not answer those important questions.
At Report stage in the other place it was stressed that it would be wrong to pass the Bill without incorporating a schedule setting out the property to be transferred to the port of Tilbury. Again, reading carefully Mr. McLoughlin's closing speech, it is obvious that he failed to answer those questions. He referred to activities outside the port of Tilbury which it might be sensible to transfer to the port, but he gave no specific details.
On Second Reading in this House the same questions were put, and, with all due respect to the

1563
Minister, no clarification was given. I have read carefully the debate at cols. 1321 to 1327. There was no specific mention by the Minister of the PLA; nor did he answer those questions.
So to the Committee stage in this House. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis introduced the amendment. He explained that he had failed to read my writing, so I have typed my notes this time. He emphasised that there was still no definition of the port of Tilbury and that it was necessary to know precisely what the Government envisaged as the port of Tilbury. He stressed that a legal definition was needed.
Time and again it has been said that the Port of London Authority is a very complex body. It functions with three divisions: the port of Tilbury, the river with its statutory conservancy responsibilities and the Port of London properties. These facts were confirmed in a recent Parliamentary Maritime Review publication. We also know that the Port of London Authority has 16 property subsidiaries.
It may be helpful for me to quote part of the reply of the Minister at Committee stage. He said:
"As regards land, I can inform the Committee that the transfer will involve only the current operating land within the Tilbury perimeter plus the Tilbury fort land to the east of the port of Tilbury, most of which is already earmarked for a riverside berth and cargo handling back-up for the port. It is not proposed that any other land outside Tilbury perimeter should be transferred". [Official Report, 26/6/91; col. 688.]
The Minister then mentioned that the transfer of any incidental and connected activities would be a matter for the PLA to determine.
Having gone through the history of the discussions, we want to know quite clearly the Government's view on the legal description of the port of Tilbury which is to be disposed of by the Port of London Authority. At all stages of the Bill questions have been asked but no replies given. As I said, despite the questions asked at the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, did not reply to them at that stage. In Committee he dealt with the matter in the terms that I have mentioned. I beg to move.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, tabled an identical amendment at Committee stage, when he was uncertain about the extent of the land to be transferred as part of the Tilbury transfer. I made clear then that, so far as the transfer of land was concerned, only the operating land within the Tilbury perimeter and the Tilbury fort land to the east of the port of Tilbury would be involved.
As I said then, the incidental and connected activities appropriate to the transfer will be for the authority itself to identify in the first instance. To restrict the scope of the transfer from the authority to the new company, as the amendment proposes, could well jeopardise efficiency. In point of fact, there are a number of activities which have involved members of the Tilbury workforce outside the port of Tilbury itself. For instance, an inland clearance depot at Orsett, some five or six miles inland from the port, has used Tilbury labour. Tilbury workers are also employed under contract to load and unload
1564
explosives for ships at the Chapman anchorage, a considerably greater distance down river from the port.
The PLA is currently the biggest employer of dock labour in London; all the workforce concerned is based at Tilbury and will be transferred to the new company on privatisation. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that it would make no sense at all for these people to be arbitrarily restricted to working within the perimeter of the Tilbury port when there will be other opportunities for the exercise of their skills, for which the new company will no doubt wish to compete on equal terms with other private firms in the field, which would be hampered by no such statutory restrictions as this amendment would impose.
I appreciate that I have not given any more exact specification than previously. That will be in the PLA's scheme of transfer. However, I hope that the noble Lord will see that his amendment would damage the interests of the workers of the port of Tilbury.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I cannot see anything in the amendment which would damage the port of Tilbury. It is intended to define precisely what is the port of Tilbury. The Minister repeated what he said at Committee stage. There is still nothing in the Bill, nothing in the schedule and nothing defining the port of Tilbury of which the PLA will dispose. It is for that reason we tabled the amendment at Committee stage and again today.
I shall not weary the House further. We have not had a further explanation but a repetition of what the Minister said at Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Transfer to the company of relevant property, etc., of the Port Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 24 [The required provision for the protection of pension rights]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 22, line 42, leave out from second ("position") to end of line 43 and insert ("had he continued to be a member of the Fund, subject to the conditions in subsection (2) above.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a continuing source of anxiety on the part of the workforce. I want to make clear that I am grateful to the Minister for having written to me about this fairly complicated matter. Immediately I concede that it is one for which complete solutions are difficult. This amendment is intended to probe the situation a little further.
As it stands, Clause 24 seems only to guarantee whatever rights exist at the time of transfer so that an employee is able to continue in employment for a further 15 or 20 years and finish up with the same pension that he would have received at the time of the transfer. There is no mention of protection against inflation for the guaranteed pension. Indeed, if the employee is unfortunate enough to fail to improve his position so far as the pension is concerned after the transfer, he will have had its value eroded by whatever cost of living increases may have taken place. I do not

