Sitting of 12 July 1991

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

Horses and Ponies (Export)
9.35 am
Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf on the residents of the Uxbridge parliamentary constituency. The petition sheweth
That concern about proposals from the European Commission to allow the export of horses for slaughter after 1992 be brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge her Majesty's Government to ensure that the European Commission's proposals for a new regulation covering the welfare of animals during transport permit the United Kingdom to retain minimum value controls, or similar arrangements, on the export of horses and ponies for slaughter, which are embodied in the 1981 Animal Health Act, and calls upon the Government to make sure that our partners in the European Community understand that the United Kingdom's view is based entirely on welfare concerns and not on economic arguments.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
To lie upon the Table.
9.36 am
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order?
Mr. King: Indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. It is normal practice, is it not, that when an honourable colleague in this House is doing what one might call porridge, or has been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, or for whatever reason, you make a statement to that effect? Has it been communicated to you that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) is in prison? If not, ought you not to send out a rescue party? I understand that he is spending time in prison.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that every hon. Member is subject to the law, but I have yet to receive a communication from the court.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would not it be in order for you to point out, just in case it crosses the minds of Conservative Members, that, according to the rules of the House, there is no question of disqualification of a Member who is sentenced to a custodial sentence of less than one year? The last time that that happened was with John Stonehouse. To my recollection, not one Conservative Member called for any action to be taken against any of the Ulster Unionist Members who also served periods in prison—seven of them, I think, for a period of seven days each—for their refusal to pay either the road fund licence or the TV licence, due to their opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
For my part, for that of other hon. Members on this side of the House—though not universally, I accept—and also for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), who is unable to speak for himself this morning, I would point out that if his action keeps one pensioner out of prison—one pensioner in Preston had a heart attack last month—it will be worth it.
Mr. Speaker: These are not matters for the House, but I can confirm that a sentence of less than a year does not involve expulsion.

The Environment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
[Relevant documents: The Second Report of the Environment Committee, House of Commons Paper No. 22 of Session 1988–89, on Toxic Waste and the Government's Reply, Cm. 679; the First Report, House of Commons Paper No. 170 of Session 1989–90, on Contaminated Land and the Government's Reply, Cm. 1161; the Fourth Report, House of Commons Paper No. 12 of Session 1989–90, on Pollution of Beaches and the Government's Reply, Cm. 1363; the First Report, House of Commons Paper No. 39 of Session 1990–91, on Environmental Issues in Northern Ireland and the Government's Reply, Cm. 1484; and the Sixth Report, House of Commons Paper No. 61 of Session 1990–91, on Indoor Pollution.]
9.38 am
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I am delighted to have this opportunity to talk about the Government's environmental achievements in this country. The Conservatives have an unparallelled record for radical, environment-improving measures. Every single major piece of environmental legislation this century has been either enacted or initiated by a Conservative Administration.
Just as our economic policy is based on an aversion to wasting taxpayers' money, so our environmental record reflects the even stronger arguments against squandering the world's finite natural resources. Just as this Government have been eager to repay some of the debts accumulated over hundreds of years, so they have been anxious not to bequeath a burden of environmental debts to generations to come.
Our recent record has more more than lived up to past achievements. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 gave Britain the first system of integrated pollution control in Europe. It will control emissions to air, land and water. It is an approach which we in the United Kingdom have pioneered and it means that we have one of the most sophisticated pollution control systems in the world. We are now encouraging the European Community to follow our lead.
Last September we published our environment White Paper. We were the first British Government to publish a comprehensive policy on all aspects of our environment and we are one of the very few Governments anywhere to do so. It is not just words; as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, it is a foundation on which we are building.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister explain what happened in respect of the speeches that he made on the issue last year? He will recall coming to the Dispatch Box during our debates on the Environmental Protection Bill and repeatedly arguing that we had to have a fragmented service. Is it true that the Prime Minister read the hon. Gentleman's speeches, found them totally unconvincing and announced earlier this week that he was opting for an integrated approach rather than the fragmented approach for which the Minister pressed so firmly throughout last year?
Mr. Trippier: What absolute rubbish. If the hon. Gentleman were to take the time and trouble to study the Hansard record of the Standing Committee proceedings
1218
on the Environmental Protection Bill he would discover that, with regard to integrated pollution control. I must have mentioned at least a dozen times that I would seriously consider the possibility of an environment agency being set up. I recall that Labour Members on the Standing Committee were very keen that we should more widely separate the poacher and gamekeeper roles by setting up a regional council, presumably of councillors, to act as the regulatory watchdog to supervise waste disposal.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister is proving that he did not listen to what Opposition Members said at that time. He should recall that we did not put forward any suggestion of that kind. All our proposals for an environmental protection executive have completely separated the policing powers from those making political decisions. That was the basis on which we have promoted the idea of an environmental protection executive. I hope that the Minister will explain, especially in view of what the Prime Minister said on Monday, why he and his colleagues in the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill voted against an environmental protection executive.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady did not listen to what I said a moment ago. I will repeat it, but more slowly. I said that on a number of occasions I drew attention to the fact that the Government were prepared to consider at some stage in the future the establishment of such an agency. Whether it was to be called an environmental protection agency, an environmental enhancement agency or whatever was a matter that we would decide in the future.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is upset because we have gone further than any commitment that I made at that time. We have given the responsibility for waste regulation to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The Labour party has never advocated that. The Labour party would never take that responsibility out of the hands of local authorities or regional councils.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will recall that I was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Environmental Protection Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was a member of that Committee. However, I have read the Committee proceedings and I will be more generous than the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I accept that, from the beginning of the debate on that Bill, the Government said that they would consider setting up an integrated environmental protection body. However, is not the reality that everyone else, including the Opposition parties on the Standing Committee and the advisory and informed bodies outside this place, were persuaded of that some years ago? Therefore, the lesson to be learnt is that the Government, whatever their record, which we will debate today, are always slow in reaching conclusions that others arrive at much more speedily.
Mr. Trippier: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments. I have never done this before, but I must take this opportunity to say that throughout the Standing Committee proceedings on the Environmental Protection Bill the Liberal party's contribution was extremely positive. Indeed, it was so positive that it nearly damaged the Government's case on occasion. I had to question whether what we were doing was absolutely right.

1219
If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) read the Hansard record of the Standing Committee's proceedings he will recall that I must have mentioned on at least half a dozen occasions that we were determined to develop and strengthen Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I admitted to the Committee, as I admitted on the Floor of the House around the same time about a year ago, that we were under strength in HMIP. I genuinely did not believe that that was the time to introduce an environment agency.
Sir Hugh Rossi: As everyone is leaping on to this particular bandwagon—who proposed it and who did not—may I suggest not on a party political basis, but on an all-party basis, that the first discussion about an environmental protection agency took place in the Select Committee on the Environment? The Opposition parties had not thought about establishing an environmental protection agency until the idea appeared in the preface of the toxic waste report which appeared in February 1989.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Hugh Rossi: No.
I remember discussing the matter with Labour Members on my Committee who had been with us on the previous inquiry—[Interruption.]
Mr. Keith Mans: The environment is no laughing matter.
Sir Hugh Rossi: I wonder whether I might be allowed to continue with my intervention.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a Committee stage; it is a debate. The hon. Gentleman should intervene briefly and make his point.
Sir Hugh Rossi: I was intervening, but found myself disconcerted because a number of other interventions were taking place at the same time. It will take me longer to make my point if I am interrupted in that way.
The idea of an environmental agency first emerged during the consideration of river and estuary pollution. We recommended the setting up of a national regulatory body. That was the first time that any discussion of that kind had taken place and all the members of my Committee agreed to it. When we found subsequently that the National Rivers Authority's powers were limited to the regulation of water, yet extended to leisure, sea defences and the rest, we criticised that in our toxic waste report—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an admirable speech. However, it is rather long for an intervention.
Sir Hugh Rossi: If I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I will make a speech on that point later.
Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) for that constructive intervention. I first became aware of the idea as a result of the Select Committee's recommendation. Whether or not Opposition Members agree with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will accept that we went further than the Select Committee's recommendations because of the essential
1220
difference which the Labour party has not addressed: the responsibility for waste regulation would go to HM IP. The Liberals may find that they can support that.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: So would we.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady is misleading the House with that intervention. She should think very carefully about what she has just said. All the Labour Members of the Standing Committee, most of whom were members of the Select Committee on the Environment, made it abundantly clear—particularly the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—that they wanted the establishment of a regional regulatory body which would fit in with the Labour party's madcap idea of scrapping county councils and putting regional councils in their place. If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene to deny that, I shall certainly allow her to do so. She cannot intervene, because she cannot deny it. It is a matter of record.
The White Paper contained 350 commitments, more than 100 of which are already being implemented, and it puts in place powerful machinery to maintain the pressure on all Government Departments to set and achieve clear environmental objectives. Around the anniversary of the White Paper, we shall publish an update detailing the significant progress that we are making. The White Paper trailed the idea of introducing the powerful body that we have just been talking about to be responsible for pollution across the board. This week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that that agency is, indeed, to be created, bringing together the pollution control functions of HMIP and the NRA, along with waste regulation responsibilities of local authorities. The improved integration that will result will mean more effective pollution control all round and, I suppose most significant of all, a one-stop shop for business men. A consultation document will be published later this year to seek views on how that agency should function.
We have heard through the press comments made by Labour Members that we are stealing their clothes. They are upset and thin-skinned about it. However, the hon. Member for Dewsbury would never convince me or the rest of the House that she was not very miffed that we have made such a dramatic announcement with regard to the changes in waste regulation. I am beginning to think that the Labour party has a secret manifesto pledge to be profligate and ineffective at every possible opportunity. Let us look at what are laughingly called its environmental policies. Labour Members want to renationalise the water industries, at a cost of about £4 billion— £4 billion which could be spent on improving water quality. Not only that, but nationalistation would put a stop to the £28 billion investment programme made possible by the Government's privatisation of water, the biggest-ever investment programme.
Privatisation was right. It has been a success. We now have the biggest-ever investment programme in water quality— £28 billion over 10 years, which is £5,000 for every minute, day in and day out, year in and year out for the next decade. Nationalised water boards could never have done that. What Government in their right mind would throw that away? I suggest that it would be the type of Government such as the previous Labour Administration who cut spending on water by a third.
Sir Hal Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need only to look to eastern Europe to see what socialism does to the environment?
Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Beyond the Berlin wall and behind the iron curtain, thousands upon thousands of people have totally rejected socialism, because they were searching for an improvement in their quality of life. They wish to see that improvement in the quality of life which they had not experienced since the war. My hon. Friend is right. If ever there was an indictment of socialism and of how over-regulation can bring about exactly the opposite effect of what is desired, that is it.
Unlike Labour, the Conservative Government are proud of our record. Our success stories extend into every aspect of environmental concern. We have started by putting our own house in order. We have appointed a "green" Minister in every Department who is responsible for considering the environmental implications of its policies, and have required them all to report each year on their success in meeting their environmental goals. Each Department also now has a Minister responsible for integrating energy efficiency into its policies and programmes; that work is co-ordinated by a group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Bryan Gould: The Minister claimed that the Government are proud of their record on environmental issues. If that is the case, why have the Government scheduled this important debate on a Friday? The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and I, members of the shadow Cabinet, are present. Why is no Cabinet Minister present? Why is it that the Secretary of State for the Environment cannot be bothered to be present?
Mr. Trippier: I am most impressed to see the hon. Gentleman in his place. It will add to the great confusion surrounding the division of responsibilities between the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. I find it very confusing—I do not know whether my hon. Friends do also. Who is speaking on environmental or green issues? Is it the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a very important engagement today. The hon. Gentleman is just being a silly, silly boy—very, very silly. I should have thought that he would have something else to do, or does he think that his hon. Friends are not competent enough to handle this debate?
On transport, we have implemented tough new measures to cut pollution. From November this year, all cars, whatever their size, will have a tuning and emissions test in their MOT test. By 1992, all new cars will have to be fitted with catalytic converters. That will cut noxious exhaust fumes by more than 70 per cent.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I am surprised to hear the Minister praising the British Government's record on car emissions. Only this week, in the Moses Room in the other place, representatives of the German automotive parts manufacturer, Bosch, said that British car emission standards are among the lowest in Europe. Were they not telling the truth?
Mrs. Ann Taylor: He is right.
Mr. Trippier: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might like to argue about that later.
The hon. Gentleman really should know by now that legislation on that matter is now dealt with through the European Environment Council. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, on two occasions in the past year, Britain has taken the lead in two directives on vehicle emissions —one on vehicle emissions generally and the other on diesel emissions. That is a matter of record. It is not open to speculation or hypothesis; it is a fact.
Sir Hal Miller: I was at that meeting. The Robert Bosch Ltd. representatives were referring to the standards of the MOT test. The Minister was talking about the initiative taken by our Government in setting EEC standards. The Robert Bosch representatives said that there is still some uncertainty, leading up to the introduction of full EEC standards, whether the MOT test should initially be a two-gas or a four-gas test. I shall develop those remarks in my speech.
Mr. Trippier: I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's speech if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He will know, as the House knows, that sales of unleaded petrol have soared, thanks to successive green Budgets which have given us one of the largest tax differentials in the EC. Unleaded petrol now accounts for a huge percentage compared with five years ago. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said on more than one occasion, we are continuing to develop new thinking in reconciling our transport policy with the environment.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister says that the proportion of unleaded petrol is a huge percentage of the market. Will he give us figures and compare them with Germany, Holland and other European countries? Is not it a fact of life that the proportion of unleaded petrol in Britain is still well below the European average?
Mr. Trippier: I do not believe that it is below the European average. It is about the European average. I shall certainly check that point. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that it has been a substantial success.
Mr. Williams indicated assent.
Mr. Trippier: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proportion of unleaded petrol used in this country is above those in that majority of European countries? Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy and France are below our average.
Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We shall look again at the figures which, I am sure, will bear out what he has just said.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Although the figures show that there has been a dramatic increase in our use of unleaded fuel and that we are way ahead of some other European countries, is it not a fact that almost twice as many motorists could be using unleaded fuel? Might it not be a good idea to put stickers on four-star pumps, saying, "Half of you who are buying this four-star petrol could be saving yourselves more than 10p a gallon. Perhaps you should consider adjusting your car or using unleaded fuel if your car will take it"? Will my hon. Friend confirm,

1223
however, that increased motoring involves environmental costs, one of which is the threat to Oxleas woods in my constituency, to which I imagine that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will refer later?
Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend may have the opportunity to develop his latter argument later if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. His first point raised an attractive proposal, which is certainly worth looking at. We need to continue to increase awareness of the importance of using more unleaded petrol.
In the countryside we have recently announced plans for a countryside protection scheme known as countryside stewardship. Under a pilot scheme developed by the Countryside Commission, £13 million has been earmarked to help landowners and farmers throughout England to protect and enhance traditional landscapes and wildlife habitats. In addition, we have already started planting a brand new 150 sq mile forest in the midlands. It will be the first national forest to be planted in England since Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister. I should like to say a few words at this point about the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Last week Sir Fred Holliday, the independent chairman of the JNCC, told me of his concerns about effects of the arrangements for nature conservation in Scotland under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill on the special responsibilities of the JNCC. He suggested that Ministers looked for a successor for him, but then agreed to let that lie on the table until my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had had a chance to consider with our colleagues in the Scottish and Welsh Offices the points that he had made. We are pursuing these issues urgently and intend to let Sir Fred have a considered statement of our views early next week. Sir Fred is a distinguished scientist and administrator and we greatly value his role in taking forward the new arrangements for nature conservation in Britain made as a result of the recent legislation.
In the Government's view, the decision of Parliament to create an expert advisory committee to give Scottish Natural Heritage advice on disputed cases in no way undermines the role of the JNCC in establishing and upholding United Kingdom-wide standards for the protection of sites of special scientific interest. We would expect the chairman of the JNCC to notify Ministers if the operation of the new Scottish arrangements or, indeed, the conduct of the other two country councils was leading to different scientific standards being applied from those laid down by the JNCC.
In the streets in our towns and cities, we have taken action to arrest the problem of litter—something which affects the quality of people's environment every day.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before the hon. Gentleman returns to the urban scene from the natural environment and from a consideration of sites of special scientific interest, could he be more forthcoming about a site of special interest in an urban area? I refer to Oxleas woods, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has referred. How can the Minister claim concern for sites of special scientific interest in Scotland or anywhere else or for our common heritage of woodland when the Secretary of State has refused to accept the recommendation of the roads inspector for the east crossroute south of the Thames, thus destroying Oxleas
1224
woods in Greater London? Does not that make all the Government's claims about being green and being the protectors of our heritage absolutely worthless?
Mr. Trippier: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away, this is the opportunity to remind him who introduced the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I ask him also, who invented the term "sites of special scientific interest"? The Labour party never did anything on this issue. We established the sites of special interest, and a considerable number of sites have been so designated—
Mr. Spearing: The Government are now destroying them.
Mr. Trippier: I ask the hon. Gentleman to think carefully about what he is saying. If one turned a site of special scientific interest into a completely sanitised area, giving it absolute protection, compensation would have to be awarded in some form or other, principally through the courts. The designation of a site of special scientific interest is no more or less than a material planning consideration which has to be taken into account by the planning authority. I have always defended that position and I ask the hon. Gentleman to join me in that, because it would be disastrous to go down any other route—
Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
Mr. Trippier: I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
Mr. Hughes: I shall allow the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) to intervene first.
Mr. Bottomley rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I had the consent of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to intervene in the Minister's speech.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister clearly said that he was giving way to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not raise a point of order or anything else when I am on my feet. [Interruption.] Order.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not on my feet now, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was obviously at the starting gate. There have been quite a few interventions, some of which have been over-long, but they have all been at the expense of those hon. Members who wish to speak later. May we now get on? I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There have been some references to Oxleas woods in my constituency. As I have said, I believe that I