1565
argue that this amendment provides the right answer but 1 urge the Minister to give further attention to these matters.
It is of interest that, when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke at a meeting marking the commencement of Water Week, he gave his attention to the new pension arrangements for employees of the water industry. He said:
"One current issue is the knowledge that water authorities are considering new pension arrangements for their employees. Whatever decisions are reached on new schemes, one important and reassuring factor is clear—for existing employees any new scheme will be an option and, even after privatisation, they will be able to remain in a scheme with the same benefits, and requiring the same contributions, as the local government superannuation scheme. The existing rights of current employees and pensioners (and deferred pensioners) will not be affected. A key feature is that I include full index-linking in the no change assurance".
There is another matter of importance in relation to that point and perhaps the Minister will give some attention to it subsequently, if not tonight. When dealing with the Water Bill on 4th May 1989 the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that,
"the trust decd will contain two provisions which will give members of I he scheme particular reassurance about the protection of their future rights. These are, first, that the trustees of the mirror image scheme shall include at least two representatives of members. Secondly, while there remain potential beneficiaries of the mirror image scheme, it shall not be wound up or its benefits altered if any trustee objects". —[Official Report, 4/5/89; col. 304.]
I realise that that is not wholly germane to this amendment but I raise the matter because I believe that it is very important. It may well be that we must return, albeit briefly, to this issue when we come to Third Reading. I wonder whether the Minister can reply to those brief points tonight. If he is not in a position fully to do that, perhaps he will write to me before the next stage of the Bill, but in ample time for me to table a suitable amendment. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for explaining the thinking behind this amendment, since pensions issues are invariably complex; at least I certainly find them so, and I think I am not alone in that.
At Committee stage the noble Lord suggested that the division of the PLA pension fund would work to the disadvantage of those employees who were transferred to the new Tilbury company. I undertook to write to the noble Lord on the subject and have done so, and placed a copy in the Library. Whatever division of the fund is decided upon will be based on an actuarial calculation taking account of all the available evidence on the future commitments of both the PLA fund and the new Tilbury fund. The ratio of actual and deferred PLA pensioners who no longer contribute anything to the fund to active members is substantial, and the very heavy financial burden that those groups impose will remain with the PLA and it is therefore right that the bulk of the funding will also remain with the PLA. But that does not in any way represent an inequitable division of the funding. There is no reason on that ground for believing that it will be possible for the PLA pension fund to improve benefits to pensioners beyond their present level.
1566
The Bill already provides that an employee transferring to the Tilbury company will not he placed in any worse position as regards pension rights than he enjoyed on leaving the PLA pension fund. And this applies not only to the pension entitlement to which he was entitled on leaving the PLA scheme. It also applies to his acquiring future pension entitlements on the basis of the rules of the PLA fund as they stood at the time when the employee left the fund.
The amendment is apparently intended to ensure that a Tilbury employee shall reap the benefits of any improvements in pension terms which the PLA pension fund introduces after he has left the fund. I have already explained that the scope for such improvements is unlikely to arise simply from the division of the fund which will take place. But no doubt the noble Lord has in mind the possibility that the PLA pension fund will prosper in future years to the extent that it will be able to improve benefits. But I think we have to look at the practical possibilities. Even if investment returns are good over the medium term, it might be existing pensioners rather than existing employees who would benefit from any improvements in the terms of the PLA fund, since many pensioners' pensions are significantly below their original purchasing power. The Tilbury fund on the other hand would be likely to be in a better position to withstand a period of poor investment returns because of the absence of current pensioner liabilities. So there is no particular reason for supposing that benefits in future will be improved to a greater extent under the PLA fund than under the Tilbury fund. And I cannot believe that it would be right to provide in the Bill for Tilbury employees to benefit from future improvements in pension terms under either the PLA pension fund or the Tilbury fund, whichever were the greater.
I believe that it would be wrong for the Bill to impose on the Tilbury company an obligation to improve pension benefits in line with any benefits introduced by the PLA after the transfer had taken place. It would be unreasonable to expect the new company to accept as a basis for changes in its pension fund changes in a quite separate pension fund over which the company had no control. In any case there is no reason to believe that the scope for improvements will be greater under the PLA fund than under the Tilbury fund.
I hope that I been able to clarify at least some of the points that the noble Lord raised when moving the amendment. I shall need to read most carefully what he said. I shall write to him on any points which I have not covered. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. He had been kind enough to write to me. On the other points raised, the difficulty is the timescale. I do not imagine that I shall wish to divide the House on the issue. However, I may well wish to return to it. I hope therefore that the Minister will ensure that I receive a reply urgently. I do not blame him for dealing with the matter as he did. I had given him no notice.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall do my best to get the reply to the noble Lord as soon as possible and in good time for the next stage of the Bill —even if it means that I shall not find time to make an appointment with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the two matters are not mutually exclusive. I insist that the Minister meets with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I assure him that I shall do my best to advise the media of that significant meeting. Having regard to what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Powers of disposal in relation to the company]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara: moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 24, line 33, leave out from ("disposal") to end of line 34 and insert ("of the whole or a substantial part of the equity share capital of the company to—

(a) managers or other persons employed by the company; or

(b) another company the whole or a substantial part of whose equity share capital is owned by managers or other persons so employed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move. On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power of Secretary of State to require exercise of Port Authority's powers under sections 21 and 22]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Financial assistance for proposals to maximise employee participation in equity of the company]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 37 not moved.]
Clause 40 [General interpretation]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 32, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert ("securing the disposal of the whole or a substantial part of its equity share capital ("the relevant equity") to—

(i) managers or other persons employed by the company; or

(ii) another company ("the acquiring company") the whole or a substantial part of whose equity share capital is owned by managers or other persons so employed;

where the persons so employed participating in acquiring the relevant equity or (as the case may be) in ownership of the acquiring company's equity share capital comprise the greatest possible number of persons so employed; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
7.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Arrangements for the carrying on of certain activities]:
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, after ("company") insert (", being a company registered under the Companies Act 1985 and
1568
beneficially owned as to 95 per cent. 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: My Lords, I have not put the amendment down in order to divide the House again, although the previous Division in Committee indicated a great deal of all Party support. It is in order to ask the Minister to explain more fully some of the remarks that he made which were designed to reassure us that foreign shareholdings in the contracting country were desirable and were not nominees for Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi. The noble Earl agreed that the Government should and would keep a vigilant eye on the shareholdings of the contracting company. He said:
"Indeed it is likely that we may specify in the contract that shares in the … company should not be transferred without the consent of the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, 2/7/91; col. 906.]
The Government thereby admit that there is this problem and claim that they will take powers to overcome it.
I hope that the Minister will explain how he proposes to control the transfer of shares, short of cancelling the contract. If the contract is cancelled, one has a new contracting company and the same problem arises. Short of cancelling the contract, how does the Minister propose to prevent, for example, an American bank selling its shares to somebody who is an undesirable shareholder, or to nominees of the shareholder? I think that we are entitled to a reply. It is an important question on which many Members from all sides showed considerable concern at Committee stage. If we do not receive a reply, ill natured noble Lords such as myself may conclude that the Government do not know how to control the transfer of those shares and do not intend to make a serious effort to do so.
I wish to put forward another point that was not raised at Committee stage. The defence by the Government was that our amendment rules out American shareholding, which was said to be desirable. We can concede that there is no security objection to American shareholdings. When we look back in history, that is acceptable. However, we ask about the political consequences of having substantial American shareholdings.
We have been a good friend and ally of the United States for decades. However, on nuclear matters the Americans can be extremely unsentimental and ruthless, as we learnt soon after the end of the war. The American and Soviet Governments are about to agree to a drastic reduction in their strategic nuclear capability. When that happens the United States will turn to the United Kingdom Government and ask for the Trident programme to be cut. That is for sure. Therefore, may there not be difficulties for the major American shareholders as regards loyalty to the contract and to the contracting company, on the one hand, and not observing the wishes of their own Government, on the other? I shall not repeat the many other good reasons for supporting the amendment which was put forward in Committee. However, I ask the Minister to reply to those points. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, naturally I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. It is the amendment that I moved in Committee with the support of the noble Lord. The matter was then settled by a Division, but it is the right of any noble Lord to table any amendment that he feels to be appropriate. But we on these Benches respect the self-denying ordinance which the Government also respect—that if a matter is decided at any stage of a Bill we will not seek to revert to it at a later stage.
However, having tabled the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has asked several questions which need a considered reply. He said that he will not divide the House and we respect that decision. But the question is: how do the Government intend to ensure by whatever means available that shares in the contractor company are not transferred in ways that we know not of—there are many ways of which we know —to parties which may have sinister interests? That is the point that the noble Lord makes and that is the point that I wish the Minister to reply to.
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the amendment is identical to that which was debated and voted on in Committee on 2nd July. I do not propose to occupy the House by repeating everything that I said then.
I remind the House that the Government have no intention of letting the AWE contract to a foreign firm. I am sure that, no other country would put itself in that position; neither shall we. I have assured the House unequivocally that the contractor will be a UK-based and UK-controlled company. There is no doubt about that. The question then arises: in view of those assurances, why not accept the amendment and put the matter on the face of the Bill? Perhaps I may answer that a little more fully.
First, the amendment is unsuitable and inadequate from the point of view of national security. Security is a much. wider matter. Share ownership does not entitle shareholders to be told the company's secrets, let alone the company's customer's secrets. In the case of sensitive defence information, access to such information within industrial companies, just as within the Civil Service, is carefully controlled on an individual basis in accordance with the requirements of MOD security authorities. Stringent vetting procedures must be undergone before anyone can receive such information. Even among security cleared personnel, such information is restricted to those who have a proven need to know it.
These procedures are important because if a hostile intelligence agency trying to get at our secrets could bribe or blackmail an employee into passing information, that would be an effective way of spending money. It would be far more effective than buying shares in the vain hope of obtaining sensitive information in that way. Alternatively, if hostile foreign interests really thought that they could obtain information or influence via a shareholding, they could simply find a British sympathiser, give him some
1570
cash and get him to buy the shares and tell them anything that he finds out. Although ineffective as a way of gaining information, that would be an easy way around any statutory restriction on foreign share ownership. That is one reason why the amendment would be hopelessly inadequate as a means of protecting national security. A far more stringent security regime is required, and that is what we shall ensure through our security procedures.
I have of course explained that our security concerns will include taking a close look into any foreign connections that a potential AWE contractor may have. That would include anything which might possibly render its personnel open to undesirable influences, foreign or otherwise. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go into great detail about our security vetting procedures for personnel with access to highly-classified defence information. But I can assure the House that they are strict and apply just as much to contractor personnel as to civil servants.
The second main strand of the argument is whether there should be a statutory requirement by amendment to this Bill to bind the Secretary of State to do his duty, as the Government have promised. The Secretary of State's duties are not limited to ensuring that the AWE contractor is UK owned. Surely he has many other duties. What about ensuring that the AWE contractor is not owned by or connected with UK nationals who happen to be IRA terrorists? There is not a word about terrorism in this Bill. Should we have an amendment to bind the Secretary of State to choose a contractor with no connections with terrorism? To take another example, there is nothing on the face of the Bill about choosing a contractor who is competent to fulfil the task. Clearly it is essential that the chosen contractor is competent. Why not, therefore, have a clause in the Bill to provide that the Secretary of State must on no account choose a contractor who is not up to the job? It would be an extremely long Bill if we expanded it so as to compel every future Secretary of State to do his duty in every essential respect and to honour every commitment made to this House by Ministers in the course of this Bill. Hence we would prefer to follow the normal practice and put in the Bill only those things which need to be provided in fresh legislation.
During the debate on 2nd July a number of noble Lords asked whether other capitalist countries with nuclear weapons would allow foreign ownership of shares in their atomic weapon manufacturing. Perhaps, therefore, your Lordships would find it helpful if I described the arrangements which operate in the United States.
There are no fixed limits on foreign ownership of US nuclear weapon contractors. Instead, US companies are required to disclose any foreign ownership when bidding for management contracts to operate a Department of Energy nuclear weapon facility. Any level of foreign ownership would be referred to the US security branch for investigation and assessment of risk regarding the handling of classified information. In other words, the system operated in the US is very much the same as the one