1225
have the consent of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to intervene at this point in the Minister's speech. If I am wrong—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have interventions on interventions. Perhaps we should get on. I call Mr. Simon Hughes.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the hon. Member for Eltham will get his chance later.
I had wanted to ask the Minister a simple question that relates to a similar case. Can he confirm that the Government have received a letter from the European Commission suggesting that the Government may be in breach of European Community directives in connection with the proposed M3 bypass around Winchester? That is another example of road building appearing to trespass against environmental considerations, SSSIs and the rest. It would be helpful if we could have confirmation that that letter has been received and that the Government are considering it.
Mr. Trippier: I am not aware that it has been received, but if I have the permission of the House and am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to reply to the debate, I undertake to come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that my hon. Friend will discover that, in the case of Oxleas woods, there has been an inquiry by the European Commission to which the Department of Transport has responded. It might be useful to know whether there has been a further inquiry.
I should like to follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which I wrongly anticipated that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would mention. The Departments of the Environment and of Transport are considering the inspector's report on the modifications to the bridge proposals for the east London river crossing. Although there may be reasons for avoiding a judicial review and for the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment not meeting further delegations while they are considering the report, may I ask in public that if the road does eventually have to run through Oxleas woods—although that is opposed by most people because it does not benefit either the woods or the local people —the Government will give serious reconsideration to the inspector's recommendation in the previous inquiry that the road should be covered over, even it that means dropping the slip roads at Shooters Hill?
Mr. Trippier: Yes, I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I shall draw what he has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
You were kind enough to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have taken several interventions. Perhaps I should now press on a little. I want to turn to a subject of great embarrassment to the Labour party. In the streets of our towns and cities, we have taken action to arrest the problem of litter, which affects the quality of people's environment every day. We have more than doubled the top fine for litter louts from £400 to £1,000. We want to
1226
ensure that councils fulfil their duties and clear the streets. That is why we have empowered local people to take their councils to court if they do not keep their streets clean. We know which councils they will be. It will be the high-spending, socialist councils, which seem more interested in nuclear-free zones than litter-free zones.
Just look at Liverpool—an inept and inefficient Labour council. When Labour came to power in Liverpool in 1983 the city stood on the edge of a precipice, since when it has taken a giant step forward. The ex-leader of Liverpool council admitted just how inefficient it was. He said:
"it costs four times as much to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool as it does in other areas"
Now, local residents have had to suffer a strike. As a result, the streets were not cleaned for weeks and the children were forced to play among the rubbish. That is a disgrace. Labour could not even empty the bins. Yet it has the nerve to say that it can run our country.
Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend reflect on what has happened in Liverpool? Will he reflect that Conservative legislation on competitive tendering will clean up the streets of Liverpool and that the Labour-controlled city council is using Conservative legislation which is opposed by the Labour party?
Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend's intervention must make the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen incredibly embarrassed. It is a matter of record that they attacked that legislation when it was going through Parliament, yet now they are glad of the opportunity to use it.
Recycling rubbish obviously makes sense. It reduces the need for landfill sites and saves on energy. British industry already has a reasonable record on recycling and it will become an increasingly attractive and necessary option. As higher standards are introduced and consumer pressure mounts, it will clearly be in the financial self-interest of companies to minimise waste.
Households, on the other hand, currently recycle 6 per cent. of recyclable household waste. This is not good enough, so the Government have set a clear target: their aim is that half of all recyclable household rubbish should be recycled by the end of the century. To help achieve that goal the Government are introducing a system of recycling credits, details of which were announced by my right hon. Friend on 1 July. That scheme will give waste collectors a financial incentive to promote recycling of household waste, by making it the duty of waste disposal authorities to give credits to collection authorities for waste that is diverted from landfill disposal as a result of recycling.
Opposition Members are also quite keen on recycling. They like nothing better than to recycle outdated, lacklustre and ineffective policies. Their policies are not just ineffective but, in many cases, positively damaging.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Trippier: No, not for the moment.
The Opposition plan to phase out nuclear power, which currently provides one fifth of our electricity, in favour of coal-fired generation, despite the fact that coal burning emits pollutants which contribute to acid rain and ozone depletion. That tells me that the Labour party is more committed to a cosy relationship with the trade unions than to the environment.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his Shell lecture, we believe that, far from being a constraint on business, high environmental standards are

1227
a stimulus to develop the goods and services that will compete effectively in the increasingly international markets of the future. It is the Government's task to set and enforce those standards. However, state regulation is far from being the only answer. I remind the House of how state regulation worked in central and eastern Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) said earlier. The market can and must play an important part in meeting standards. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly recognised that the principal task of delivering sustainable development will fall to business. The Government can help the markets to work better partly through taxation and financial penalties, such as the petrol and recycling credit examples that I have given today, and partly through mobilising consumer choice. The emergence of the green consumer as a powerful economic force is one of the most hopeful environmental developments of the past decade, but in order that consumers can make those choices effectively they need accurate information.
That is why we must have honesty. There have been too many examples of misleading green claims which go only as deep as the label on the product. That is why Britain has been pressing hard for early agreement on a system of Europeanwide environmental labelling, which would enforce consistent standards. If agreement cannot be reached by the end of the year, the Government will introduce their own system.
Some particularly serious concerns have been brought to our attention in the past couple of years. One of these was the contamination of land, which was brought. to our attention by the Select Committee. In response to the comprehensive Select Committee report, the Government identified three key areas for further action: first, information on the extent and location of contaminated sites; secondly, assessment criteria for the risks posed by the contamination found there, including the water environment; thirdly, technology and funding for clean-up. Progress has been made on all of those areas, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green will concede. Mechanisms for the prevention of future contamination have been strengthened in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 through the provision of integrated pollution control.
Another issue raised by the Environment Select Committee was indoor air pollution, including sick-building syndrome, tobacco smoke and radon. The Government are carefully considering the Select Committee's recently published report on this and will be responding to the Committee in the usual way, and as positively as possible.
Pollution of beaches has also been reported on by the Committee. It found that the risks of serious infection from sea bathing were minimal. Several recommendations were made, however, virtually all of which have been accepted by the Government. Indeed, the Committee's main conclusion about the need for sewage to be treated before being discharged into the sea had become Government policy before the Committee reported. The Committee welcomed our response, saying that there was clearly a considerable measure of agreement between the Government, the N RA and itself as to the way forward in bringing beaches up to a proper standard.
Back in February 1989 the Select Committee issued a report on toxic waste. It was a wide-ranging report which included the whole issue of waste regulation and disposal.
1228
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, the Committee recommended the separation of waste regulation from local authority waste disposal. I have already dealt with that.
We have also closed loopholes on the regulation of waste management and included a duty of care on waste holders in the Environmental Protection Act 1990—both Committee recommendations. In this debate we are asked to consider the Select Committee's report on Northern Ireland containing 29 recommendations, of which 24 are already being met or have been accepted.
This debate focuses on the United Kingdom environment, but many of the environmental issues that affect us cannot be addressed by the United Kingdom alone. In Europe we led the way on negotiating a nitrate directive designed to protect water from nitrate pollution from agricultural sources. The directive strikes a fair balance between improving water quality and maintaining an efficient agriculture. An estimated 2 million hectares might be designated as nitrate-vulnerable zones under this directive. Farmers within vulnerable zones will be subject to compulsory restrictions based on good agricultural practice.
The United Kingdom must recognise that there are plenty of issues that simply cannot be addressed by the United Kingdom Government alone. There are planetary issues which threaten our very existence. Global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are problems which we must tackle and are tackling on an international scale. There is no point in Britain cutting back its carbon dioxide emissions if other countries carry on increasing theirs. As we all understand only too well since the nuclear accident at Chernobyl underlined the message, the environment of the United Kingdom cannot be protected simply by working in our national territory. The great global issues which will be debated by the G7 leaders here in London next week at which they will discuss the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development meeting next year in Brazil and other matters of national and international importance which affect the environment.
The Government's efforts have been unstinting on UNCED and the preparations leading up to it. We have taken an international lead in the efforts to halt the depletion of the ozone layer. It was a British scientist who played a key role in identifying the true scale of the problem. It was Britain which hosted two rounds of successful talks in London in the past two years that formed the basis for the current agreement to phase out CFCs by the year 2000.
On climate change, we have already set ourselves a demanding target and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this week, if we can improve on that target, we will. In due course I shall be interested to listen to the Leader of the Opposition when he finally finds his tongue on the environment. I should like him to explain to his trade union colleagues exactly how the Labour party will cut carbon dioxide emissions.
We are already taking a leading part in the international negotiation on agreements to preserve tropical rain forests, maintain biodiversity and develop a charter on environmental rights and obligations.
The task of protecting, maintaining and enhancing the quality of the United Kingdom's environment is one of the central tasks facing the Government. That task must be

1229
carried out at every level from the street corner to the stratosphere. It is a task which the Government are carrying out with determination and vision.
10.20 am
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I think that most of us were expecting more from the Minister. We hoped that he would make some announcements. In the past year we have heard little from the Government about environmental protection and one speech from the Prime Minister does not make up for that year of inaction.
I am glad that we are having this debate today, not least because we have waited so long for it. Last year, when the Government published their White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", they promised that we would have a debate on the subject soon after. It has taken us 10 months to get that debate, but I suppose that we should be grateful and say that it is better late than never. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) pointed out, the fact that the debate is taking place on a Friday, when most of our colleagues must be in their constituencies, demonstrates that the Government do not regard environmental protection as a particularly high priority.
I am glad that the Minister of State is with us today, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham said, I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not believe that the debate was of sufficient importance to make it his priority to attend.
Mr. Mans: The hon. Lady has referred to this debate taking place on a Friday; perhaps she would like to tell the House when the Opposition last used one of their days to debate the environment.
Mrs. Taylor: We had a debate that included a discussion of the water environment about two weeks ago.
Today, the Minister gave us his usual mixture of complacency, arrogance and rhetoric. Those involved in environmental protection do not find that a reassuring combination. He claimed that much progress has been made in the past year, but we should consider those problems that are becoming more severe, which cover a range of issues with which the Minister did not deal adequately.
Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Lady is going to continue in this vein, perhaps she will answer a simple question. Why was it that when the Labour Government were last in power they actually cut by one third their contribution to the water authorities?
Mrs. Taylor: Those matters have been bandied across the table many times, but let me remind the Minister of the figures. During the period of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979, the average investment in the water industry was £1,254 million a year. The average investment under the Conservative Government between 1979 and the time of privatisation was £922 million a year. That illustrates the significant difference between the levels of investment. Many people believe that that difference was deliberately manufactured because the Government wanted it to appear that privatisation would be successful. If the Minister had spent as much time helping those in the water industry as he has helping the chairmen and
1230
shareholders by subsidising the sale of that industry, the water environment would be in a much healthier state today.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has already made one long intervention. I have already given way twice and I want to make progress.
I want to suggest to the Minister some of the items that he should have addressed today—I can understand why Conservative Members do not want me to pursue that. In the past year, a number of significant environmental problems have worsened and we should address them.
Energy consumption has increased despite the fact that the gross domestic product has been decreasing. Ministers have pressed ahead with the road building programme regardless of its impact on sites of special scientific interest. Emissions of CO, have increased. We are losing hedgerows at a rate of 4,000 miles a year. In the past year, more than 800 sewage treatment plants have enjoyed immunity from prosecution, despite failing their consents. We must set this debate in its right context. Environmental problems are intensifying and the Minister's self-satisfied complacency is extremely dangerous.
The Minister did not say much about the White Paper "This Common Inheritance", but I am not surprised, given the response to it from the vast majority of environmentalists and the press. The Minister's claims of progress are weak and they do not add up to an environmental protection strategy. They do not suggest that his Department colleagues or senior colleagues at Cabinet level in other Departments are embracing environmental considerations when determining their policies and priorities.
A report entitled "Institutions and Sustainable Development" has been published by the global environment research centre at Imperial college in conjunction with the United Nations Association. That report was sponsored and paid for by the Department of the Environment. It is significant that on the Government's policy of integration the report states:
"it is hard to find evidence that this is happening to any significant extent …Nor could we find any convincing evidence inside departments that giving Ministers or individual officials specific 'green' responsibilities had made any real difference to their perceptions or policies."
That criticism has been frequently levelled by environmental groups and the Minister should take it as a salutary warning. People are studying the policy and are not simply heeding the rhetoric that comes from Ministers.
The Minister briefly mentioned the global environment and climate change. "This Common Inheritance" said that global warming is one of the greatest environmental challenges facing the world—no one can doubt that. The White Paper gives a fair analysis of the problem, but politicians should be judged not simply on their analysis of a problem, but on their commitment to action to solve or combat that problem.
It is important that we consider in detail what the Government have done in the past year on that vital issue. After all, we have had plenty of time to assess the Government's attitude because it is so long since the statement on the White Paper. I am sure that Ministers would agree that they have no excuse for inaction, as we have been given a proper assessment of the severity of the