1571
which we intend to operate at AWE. I might add that this system has proved satisfactory over the many years during which the US nuclear weapon industry has been operated on a GOCO basis.
I have referred previously to our view that, although we should look closely at any foreign connections that a potential contractor may have, United States connections would be acceptable in view of the long history of Anglo-US nuclear co-operation. That does not mean that we intend letting the contract to an American company. It does not even mean letting the contract to a consortium involving an American company. What it means is that we should not rule out minority participation by a British firm which happens to have a US parent. That is in fact already the case at AWE. The interim management contractor is Hunting-BRAE, a consortium (properly called a joint venture company) involving Brown and Root (UK), the "BR" of Hunting-BRAE, as a substantial minority shareholder. Brown and Root (UK) is British in terms of operating and being registered in the UK. It is a significant company within the British defence industry but its parent company is Brown & Root Inc of the USA.
I remind the House that Hunting-BRAE is operating AWE under an interim management contract while the staff remain for the time being within the Civil Service; that includes the 20 Hunting-BRAE staff who are on secondment to the Civil Service. The effect of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, would be to rule out Hunting-BRAE from the competition for the full AWE contract next year. I cannot imagine anything more unreasonable or disruptive than a statutory ban on the incumbent contractor at AWE forbidding him from competing in future. For that reason I strongly urge your Lordships not to vote for the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about the share ownership of the contractor. If, as will almost certainly be the case, the contractor is a company set up for the specific purpose of fulfilling the AWE contract, we shall include a provision in that contract to the effect that the share ownership of the contractor should not change without the consent of the Secretary of State.
As regards parent companies, we would require the company to inform us of the identity of all significant shareholders and in particular any foreign shareholders. That would include any new shareholders buying into the company. The Secretary of State would have the right to terminate the contract if a parent company were to be taken over. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the concluding part of his speech. For a long time I felt that he illustrated how unwise it is to table an amendment which has already been discussed in Committee because he repeated at great length the arguments which he used then and which did not carry conviction with many noble Lords.
However, towards the end of his remarks he answered directly the question which I asked; namely, how the Secretary of State will control the transfer of
1572
shares. He said that in the contract the Secretary of State would look at all the existing shareholders, would survey them and make sure that they are not nominees for, for example, Mr. Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. Thereafter, each share transaction would come to his attention and he would approve or disapprove it.
That is a considerable advance on the position of the Minister at the beginning of our discussions. I do not know how the system will work. It seems to me rather difficult and elaborate and easy to circumvent. However, I thank the Minister for the latter part of his speech and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) In pursuance of the arrangements made hereunder the Secretary of State shall establish a funded redundancy provision for employees of any company which shall be equivalent to those presently embodied in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been retabled following our discussion in Committee on the redundancy scheme for employees.
In the debate which we had in Committee the Minister claimed that our amendments showed a misunderstanding of the concept of redundancy. We do not believe that that is right. It is perfectly possible for a separate fund to be set aside to guarantee that in all circumstances the employers' redundancy obligation will be met. That has been the practice in the past and should be the practice in this case.
The present position is that the staff at AWE are civil servants and as such their redundancy provisions are guaranteed by statute. Uniquely, the principal Civil Service pension scheme also covers redundancy. The argument which I put forward is that that guarantee should continue in the future and that staff should be no worse or better off than they are at present.
The Minister replied to the amendment in Committee, but there are two difficulties in respect of his reply. The first is that the contractor may seek to worsen the redundancy provisions if he were in financial difficulties. The Ministry of Defence has said that the requirement for redundancy compensation at Civil Service terms as a minimum will be written into the contract. However, we have not seen the contract and in Committee we learned that it will not be available until towards the end of 1992. Furthermore, the noble Earl said in Committee that the contract would be a classified document. Therefore, we simply do not know what will be the terms of the contract. We are seeking ministerial assurances that the contract will contain what we require.
It is also the case that when the contract arrives, which we are told will be towards the end of next year, it will be between the Ministry of Defence and the contractor. Trade unions will not be a party to the contract and trade unions could not bring any action if the contractor breached the terms of the contract. In response to that point in Committee the noble Earl said that it is always possible for an individual to bring a case for breach of contract if its terms were changed