1231
problem. Ministers know what needs to be done to tackle it and they have the political power to introduce any programme that might be necessary.
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I came here thinking that we would be debating the United Kingdom environment, and there are five reports from the Select Committee to debate. The report on tropical forests is not before us; nor is the subject of international global warming. Do you agree that we should debate the subject in question?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion is that the House do now adjourn. I have not heard anything from the hon. Lady that has been out of order.
Mrs. Taylor: Either the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) does not agree with the Minister, who raised the issue, or does not understand the problems that exist. It is incredible that some Conservative Members clearly believe that we can opt out of the problem of global environment. All the problems on that front affect all of us, and the Minister acknowledged that the Government have a role to play in tackling them.
We now know the intensity of the problems of climate change and we know that some steps that must be taken quickly. The question is whether there is the political will to tackle the problems in the right way. I must, therefore, examine the issue of climate change, despite the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh, and the stance that the British Government have taken in the negotiations for a framework convention on climate change. Such a convention is the main hope for international agreement for action on a scale adequate to deal with the matter.
The British Government have put forward several papers on the subject. The original document was known as paper No. 9, though I gather that the Minister argues that the intention was to reflect existing consensus rather than to establish new tactics. The Government then tabled a paper entitled "The Draft United Kingdom Paper on Possible Elements for Inclusion in a Framework Convention on Climate Change." That took us little further forward and I was disappointed with the suggestions made in it, because the Government do not appear to be taking the matter seriously enough.
Mr. Trippier: On reflection, the hon. Lady may wish to apologise to me and the House, because she is clearly not aware that 120, possibly more, countries will be discussing the matter at Rio in June of next year and we have immense pride in the fact that the British text has been selected for negotiation in the first instance. What on earth is the hon. Lady talking about?
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister's proposal of a low starting point in the discussion has let many other Governments off the hook, and that is the real difficulty which the British Government have created. To show how the latest document reveals a lack of seriousness on the part of the Government, it says, for example:
"In formulating these strategies, developed countries should agree to take as a guideline that the stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions should be achieved by them as soon as possible."
How can progress be made with such meaningless statements? What has happened to the precautionary principle on which I thought it was accepted we should now make progress?
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady is on a weak point. The British Government have been praised by all the member states in Europe—
Mrs. Taylor: That is not so.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady is not in a position to say that. When I attended the last meeting of UNCED in Nairobi a few weeks ago the paper that was introduced—she is right to say that it represented only the beginning of negotiations—
Mrs. Taylor: I gave way to the Minister. What is his point?
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady should stop being so unpatriotic. She should not drag the country down. The Labour party delights in dragging the country down and selling it short, and nobody enjoys it more than the hon. Lady.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister is not dragging me into it, too.
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister enjoys winding himself up on these matters. He presents papers and makes statements abroad as though nobody in Britain will check on what he has done. The Government are selling the country short. They are refusing to set the right target and stiff timetable that are needed to benefit everyone, in Britain and the rest of the world.
Mr. Trippier: What is Labour's target?
Mr. Roger King: Yes, we want to know.
Mrs. Taylor: If Conservative Members are keen to have that information, I will give it to them. The Minister is arguing as though the Labour party had never published a target. We have said clearly that we want to achieve the sort of target that most other European countries want, and that is stabilisation of CO, emissions by the year 2000. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain why Britain must be in the second division on this issue and why we cannot meet the same targets as other EC countries.
Mr. Roger King: The hon. Lady has talked about working towards the year 2000 for the stabilisation and reduction of CO2 emissions. Has she had the opportunity of checking that with her trade union friends, particularly Mr. Arthur Scargill and the National Union of Mineworkers? Mr. Scargill envisages the expansion of the coal industry, which would mean fossil fuel being burned. The Labour party insists that nuclear energy shall be phased out and then eliminated. So presumably they are talking about more fossil fuel-powered stations based on coal, in which case the figures that the hon. Lady has given could not be met.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman exhibits total ignorance of the subject. I shall explain how our target would be achieved—[Interruption]—and I assure Conservative Members that it remains Labour policy. It is also the policy of most other EC countries. The British Government are lagging behind, admitting by not doing as well as other countries that they deserve to be in the second division on this issue.
Mr. Trippier rose—
Mrs. Taylor: I shall give way to the Minister for the last time.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady cannot be allowed to get away with her last statement. Nobody inside or outside the House can believe what she is saying. The Labour party claims that it could stabilise CO2 emissions by the year 2000, when it is already committed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) pointed out, to phasing out nuclear power, which makes a 20 per cent. contribution to our energy requirements, and replace that by coal. It would be physically impossible to achieve Labour's aims, because that phasing out would bring about an increase in CO2 emissions. The hon. Lady is being totally misleading.
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister should study some of the research that has been done in this area. He is admitting, from his comments today, that he has not examined the issue in sufficient detail. Otherwise he would know that our policy statements and commitments about stabilising CO2 emissions are realistic and achievable and predate the White Paper.
I appreciate why the Government are trying to wriggle out of making binding commitments on the international scene. What is the Minister's view of the United State's position, and why are the British Government almost helping America to get away from making binding and legal targets and commitments? Many issues must be raised—[Interruption]—and it seems that the British Government are not taking a leading position in dealing with these issues—
Mr. Roger King: Oh dear.
Mrs. Taylor: —and that they do not recognise or want to make progress—[Interruption]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to desist from making sedentary and audible comments, which impede the progress of debate. Other hon. Members are waiting to make speeches. I hope that we shall have better order than we appear to have at the moment.
Mrs. Taylor: Thank you for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because the facts embarrass the Government, Conservative Members would prefer to have them shut out.
I urge the Government to be as candid about targets —and the Minister to be frank when giving his point of view—as the Labour party. Our commitment is clear. Will the Minister clarify further just what is the Government's commitment? The White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", says—the Prime Minister said it again on Monday—that the Government will accept a target for the stabilisation of CO2 emissions by the year 2005 only if other countries do the same. Why does the document say, "only if other countries do the same"? What happens if other countries do not meet that obligation? For example, what happens if the United States lags behind? Does that mean that Britain should also lag behind? If the Minister wishes to intervene to clarify that point, I am happy to give way.
Mr. Trippier: I am happy to clarify that issue. We are already committed to it. As I said in my opening remarks, it would be silly nonsense if all countries did not abide by
1234
international agreements. Clearly, it would be nonsense if we alone were to do so. We want everyone else to act in the same way.
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister has still not answered the question.
Mr. Trippier: They are doing it.
Mrs. Taylor: The Minister is dodging the issue. He has not said what would happen if the United States or any other country lags behind. I should like the Minister to say that, regardless of whether other countries meet the target, this country must meet it, even though the target is inadequate by our standards. Why do the Minister of State and the Prime Minister always have the rider, "if other countries also meet the target"? Why cannot we have the clear commitment that the Labour party has made even on the date, which is not as good as ours?
We cannot opt out of the effects of global warming or our responsibilities to set and meet our own targets. I hope that when the Minister winds up he will explain his attitude on some other suggestions that are being put forward at the climate change convention. For example, I hope that he will tell us that he intends to reject the attitude of the Japanese, who simply say that everyone should do their best. I also hope that he will say that the targets should be confined to CO2 emissions and that the burden should not be spread so that developing countries are faced with difficulties with which they cannot cope.
Mr. Roger King: The hon. Lady suggested that the Government are not taking a leading role in promoting conservation and reducing CO2 emissions. Has she, perchance, seen today's issue of The Times in which there is an article entitled
"Heseltine attacks Sununu over gases"?
The Secretary of State has written an extremely strong letter to Mr. Sununu saying that he is no longer prepared to accept the lethargy of the United States in its resolve to tackle CO2 emissions, for which the United States accounts for some 23 per cent. Therefore, the Government are taking a leading role even against our closest ally.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not wish to intrude into a possible conflict between the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman refers to the United States as our closest ally, but some of his colleagues think that our European allies should fill that role. One letter does not excuse the fact that the Government have been covering for the United States at international conferences.
Conservative Members have asked how realistic our targets are and how they could be achieved. They should be well aware of the evidence on energy efficiency submitted to the Select Committee recently. This country's efforts with regard to energy efficiency are extremely poor. Friends of the Earth evidence shows that we could easily achieve our targets on CO2 emissions simply by improving energy efficiency. It is a sad commentary on what has been happening to this country in recent years that there has been such a decline in areas such as double glazing and heating control, which could have done so much. Markets have declined, not least because of the Government's policies and approach.
It is no wonder that Sir Anthony Pilkington, whose group owns an insulation factory, has praised the Labour party and said:

1235
"this country is suffering from a lack of Government policy on energy conservation."
We have suffered time and again from a lack of Government policies. We have seen their priorities, such as the privatisation of electricity. The Government's priority was not to consider the environment or press ahead with flue gas desulphurisation. Rather, it was to sell off, at great cost to the taxpayer, an industry which is now charging high prices, making large profits and paying top management scandalous and outrageous salaries.
Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No, I must press on, because there will shortly he a statement and I have taken longer than I intended.
It is not only on climate change and energy efficiency that we have not made much progress in the past year. Pollution from vehicles is a major problem, with which the Government still refuse to deal. The problem of sites of special scientific interest was mentioned earlier. The Nature Conservancy Council estimates that 161 SSSIs are affected by the English road programme. The Royal Society for Nature Conservation has said that 372 areas of wildlife interest are affected; 30 National Trust sites are threatened and the M25 is threatening and will affect 37 ancient woodlands. Time and again we see that the Government's priority is not public or rail transport. Because of that, we are all suffering in environmental terms and from a lack of choice about the form of transport that we use.
Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that in paragraph 5.58 of the White Paper the Government agree that in London, rail transport for commuters is the most effective means? However, on the notorious east London river crossing, a six-lane motorway will be the main means by which commuters from north Kent will reach the notorious Canary wharf scheme, where 50,000 jobs are going. They will then go through Newham and add to the exhaust pollution there. Would not it be better to extend the docklands light railway over that bridge to provide the choice of which my hon. Friend speaks?
Mrs. Taylor: As ever, my hon. Friend has done his homework on that issue and has not only come up with an idea but knows the feasibility of the project. Therefore, as always, he has a strong case.
If we compare the priority that is given to rail transport in this country with that given elsewhere, we realise why our rail system is so appalling. It is starved of investment. Britain spends 0.12 per cent. of its gross domestic product on support for the railways. The European average is 0.7 per cent., which means that European countries spend on average six times as much supporting their rail service.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber mentioned Oxleas woods. I confirm to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the EC has sent a formal letter to the British Government because of their failure to implement the environmental impact assessment directive, which includes the problems that have been created at Twyford Down, the east London river crossing and the Hackney Mll link road. The Government are not implementing the directive properly and the EC is about to intervene. If the Minister was monitoring properly what was happening, he should be aware of that fact.
1236
The Minister referred to the following point in two lines and I understand why he did not want to say more. We have seen some remarkable developments in the past few weeks. First, the director of the National Rivers Authority, John Bowman, and then the recently appointed head of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's most senior conservation adviser in Great Britain, Sir Frederick Holliday, resigned. Sir Frederick resigned because of clear political difficulties that had undermined his position. The saga of the break-up of the Nature Conservancy Council was not a happy one, and the blow to the new structure was serious and should make Ministers understand that they will have to make choices. In this case, they will have to choose between the needs of conservationists and the wishes of the rich land owners, including some of those in another place. It was clear that some Ministers made their choice and, as Sir Frederick said, the implications of the issue go far beyond Scotland to affect nature conservation in Britain.
Sir Frederick Holliday is obviously not a man to resign lightly or without good reason. Clearly, he could not accept that the personal interests of a few Scottish landowners should take precedence over the needs of the environment. The way in which his committee has been bypassed in relation to those vital changes is extremely serious. The Minister said that he was pursuing the matter urgently and would let Sir Frederick have his views next week. From the Minister's comments on SSSIs generally, I do not think that very much that he can say will be reassuring.
During the debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) said on 24 June, at column 817 of Hansard, that the Department of the Environment had been consulted. That makes the Department of the Environment party to the decision that was made. Is that true? If so, what did the Minister tell his Scottish colleagues? I am happy to give way if the Minister wishes to clarify the position.
Mr. Trippier: I was consulted.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for that clarification. Does that mean that the Department of the Environment has less clout than the Scottish Office? The Minister was overruled and I presume that the Secretary of State backed him up; does that mean that the Scottish Office has more clout than the Department of the Environment? It says little for the much-feted ministerial committee for co-ordinating environment policy. Where was the co-ordination of environment policy on that issue?
It is no wonder that the Council for the Protection of Rural England states:
"The promise of a significant shift in the attitude of the Government Departments has entirely failed to materialise."
The Minister must realise that it is not just other Departments that have reneged on pledges to care for the environment; the record of Ministers at the Department of the Environment is not so bright. Let us consider their policy and record on common land. The 1987 Conservative manifesto gave a clear, specific commitment that the Government would legislate to safeguard common land on the basis of the Common Land Forum. The Minister will be aware that there were questions throughout 1987, 1988 and 1989 on when that legislation would be introduced.

1237
Almost a year ago, at the end of the parliamentary Session last July—I think that it was the day before the House rose for the summer recess—the Minister issued a statement, in reply to what appeared to be a planted question, saying that the Department was reneging on that promise and commitment in the manifesto, and nothing has happened since. All those involved in the Common Land Forum, apart from the landowners, were extremely distressed at what was happening but they tried to be accommodating and see what could be done. They offered to compromise and suggested to the Minister introducing a short Bill to protect existing common land. The Minister refused to do so. I think that when people vote in the next election and look at the environmental commitments in the Conservative manifesto, assuming that there are any, they should measure those promises against the record of what the Government have done in relation to a clear, simple, straightforward commitment given in the 1987 manifesto, on which they have taken no action.
We have proposed an environment protection executive. The Minister will recall that we moved amendments to try to incorporate such an executive and agency into the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As late as 30 January last year, the Minister and his colleagues voted against an independent environment protection executive, which was also ruled out on page 232 of the White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", published last October. The Prime Minister said that there was to be a U-turn and the Government would issue a consultative document later in the year.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wish that, instead of talking about citizen charters and providing protection for the people, the Government would do something about the fear in my constituency about the level of dioxin in milk. Despite all their blather, the Government refuse to have a public inquiry into the case of two farms where the farmers have been deprived of their livelihoods because they are not allowed to milk their cows any more. There are 25 other sites where there are doubts about safety levels. The standards were changed at the end of 1990 by a factor of 10. If that had not been so, every farm in the district would have been included in the danger zone. The Government talk about a charter, but refuse to have a public inquiry to allay the fears of the people in Bolsover or pay compensation to the farmers. They are all talk and no action.
Mrs. Taylor: As my hon. Friend says, the Government are frequently all talk and no action. The case he has
1238
highlighted reflects the widespread concern of many people, especially parents, at the deteriorating standards and present contamination.
The Royal Society for Nature Conservation stated that the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to the policies advocated by some for years. It describes the Prime Minister's speech as
"smacking of piggy bank politics."
We do not mind that; our backs are broad enough to stand it. We welcome the reversal and the fact that the Prime Minister made that speech.
Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No, because there is to be a statement in a moment.
We are pleased that the Prime Minister made his statement on the same day that the Fabian Society document was released. The document went further than anything the Government have ever published and explains exactly how the environment protection executive would work in practice. It is easy for people to make a comparison between a Government who snatch at ideas when they run out of steam and the Labour party, which is preparing for government and knows how to implement its policies.
However, I am worried that there is to be a long period of consultation, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that issue in his wind-up speech. I am tempted to ask the Minister why we need another consultative document and more time. After all, Ministers are the very last people to be committed to the policy. Everyone else is clear and knows the direction in which they want to move. If the Minister wants there to be a consultative period, I make the offer that I will put in a word for him with the Fabians and the consultations can take place on the basis of that document.
My fear is that, yet again, we shall get too little, too late from the Government. Time and again, we have seen that the Government are not willing to take the actions that are required to give environmental proptection the priority that it deserves. The Government's attempt at integrating environmental policy with other Departments has been a sham and a failure. As was demonstrated by the Minister's speech this morning, the Government have run out of steam. They have no record on which they dare face the electorate. The sooner the election comes and we get a Labour Government committed to giving the right priority to environmental protection, the better. As soon as the election comes, we will be ready for government and we will implement the policies that we have already worked out.
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 ( Friday sittings).

Commonhold
11 am
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about commonhold and related matters. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is making a corresponding statement in another place.
Before making the statement, I wish to declare an interest. I have a lease on a flat in my constituency with some 990 years to run.
The Government have decided to introduce for England and Wales a scheme providing for the freehold ownership and communal management of flats and other interdependent buildings with shared facilities. This new scheme, called commonhold, was proposed in 1987 in a report of a working group of officials chaired by Mr. Trevor Aldridge, a law commissioner. After arranging in 1988 for draft legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission to give effect to these proposals, the Government issued a consultation document in November 1990 inviting comments on the draft legislation. The document also raised a number of issues of major principle relating to commonhold and leasehold enfranchisement. More than 1,000 replies were received, and the Government are grateful to all those who commented.
It is proposed that commonhold should be available for all types of land use—whether residential or commercial. Conversion of existing premises to the commonhold system will be optional, although it may be necessary to make provision to override the objections of a small minority of leaseholders.
In addition to providing for the freehold ownership of flats and other relevant properties, the scheme would establish standard democratic management arrangements, though with scope for variations, and that in turn would simplify conveyancing. There would also be a scheme for orderly winding up for use when, for example, the commonhold property is damaged beyond repair or has reached the end of its useful life.
The Government have also decided to give long leaseholders of residential flats collectively the right to buy from the freeholder, at market value, the freehold interest in their block. It is proposed that the right will apply to properties containing two or more flats held by qualifying long leaseholders if at least two thirds of the flats are held by qualifying long leaseholders and if not more than 10 per cent. of the internal floor space, excluding common parts, is used for non-residential purposes.
If at least two thirds of the qualifying long leaseholders vote in favour of purchasing the freehold and the number voting in favour comprises at least two thirds of all householders ordinarily residing in the block, the landlord will be obliged to offer the freehold for sale to them.
In conjunction with the commonhold proposals, the Government have decided to implement, with modifications, the main recommendations in the Law Commission's report on "Transfer of Land—The Law of Positive and Restrictive Covenants" Those recommendations are designed to produce satisfactory arrangements for the imposition on freehold land of positive and negative obligations which can be enforced against successors in title to the original owner of the land.
The changes will benefit at least 1.5 million leaseholders of flats. They underline our commitment to home
1240
ownership. They will greatly extend many people's freedom to take responsibility for their own affairs. I am confident that they will be widely welcomed. Legislation to implement the proposals will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time for it can be found.
Mr. Clive Soley: At long last we have a definition of the Prime Minister's philosophy: Majorism equals plagiarism. I am delighted that the Minister has accepted well over 50 per cent. of the recommendations that I put to the Aldridge committee, and published, some months ago. I am sorry that he could not have gone a little further. If the Government go on stealing our policies, they will be nicked for shoplifting at the next election. Nobody wants to buy a watered-down policy when he can buy the real thing from the Labour party.
I have several specific questions which follow from my statement on the issue many months ago. First, will there be a system of independent valuation to decide the price? Secondly, why not extend the right to buy to all leasehold properties in which there is an independent flat or house? There is little argument against that. The Minister's formula is very limited and the matter needs to be looked at more widely. We should want to extend the provision more widely to leaseholders.
Thirdly, and importantly, because many people will not be able to buy the lease, even as part of a group in some cases, will the Minister give a right to extend the lease? The people most badly hit at present are those who cannot afford to buy, who are near the end of the lease, and whose lease will transfer to an assured tenancy with a market rent. They will lose the capital value of the property when the lease terminates. The right to extend the lease would be much appreciated.
Fourthly, could we have the right to independent audit? I have had literally hundreds of letters about the issue over the months. One of the most important issues for leaseholders is that they feel that they are charged unreasonable fees for work that is often not done, or done badly. I suspect that many Conservative Members who have constituents who are leaseholders have had similar letters. May we give leaseholders the right to an independent audit?
Fifthly, may I ask for an extension of that right? There should be a right for leaseholders to have a say in choosing the new management agent. A freeholder may employ a managing agent who does not do the job properly or who charges unreasonably. Many Conservative Members will be familiar with that problem. The only way in which to deal with that problem is to empower the leaseholders by giving them the right to have the managing agents changed if they fail to do their job.
If the Minister gives me a definitive and positive answer to those questions, he will have taken all our policies and I will congratulate him wholeheartedly.
Sir George Young: I am grateful for the enthusiastic endorsement of my announcement. In response to the hon. Gentleman's first question, there will be provision for independent valuation when there is no agreement between the freeholder and the enfranchising leaseholders. I do not accept that the policy is restrictive. As I explained, it will apply to 1.5 million leaseholders, which seems quite a broad base.
We considered the question of extending leases. If one gave a right for a lease to be extended, it would cut across