1573
without agreement. That is true; nevertheless, it is an extremely difficult case to bring for an individual employee if he or she should deem that there has been a breach of contract.
The second major problem is that the Government have said that the Secretary of State could bring back the employing company—and we understand from our discussions in Committee that the employing company may be different from the contracting company—into sole ownership (ownership of the Secretary of State) if it got into difficulties. Although the Secretary of State could do that, there is, first, no guarantee that he would and, secondly, no guarantee that the Ministry of Defence would take the view that the contractor should seek to get out of any difficulty by reducing overheads. In other words, there is no guarar tee that the Secretary of State is underwriting the Civil Service arrangements which are in place at present.
I adduce as a further argument for a funded redundancy scheme that Civil Service pay has for many years been abated to take into account the provisions of the principal Civil Service pension schema:. That may be right and proper. The Civil Service pension scheme is relatively generous. However, it includes redundancy. In that way civil servants at AWE—and at present they are civil servants—have effectively contributed towards their future redundancy provisions. For that reason, because there has been an abatement in their salaries and they have contributed to the fund, money for future redundancies, if there are any, should be guaranteed in a separate fund. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this amendment is similar to an amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It seeks to provide the transferred staff with equivalent redundancy benefits as they have at present and to provide some protection for those benefits by means of the Secretary of State establishing a funded redundancy provision.
I explained in Committee that 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. The Government have already said categorically that this will be so and I am happy to repeat that assurance. This requirement will be written into the contract and the contractor will be obliged to comply. I believe that this assurance is potentially more beneficial than that proposa1 in the amendment, which seeks only that redundancy benefits should be "equivalent" to the present arrangements.
The amendment also proposes a funded redundancy provision. There are two aspects to that: first, the possibility of the contractor being unable to meet his obligations, possibly through bankruptcy and, secondly, substantial redundancies arising through government decisions to reduce the workload at AWE. Redundancy payments in the former situation would be safeguarded because the Bill already allows the Secretary of State to take back the employing company into his ownership, thus safeguarding pay and redundancy.
In the event of substantial redundancy payments
1574
arising from a reduction in the nuclear programme, I am also pleased to assure your Lordships that the redundancy costs would be fully funded. I understand the reason for the noble Lord wishing to obtain an assurance about this aspect, especially in view of the article about defence options in the Guardian newspaper of 9th July 1991 written by a senior trade unionist, who happens to be the chairman of the AWE National Union Co-ordinating Committee. He recommends a review of our strategic nuclear force. That presumably would impact upon the AWE order book, and thus jobs.
In summary, we have already given assurances that redundancy conditions will be at least as good as at present. There is no need for fresh legislation on this point, the requirement for which will be written into the contract.
In addition to some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, raised, I can assure the noble Lord that it is normal for an employer to meet redundancy payments from cash flow rather than from a previously established fund, as in the case of pensions.
The noble Lord indicated that he would like an amendment to the Bill in order to control through the law the levels of redundancy payment, but the law already does that. The contract will specify that civil servants' redundancy payment levels must be continued. That will be binding in law. In any case it would be unlawful for the employer to breach the individual's contract of employment by reducing his redundancy payments without his consent.
The noble Lord said that there was no guarantee that the Secretary of State would use his undoubted power to take back possession of the employing company if the contractor ran into severe financial difficulties. I must point out that if matters reached that stage the Secretary of State would have little choice but to take action in order to keep AWE a going concern.
I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will feel obliged not to press his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that statement. It takes us some way—I believe, a long way—towards what we are trying to achieve, which is protection of the workforce in case of redundancies. Nevertheless, there remains the question of whether there should not be a separate fund which should be run by separate trustees divorced from anything that the contractor may produce. We have not yet seen the contract and we shall not see it until the end of the 1992 if we are to believe the noble Earl's assurances in Committee. If we are to believe that this is to be done in a contract, all I can say is that we have to wait and see whether the contract is as the noble Earl describes.
I see no reason why there should not be a redundancy fund put into the Bill. Nevertheless, at this stage I shall read and take advice on what the noble Earl has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 3:
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: My Lords, we had a long discussion in Committee about the premises, and we were really talking about the premises at Aldermaston, Burghfield and the other two establishments concerned in AWE. Following that discussion the noble Earl was kind enough to write to me and to my noble friend Lord Kennet in certain reassuring terms.
I move the amendment to ensure two things. The first is that the Government, who are going to retain ownership of the establishments in question, will make absolutely certain, indeed a governmental responsibility, that the premises to be used for the production of nuclear warheads and for ancillary and connected purposes will be up to the same standards as they have been hitherto under wholly government-owned and government-operated conditions.
Secondly, assuming that we have that strong assurance from the Government, who is to pay for the necessary maintenance provisions and no doubt future construction that will be necessary in order to keep the establishments up to date and in proper working order with the appropriate security? If the Ministry of Defence is to pay, we need to know that. If the contractor is to participate in the payments, we need to know that. That is the reason for my re-tabling the amendment at this stage.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the amendment states that the premises to which this Act would apply would be any buildings that are fit for the purpose for which they are constructed. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, explained that the intention of the amendment is to ensure in particular that those specialist buildings at AWE which are intended for the use or storage of radioactive materials are fit for such purposes.
I have previously summarised to the House the history of the Aldermaston capital programme. This is a £1 billion 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.
I do not propose to burden your Lordships again with the detailed background. It is complicated, and many of the versions publicised by the Government's critics—other than noble Lords opposite—have been highly garbled, confusing all sorts of different aspects together. I can, however, confirm, in answer to points raised in Committee, that the Property Services Agency had a major role in the AWE capital programme, before NNC Limited was appointed as the facilities project management contractor. The divided responsibility between PSA on the one hand and MoD/AWE on the other was considered to be a factor in the problems experienced with the capital programme in the mid-1980s. As I explained in Committee, the capital programme is now in much
1576
better shape. That is notwithstanding the corrosion problem identified in the new treatment plant for radioactive liquid waste. The building, known as A91, is built but not yet commissioned. The commissioning programme for A91 has been successful in detecting points of corrosion in stainless steel, thus enabling the Ministry of Defence to investigate the problem and solve it before A91 comes into operational use. Although the investigation is not yet complete, we are confident that a safe and effective solution will be found. The building will not be used for radioactive materials—indeed the commissioning of it will not be resumed—until such a solution has been identified.
Clearly, the matter of corrosion in A91, and any costs it may involve, are not matters for the future AWE contractor, who has not yet been chosen. The future contractorised AWE will be the operator of AWE facilities, old and new. This is separate from MoD's use of building contractors, equipment contractors, installation contractors and so forth involved in the AWE capital programme and collectively project managed by NNC Ltd. as the facilities project management contractor.
I was also asked in Committee about the compliance office's function in the context of the capital programme. That is not the context in which we see the compliance office functioning. The MoD compliance office at AWE will basically be concerned with the way the contractorised AWE complies with its contract, not with how other MoD contractors comply with theirs. For instance, if a problem was identified relating to performance under an MoD contract to which the overall AWE contractor had not been a party, then it would not be a matter for the compliance office. It would be a matter for whoever in the MoD procurement executive was concerned with that contract.
I have spoken about new buildings, including those not yet in use. I should also say that AWE's production work in existing buildings is proceeding well and in good time for Trident's entry into service in the mid-1990s. I must emphasise that existing buildings for production of components using radioactive materials at AWE have been updated wherever necessary, and safety standards maintained. The same applies to the research building from which there was a small release of tritium gas last February. I gave reassurance during Committee that neither the workforce nor the general public were at risk from that release.
Finally, let me say once again that ownership of building and facilities at AWE will remain with MoD. Buildings at AWE are fit for their intended use.
Further to the two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I can assure him that the Government will make absolutely certain that premises will be kept up to a totally safe standard. As regards who will pay for future maintenance construction, it will be the Ministry of Defence, as now. I hope that those reassurances will have gone some way toward enabling the noble Lord, Lord Williams, not to move the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have already moved the amendment but I do not intend to press it