1241
the basic thrust of our policy, which is to give leaseholders collectively the right to buy their freehold. One would then be confronted by the problem of leaseholders having a range of leases of different lengths. It is better to give them the right collectively to buy the freehold and then they can extend their own leases as long as they want. That is the best way to approach the matter.
The hon. Gentleman's final two questions referred to the existing regime. Of course I will consider again the way in which accounts are audited. All audits are meant to be independent of the person or organisation whose accounts are being audited. The hon. Gentleman referred to appointing managing agents. If leaseholders take the opportunities that the Government propose to make available to them, they will appoint the managing agents themselves.
Sir Hugh Rossi: May I remind my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that it was the Conservative party, then in opposition, which proposed that flats be enfranchised by amendment to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967? The then Government found it impossible to do that because it was too complicated. We returned to the subject between 1974 and 1979, and again the then Government found it impossible to do. I am delighted that, at the 11th hour when it has become practicable following the Law Commission report, the Labour party has been converted to the concept.
There have been reports that there will be no rateable value limit on the right that is to be exercised for flats, and that the provision may then be extended to houses, which cannot be enfranchised under the Leasehold Reform Act because of the rateable value limits that were imposed by the Government of the day but then amended following pressure from Conservative Members just before the 1979 election. There is still a limit.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that radical proposals on housing stem from the Conservative party and not from Labour. He is right to say that the statement proposes no rateable value ceilings for enfranchisement of flats. That contrasts with the position for houses. The Government have no rooted objection to lifting the rateable value for houses. Parliament will have to take a view on that in debates on the Bill. No doubt we will respond to pressure if strong views are held on the matter.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the announcement. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said that the idea had emerged about 25 years ago. Why has an idea that was generally welcomed by the profession taken so long to convince the Government? Many people would have been grateful if the idea had been accepted much earlier. How will the proposals affect long leaseholders whose landlords are individuals, companies or, more importantly, charities where the freeholder is a voluntary body or the Church Commissioners? As the Minister will know, local authorities hold long leases and occupiers have been prevented from acquiring the freehold collectively or individually because of anomalies in Government legislation introduced in the past 10 years.
Sir George Young: The exemptions will be the Crown, following precedent, and charitable housing associations. There will not be an exemption for individuals or local authorities, providing the conditions that I outlined in my statement are adhered to.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If you were free to speak, Mr. Speaker, you would remind the House that most of these ideas came from Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and have been pushed forward by his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn). This initiative and others on housing that appear often to have all-party agreement are an important approach to solving housing problems. Although rough justice may not make it possible to exclude the small number of people who have built houses or flats with their own hands for their families, have then let them, and have found that, against their will, enfranchisements have allowed the occupiers to buy them, such people deserve sympathy, even if they cannot be protected by legislation.
Sir George Young: My right hon. Friend rightly reminds the House of the campaigning zeal of Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and how it has been continued by his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for City and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). Many other London Members have also campaigned on the matter. An exception will apply where the landlord is a resident in a block of flats that are not purpose built. That is to say, he occupies a flat which is his only or principal residence in, perhaps, a terraced house that he has converted. In such conditions there will be no right to enfranchisement.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: A problem arises in London and other cities when some flats in a block are rented and others are owned under lease. When a landlord owns one third or more of the flats in the block, will the Government ensure that the remaining leaseholders in the block who own their properties will be able to enfranchise on commonhold? There is a danger that one leaseholder could prevent the development of a whole block.
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises the problem that may arise in a block of flats in which a fairly large minority of renting tenants may not wish the block to change hands and he owned by their neighbours who are leaseholders. We propose that there should be a clear majority of enfranchising and qualifying leaseholders before a block changes hands so that such tenants can be protected. We can debate the percentage and how people should be protected, but I recognise the problem. There may be a substantial number of renting tenants, and one must try to safeguard their interests.
Mr. Dudley Fishburn: The statement on this ultimate leasehold reform will be greatly welcomed by Londoners and, indeed, by the 1·5 million people who live in leasehold flats. In the past 10 years leasehold law has fallen down and has caused widespread misery for people in flats. How soon will this lead to legislation on the matter?
Sir George Young: I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend. When I was allowed to say what I thought I was one of the sponsors of his ten-minute Bill. That Bill and his speech on its introduction were important elements in shaping the Government's approach to this subject. He rightly says that the present system has an inbuilt conflict of interest between freeholders and leaseholders. The advantage of what we propose is that that conflict would be removed by marrying the two sets of interests.
My hon. Friend asked about the timetable. As I said in the statement, we shall propose legislation as soon as parliamentary time can be found. The Government will listen to pressures in the House. The proposals seem to have all-party support and that will be relevant when considering the timetable.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the timing of the announcement mean that we are more likely to have a general election in the autumn rather than next spring?
I welcome the changes for which I have campaigned for many years. From practical experience of the workings of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, I know that there are immense financial and practical problems for a group of leaseholders trying to acquire the freehold of their block. What matters greatly to many leaseholders in London is the ability to extend their leases in the same way as the leaseholder of a house. These welcome reforms, which we certainly support, may not bring the relief that people expect unless they go hand in hand with the inbuilt right to extend the shortening lease of a flat.
Sir George Young: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for advisory services for residents who may want to exercise the rights that Parliament proposes to extend to them. I shall consult relevant organisations to try to find a good way of advising residents who wish to enfranchise themselves. Next week we shall publish a document to follow the statement, and that will give more details of our proposals. I agree that professional legal advice is needed.
The hon. Member asked about extending leases. As I said, we looked at that, but it would make more complex the principal objective, which is enfranchisement. if individual tenants are given the right to extend their lease and they try to exercise the right to acquire their freehold, they will be confronted by leaseholders with a wide range of differing interests. It is much better collectively to give leaseholders the right to buy the freehold. When they have done that, they can extend their leases at no cost to themselves for as long as they want. That is a better approach than the individual extension of leases by the landlord.
Mr. W. Benyon: I declare an interest as an owner of leasehold property.
Very few people object to commonhold in principle, although its merits are greatly exaggerated and its effect on the appearance of central London may be catastrophic. However, many people find the compulsion element objectionable. Because the valuation does not include the full reversionary value, the Government are handing to the tenant large, immediate, and tax-free capital gains at the expense of the freeholder. That may buy votes, but it is not equitable.
Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's point. It is important to understand that the values of the
1244
transactions are not the confiscatory values that are enshrined in existing legislation. We want to mirror market value. For example, blocks are currently changing hands between willing buyers and willing sellers. Where there is disagreement, we propose to mirror the arrangement that there should not be a confiscatory price but the price that would have been arrived at if both buyer and seller were willing. On that basis there will be slightly less anxiety among the freeholders on whose behalf my hon. Friend has just spoken.
Mr. Tony Banks: Like others, I welcome the Government's statement, although I am rather surprised that the Minister has chosen to make it on a Friday. There is no great urgency, and I always thought that Mr. Speaker—I cannot speak for him, of course—did not smile benignly on non-urgent statements being made on a Friday when Back Benchers want to make speeches.
The Minister said, and has just underlined it, that leasehold properties will be sold at market values. Why will there be no discount for private sector properties when there was a discount for council properties? Could that have something to do with the Government's approach to publicly owned property, which they see as second rate and to be given away or sold off at a heavy discount. as against their approach to private property, which they see as being sacrosanct? Will the ability to purchase extend to Duchy of Cornwall property?
Sir George Young: The answer to the last question is no. As I said, the Crown is exempt.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Government do not have the mandate on private assets that they have on public assets. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that, under the arrangements that I have made, there is no discount. The price that the tenants pay will not be the open market value. It will reflect the fact that they are in possession and have long leases. Therefore, I do not accept the validity of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend's announcement will bring great pleasure to the citizens of Westminster, not least to those in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). It is especially appreciated that he paid a warm tribute to our late friend and colleague Sir Brandon Rhys Williams for his campaign, which has culminated today. The gist of what my hon. Friend has announced must wash over to the comparatively small number of residents of leasehold property where the higher rateable value limit applies in the centre of London. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill to be introduced will enable the House to table an amendment to give such residents the right to enfranchise under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 as well?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a long-time campaigner on this matter and who served on the Nugee commitee, which introduced fresh and welcome rights for long leasholders. What I have announced today does not cover highly rated houses, so that will not be covered in the Bill, but if the House so wished to amend the Bill, an amendment would be possible within the long title.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have heard some hypocrisy in my time, but this beats it. Tory Members have spoken about their late colleague Brandon Rhys Williams.

1245
He introduced ten-minute rule Bills on leasehold reform and every member of the Labour party followed him into the Lobby, but when they came up for Second Reading on Fridays at the end of business, what happened? The Government Chief Whip or one of his aides would shout "Object" and stop the hon. Gentleman getting the Bills on the statute book.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) many years ago wrote the part of the Labour party manifesto that deals with leasehold reform. Now, after 12 years of Tory rule, they come along on a Friday just before an election with this announcement. It is an election sprat to catch a mackerel. The chances are that the Bill will not become law, because if there is an election in spring or autumn it will not have passed into law, so that all these wonderful ideas will be cast aside. If the Minister wants to do something decent about housing, why does he not do something for all those in London and elsewhere who are living in cardboard boxes, and give them a roof over their heads?
Sir George Young: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's consensus-building remarks. Many of the ideas of Sir Brandon Rhys Williams took time to take root and flourish. He was a far-sighted Member of Parliament with important views on a whole range of social issues, such as family support and housing support, and tribute has rightly been paid to him.
We consulted on this matter last year. We published a document in November. We took the views of the House and of other organisations. Consultation ended, and the Government have announced their conclusions. There is nothing rushed or dramatic about this. It is a sensible evolution of the Government's housing policy, bringing home ownership within the reach of more people, devolving responsibility to people who live in flats so that they can take charge of their own lives. It is wholly with the grain of Government housing policy over the past 12 years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) drew attention to my views, which I shall not express—
Mr. Tony Banks: You see!
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call those hon. Members who have been rising, but I ask them to be brief.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: My hon. Friend will already know how widely welcome his statement will be in Dulwich, where many of my constituents are long leaseholders of the estates governors of Alleyn's College of God's Gift. They bought their leases in the 1960s and have seen them diminish to become unmarketable assets. They suffer stress and anxiety in their flats, imprisoned without any escape because they cannot realise the value of their asset and move elsewhere. Today's statement gives them hope of freedom.
Sir George Young: I am glad that the announcement will be welcome in Dulwich.
Many freeholders have had a policy of not selling freeholds. I hope that, in the light of today's announcement, they will revise that policy and, in advance
1246
of the Bill, start discussions with leaseholders about the transfer of the freehold. My hon. Friend rightly points out the difficulty of marketing flats, and of getting a mortgage on a flat, once the lease goes below a certain number of years. As a result of our announcement, people will be able to enfranchise themselves collectively and extend their leases, thereby making them more marketable and an easier asset against which to borrow money.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: My hon. Friend's announcement will be greatly welcome in my constituency because it will right a long-standing wrong about the treatment of leaseholders by increasingly difficult landlords. In particular, they will be pleased about the right to an enfranchisement and the right to force landlords to sell the freehold.
I associate myself with the congratulations extended to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and to Sir Brandon Rhys Williams. However, the House should not leave out from its congratulations my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has guided us through the legal minefield of legislation on this matter that caused considerable delays in implementing the ideas of Sir Brandon Rhys Williams. Will my hon. Friend consider carefully introducing the Bill as soon as possible, preferably before the next election, because of the urgent need of leaseholders all over London?
Sir George Young: The last plea will have fallen on the ears of those far more important than I as they plan the management of the business of the House.
My hon. Friend rightly draws the attention of the House to the fact that the Lord Chancellor is the sponsor of Bills on leasehold reform, and I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for the key part that he has played in this. Although the majority of freeholders are responsible people, a minority of unscrupulous freeholders make life a misery for tenants; they harass them and are incompetent. Today's announcement will be particularly welcomed by leaseholders who live in blocks of flats controlled by such freeholders.
Mr. Roger Moate: Despite the almost universal welcome this morning, no doubt this was not an easy decision to reach, particularly on compulsion, and the absolute right to buy from unwilling freeholders. I congratulate my hon. Friend on grasping that nettle. Will he clarify an answer that he gave earlier which suggested that, if the freeholder or landlord has his principal residence in a block, he would have the right to veto and to override the desire of other tenants to buy? That would cause considerable difficulties, so I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will explain the meaning of his earlier answer.
Sir George Young: That exemption will not apply to purpose-built blocks of flats. As I tried to explain earlier, the exemption will apply where, for example, the owner of a terraced house converts it into three self-contained flats and continues to occupy one of them. In those circumstance, it is not proposed at this stage that the other people who live in the building should have the right collectively to buy him out. If the House has strong views to the contrary, we shall look at the matter as the Bill progresses.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I begin with a confession: I have not spent the last decade lobbying for this measure.

1247
However, it will greatly benefit people who live in central London. Housing policy has been bedevilled in recent years by highly partisan approaches to it. At last we have a measure that commands widespread support in the House. I shall do all I can to help my hon. Friend to nudge the powers-that-be to his immediate right to give this thoroughly sensible and worthwhile measure considerable priority.
Sir George Young: The last exhortation needed no intermediary assistance from me. My hon. Friend's remarks will have been heard by those who sit on the Treasury Bench. My hon. Friend's energies have been applied elsewhere with equal effect. The fact that the proposals seem to command all-party support is good news in terms of their prospects for legislative passage through the House.
Mr. Simon Hughes: In this Session?
Sir George Young: I have nothing to add about the specific timetable.
I agree that now that the announcement has been made the expectations of many people, particularly Londoners, will have been raised.
Mr. Hugo Summerson: It would be proper for me to declare an interest as a freehold owner.
Is my hon. Friend aware how very welcome his statement will be in my constituency of Walthamstow, particularly to the residents of Fernhill Court? The leases are well under 50 years and the freeholder does not look after their best interests. Will my hon. Friend at least consider devising a scheme whereby such people can be helped—perhaps in the form of a deemed commonhold —to get out of the grasp of the freeholder, with compensation being paid to the freeholder in due course when the deemed commonholder either dies or moves away from the flats?
Sir George Young: I hope that the advice that we intend to publish next week, combined with improved advisory services for associations that look after the interests of residents, will be particularly relevant. In the short term, the best advice that I can give to my hon. Friend is that those who live in that block of flats should seek legal advice to find out what protection they have under existing legislation, as their problem seems to be a fairly immediate one.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: This announcement will be warmly welcomed by many of my constituents and by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country. It will bring an end to fear and uncertainty. Does my hon. Friend agree that bipartisan support for the proposals is also to be warmly welcomed? Does he also agree that the claim to authorship by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is about as convincing as his claim to have invented the right to buy? It is yet another example of being able to steal a slogan, but we cannot steal ideas that would never have occurred to us.
Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am glad that the proposals will be warmly welcomed in west London.
Miss Emma Nicholson: I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, while this welcome statement on housing is being made, since I understand that in your attic has been discovered space for 25 homeless Members of Parliament. Let us hope that they do not attract your ear rather than your eye, once they move in.
May I ask the Minister to consider the problems faced by those who live in tied houses? At a meeting of our Back Benchers committee the Minister referred to the Conservative party's policies on housing. This statement is all of a piece; it is far-ranging and very farsighted. These policies will empower many more people to enjoy comfortable and safe housing.
Given the long ancestry, in Conservative terms, of this statement, will the Minister remind Opposition Members that, as they have degenerated into used policy dealers, I hope that they will find a ready home for second-hand CND membership cards in the front office of the new general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind words. Of course we shall look at the tied housing issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will write to me about it. Lest there be any misunderstanding, I do not believe that the 25 Members of Parliament who will be living above Mr. Speaker will have any right, under the announcement that I have just made, to acquire the property. Therefore, they pose no threat to you, Mr. Speaker.

The Environment
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
11.34 am
Sir Hugh Rossi: I hope that the atmosphere of general goodwill and accord will continue and that we can deal with the question of the environment on an all-party basis, not on the partisan and biased political basis that was a feature of the debate earlier this morning.
On behalf of the Select Committee on the Environment, I warmly welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister on 8 July that it is the Government's intention to set up an environmental protection agency which
"will bring together Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution and related functions of the National Rivers Authority."
The idea was first launched in the Environment Committee's second report on toxic waste, ordered to be printed by the House on 22 February 1989. The preface to that document refers to how that concept or idea emerged.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier this morning, but I checked the details a few minutes ago and found that as early as 1987 the Labour party made a specific commitment in its policy document to introduce legislation as a matter of urgency when a Labour Government came to office.
Sir Hugh Rossi: If the hon. Gentleman wants to go back into history, I too, can do so. I did not want to mention this matter, but the germ of the idea first grew out of our report on the pollution of rivers and estuaries, published just before the general election in 1987. The Committee proposed that a National Rivers Authority should be established as a national regulatory authority.
I remember discussing the matter with the late Allan Roberts who was a member of my Committee. I expressed the wish that this could become all-party policy. I said that I would do my best to persuade the Government. He said that he would do his best to persuade the Labour party to accept this as official policy. At that time Allan Roberts was having discussions with the then Opposition spokesman on the environment, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). The message that came back to me was that the idea commended itself to the Labour party. It matters not how a good idea emerges. What is important is that it is adopted. Nothing delights me more than that this policy has been adopted by the Opposition, the Government and also, I understand, by the minority parties. Therefore we have consensus. Everybody agrees that the nation requires such a policy.
I am delighted that the Select Committee's hard work, over many years, has been recognised and adopted. The concept was generated by an all-party Committee of the House after many inquiries, over many years. It concluded that a national regulatory body of this sort was necessary. That justified the many hours of hard work of Select Committee members in studying and collating evidence from all quarters so that recommendations could be made that would be universally accepted. All the recommendations were agreed unanimously by the Committee. The environmental protection agency emerged out of Parliament's traditional role of examining the work of the Executive. There will be a general election soon and each side will try to prove to the electorate that it is greener than
1250
the others and that it thought of the idea first. However, the record is plain for everyone to see. It is not simply what is written that matters, but the informal discussions that take place between hon. Members so that ideas like this emerge.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has accepted the idea, although it required a great deal of consideration by the Government, having set up the NRA as a residual authority with responsibility for leisure pursuits on water, for sea defences and land drainage which the Select Committee felt was a distraction from what should be the agency's core purpose.
If the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) were to read the preface to the toxic waste report, and consider it in conjunction with what I have said about the history of the matter, he would learn that we said:
"we are attracted by the concept of replacing all the existing Waste Disposal Authorities with about ten new authorities in England and Wales, regulated by a national body … We had hoped that this national body might be the same national body which we had previously recommended be created to regulate river pollution."
That is how the idea emerged and was accepted.
We then proposed the shape and form that the "Environmental Protection Commission," as we called it in paragraph 12 of the preface to the toxic waste report, should take. We said that it would be
"charged with an overall responsibility for safeguarding environmental quality in the United Kingdom. This responsibility would include:

a. monitoring environmental quality and publishing appropriate statistics;

b. control of all discharges to the external environment;

c. raising environmental standards and the status and professionalism of environmental control through provision of advice and guidance, commissioning research, developing standards and expertise on the impacts of pollution, and promoting clean technology;

d. keeping under review the adequacy of existing arrangements for environmental protection and submitting to the Government proposals for new primary legislation, regulations and codes of practice as appropriate; and

e. supporting the United Kingdom's role in international environmental affairs."

I submit that that is a blueprint for the environmental protection agency.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not spell out the form or shape of the new agency. However, he said that there would be consultations on the matter. I am sure that my Select Committee will want to take part in that process, examine the proposals further and present our considerations in the light of other experiences and evidence that we have obtained since we published the toxic waste report two years ago.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement raised some items for further discussion and I am sure that my Committee will return to them in a more considered fashion later. However, I want to put my hon. Friend the Minister on notice in respect of those matters and if he can respond to them this morning, I shall be more than grateful.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for Scotland would announce his own proposal shortly. However, there was no mention of Northern Ireland. Last November we recommended an environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland, but that was not accepted. What will be the future

1251
direction for environmental policy in the Province? Given the relatively small area and population of the Province, it could be argued that Northern Ireland has the strongest case for the establishment of an EPA as quickly as possible.
We recognise the conflict between the need for national standards and the need for rapid local response to pollution incidents. The Prime Minister's announcement says nothing about structure. Will the new agency work through a regional structure, as the NRA already does? In our previous reports, we have shown how, with regard to water and waste regulation, the river basin concept—the river catchment area being identical to the responsible authority's area—commends itself much more than the historic and artificial boundaries between local authorities. The river basin concept is more closely related to the way in which water flows, how contaminated land pollutes that water, and other such matters. I hope that that point will be given serious consideration.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has suffered from staff shortages and low morale. It seemed to us that the regionalisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution did not meet with universal approval. How will the creation of the new agency affect the work of the existing inspectorates? That is a matter of supreme importance. If the concept does not operate on the ground, we may have a grandiose bureaucratic structure, but that will not help to deal with the problems about which we are all concerned.
According to the Prime Minister's speech, the Government are clearly undecided about taking waste regulation into the new agency. In the toxic waste report to which I have referred, the Select Committee expressed concern about the low standards of some local authority regulators and we recommended a system of about 10 waste regulation authorities for England and Wales based on the London regulatory authority.
Our initial reaction is that waste regulation should be part of the agency's remit and we should like the Government to re-evaluate our original recommendation, especially in the light of the present review of local government and the implications for local authorities' waste regulation and disposal functions. All those matters arise directly from the Prime Minister's statement and this has been our first opportunity to raise questions about them and to debate them.
More generally, the Prime Minister's speech highlighted the fact that in one sense it is impossible to talk about "The United Kingdom's Environment". On issues such as global warming, degradation of the ozone layer, the maintenance of bio-diversity and marine pollution, the United Kingdom must be considered as part of a global environmental system. That brings me closer to home. We are experiencing being part of the European environment as the Commission's role in the formulation of environmental policies grows ever stronger. I do not know whether the House is aware of this, but the European Court of Justice recently issued a ruling in the titanium dioxide case from which it appears likely that in future that EEC directives will be agreed only by a qualified majority vote. That is important and significant for us in this Parliament.
It may be very difficult for us to scrutinise legislation early enough in order to ensure that the United Kingdom's interests are properly protected. The Select Committee had difficulty in having discussions with the European
1252
Commission on some of its proposals. That is regrettable because it means that we do not have an early opportunity during the formulation of policy to say to the Commission, "Yes, that's a very good idea, but it won't really work in the United Kingdom because our geography or geology is different." We had such a difficulty with the landfill proposals that are coming out of Brussels at the moment. Originally, it was proposed not to allow the co-disposal of industrial and domestic waste, by which method 80 per cent. of our waste in this country today is disposed.
It is important that, when Europe considers legislation that will be of universal blanket application, this House, through its representatives—it does not matter whether it be a Select Committee or a Standing Committee—has an early opportunity to consider those matters before the proposal is written on tablets of stone. It is of increasing anxiety and concern for the Select Committee that we are not adequately putting across the United Kingdom case. In that respect, the Government can help. We feel that, perhaps, the team that the Department of the Environment sends to discuss such matters with DG XI should be strengthened by the use of outside experts and consultants. That does not seem to be the case at the moment. My hon. Friend knows my views on this matter; they are reflected in our reports. However, I welcome the opportunity to state my view more publicly on the Floor of the House.
The Committee is concerned—it has mentioned it in report after report and found it in inquiry after inquiry —that we are lagging behind in our research into these matters in the United Kingdom. Far more emphasis must be put into environmental research. The science budget of the Natural Environment Research Council is presently forecast to decline in real value by 10 per cent. over the five year period 1990–91 to 1994–95.
There is much emotion in environmental issues. It is more than important to ensure that whatever action we take and whatever resources we make available are directed at the real problem in respect of which action should be taken, and there should be priorities in such issues. That cannot be done if we are allowed to push, or allow ourselves to be pushed, one way or the other in policy making by pure emotive reactions. We need a sound science base for decisions. The Government cannot have a sound science base unless they are prepared to make resources available to people whose lives are dedicated to carrying out research into these matters.
I should like, for example, the proposed environmental protection agency to make full use of the services offered by the Warren Spring laboratories the hydrological research people, and all the other arms of research that have recently been hived off. For that purpose, the agency will need not only the staff but the resources to be able to commission that important research. It will also need resources if it is to carry out proper monitoring and police work, to have its own scientific laboratories, or to be able to commission scientific laboratories in the various regions that I have indicated to my hon. Friend the Minister as a pattern for control by the EPA. The agency needs to be able to draw upon the best available scientific advice.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister several questions concerning my Committee's recommendations which are still outstanding. On toxic waste, the Government promised to take steps to facilitate the production of more comprehensive and usable data on waste arisings and disposal. We have revealed that there is

1253
still a lack of centralised statistics in our current inquiry into landfill waste. We regret that, having come back to the same subject through another inquiry, we find that that recommendation has not been fulfilled in accordance with the Government's promises to our Committee.
The Government also did not accept our recommendation for the regulation of the dumping of colliery waste at sea or on the foreshore and that such regulation should be transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to HMIP. I ask that that question be addressed once again. Our recommendation for strict liability for waste producers was also rejected. The principles governing United Kingdom law on civil liability in respect of waste are still unclear, notwithstanding the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The proposed directives on landfill waste and on civil liability could overturn the legislation that we have tentatively proposed in this Parliament. Therefore, I again ask the Government to consider strict liability on the part of waste producers.
With regard to contaminated land, it has been a matter of great regret for the Committee that the caveat emptor rule on sales of land remains. We feel that the registers that have been proposed, in accepting our recommendation that local authorities prepare registers of potentially contaminated land, and inquiries by professional advisers are not sufficient to protect the public. An owner of land normally has a good idea of what he has done with that land and what lies under it. There is no reason why he should be allowed to conceal what he knows. Therefore, there should be a machinery in law requiring him to make full disclosure when he places his property on the market in those circumstances.
Our recommendation that the interdepartmental committee on the redevelopment of contaminated land be abolished and a contaminated land unit be set up within HMIP was also rejected. Now that a full-blown agency or commission is being proposed, I ask the Government to reconsider the proposal in the light of the new structure.
On pollution of beaches, we described the position of the Department of the Environment on eutrophication of coastal and fresh waters as complacent. We recommended greater consideration of the impact of phosphorus and other nutrients and, where appropriate, nutrient removal at sewage treatment works, such as we saw when we were in Northern Ireland. The Government thought that our criticism was unfair, but the NRA has accepted the need to review arrangements for collecting and analysing data relating to coastal eutrophication.
The Government also rejected our recommendation for a full technical and economic evaluation of technologies for disposing of sewage sludge and for more support for and R and D on alternative uses. The Government said that it was a matter for the water industry. From my continuing discussions with local authorities, water companies and the waste disposal industry, I know that there is a crying need for central guidance in such matters. A range of technologies are being offered on the market, whether they be the composting of waste, the incineration of waste, the spreading of waste on agricultural land or a variety of other methods such as biodegradation, farming with bugs and so on. Most people have no idea how to select or whether they are selecting the right method. Is it beyond the resources of Government to have a central
1254
research unit that can test various technologies and issue papers giving guidance to those who must buy them in the marketplace? After all, if we are dealing with the scientific treatment of certain unwelcome pollutants, the laws of nature are such that after proper research and investigation, it should be relatively easy to choose the best method of treatment because it is no longer a matter of opinion, but of scientific assessment.
Who is best placed to do that? I suggest that it is not the various water companies. I am certain that my hon. Friend will find a great willingness in our universities to help, on a contractual basis, with the research that is needed in so many areas. Perhaps the Department of the Environment officials in Marsham street felt that that was outside their remit as administrators, but if we are to have an environment protection agency to advise on the regulations that are to be made, that agency should be able to commission research such as I have described.
I realise the difficulties that particular Departments encounter. I am sending my hon. Friend the Minister away to talk to his Secretary of State, who will then have to go into Cabinet and argue with his colleagues who have equal demands for increased expenditure on education and social security and on all the other things that are desirable and that the people of this country want. It is difficult to have everything that one wants immediately, but my Committee would welcome a statement from the Government that they are sympathetically considering the ideas that we have put forward and that, as resources become available, they will progress towards them in an orderly and structured fashion. I am sure that if we could do that we would elevate environmental policy and remove it from the party political hull ring—
Mr. Trippier: We shall never do that.
Sir Hugh Rossi: My hon. Friend says that we will never do that, but the Select Committee has been able to do it. The important thing is the right idea and, if we have the right idea and people of good will on all sides, I am sure that it will be accepted and acted upon. I do not mind where the idea comes from—the important thing is that it is accepted.
I have given my hon. Friend the Minister a certain amount of stick, but he has broad shoulders and can accept it. I know that he is personally sympathetic and wishes to progress as far as he can and to be of as much assistance as he can in these matters.
Finally, therefore, I should like to show my even-handedness and to return to a question that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) refused to allow me to ask her when she was talking about the last Labour Administration's expenditure on water. She said that the figure was about three times as much as had been spent previously. My question is, do the figures that the hon. Lady consistently quotes include the costs of the development of the Keilder dam and of the reservoir in Ditchley, outside Heathrow? That policy was laid down by the 1970–74 Conservative Administration and contracts were let and, given that contracts had been let, the Labour Government were bound to spend that money, which was on an increasingly rising graph. However, because they were forced to spend the money in that direction, they then lamentably failed to maintain the necessary investment in sewage treatment plants. That was the reason for the situation that my Committee discovered when it inquired

1255
into the pollution of rivers and estuaries—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady's hon. Friends who serve on the Committee accepted that that was the scenario. If she reads our report more carefully, she will find that it states in terms that the condition of our rivers and estuaries in 1987 was due in no small part to the lack of investment between 1974 and 1979, and to the long lead time that was necessary to recoup that loss of investment.
I hope that I have been even-handed in my censures of both parties. I hope also that the positive suggestions that I have outlined on behalf of the Select Committee on the Environment will be taken forward seriously.
12.5 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: Before I start my speech, I ask the House to accept that I shall have to leave immediately after it because I have to attend the funeral of a constituent whose family I have known for many years and who was murdered some weeks ago. The funeral is this afternoon in south London.
I shall follow in one respect the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). The hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, said that there appeared to be agreement among the three main parties represented in the House on the need to set up an environmental protection agency. He described me as the representative of the minority parties. As far as the public are concerned, we are all minority parties. None of us commands majority support. Only this place distorts that picture. We should remember that fact in environmental policy, as in everything else.
The hon. Gentleman called for cross-party agreement. That is a desirable objective, but I am sure that he does not expect that any Government should be immune from criticism from the parties that are not in government if they fail to live up to the best standards or to move as quickly as others think they should.
I welcome the debate and the fact that we are at last debating the environment in Government time. However, I share the view that we are making an anomalous distinction if we try to debate the environment by subdividing it into the United Kingdom environment and the rest. That is a failure. This first attempt is welcome but botched in one respect in terms of trying to reform the procedures of the House. The Government have been put under pressure by myself and others to provide an annual occasion for debating the problems of the environment. We should follow the example of the United States Congress and hold a debate following the presentation of a report. Such a report could be presented by the Select Committee on the Environment or by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution which could have an extended remit, subject to later cross-examination by the Select Committee. The report could then come before the House as part of an ordered timetable of Government and parliamentary business. That debate should be long enough to allow us to discuss British, European and global environmental matters. I hope that that will happen.
Although I welcome today's debate, it is unfortunate that it is being held on a Friday. Although it is better held on a Friday than never, it is a fact that our Friday business is not held to be as important as our Monday to Thursday business, for reasons of which we are all aware. I hope that
1256
this debate will not preclude us from having a debate in the proper cycle. I understand from Government announcements that, following the publication of the environment White Paper last year, the new Secretary of State has said that a follow-up document will be produced this autumn and will examine the Government's record on implementing some of the proposals that were contained in the White Paper and the Government's environmental record over the past year. I welcome that.
The sequence of events ought to be that we have a Government annual report, which I presume that we shall receive in September and, if Parliament is continuing, we debate it as the Government's contribution to the debate thereafter. I hope that we shall get into a habit of doing things in that order in Parliament. The Government and outside bodies should make an annual commentary on what progress they believe has been made which can then be debated in the House.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that one of the fundamental things that we must establish to ensure that the debate takes place in the right context and with the right degree of openness is proper freedom of access to environmental information? Otherwise, statistics will be bandied about meaninglessly.
Mr. Hughes: I entirely agree. Freedom of information, and especially of environmental information, is important. When I hear cross-party dispute about facts and figures, I often reflect that it would be wonderful, if it were possible, to have machinery which made a loud noise whenever anyone mentioned a statistic or fact that was clearly untrue. I wonder how often Members' speeches would be precluded from being heard by the truth buzzer when environmental or policy porkies were shouted across the Floor of the House.
One of the problems about debates such as this is that they suffer from allegation and counter-allegation. The figures on the water industry are a good example of that. It is certainly true that investment by the Labour party when it was in government was higher than the average investment in the Tory years. Yet it is also true that the investments fell from 1974 to 1979 as a result of the intervention of the International Monetary Fund. The total Labour investment ended up being lower than the Tory average. Both of those sets of statistics are true, but we must ensure that people outside understand how they are interpreted.
We can say about environmental politics in Britain in the past decade that all political parties represented in the House are much more conscious of and committed to reforms to support protection of the environment than they were a decade ago. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved a considerable way. Inevitably, my view is that they have not moved far enough. There are substantial issues on which they could have moved further. There are fundamental flaws in the philosophy and politics of the present Tory party which have prevented the environment from being the priority that it should have been, but I welcome what movement there has been.
I welcome the fact that the Labour party has moved, too. The Labour party's record in government was not good. Since then, many things have happened and it has been persuaded. There are still obvious defects in its policies. One which is often pointed out by Conservative