1577
to a Division. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will explain to the House how, if the MoD is to be responsible for keeping the establishment—by that I mean all the extensive high technology and the difficult security arrangements for the buildings and all the paraphernalia that goes with them which the taxpayer has to pay for to be kept up to the proper security standards that we all want—how will the burden be split between the taxpayer and the contractor? Will the contractor get the benefit of the entire investment made by the taxpayer or will the contractor hear part of the burden? That is the question that I would like the noble Earl to answer when he has a little more time to consider the matter in furl her detail.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have said already, the ownership of the new facilities and other capital assets will remain with the MoD. The actual operational user of the facilities will be the contractorised AWE. The detailed arrangements for future new buildings post-1992, including that part of the capital programme which will not be complete by vesting day, have not yet been finalised. The detailed arrangements between the facilities project management contractor, NNC Limited, and the overall AWE contractor have yet to be determined. We shall ensure that the arrangements are clear and unambiguous and do not lead to divided responsibility in the problematical sense that occurred between the MoD and th29PSA in previous times. The burden will not be split. The contractor is running the establishment for us. I hope that that has helped to explain the situation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it has helped partially to explain the situation. As always, we have to wail for the contract, which we are not allowed to see because it is classified. The assumption is that the MoD will continue to put taxpayers' money into ensuring that the establishments, taken in the round, are kept up to date and properly secure and that the contractor will not pay any of that burden. I would find that rather difficult to accept if we were going in for a C OCO arrangement. However, I do not wish to detain your Lordships. I shall study what the noble Earl has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Loki Williams of Elvel Loki Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
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: My Lords, this amendment again refers to a discussion that we had at Committee stage. When replying to the amendment, the noble Earl made one or two statements which I found to be rather odd. I wish to take up the statements again in order to obtain clarification. He said:
"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".—[Official Report, 2/7/91; col. 946.]
1578
I note what the noble Earl said on that occasion and I dispute it. I do not believe that it would be wrong to attempt such an effect; it would be wholly right to do so. A few sentences later the noble Earl continued:
"the contractor's accounts will be published in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act".
I assume that that refers to the Companies Act 1985 as amended by the 1989 Act. The Act is quite clear on the matter: a private company—which presumably the company will be because it will not be a quoted company—will file its accounts with the appropriate companies' office. Those accounts will be available for public inspection. That is certainly true. But there are 18 months between the requirement to file the accounts and the time when the DTI takes action to make sure that companies are filing them.
Furthermore, the accounts of the contractor will be of a consortium nature. It is a private company and it is perfectly entitled to file unconsolidated accounts. Therefore, the information that is available either to the Comptroller and Auditor General or to the public will be limited. Noble Lords will know that anyone who relies on company accounts filed in the company registration office is whistling in the wind.
We believe that this contractor will be in a very special situation. After all, he will be the contractor who is to produce our nuclear warheads. Special situations require special remedies. The special remedy that I propose is that the contractor should be subject to rather more stringent requirements on his accounts than are normal in the case of any other company operating in the United Kingdom. That is why I am suggesting that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to go into the contractor's accounts and find out exactly what is happening in financial terms. If we have to wait for years before accounts are properly filed, then there is no control over them. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, when the noble Lord introduced the amendment in Committee he said that the AWE was involved in government work only. That is true, as we know. He said that the MoD is the sole purchaser. I do not believe that that is true. AWE carries out forensic activities for the Home Office and it probably does other work for other budget holders and support agencies. Therefore, it is not quite true that it only works for the MoD.
The noble Lord also said that the new contractor is not just any other defence contractor, as he will have no other business whatsoever which, in his view, justifies having the Comptroller and Auditor General audit the accounts. I support my noble friend Lord Arran in what he has already said, in that the accounts will be available. But I shall be interested to hear what he has to say about the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The Comptroller and Auditor General has access to all the documents anyway and the contractor should not be put in a different position just because he is at AWE.
I declare an interest again which I declared at Second Reading. I hope that the House will accept it as a hands-on, informed and responsible interest, in

1579
that I am closely involved with the Trident programme. We have come a long way with that programme. I believe that the House should look at the AWE enabling arrangements in a way that reflects the needs of project management in defence, if there is to be a successful conclusion, within the framework of new management strategy.
In 1954 the naval section of AWE was launched, with secondment of people from Rolls-Royce. That was to look at the nuclear steam-raising plant. In 1957 a contractor's team, with Crown servants, was assembled at Rolls-Royce at Derby. In 1959 Rolls-Royce and Associates was formed and in 1965 it became the delegated design authority, nominated supplier and operator of the Vulcan reactor at Dounreay.
The position was that the Government wanted Rolls-Royce and Associates to be seen to stand in a special relationship with MoD. In 1982 Rolls-Royce and Associates was allowed to take on non-naval work. Rolls-Royce and Associates is now 100 per cent. Rolls-Royce and earns fees based on ascertained costs. The fees are assessed on achievement of milestones and this has proved to be a very successful basis on which to operate. No doubt negotiations also take place with the review board for government contracts based on the agreed formula from which a profit rate is set.
In 1990, for increased effectiveness and efficiency, risk pricing arrangements were introduced to cover greater reward for increased risks hitherto borne by MoD and are now accepted by Rolls-Royce and Associates. Rolls-Royce is involved in a nuclear submarine programme from concept stage to the in-service support stage. The responsibility for safe design and operation of the nuclear steam raising plant is vested in the MoD and the supply of safe plant is vested in Rolls-Royce. The safety and reliability directorate of AEA is retained by MoD as an independent assessor and adviser.
The point I am coming to is this: in weapons we can see the same pattern of management of the project developing. The contractor is responsible for design through to production and beyond; MoD is responsible for safety through the compliance office. The contractor works for government to start with but may, under the Phase 2 contract take on work at a later stage for other customers. I am sure, whoever he is, that he will insist on that in his negotiations and that that will be acceptable to the Government provided certain qualifications are met.
As we all know, the nuclear industry is shrinking. Options for Change has reduced the business of Rolls-Royce and Associates by 30 per cent., and it is looking for new links throughout Europe. I believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers are sufficient and that the contractor at AWE will develop a special relationship with MoD in weapons as Rolls-Royce has done with main and auxiliary propulsion. That meets the requirement of integrated logistic design where the through-life support must be considered as an integral part of the design process. That can only be done where there is a designated
1580
authority with designated activities as proposed; an authority which covers design as well as manufacture. I hope therefore that the House will see the amendment as unnecessary and superfluous and will reject it.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord paid a deserved tribute to Rolls-Royce to whom the British defence effort owes a great deal. He stirred a happy memory when he spoke of the navy handing over a reactor to Rolls-Royce at Dounreay in 1965. I handed it over myself and had a suitably lucullan meal with the Rolls-Royce directors. What we have here is a question as to whether any private company should produce weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, biological or chemical. At this stage of the Bill we need not go into that matter again but I think it is in the minds of my noble friends; I think particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
I think I detected the noble Lord saying that the Government would have access to the papers of the contractor. A very strong reason for supporting the limited appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that financial papers should be made publicly available is that the compliance officer, the Government, will have no access to the papers of the contracting company.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment. I was saying that the Comptroller and Auditor General would have access to all the documents. I thought that that was what I said.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think he will find that when the Minister replies he will say, "No, we are not going to let the Comptroller and Auditor General anywhere near even the financial papers". I asked him whether the compliance officer will have access to the papers of the contracting company. I shall leave it at that and wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the effect of this amendment would be to open the accounts of the contractor to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Your Lordships will recall that an identical amendment was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
I explained in Committee that, in our view, the additional powers conferred by this amendment are not needed because the contractor's accounts must be published to meet the requirements of the Companies Act, and powers already exist for the Comptroller and Auditor General to consider MoD's relations with the contractor. It would be inappropriate to make the contractor subject to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General as that would put him in an entirely different position from any other defence contractor, including the dockyard contractors, who do not have that requirement imposed upon them.
I was not persuaded by the point made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the AWE contractor is in a quite different position from any other defence contractor because he will have no other business apart from running the AWE. Although there are some very special aspects to this

1581
particular contractoristion—and specific safeguards are being provided covering, for example, safety aspects—the principle of a contractor undertaking work for the Government, which applies in this case, is by no means new; nor is it novel. We do not require other contractors to submit to a Comptroller and Auditor General inspection of their accounts and we see no reason to depart from that principle. To do so would be to widen the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit to inspect the accounts of private sector companies which we cannot accept as either necessary or desirable.
Moreover, the argument that the contractor will have no other business apart from that awarded him by MoD is, in our view, based upon a false premise. In discussing this amendment during Committee the noble Lord, Lord Williams, assumed that a prime contractor would be, to use his words, "set up" as a result of the passage of this Bill. Although we acknowledge that it is likely a joint venture company will be established to undertake the contract, that will not inevitably happen. It is wrong to assume that Hunting-BRAE, or another joint venture company, will necessarily win the contract for full contractorisation: a full and fair competition will be run by the Ministry of Defence. It is possible that the company winning that competition will not wish to set up a separate company to act as prime contractor. In that event, the amendment would require Comptroller and Auditor General inspection of the parent company's accounts, which would be clearly inappropriate—the more so as they would cover other, non-MoD, business.
We fully accept, however, that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee of another place have an important role in ensuring that the taxpayers' money is wisely spent; and they will no doubt wish to consider further the contractorisation of AWE. However, they do not need this amendment and an inspection of the contractor's accounts in order to do so. The Comptroller and Auditor General already has the right of access to papers held by the Ministry of Defence and the right to look at its relationship with the AWE contractor —just as he has the right to consider MoD's relationship with any defence contractor. The Comptroller and Auditor General has not reported any difficulty in obtaining any information that he has required concerning the Royal dockyards since contractorisation.
In summary, we believe the amendment to be unnecessary and based upon a false premise of the possible organisation of the company awarded the prime contract.
In answer to several points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the requirements of the Companies Act is the normal way of regulating public companies. It is the considered way that Parliament has determined to regulate private companies. I can tell the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, that the compliance office will have access to the contractorised AWE's papers relating to all matters of safety and security.
1582
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ironside for his intervention. He made the same point that the Comptroller and Auditor General's function is to audit government organisations. It would be a dubious precedent to give him fresh powers under the Bill to inspect a company. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not feel obliged to press the amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I find the noble Earl's response somewhat odd. First, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. The Atomic Weapons Establishment does not carry out forensic tests for the Home Office. That is not a function of AWE. The Home Office occupies property on the same site. Secondly, we are here discussing not a public company such as Rolls-Royce, but a private company—like Hunting-BRAE which has the Phase 1 contract. We are talking about a private company—probably a consortium company—which has interests but is nevertheless not a listed company on the Stock Exchange like Rolls-Royce, whose accounts are open and are immediately available to the shareholders.
The contractor at AWE will be using Ministry of Defence facilities. I emphasise this point. The only customer will be the Ministry of Defence, which will commission these weapons of mass destruction. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has consistently made that point. It will effectively provide all the funds. The Ministry of Defence will be a monopoly buyer. If the Ministry of Defence is to be a monopoly buyer using public funds, that must be a reason for ensuring that the taxpayers' interests are safeguarded through an examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, mentioned the possibility of other customers. The idea that this new consortium which is to be set up specifically for this purpose could take on other customers makes it even more important that the accounts should be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General and that there should be no fudging and mudging about where the money comes from. We need to know.
Finally, the contractor is in a quite different position from contractors in the dockyards. I do not want to continue to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, but he is quite right. These are special anxieties. We are talking about weapons of mass destruction. We are not talking about dockyards; we are talking about nuclear bombs. I wish the Government would recognise that.
I thought that I had already dealt with the noble Earl's assertion that the normal way of regulating public companies is through the Companies Act 1985, as amended by the Companies Act 1989. We all know that, unless a company is listed on the market, its accounts are filed perhaps 18 months late and are open only to investigation of the most primary nature. There is no shareholders' meeting. What goes on is private. No one can ask questions about those accounts. No one can get into the detail of those accounts. They are simply filed. That is the procedure.