1257
Back-Bench Members is that Labour is tied to certain interest groups who influence its policies in certain areas. It has made that judgment, which has resulted in certain weaknesses. The Labour party has had a commitment over the years to the nuclear industry, the coal industry and so on.
It is a weakness in my case that I cannot point to what Liberal Democrats or Liberals have done in government and say that they are wonderful environmentalists. However, I can point to our record in local government. We have a good record. I pray that in aid of our commitment to the environment over many years. Objective analysts will say that in policy commitment we have been more advanced, progressive and committed. I leave that for others to judge.
We should all recognise that the advancement of environmental politics and commitment owes a great deal to people who are not represented in this House. It owes a great deal to the Green party, which has had its heyday and has subsequently declined. It pushed us. Certainly the Euro-elections gave the three largest parties in the House a shock. It also owes a great deal to environmental pressures groups such as Greenpeace, the World Wide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth and so on. They have made sure that we are up to the mark. Bodies such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales and statutory bodies such as the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have all kept on the pressure. We welcome that and we have all benefited from their efforts. I hope that in the future we shall see slightly less aggressive counter-reaction from the Government to proposals and criticisms from, say, Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. The Minister sometimes gets excitable when Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or the World Wide Fund for Nature make allegations about Government policy and its effectiveness. Such organisations have done a good service in arguing the case on environmental issues, and we should recognise that.
The other test is how well we are doing in relation to our European colleagues. We are improving, and in some areas we have led the way. But in many areas we have not led the way. The European Community has often been the motor in making us substantially improve our policies. Without pressure from the European Commission, we would not have moved nearly as quickly as we have done on the bathing beaches directive or water pollution standards.
It was not accidental that we were called the dirty man of Europe in the 1980s. In many ways, we were. That does not mean that all European countries were better at everything. Some countries were better in theory, but less good in practice because they commit themselves in theory but do not deliver the goods. The European Commissioner, Carlo Ripa di Meana, and other Commissioners and directors-general have also done a service. The commitment of the Commissioner and his predecessor have pushed us much further.
If people ask me for a justification for our increasing involvement in and adherence to the EC, I cite environmental policy. It has served us and the country well and pushed the Government further and faster than they would otherwise have moved.
1258
My last point about the structural aspect of the debate is that we are beginning the sequence of debates which will lead up to the Brazil conference in June next year to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech on Monday and to which hon. Members have referred in the House. I hope that we can have proper and careful consideration of the line that Britain should take before the conference in June. If there is not an election in autumn, it will probably be in the spring. We cannot be certain which Ministers will go to Brazil. I hope that I shall be there myself in an official capacity. That possibility should not be excluded. According to the latest opinion polls, no overall control is a high possibility.
Whichever Ministers attend the conference, we do not know now who they will be. Therefore, it is important that we do what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wants, which is to seek as much agreement as possible about what the Government's policy should be at the conference on behalf of the people of Britain. I hope that that is possible and that the Minister and his colleagues will respond. I hope that we can have a debate in the House and in another place soon after the summer to decide what our policy should be at the United Nations conference on the environment and development in Brazil next June.
One thing that was welcome about the Prime Minister's speech on Monday was that he made it. He did not take as long to make a speech on the environment as his predecessor took. It was a welcome acknowledgement that the Government give importance to the issue. However, I have to say that there were weaknesses in it. The fundamental weakness was that he accepted only conditionally that the Government should make commitments, and only where others did as well as we did. The obvious example is carbon dioxide emissions. The Prime Minister said:
"The United Kingdom has committed itself to act. We have said that if others do their part, we shall return emissions of CO, to 1990 levels by 2005."
The Minister knows that I and my colleagues believe that the commitment should not be conditional on others playing their part, although I accept that the United States has a far greater part to play, and that to return to the present level in 15 years is not nearly a sufficiently tough target.
Mr. Trippier: Until we came to this part, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a fair and reasoned speech. I am anxious to know precisely the Liberal position on CO, emissions as a matter of record. I am more interested in knowing the Labour position because I might take that a little more seriously. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) would pipe down a little, we might get the matter off our chests.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said at a conference that I attended with him on Saturday that, of course, the Liberal party is committed to phasing out nuclear power. I think that I am right in saying that its manifesto proposes to do so by the year 2020. I and my hon. Friends believe that to go for a faster target by the year 2000 on stabilisation and reduction does not stack up. I will obtain a more decent reply on that than I obtained from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). What is the answer?
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Energy efficiency.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Energy efficiency.
Mr. Hughes: I have a backing group. With the chorus behind me, it is rather like appearing on "Top of the Pops". I shall answer the Minister's question in a moment.
In the past year there have been various occasions when the Government have not done what they said they would. I want to list those things on which the Government did not live up to their promises. Their rejection of the hedgerow amendment to the Planning and Compensation Bill was a failure to honour a previous commitment. That was a black mark against the Government. Their refusal to accept the principle of sustainable development in the Planning and Compensation Bill showed that when it comes to including environmentally sound principles in legislation the Government have failed to deliver. That is especially true in that case, as the Government said that that principle was something with which everyone would agree. The publication in May of the mineral forecasts that predict an increase in demand of 60 per cent. until the year 2011 shows that that industry is unconstrained by environmental criteria, despite the recognition by Government and others of the environmental costs of mineral extraction.
Some issues are still to be addressed including, for example, the problem of a potential shortage of water. I accept that we have plenty of it coming down, but the problem is what we do with it after that. There have been problems with over-extraction and drought is bound to occur in certain parts of the country. Hosepipe bans are already in operation.
Mr. Mans rose—
Mr. Hughes: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. As I have already explained, I have a funeral to attend and I do not want to speak for much longer.
There are also associated problems concerned with water leakage. We have not properly grasped the environmental assessment principle that was included in the White Paper. We have not resolved the conflict between the environment and agriculture, as was demonstrated by reaction of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the common agricultural policy reforms proposed by the Agriculture Commissioner.
I understand that the "green" Ministers have met only once this year. I also understand that the Cabinet sub-committee—MICS. 141—has met only once in the past year. That suggests that the Government's structural commitment to pull environmental issues together is not strong.
I have tabled many questions to each Department to discover how they have implemented the White Paper, and some of their responses have been feeble. The Government must be honest about where they have failed.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred to a report recently published by the global environment research centre at Imperial college entitled "Institutions and Sustainable Development". The Minister should read that report as it makes fundamental criticisms of the structure of government and their inability to co-ordinate environmental policy. At present it is in a terrible muddle and has not been combined in a functionally effective manner. The Minister should read the summary of that report as well as the report itself so that he can deal with the problems identified.
1260
My party believes that there should be a major structural reform of the Department, but, above all, the Treasury is central to environmental sustainable development. We must stop relying on the GDP and GNP indicators as measures of success. We must use a much more environmentally accountable set of indices. David Pearce made that clear in his report. Unless the Treasury policy reflects sustainable environmental principles, everything else will be second rate. In passing, the Government should set much tougher targets on many emissions, not just CO2 emissions.
The Minister asked me about energy and energy policy. We had a spat about that in environment questions earlier this week. I was disappointed with the Minister's reply as it was not an accurate description of my party's policy; nor did it take into account what should have been the obvious answer. I asked why so little importance had been attached to the Select Committee reports of this House and the other place on energy conservation and efficiency. The Minister said that it was no good for me to argue about that when my party wanted to scrap the nuclear programme and increase the dependence on coal.
I accept that my party is committed to scrapping the nuclear programme by 2020 or earlier—whether that appears in the manifesto is another matter. However, we have never stated that we are committed to an increased dependence on coal—that is wrong. I should be happy for the Minister to study all our policy announcements; he will see no evidence of that commitment.
The dilemma is how to reduce emissions, achieve tougher targets, and still provide the energy the country needs. Energy policy is one of the crucial tests of Government environmental policy. The answer, as the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rightly said, is energy efficiency. I would add energy conservation. I want to cite the evidence that backs that, as I wish to persuade the Minister.
Dr. Barry Dale, the chief scientist of the energy technology support unit, which is sponsored by the Department of Energy, has said that a threefold increase in nuclear power—12 more nuclear power stations— could, at most, provide 11 per cent. of the necessary reduction in CO2 emissions. He described that percentage as an "economically feasible" reduction. If we had 20 more nuclear power stations, that would still mean that, at best, CO2 emissions would be reduced by 11 per cent. However, energy conservation and efficiency could reduce CO2 emissions by 40 per cent.
I gather that the House of Lords Select Committee on Energy report has not been formally published, but it states that the structure of the industry created since privatisation makes it much more difficult for us to meet our targets. Under the new system a generator does not have a financial interest in reducing consumer demand. That committee also argues that market forces need a fiscal boost from the Government to aid energy efficiency. We have proposed that in our alternative budget, but amendments to that effect to the Finance Bill were resisted. The report also says:
"Market forces alone will not produce a level of investment in energy efficiency sufficient to meet the Community's stated objective."
That objective is a further 20 per cent. reduction in emissions.
Mr. Roger King: What is the effect of high energy prices? If the hon. Gentleman visited a Rover plant in my constituency, he would discover that people are for ever complaining about the high price of energy. There already exists a drive to reduce the cost of energy by being ever more efficient. There is little need for extra motivation.
Mr. Hughes: All the experts argue that there is a need for extra incentives and motivation. Prices are, of course, important. The supply industry must decide whether to spend money on advertising—an unnecessary cost—or on encouraging conservation. The hon. Gentleman must accept that the supply industry is subject to different motivations.
The budget of the Energy Efficiency Office is half the level of five years ago. The Select Committee says that the Government were wrong to cut its budget. The office needs more money to respond effectively and I appreciate that the sums involved have risen recently simply because of the switching of the home energy efficiency scheme from the Department of Social Security to the Department of Energy. It will be the second report in three months to criticise the Government and I hope that the Government take that seriously, remembering that the Select Committee on Energy in this House made the same criticism. It said that energy efficiency responsibility should be transferred away from the Energy Department to elsewhere in government.
I am happy to go through our figures. I have heard Department of Energy officials say in public that we could manage as a country to be dependent within 50 years on only renewable resources if we sufficiently prioritised energy efficiency and conservation, and that is without nuclear power.
Mr. Trippier: I do not dispute the fact that we must go for energy efficiency, and the Government are committed to that, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware from the White Paper. Indeed, nothing can be achieved by way of stabilising CO2 emissions unless we go down that road. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman's figures do not stand up. It is not a case of simply improving efficiency from the existing base. To replace the present 20 per cent. nuclear contribution would require action within a short time scale.
Had the hon. Gentleman said—because he is stuck with his party's target of the year 2000—that, even if we lived in a mad world and the Liberals were to get power, they would not start to wind down the nuclear industry until the year 2000, that would have been more credible, because the figures might begin to add up. But he and his party would start to wind it down immediately.
Mr. Hughes: I shall deal briefly with the Minister's intervention and then, if I may, come and see him to discuss it because I am anxious to persuade him that our figures add up. Nor would it be a mad world if we had a Liberal Government. It would be a saner world.
Our policy on CO2 is for a 30 per cent. cut by the year 2005, compared with the Labour party's commitment of stabilisation by the year 2000. The Minister is right to say that our commitment on the nuclear industry must be dovetailed into that. It is about not building any more nuclear stations, including Sizewell B and so on. The Minister is right to say that one must marry together the timetable pre and post 2005 with the next deadline of 2020.
1262
A substantial reduction in nuclear capacity would have to come between 2005 and 2020, when some of the present power stations come off stream.
I shall be delighted at any time to go through the figures with the Minister. Our advice is that they add up and that what we wish to achieve is possible—that is, if the Government are persuaded, as I think they may be, of the less important use of nuclear power when, in 1994, that subject is reviewed by the Department of Energy.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hughes: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for not giving way. I shall, as the Minister would say, answer any of their queries in writing if they care to put them to me.
The next priority for the Government should be transport. Many actions could be taken by them to make the nation's transport policies more compatible and environmentally sustainable. Some obvious ones include removing the remaining advantages applying to company cars, graduating vehicle excise duty to provide an incentive to vehicles which are most environmentally beneficial, introducing an energy tax, and examining Department of Health research into the link between health or poor health and pollution by vehicles. The Government could then take action to reduce traffic congestion in urban areas.
Many of those matters are already on the Government's agenda, but they involve road pricing policy, more pedestrianisation, more investment in public transport, and a reduction in the road building programme. The crucial test after that would affect areas such as Oxleas wood, parts of the M3 and not ploughing up some of the most important areas of the countryside for roads that could be constructed differently.
The Minister referred to recycling, in many areas of which we lag far behind the European Community average. We are not good on paper and cardboard, although we are better than some on recycling cans and other objects. On glass we are among the worst in Europe. There are many ways in which we could improve our recycling record. The Government have the target of 50 per cent. of materials recycled by the end of the decade, but we are not on target to achieve that. We must do more if that target is to be achieved.
As a country we have made a start to being environmentally more responsible, and the Government have made their contribution to that. They could have achieved much more, more quickly and more effectively. I hope that today's debate will help to encourage a speedier and tougher response in the years ahead by this Government or whichever Government follow them.
12.34 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: We are fortunate to have this valuable debate today. I am glad to have been able to hear my hon. Friend the Minister's speech, and especially glad to have heard the powerful speech of the Chairman of the all-party Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), whose knowledge is profound and probably unequalled by any of us other than the Minister.
The problem with debating the environment is that it really concerns quality of life. We must be careful not to identify it as a new religion, because it is nothing but an

1263
uprush of fear designed to dragoon people into following causes, sometimes for monetary reasons. After all, we are simply discussing the proper and wholesome care for the world in which we live. There is no need for it to become a turquoise vision, such as Mr. Icke claiming that he is the son of God. Neither is there a need to join some of the pressure groups that make unsustainable claims about concerns that are not real.
When I was a child I remember an elderly lady saying that the advance of television aerials would deplete the world of oxygen. She was very old when the television was invented. None the less, her claim was similar to the claim that was made by the Parents for Safe Food Campaign —a body of well known, publicly spirited women such as actresses and other public figures—that apples treated with a preservative called Alar will cause cancer. There is no causal link whatever, yet that pressurised campaign misled many housewives into not buying that invaluable food—the apple—for many months. The campaign has now moved on to pounding other foodstuffs. The campaign's success demonstrates the growing membership of quality of life organisations. I call that "greenness in a non-politicised arena". There are great health consequences from some of their actions.
The biggest industry in Devon, in which my constituency lies, is tourism. People come to us because they enjoy the quality of life that we offer—a true greenness. We have many sites of special scientific interest, for example the trail of Tarka the otter. The river and riverside walks around which the "Tarka the Otter" book was written have been identified as SSSIs and cleaned up. We also have the North Wyke Agricultural Research centre, which is carrying out serious and well-funded scientific research into low input grasslands. That is a good example of research which the Chairman of the all-party Select Committee identified as a long-term investment with no immediate return but with highly beneficial consequences to us all if the research proves positive. Indeed, it is already proving positive because low input grasslands research means high output in terms of more sheepmeat and higher quality lambs with the minimum input of potentially toxic substances.
It is worthwhile reminding hon. Members that farmers are the stewards of the countryside and the natural guardians of our common heritage. Today's great green movements build on what farmers have achieved for centuries. Many other hon. Members who are fortunate enough to represent rural constituencies see the fears and worries of those who come to live in our areas. For example, they want wind farms. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke of sustainable forms of energy and wind farms are one such possibility. However, in a densely populated island such as the United Kingdom, wind farms are enormously noisy and visually intrusive. In Scandinavia there are beautiful, sparsely architecturally designed modern windmills in profusion. They make a noise like a tractor farming and harvesting a field all day. It is an intense, tractor engine-like noise, which people do not like.
There are also worries about incinerators, particularly those to incinerate carcasses infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. At Whiddon Down there is enormous concern that such an incinerator may have to be built
I received a letter from some people who moved into a beautiful village and bought a house overlooking a green
1264
field. The farmer ploughed it up and planted rape, and the newcomers wrote to me to complain that their view was now yellow, not green.
Such small factors that matter so much locally identify the natural conflict that exists between greenery and growth. That conflict can be seen in this week's announcement that car production is currently depressed due to economic factors in the United Kingdom. We should want fewer cars if we truly support the environment because cars cannot help but pollute, even when they use lead-free petrol, and they force us to create more roads.
It is difficult to get the priorities right, which is perhaps why the British electorate have now turned their attention away from Green party politics. The electorate have noticed that if the Green party had its way politically, there would be no electorate as that party's underlying ethos is that people pollute. Therefore, the logical conclusion must be that there should be no human reproduction, hence no electorate. Having identified its policy and seen the reaction of the electorate who, if the Green party had its way, would disappear, the Green party realised the logical conclusion of its policy and rapidly withdrew it from its manifesto.
Poverty, dirt and squalor are inescapable partners, so the first commitment to the environment has to be economic growth. The country has to be well off for us to be able to clean up after ourselves. I am delighted that the Conservative party committed itself first to economic growth and then, a little later as the economic growth started to boom in the 1980s, decided to dedicate itself to the environment.
However, we still have to answer the question as to who pays. The central tenet of Conservative policy is that the polluter pays. I have always been concerned that roads in the United Kingdom have traditionally been a free resource. When other countries began to introduce toll motorways, we did not. I am glad that Transport Ministers are now committing themselves, however gently—it is traumatic and difficult—to the prospect of private toll roads, and to debating whether we could charge people for coming into the most crowded districts, including central London.
I was fortunate to be present when various pieces of water legislation were discussed. I learnt of the Government's fine track record. Britain's water prices are among the lowest in Europe, and likely to remain so. All the water that an average United Kingdom citizen needs for drinking, cleaning, cooking, washing and gardening still costs only 15p a day. That makes nonsense of so many of the speeches of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who has now left the Chamber—I am sure temporarily—during the passage of the Water Bill. She made claims about the degradation of our water supplies and the extra costs that consumers would have to bear.
Water privatisation has brought vast benefits to the environment and the consumer. As a result, the record £28 billion, to which the Minister referred and which is to be spent over the next decade on water infrastructure, will be critical to ensure that the cleanliness of our water supply remains the best possible and at the upper end of the scale of water available in Europe. In my constituency, we have a long history of underinvestment. Major investment is now being made, especially in the Bideford area, where there are some remarkably beautiful estuarial waters which have been allowed to degrade because of underinvestment.

1265
I am sorry that the Labour party has committed itself to renationalisation of the water industry. There is hypocrisy in its saying that it would do that at lower prices to shareholders at a time when it claims to be the party of the City and the party which backs the free market. It is not even able to say that it is offering renationalisation at a cost of £3 billion and would remove the £28 billion privately funded investment programme over 10 years. It would leave all those who have invested in the water industry with a pay-out of a lower value than that at which they bought their shares.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Lady has repeated what her hon. Friends have said. She has talked about the nationalised water industry and the renationalisation of the water industry. The water industry was never nationalised. It was run by municipalities or by statutory water companies acting as public utilities. We do not intend to turn the water industry into a national industry. It is well known that we intend initially to improve the regulatory aspects of the Government and of the environment protection executive towards the water industry and ultimately, water and sewerage services will be provided through the regional authorities that we plan to introduce. That will be at a far later stage. The change will be similar to the changes that we propose for transport, which will allow private investment to continue.
Miss Nicholson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for attempting to clarify the murky policies of his party. I remind him that the Labour party halved investment in sewerage and sewage disposal. I have little belief that any clear thinking on the matter will come from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. There are vast difficulties. The Opposition want to support the free market because they see the benefits that the Conservative party has introduced, but they have to go back to the trade union movement and to central control.
I do not see any real difference between saying that one will renationalise something and control it by public expenditure rounds and saying that one will bring it under public expenditure control, but run it through the regions. Surely that is merely another layering of major responsibilities. I say that with feeling because the proposals for women, with which I will not bother the House this morning, involve layer on layer of interference in private lives and in the way in which we all wish to work.
Only the Conservative party can genuinely privatise and pull back state control. The result of privatisation is readily visible to all of us in terms of private investment. We have taken investment out of the milk round and away from the Treasury which faces pressures over hip replacements, hospitals, pensioners and all the rest of it. We have created genuine private investment. I can see no way in which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) can claim that he would allow private investment in view of the huge overseeing structure that the Labour party would create. It is nationalisation, although Labour does not wish to use that word because it is so unpopular with the electorate.
Labour is not a green party committed to green policies. Its environmental policies are shallow, like weeds with shallow roots which are easily plucked and wither and
1266
die. Jonathon Porritt, that noted environmentalist, said on 23 March about the Labour party and environmental issues:
"Most Labour candidates will sound more than a little stilted on environmental issues for the greenery still does not come naturally—and it certainly does not come coherently." As we have heard in the debate, that is true.
According to another Labour party Front-Bench spokesman a Labour Government would take action to regulate the water industry. That would reduce the profitability of the privatised water companies and would therefore be likely to depress the share price. Investors should take account of that. It is a different proposal from that of the Conservative party. Labour's environmental spokesman has said:
"We are traditionally seen as a producerist party, always giving priority to jobs and to pay packets rather than to environmental concerns."
The Times said:
"The Labour party document 'an Earthly Chance' is disfigured by Labour's own bugbears—bureaucracy and union power. Enacted in its entirety, Labour's policy would do little for the environment at great cost."
I am delighted that the Minister has put so much before the House. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister's speech last week because it showed that the United Kingdom leads the way in making further great moves in the European and international context of the quality of life. I support the environmental agency and look forward to further moves by the Conservative Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Before we make further progress, I must repeat that which the House already knows, that the Chair has no authority to control the length of speeches. So far this morning Front-Bench Members have taken not less than 40 minutes and, with the exception of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), Back-Bench Members have taken no less than 30 minutes. If everyone who wishes to speak is to be called in the debate hon. Members should remember that they are stewards of their own destiny and should act accordingly.
12.53 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a pity that it is the only such debate in this Session and that it is being held on a Friday rather than on a day earlier in the week. I was pleased at the Prime Minister's announcement on Monday about setting up an environmental protection agency. The need for such an independent agency was put by the Select Committee on the Environment, the Labour party and the minority parties. The argument was also advanced last year in the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill and it has also been put time and again in the House. Such an agency was not proposed in the White Paper in September, but people are delighted that at the last minute, as a kind of death-bed conversion, the Government have decided to set up such an agency.
Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. The White Paper said that it would be considered. Would he mind apologising?
Mr. Williams: I meant that there was no commitment in the White Paper or at any stage last year or over the years

1267
by the Government. However, as we prepare for a general election the Government have found that their green cupboard is relatively bare and have plucked a proposal from our manifesto and now try to dress it up as an environmental protection agency. We welcome the Government's commitment—if they are returned to office which I doubt—to set up an environmental protection body. What role will the National Rivers Authority play in the new body? There is serious concern that the NRA will be split up and that only the part responsible for pollution control will be transferred into the environmental protection agency. The Labour party is pleased that, since its establishment, the NRA has shown itself to be a watchdog with real teeth. It is a success story for the Government and we want it to be transferred lock, stock and barrel, into the agency. Will the NRA be transferred in full or fragmented? If it is fragmented, it will be weakened, which will have an effect on what would otherwise be the strongest EPA in Europe.
I hope that when the EPA is set up—I trust that that will be done by a Labour Government—it will take responsibility for all solid waste disposal, particularly toxic waste. Solid, liquid and gaseous effluents would then be under its control. I should like it to take over the responsibilities of the Countryside Commission and some responsibility for agriculture, because that involves environmental protection. I should like it to go further and take over energy efficiency which is a critical part of environmental protection. There may even be some elements of transport policy into which the EPA should have a strong input.
We want a robust, independent and well-financed EPA. To help to finance it, we could have green taxes—riot just charges as in integrated pollution control. We want more than the charges for monitoring. We want pollution taxes, to give companies an incentive to pump out less effluent. We could also have landfill taxes. When companies or individuals are prosecuted for pollution, any fines levied could be payable to the EPA. That would give the agency an incentive to prosecute more. We want more vigorous law enforcement.
A critical part of the new agency is its independence from the Government. Here, there is a marked difference between our proposals and those of the Government. We propose a two-tier structure—an executive and a commission. The executive will be responsible for day-to-day policing, monitoring and prosecution of polluters, while the commission will be accountable to the Government. In that way, environmental protection will be at arm's length from the Government. That independence from Governments is important if the agency is to prove effective.
The danger with the Government's proposals is that the EPA will be part of the Department of the Environment and therefore subject to ministerial interference. The day after the Prime Minister made his speech, we saw the result of such interference. Our foremost nature conservationist, Sir Frederick Holliday, resigned as chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is clear from the press reports and his comments yesterday on "The World at One" why he resigned. He was unhappy about clause 11 of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill and the fact that he was not brought into the consultations on the moves to undermine the power of the new body that the Bill sets up. We do not want such interference in the EPA when it is set up. That is why the Labour party's proposals of a
1268
commission and an executive will ensure a more effective protection body and a better guarantee of its independence.
In our debate today, all hon. Members are aware of the Government's White Paper published in September last year. After months of publicity, we looked forward to something robust and meaningful. Instead, we got 300 pages of glossy pictures, with lots of exhortation and encouragement but very little by way of firm action. That applies to the Government's record throughout the last 10 to 12 years. Their only major environmental measure was last year's green Bill.
I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I enjoyed its proceedings, but throughout I realised that the Bill was pretty small beer. It deals with important matters such as integrated pollution control, litter, waste collection, recycling and so on, but the financial provision for the implementation of those measures is only £30 million. That was the value placed by the Government on cleaning up the environment.
That figure must be compared with what is done in the United States. On 8 March 1991 Science carried an article on the costs of cleaning up the environment. It says:
"The United States spent $115 billion in current dollars on cleaning up pollution in 1990. That's about 40% of the defense budget and just over 2% of the gross national product. And if a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report is correct, by the year 2000 the total will climb to $171 billion to $185 billion."
That is about 2·7 per cent. of the United States gross domestic product. Compared with the $115 billion spent last year by the United States, our little green Bill commitment amounted to only £30 million—a factor difference of 1,000. That is a measure of the priority given by this Government to cleaning up the environment.
When the Government eventually pluck up the courage to face the electorate—let us hope later this year—they will be judged not on today's debate, or on the Prime Minister's speech last Monday, or even on last year's White Paper, but on their record over the last 12 years. Their record does not stand up to scrutiny.
The water industry has been mentioned several times. The Government regularly under-invested in water during the 1980s. Their only policy was to privatise. Privatisation has led to higher bills and much greater salaries for the chairmen of the water companies. However, the quality of our drinking water is lower now than it was in 1979. The pollution of beaches by sewage effluent is worse now than it was 10 or 12 years ago. We await the benefits of any environmental improvements that the Government have set in hand.
As for agriculture, this is a critical year for the future of the common agricultural policy. It has caused extreme destruction of the environment. Hedgerows have been dug up. Farmers have engaged in intensive agricultural methods and used more fertilisers, pesticides and chemicals, which cause pollution.
The MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy mean that when the deep cuts come the big farmers will suffer. They enjoy 80 per cent. of the benefits of the CAP. What do the Government say about the proposals? They are hostile to them, simply because they will hit the big farmers. I agree with MacSharry that small farmers should be protected for both social and environmental reasons. Their style of

1269
farming is much more environmentally friendly. However, the Government are very much in the pockets of the big farmers—the agri-business lobby.
The Labour party wants the small farmers to survive and much more emphasis to be placed on environmental protection. Instead of the CAP supporting increased agricultural production, leading to massive surpluses of food, it should concentrate on environmental protection —the green premium, as we describe it.
The Government's record on transport is clear. They have projected an increase of 142 per cent. in traffic over the next 35 years. That increase is ludicrous. The Government are clearly the big car party. They invest £500 million a year in British Rail and public transport, compared with £3 billion a year in France and Italy and £4,000 million in Germany. The Government's emphasis is completely wrong.
The Government's record on energy is wide open to attack. I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Electricity Bill two years ago. We were completely hostile to its main proposal to privatise electricity. At every stage during the Bill's passage, we tried to move amendments to introduce energy efficiency. Our main proposal was for least-cost planning.
Least-cost planning is followed in the United States. The regulators of American power utilities must demonstrate to the regulator when they propose to build a new power station that the power station is necessary and that the money could not be better invested in home insulation. Instead of building a new power station for £1,000 million, it would be better to invest that money in home insulation and district heating schemes. About seven times as much energy would be saved pro rata as would be generated with the same amount of money. The Government turned down all our amendments about least-cost planning.
Great savings can be made with energy efficiency. The Minister had great difficulty earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in accepting that major savings are possible through energy efficiency. An article appeared in the New Scientist a couple of years ago which referred to the record in the United States from 1973—the onset of the oil crisis—to 1986. It stated:
"In the United States … the annual demand for energy is still below that of 1973 even though the country's gross domestic product … is up by 40 per cent."
Over that 13-year period there was a 40 per cent. growth in GDP and a cut in energy demand. The article continued:
"Japan has gone one better. The country used 6 per cent. less energy in 1986 than it did in 1973 even though its GDP grew by 46 per cent. over the 15 years."
It used 6 per cent. less energy while its GDP grew by 46 per cent. That is a 50 per cent. increase in energy efficiency over the period. Those are not the findings of an abstract scientist or the results of a feasibility study; that is the record achieved by advanced countries comparable to ours. Compared to them, we are at the bottom of the league.
That article in the New Scientist also stated:
1270
"The International Energy Agency estimates that if energy conservation measures that are now economically viable were fully implemented by the year 2000, energy efficiency would be more than 30 per cent. higher than current levels."
This Government have cut the Energy Efficiency Office's budget. There has been much exhortation, but the Government have not got their hands dirty in terms of doing anything.
There is quite a lot of opencast coal mining in my constituency. That is wildly and widely unpopular. Under this Government, opencast coal production has increased from 12·9 million tonnes in 1979 to 18·9 million tonnes in 1989. That is a 50 per cent. increase in production. Nothing can he more environmentally destructive than opencast mining. There is a presumption in favour of such development in the mineral planning guidance notes. Labour will reverse that when we are in government.
Coal as a source of energy is much discredited, because it is dirty and sooty. However, clean coal combustion is now possible. The Government are aware of that, but they do not believe in investing in it. In the 1970s, in Grimethorpe, Yorkshire, fluidised bed combustion was developed. It was possible to remove all sulphur in that way, but scientists working at Grimethorpe are now going overseas because that British technology is being developed overseas.
Last Monday, at The Sunday. Times exhibition at Olympia, I talked to someone involved in research into the topping cycle. He explained the background in some detail and spoke of his personal frustration in not getting sufficient support from the Department of Energy. That technology will be the main method of electricity production in the next century. The biggest resource is coal —not nuclear power, oil or gas. In the next century, electricity will be made from clean coal combustion, despite the carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, we are in that no-win situation. It will be clean coal combustion.
Acid rain is no longer one of the environmental glamour issues, but it is a serious problem. In my constituency, thin soils cannot buffer acidity in the rainfall. In Wales, the Lake District, Scotland, and Scandinavia there are serious problems of acid rain poisoning our rivers, leaching aluminium into our rivers and drinking waters, with its relationship to Alzheimer's disease and so on.
Belatedly, in 1987, the Government recognised that acid rain was a problem. They undertook to agree to the European Community's directive to introduce cuts in sulphur dioxide emissions, but, when faced with the privatisation of the electricity industry, what did they do? They reneged on those commitments and cut by a third the number of power stations to be installed with flue gas desulphurisation equipment. The awful fact is that when the Government leave office, not one of our power stations will have FGD equipment. We must compare that with Germany, Holland, Austria and Sweden, where virtually all power stations have FGD equipment. When the election comes, the "dirty man of Europe" tag will fit the Government.
1.11 pm
Sir Hal Miller: The parrot cries of energy efficiency from the Opposition Benches remind me irresistibly of the war cry of the Wilson Government—the white heat of technical revolution that was going to save

1271
their bacon in 1969 and 1970. It creates a wonderful picture of the Labour party being as credible as double-glazing salesmen.
I refer to the contribution that the motor industry wishes to make to the improvement of the environment. I pause only to note the deep-seated hostility of the Labour and Liberal parties to the motor car and the motorist, despite the fact that 30 million people hold driving licences and there are 22 million cars on the road. I have no doubt of the consequences of that if it were followed to its logical conclusion.
I welcome the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the start of this week, following the Department of Transport paper on the environment. My right hon. Friend set out clearly some of the major considerations: that climate change is a global problem, but that the United Kingdom is responsible for only 3 per cent. of global emissions of carbon dioxide; that road transport in the United Kingdom is responsible for less than a fifth of that 3 per cent; the largest polluters are the power stations that are so beloved of the Labour party; and that businesses, industries, the motor car and other road transport are hotly pursued by domestic central heating as a source of carbon dioxide emissions. We need to get the matter into perspective.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will chair the strategy committee. He also pointed out that one of our main aims must be to work with the market and to awaken individuals to their responsibilities in improving the environment. My right hon. Friend mentioned four subjects. I welcome the fact that two of them were energy saving and transport, about which I wish to speak. In his paper, my right hon and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport referred to the need to give market signals and to provide information, to the role of regulation and to the provision of infrastructure.
There is a balance to be struck in all these matters. If we are considering emissions from motor vehicles, it is important to note that there is a difference between a cleaner engine and a cooler engine—the cooler engine being the one that gives off less CO2 and contributes less to global warming. The catalyst helps to clean up other emissions, but leads to further emissions of CO2 and thus militates against efforts to reduce global warming. As I have said, there is a balance to be struck. We are trying to achieve a cleaner, cooler, quieter and safer vehicle. For the cleaner vehicle, which cleans up emissions other than CO2 great progress has already been made with unleaded petrol, the fitting of catalytic converters and by doing away with the use of chlorofluorocarbons in motor vehicles. However, further progress could be made with the greater use of diesel engines, which are more economical, more energy efficient and give off less CO2. They could therefore make an important contribution to reducing global warming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and I have been going around Government Departments for nearly two years outlining a programme whereby the motor industry would contribute towards the achievement of the stated target of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) of maintaining CO2 emissions at their current level until 2005. It is a matter of regret that in the Budget the Government did not pursue the advantages of the
1272
proposals that my hon. Friend sought to introduce as amendments to the Finance Bill. 1 hope that our further amendment may be selected for consideration next week.
I much admired, as well as enjoyed, the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister, but must advise him that the motor industry wants identified targets towards which it can work. If we have targets for energy efficiency and for emissions—as are being introduced in the EEC—and for noise and for safety, a programme of manufacture can be developed so that we can work towards those ends. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and I would argue that we should go down the route of market signal and incentive, as we did so successfully for unleaded petrol. We have been urging similar incentives for diesel, which would not only reduce its price in this country and bring it closer to the price elsewhere on the continent where the advantages of economy are already well understood, but would help our hard-pressed industry in this time of recession.
There have been some cheap jibes, notably in the literature of the green parties, about company cars, which have been mentioned this morning. I regretted to note a similar reference in the Department of Transport's White Paper. If we examine the facts, we find that the measures that were introduced in the Budget have increased the tax for employees while leaving their bosses with a lower level of tax. According to the Inland Revenue's own figures, more company cars are owned by people on schedule D than are used by those on schedule E. So once more the employees are paying higher tax than those who employ them.
There is also an argument about the arm's-length cost of the company car, as established by the contract hire rate. We also ignore the fact that company cars are newer and better maintained. The quickest way to make improvements is to bring new vehicles into the vehicle park. Otherwise, it will take at least 10 years to work through the 22 million vehicles which are currently on the road and ensure that they are all fitted with a catalyst to achieve the improvements that we all want. One way of helping to speed up that process is to encourage a greater turnover of vehicles and get new vehicles on the road. We must get rid of the 2 million unlicensed vehicles and the innumerable badly maintained vehicles which are the greatest polluters, as well as the noisiest and unsafest vehicles of the lot.
I hope that a stricter MOT standard will be introduced. I hope that we shall not only move immediately to four gas testing, which I was discussing with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) earlier, but introduce calibration of equipment and standard of workshop and additional safety and noise requirements.
Noise is an important polluter. I have a warning for my hon. Friend the Minister from a constituency factory which is interested in the production of axle load indicators. It has advised me this week that the EEC legislation is moving towards adopting overall payload rather than axle weight. Yet we have always been given to understand that it is axle weight which is so damaging to our road structure and so influential on noise levels.
Time does not permit me to make all the remarks that I had prepared, so I must come to a conclusion to allow my colleagues to take part in the debate. The quality of the environment is an important freedom for us all. When I took my young son swimming in the river two summers ago, I suddenly realised that it was an unusual experience