1583
If the noble Earl thinks that that is right for this major contractor on this important operation, then I am bound to say that we have a very serious difference of opinion.
Furthermore, unless the Comptroller and Auditor General is allowed access to the contractor's accounts, he will not be able, we will not be able, Parliament will not be able and the taxpayer will not be able, to see what underlies those accounts. As the noble Earl knows perfectly well, the accounts filed in Companies House are statutory accounts. They do not deal with the management accounts. They do not deal with how much was spent on this and how much was spent on that. They do not deal with the costings on this and the costings on that. There is no way of getting at that information through the published accounts. That is the kind of information we need to know about the contractor. It is quite extraordinary that the Government are not prepared to make this extension —I agree that it is an extension—of the Comptroller and Auditor General's powers in this vitally important case.
I see that there is silence from the Government Front Bench. If the noble Earl wishes, with the leave of the House, to respond to what I have said, perhaps he will be good enough to do so.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for allowing the Government to respond. With the leave of the House, I shall do exactly that. The problem here is that we have a difference of opinion on a point of principle. In addition to what I have already said to the noble Lord, I can say that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have ready access to papers in the Ministry of Defence, including those originating from the contractor. The dockyard contractors also use Ministry of Defence owned facilities. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have access to those contractors' internal financial papers, but he has full access to all Ministry of Defence papers on expenditure with those contractors. That arrangement has been found perfectly satisfactory.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I think that he is right. We have a difference of opinion on a matter of principle. I do not have to remind the noble Earl that we believe the whole concept of contractorisation to be rubbish. However, we went through that at Second Reading and in Committee. What I am trying to do is to prevent any possible abuse of taxpayers' funds. I accept that the Comptroller and Auditor General has access to MoD papers. But to pretend that this new contractor can be monitored by the Government, by the taxpayer or by anyone else simply on the basis of accounts produced under the Companies Act 1905 as amended by the Companies Act 1989 is a travesty. Nevertheless, at this time, I do not wish to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Privileges and immunities: application of certain enactments]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 5:
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: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
In Committee we discussed the role of the compliance office. The noble Earl will recognise that the amendments before the House today are identical to the amendments we discussed in Committee. I should like to make two points. First, I was unhappy about our discussion in Committee of the compliance office. I did not believe that the Government had really understood the importance to Parliament of the compliance office. When we discussed the matter in Committee I did not believe that there was any serious definition inside government as to what the compliance office would consist of, how it would operate, what its terms of reference would be and what it should do.
The Government's position appears to be that they agree that the compliance office will be important but they refuse to give it statutory backing. That must be contrasted with the regulatory authorities which were set up under different privatisation Acts that your Lordships have considered over time. For example, we have had Oftel, Ofgas and many others. But in this case we do not have a proper compliance office which will govern the operations of the contractor.
I accept that AWE is not in exactly the same position as British Telecom, British Gas, National Power, PowerGen or the electricity authority. But, to my mind, that does not reduce the requirement for a proper regulatory and controlling authority. Further, it must be arguable that in this case the requirements for safety and security are much greater than in those other companies which the Government have privatised.
In Committee the noble Earl quite correctly said that the purpose of such amendments would be to write the functions and powers of the compliance office on to the statute book. I am not ashamed about that; I believe that it is the right thing to do. The present position is that the Government have refused to give us any information about the compliance office; for example, how it will be staffed, details about its relationship with the Minister of Defence or with the contractor or details about the powers which it will have. The Government's position that the powers of the compliance office will flow directly from the statutory authority of the Secretary of State is simply not good enough. It is not a satisfactory position.
I am sure that we all agree that the final decisions should be taken by the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament. There is no division between ourselves and the Government on that. But that makes it even more important that there should

1585
be a compliance office and a compliance director whose tasks and responsibilities are set out in the legislation.
I do not believe that the Government have thought through what the compliance office should be. If the noble Earl can reassure me in any form at all that that is not the case, I shall be reasonably happy. On the other hand, if he cannot reassure me, I assure him that this is an issue—and I believe that I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, too—which has now become the fundamental issue of the Bill. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I have no hesitation in rising to support the noble Lord on this point. In Committee we expressed our profound distrust of the Government's attitude towards the compliance office because of their failure to spell out its duties and to give us any assurances about its status and its numbers. The replies we received were far from satisfactory.
However, I believe that I can encourage the noble Lord, Lord Williams, who may not have seen the report of the House of Commons Defence Committee on The Progress of the Trident Programme which was published this morning. It bears out all we said and confirms our suspicions. For example, at paragraph 70 the committee says:
"In fact the total strength of the Compliance Directorate is seven staff: given that this presumably includes some administrative support staff, the number hardly suggests a vigorous and wide-ranging organisation".
Then in the following paragraph it refers to,
"new pay scales being awarded".
That is an issue on which I should like the Minister to reply. Under the contract, when contractorisation starts it looks as if higher pay will be awarded to those employed by the contracting company. But what about the staff of the compliance directorate? Presumably they are employed by the Minister and given Civil Service pay. As time goes on their conditions and their pay will, therefore, depreciate compared with those of their colleagues who are working for the contracting company. May we also have an assurance from the Minister that that will not happen and that appropriate pay increases will be made to the staff of the directorate at least to keep them in line with their other colleagues?
Our amendments would give a proper status to the compliance directorate. Incidentally, I take the point made by the noble Earl that it will have access to those papers of the contracting company which deal with security and safety. But what about the rest of the business of the compliance directorate, whatever it is —and it is has not been very well defined? Is it not also concerned with monitoring the performance of the contracting company? Will it be denied access to papers which refer to the performance record or to environmental or health questions? It seems to me that by denying the papers of the contracting company to the compliance officers in these fields the Government are further underrating the importance
1586
which should be attached to the compliance directorate. I profoundly hope that the noble Earl can reassure us on those points.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, originally in Committee I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was more concerned about the privatisation of the compliance office than the safety aspect. However, as I understand it, he is now concentrating on safety. My noble friend on the Front Bench has made it quite clear to me that the safety organisation is an integral part of the establishment and will remain so after transfer to full contractual operation.
As I understand it, the contract will make it quite clear to the contractor that safety is his business. Responsibility for design and production safety is vested in the MoD and the contractor's responsibility is to deliver it. Apparently the compliance office consists of seven people at present. The future needs for Phase 2 are currently being addressed and I suppose that considerably more people will be needed. I do not know how many more will be required. But, as I suggested—and my noble friend confirms this fact—Dr. Glue, the compliance director, can contract out if he is short of staff and does not have the right specialties. Nevertheless, it appears that it will be some time before the manpower problems are resolved at AWE as regards getting the right mix of skills, as natural wastage is now running at something like 600 per year.
As I understand it, the interim contract covers the safety aspect and lays down strict requirements to ensure that the contractor complies with all the appropriate safeguards and that the establishment continues to operate to the existing high standards of health and safety. Of course the compliance office is closely interfaced with the AWE staff. It appears unnecessary to give the compliance director any statutory powers.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the effect of the amendments would be to write the functions and powers of the compliance office on to the statute book and to bind the Secretary of State to comply with recommendations made by the compliance director. Your Lordships may recall that I spoke against a similar set of amendments which were moved in Committee on 2nd July and subsequently withdrawn. I must resist the amendments we are now discussing for the same reasons as I resisted the earlier ones; namely, that statutory provision is not necessary in order to establish the compliance office and define its functions; nor is it an appropriate means of doing so.
I must begin by restating once again the Government's commitment to ensuring that the compliance office has the powers and the resources effectively to regulate the contractor, and in particular to enforce environmental, health and safety standards and compliance with the terms of the contract. During the debate on 2nd July the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked for more detail about the compliance office. I believe, therefore, that it will be helpful if I say some words on this subject before explaining our objections to the amendment.

1587
In its report on the Trident programme which was published yesterday the House of Commons Defence Select Committee stressed the need for the compliance office to have access to any relevant documentation, and to have devoted to it human and financial resources commensurate to the scale of its task. The Government agree entirely with those views, as I hope will become clear to your Lordships from what I am about to say.
There is, of course, already a compliance office at AWE, headed by a compliance director. It was established on the first day of the interim, or Phase 1, management contract—1st October 1990. Its present duties are: to ensure that Hunting-BRAE complies with the Phase 1 contract; to assist MoD HQ in setting up and implementing the arrangements for full contractorisation; and to determine the structure and resources needed for the larger compliance office which will monitor the Phase 2 contract, which will begin late next year.
The compliance director's staff is small at present —some half a dozen individuals. But that is because full contractorisation is still some way off. Part of the director's task, as I have said, is to determine the structure and resources that will be needed for the larger compliance office which will monitor and audit the contractor after full contractorisation. It would be wrong to pre-empt that process by attempting to forecast at this stage the precise structure and size of the compliance office under Phase 2. What I can say, however, is that it will be considerably larger and more complex than at present. It will be subdivided into separate offices dealing with particular areas of responsibility such as safety, security and site engineering. Each office will include staff with the expertise appropriate to its function: thus the security office will contain staff with MoD security experience, and the safety office will contain professional safety staff, including health physicists and radiological experts.
The compliance office will monitor the contractor's performance on a day-to-day basis, and will provide regular reports to MoD covering a wide range of areas. In order to fulfil that role the compliance director's staff will have access to all relevant documentation, and, in addition, will be able to call for special reports or studies on particular issues. They will also have unrestricted access to all AWE facilities. It is intended that compliance staff will be permanently located in certain important AWE facilities, and will visit all the others to review, monitor and evaluate all processes and procedures. Particular attention will be focused on those facilities which deal with fissile, radioactive or toxic materials.
I should make it clear that we do not intend the compliance office to take over the role of the existing safety organisation at AWE. It is important that the contractor should not feel that safety is someone else's responsibility. The contractor will inherit AWE's existing safety personnel, and will be expected to maintain the safety culture which has been the main factor in AWE's excellent safety record over recent years. The compliance office will be there to make sure
1588
that he does so, and specific performance indicators and criteria will be established to that end. Specific safety criteria will be defined in the contract and will be based not only on statutory requirements, but on the ALARP principle that radiation exposures should be kept as low as reasonably practicable.
As well as day-to-day monitoring of the contractor's activities, the compliance office will carry out audits in particular areas where appropriate—for example, to validate the documentation provided by the contractor or to assess security procedures.
If the compliance director believes that the contractor's performance needs to improve in a particular area, he will ask for the necessary changes to be made. The intention, of course, is to nip any potential problem in the bud before it can become serious. There are, however, a variety of sanctions available to reinforce the compliance director's authority if necessary. First, there are two levels of financial sanction. The compliance director will be responsible for authorising the regular payments to the contractor. He will approve such payments only when he is satisfied that the required progress has been made, and that it has been made within the prescribed safety and security environment. In addition, there will be discretionary award payments tied to areas such as safety and security. In the unlikely event that despite all the financial sanctions the contractor's safety performance was still unsatisfactory, the compliance director would be able to close down any facility which was not being operated to a satisfactory safety standard. In the last resort he could recommend the cancellation of the contract.
Perhaps I have digressed enough and should return to the subject of the amendments. My main objection to them is that they cut across the constitutional responsibilities of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State for Defence is responsible for all that happens within the sphere of his department's function, which of course includes the activities of AWE. I must stress once again that we are not privatising AWE. The Secretary of State for Defence will continue to own all the establishment's assets; all he is doing is bringing in a contractor to operate them for a fixed period of time and under strict contractual control. That does not alter the fact that he will still be ultimately responsible for the establishment, and he will remain accountable for it to Parliament.
The Secretary of State does not need a statutory provision to enable him to establish a compliance office, and indeed, as I have said, the compliance office is already in existence. The amendments would therefore compel the Secretary of State to do what he has already done.
There is another aspect to the amendments, however, which is even more objectionable. Paragraph 4(1) of the proposed schedule states:
"The Director may make recommendations to the Secretary of State concerning stage or incentive payments to a contractor, and no such payment may be made by the Secretary of State in contravention of such a recommendation."
In other words, the amendment would compel a Minister by statute to do what one of his own officials tells him to do. I ask your Lordships to consider the

1589
constitutional implications of that. It is Ministers and not civil servants who are answerable to Parliament for the activities of departments but how could the Secretary of State continue to be responsible to Parliament for the regulation of AWE if the final decision had been taken out of his hands, as it would be if the amendment were adopted?
We should find it hard to conceive of a situation in which the Secretary of State would not accept the recommendation of the compliance director. My point is that it would be wrong to bind him by statute to do so. We also have our doubts about paragraph 2(1) of the Proposed schedule, which seems 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.
In conclusion, from one point of view the amendments are superfluous, because they seek to compel the Secretary of State to do what he has already done; that is, to establish a compliance office. Furthermore, when one looks at the detail of the amendments, they are also objectionable, since they interfere with the constitutional responsibility of the Secretary of State.
I hope that in the past few minutes I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and other noble Lords about how the compliance office will work in future.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving that lengthy dissertation on how he believes the compliance office will work. I shall make only two responses. The first is that the important amendment is Amendment No. 6, since that insists that the compliance directorate should be wholly effective and in place before contractorisation. We of course take on trust what the Minister has said, but as the contract will not be available until the end of 1992, we should like to have the compliance directorate's functions on the record clearly and in some identifiable manner before that contract is laid.
Secondly, the Minister waxed eloquent over the constitutional arrangements involved in the amendments. I do not have to remind him that the Secretary of State in another capacity is bound on many
1590
occasions by outside bodies. Under the Fair Trading Act 1973 the Secretary of State is bound by decisions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He cannot go against them. There is nothing unconstitutional in anything we suggest.
Finally, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for drawing my attention to the report of the Select Committee in the House of Commons on The Progress of the Trident Programme. I shall quote from paragraph 73:
"It is therefore essential that MoD continue to keep developments at AWE under close review, and that general oversight be in no way diminished as a result of the introduction of management contractorisation".
For us, that is the fundamental point. The House of Commons Select Committee put its finger on the point. Unless we have the position of the compliance office or the compliance directorate in the statute before contractorisation, we will not be satisfied.
I do not wish to continue the debate at this late stage unless the carrier pigeon has arrived with further information for the noble Earl. He may wish, with the leave of the House, to respond to some of the points that I made or he may not.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with the leave of the House, again there is a fundamental difference of opinion here. However, it may help the noble Lord if we take up the points that he has mentioned. I shall correspond with him in order to enlarge upon the points that I have made and I shall endeavour to show him why we do not accept them. I shall send a copy of the correspondence to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and put a copy in your Lordships' Library.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that little bit of comfort at the end of the debate. I am not satisfied with the Government's response to the amendment. Nevertheless, at this time of the evening I do not intend to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

Torquay Market Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPON STORES: BOMB DAMAGE
  IRAQI CHEMICAL WEAPON STORES: BOMB DAMAGE
  DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT AGENCIES: WATER FOR INJECTIONS
  DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT AGENCIES: WATER FOR INJECTIONS
  SOCIAL FUND EXPENDITURE
  SOCIAL FUND EXPENDITURE
  VETERINARY MEDICINES IN MEAT
  VETERINARY MEDICINES IN MEAT
  SET-ASIDE: RULES FOR FIVE-YEAR SCHEME
  SET-ASIDE: RULES FOR FIVE-YEAR SCHEME