1273
for him, whereas I was taught to swim in the river. Both the schools that I attended took us swimming in the river. I hope that my son and my grandchildren will also in due course be able to swim safely in the river.
The motor industry is anxious and willing to make its contribution to improving the environment for all of us, as well as giving us the advantages of mobility and security. Security is important for mothers on the school run or women travelling late at night who do not feel safe on public transport. It is an important issue. We are willing to make that contribution. We ask that targets be set and that research should be conducted into new technologies, including alternative fuels. What is the point of concentrating all our attention on what comes out of the exhaust instead of what goes into the engine in the first place? We welcome the White Paper and the fact that there will be a report, and we look forward to making our contribution.
1.23 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the opportunity to discuss green issues, but I regret that this has been such a wide-ranging debate, because it is not easy to comment on some of the issues raised.
In the past three months, I have been fortunate enough to visit the constituencies of Stroud, Salisbury, Exeter, Falmouth and Camborne, Teignbridge, Suffolk, Coastal and Waveney at the invitation of prospective Labour candidates. I have spoken to the various environmental groups in those areas as well as to footpath officers, conservationists, representatives of the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and others about the Labour party policies contained in our document, "Earthly Chance". We discussed problems such as access to the countryside and how we can maintain the quality of the countryside. Those meetings were constructive and useful and I was pleased at the number of people who were excited by the proposals in the Labour party document.
The consensus that emerged from those meetings was one of concern about farm incomes and the difficulty that is placed on those who are required to maintain our countryside in the neatly farmed way which we have come to accept and enjoy. People were extremely interested in the Labour party's policy of green premiums.
During my campaign I was pleased to note that the Government announced their country stewardship scheme, because it looks as though the Government are following the Labour party. They have now recognised that we must find ways in which we can assist farmers to protect and maintain the countryside. We should not pay farmers just to undertake more and more food production.
I am concerned, however, that the Government are putting up only £13 million for the country stewardship scheme. On Wednesday, I gathered from the Secretary of State for the Environment that the money will be spread over three years and that it will be administered by the Countryside Commission.
I am pleased that the DOE has taken an initiative on the countryside, but it is important to compare it with the negative response to the set-aside scheme, which was
1274
proposed by the European Community and is administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Have we got the balance right? I plead with the Government to expand the country stewardship scheme. Perhaps they should hand it over to MAFF to administer, but the principles set by the DOE should be retained so that we can do much more to protect the incomes of those in the countryside. We are talking not just about farmers' income, but about that of farmworkers and those in the neighbourhood who provide support services. I urge the Minister to consider the scheme to see how some of the money from the EC for the set-aside scheme can be used in a more positive way to develop and protect the countryside.
We must do much more positive work to protect the hedgerows. I am delighted that the Government have stopped giving grants to people to tear up the hedgerows, but I still regret that too many hedgerows are disappearing through neglect. They must be properly maintained and, after 30 years, they need to be properly layed. Throughout my visits, it became the exception rather than the rule to see a well-layed hedge.
I am absolutely appalled at the amount of litter we see. It is not a question whether an authority is Labour controlled, because most authorities have an appalling litter problem. I welcome the Environmental Protection Act 1990 although I am not certain whether the Government have got it right. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us when the provisions on litter contained in that Act will come into operation. When will on-the-spot fines be introduced? When will individuals be able to take local authorities to court if they fail to deliver the goods?
I do not blame local authorities entirely for the litter problem. The fact is that people still drop too much litter. Unfortunately, people are schizophrenic in their attitude to litter. When I visit schools, the pupils are terribly enthusiastic about green issues. The are concerned not just about the rain forests and the whale, but about the problems of littter. There may be huge posters about litter, but when I leave those schools I often see a trail of sweet papers and ice-cream wrappers.
We must convince people that litter is everybody's problem.
I am concerned about the problems in the Tameside and Stockport areas of my constituency, where the litter collection service is a disgrace. Tameside has continually said that it does not have the money to do it and is looking for ways to improve the service. I fear that, so far, it has not succeeded in achieving any improvement.
On the other hand, Stockport fully embraced the Government approach and privatised its refuse and litter collection services. It worked on the basis that, as the Government had claimed, if it privatised the services, the work would be done more cheaply and with better quality. Despite what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said about the great Liberal green policies, the response of the Liberals in Stockport, where they comprise the largest party on the council, has been a disaster.
The Government's policy was followed, the services were put out to tender and a bid was accepted from Focsa, a Spanish company, which was to carry out the refuse and litter services. Leaflets were distributed to all households

1275
stating that there would be a better service. In the event, the service has been far worse, and I have had to contact chief officers about sites not being cleaned up properly.
The local authority discovered that it had made a mess by letting the tender to Focsa because some streets had not even been included in the tender. The company had put in a low bid simply to get the business, hoping that in the future it could put the price up. The authority is now faced with having to decide whether to withdraw the contract from the company and, if so, whether it would then be possible to find another company to provide a service at the right price. At present, litter collection there is a disgrace and it is time that the Liberal-dominated council sorted the matter out.
The Minister referred briefly to the issue of green labels, but I was disappointed with what he said. He repeated the promise that we have often heard in the House—it was stated in an Adjournment debate of mine last March—that it was hoped to have a scheme in place by 1 January.
Mr. Trippier: I had to cover many subjects in my speech and could not spend long on that one. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am satisfied, having attended the last meeting of the Environment Council in Europe, that the eco-labelling directive will come out of the next Council meeting in October or, at the latest, in December of this year.
Mr. Bennett: The Minister promised that a scheme would be in operation by January. If that is to happen, manufacturers must be told in September or October what to state on the packets, depending on the products and how long it takes to produce them and get them to the shops. I hope that the scheme will be in operation quickly. The longer the delay, the more people are conned, as he suggested, by buying products that are claimed to be environmentally friendly when they are not. Much good will is lost in that way.
I like the idea of waste disposal credits. It makes sense to encourage people to recycle material rather than use it to fill up holes in the ground. But a problem exists between the collection and disposal authorities. If credits are given to collection authorities, they remove various items, but the disposal authorities take out the same items, so the two are working in opposition directions.
Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is working hard to extract tin cans, but becomes concerned when the volume of cans in the refuse falls below a certain level because it is then not worth while to run all the refuse through the magnets and so on to remove the cans.
North West Water plc and Tameside local authority —two totally different organisations—have great charters about green issues. North West Water says how environmentally friendly it is, and explains how it has tackled certain problems and how it wants to encourage access to the countryside. The trouble is that trees are cut down to produce those documents on green issues, but when it comes to specific cases neither the local authority nor the water company takes a blind bit of notice.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State has called for an inquiry into the Kingswater development. I hope that the inspector will find in favour of the local residents, who do not want one of the nicest areas of open space between Manchester and Tameside to be destroyed by a business park. A problem has developed in the past couple of weeks. The local authority considered the planning
1276
application in the autumn and in January the Secretary of State called for an inquiry—it is now set for 12 September. The local authority's Queen's Counsel has now told the local authority that it is in a mess, because it has no concrete proposals for road access to the site and he has recommended that North West Water should ask for the inquiry to be delayed for six months. The Tameside officials do not want such a delay and are now trying to rush through a road proposal, which was due to be announced yesterday or today. People will have 28 days to object to it, and a local authority meeting will be held to discuss it sometime towards the end of August. The local authority could then simply tell the inspector on 12 September that there is a concrete road proposal. The road proposal reverses a decision made by the inspector on the proposals for a motorway in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter carefully and tell Tameside that it is not good enough to try to rush the road access proposal through in two months at the most, in preparation for the public inquiry. If local people are to be consulted effectively, the public inquiry on the Kingswater development should be postponed for six months. The road issue and the subject of the inquiry could then be properly considered so that proper local debate on the issue could take place. I shall write to the Minister in a little more detail on that subject.
The Government must get on with turning some of their rhetoric on green issues into practice. They must set out to make the country stewardship scheme work so that much more money is spent on conservation rather than merely on food production. We must have effective action on litter, because it is an absolute disgrace. A working system of green labelling should be in place by 1 January. Finally, we must do much more to ensure that we do not continue to tip natural resources into holes in the ground, because we may have to dig them out in the future. I welcome the opportunity for a debate on green issues, but I wish that the House had more time to discuss them today and more opportunities to return to them.
1.38 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: About five years ago, having spent almost a lifetime in personnel work, I put my name forward to become a member of the Employment Select Committee. For some reason I was overlooked, so I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) why. He told me not to worry because there was a vacancy on the Environment Committee—which also begins with an E. My membership of that Committee was my introduction to the subject. The past five years have been thoroughly exciting and interesting, and I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee for the work that he has done in those five years to bring so many issues to the public's attention. Many of them are commonplace today, but were then rare and novel—for example, acid rain and other subjects that we were supposed to have debated this morning but which have not been mentioned. I can understand why as it is difficult to isolate the environment in the United Kingdom from that in the rest of the world. That is one fact that we have discovered from our work on the Select Committee during the past five years or more.
The reports before us have some element of criticism of the Government, some suggestions and some positive points that may be controversial. But every one of our reports has come out with the unanimous support for the

1277
composition of the Committees. The manpower changes in those Committees has been quite high, particularly among Labour Members, as more and more of them are promoted to become Opposition spokesmen and women. None of the reports has come out with a minority view. That means that we have sought to put the environment above party politics, and we must continue to do so.
Therefore, I was disappointed—although perhaps I should not have been surprised—by the speech of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), which was nothing more than a catalogue of carping comments, with selective statistics, and which did nothing to elevate the debate or introduce any constructive proposals. That is not the way that we try to do things on the Select Committees.
I always make a wry note of the fact that, because of the way this place works, the Liberal party, from which there is never anyone present at Select Committee meetings, is always offered an early and long bite of the cherry in debates in the Chamber, despite the fact that Liberal Members show no interest in the subject in the House. If someone has to go to a funeral, it is not beyond the wit of man to find someone else to sit in and participate in a debate. However, Liberal Members do not do so, and there is a void in the Chamber and on the Select Committee. That may not be entirely the fault of the Liberal party; it may be partly due to the way in which Select Committees are chosen. The Select Committee on the Environment is a public Committee to which anyone can come, but, to my knowledge, during the five years in which I have served the Committee, not once has a Liberal party observer been present or taken any interest in anything that we have done.
Sir Hugh Rossi: May I set the record absolutely straight? There was a Liberal Member on the Select Committee of the Environment until 1985, when he was made Liberal Chief Whip and had to resign from the Committee. I asked for that place on the Committee to be kept open for the whole of one Parliament so that the Liberals could replace him, but no one could be found from among their ranks who was willing to serve. At the general election, the Labour party asked for and obtained that place.
Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee, whose experience goes back even further than mine, for explaining the correct position.
We have heard talk about the terrible pollution on beaches, but it was not mentioned that the Select Committee has found that measuring equipment used today to determine whether the water contains pollutants is superior to that available 30 or 40 years ago. There is no doubt that, if today's equipment had been available then, we would have found that the beaches were worse in those days than they are today, but we have no way of recording that.
Last week we heard that the east Germans reckon that it will be 10 years before raw sewage is no longer spread around their beaches. We are a long way from that, and a long way ahead of the east Germans, but we still have more work to do.
Chlorofluorocarbons present a huge international problem. I asked an Indian Government official how the Indian Government would deal with the problem of
1278
refrigeration and CFCs in the Indian sub-continent, as more refrigerators were used there and as the people turned more to western standards. He said, "I challenge you to go up to an Indian peasant woman who has lived all her life with the wish to have a refrigerator and to tell her that she cannot have it because it will increase the CFCs in the atmosphere, although people in the west want to keep their refrigerators." When we spoke to the Brazilians about the tropical forests, they said that they did not have a problem of cutting down the forests. They said that the west had the problem of too many cars. They said that if we cut out our cars, they would not have a problem with the forests. Trying to introduce some rationale takes the whole debate on the environment outside normal party politics. We should consider the matter more objectively and constructively.
For the first time, we have a Government who have listened to what we have said and who have introduced some of the measures that we have proposed. It was interesting to note that, when we first said that we would investigate indoor pollution, the following week the Department of the Environment, for the first time, issued a circular on indoor pollution. That was a coincidence par excellence. It shows that the Department listened and it shows the value of the Select Committee and its reports.
I endorse the remark made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) about the Minister not mentioning Northern Ireland in his speech. It is an area of particular beauty and, as we saw when we went there, there are pollution problems that we should take on board.
I represent the chemical heart of England on Teesside. There are problems there of toxic waste and cleaning up. We have the new power station from Enron and gases come ashore there to create power. Close by, there is the Hartlepool nuclear power station. We are aware of all the pollution problems, and we are also aware that one cannot turn the clock back. We cannot say to people that they must not have this or that, because they have been used to turning on the switch to get electric light, and to having electricity for cooking and for all the other things that we take for granted. It all has a price which has to be paid in environmental and in financial terms. Getting the balance right is the most important job that the Government must tackle.
I listened to Opposition Members talking about polluted beaches. We have them in Durham. Why? We have coalfields there. Until this Government came to power, no Government had done anything about that. The problem has been recognised, time limits have been set, and something will be done. The churlishness of the Opposition in failing to give the Government recognition for that does their cause no good.
There is no doubt that the water industry was starved of cash under the 1974–79 Labour Government. I was a member of the Thames water board at the time and I know how difficult it was for us as a water authority to keep up with basic maintenance, let alone to carry out replacement and renovation. Everything in the ground was getting older, but could not be replaced or repaired.
It is a shame that we have had this debate on a Friday. It would have been a better debate if more Back-Bench Members had been able to make contributions. They would have been better than the nonsense that we heard from the hon. Member for Dewsbury. Some of her remarks do not deserve comment, but I want to mention

1279
Friends of the the Earth. They are an irritant to many people, but they sometimes make good points. If we did not have them, we should have to invent them. Why not recognise that we have pressure groups? All of them have axes to grind and much of the time what they say will be of little consequence. However, occasionally they get it right. It would be good if the Government could occasionally say that the Opposition have a good point and that they accept it. It would be even better if the Opposition would occasionally say that they support the Government on an issue and that they understand the Government's problems. They should say that they understand that the problem of pollution has developed over decades and centuries. We should approach in a far less partisan way matters such as contaminated land for which no records exist.
I warn the Government not to place too much hope on Europe, because it will clearly make the wrong moves on eco labelling. European countries do not know what they want and are pulling in different directions. Consequently, we shall have to take matters into our own hands. I am sure that the Select Committee on the Environment will make recommendations on that important subject. Members on both Front Benches should agree on eco labelling, and we should not play party politics about whether a label will contain too little or too much. The public will have to trust such a label and we should agree on what it should contain.
The environment is and will continue to be a major issue. In a party speech my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that we have only a leasehold on this earth. She was absolutely right. It is the Government's responsibility to make sure that environmental issues are properly treated, and it is the responsibility of Back Benchers to make sure that the Government do that. I look forward to another five years' service on the Select Committee, which is carrying out precisely that task.
1.53 pm
Mr. Roger King: Not long ago, my journey from Birmingham to London took two and a half hours and the fuel consumption of the car that I then had was about six gallons. Now, the same journey takes just under two hours and my present car's fuel consumption is no more than two and a half gallons. The difference is due to the fact that the Government have completed the M40 motorway which has relieved congestion along an arduous and outdated route through Banbury and Oxford, causing pollution, congestion and heavy fuel consumption.
New roads and those that are being built have freed up traffic which is therefore not consuming as much fuel and, obviously, not causing as much pollution. The other significant reason for decreased fuel consumption is that I have changed my car. I now drive a diesel vehicle and I am reaping the benefits of a superior form of internal combustion engine which is more energy efficient and which provides the power and performance that I want.
Some differences between petrol and diesel cars are quite staggering. The touring economy of a car is obtained by taking the calculations of fuel consumption for the urban cycle, at 56 mph and at 75 mph and weighting them. Under that formula a car such as the Montego powered by a two-litre petrol engine has a fuel consumption of 35.4
1280
miles per gallon. The diesel equivalent will accomplish 55.8 miles per gallon. That is an enormous increase and it is due to the ability of the diesel engine to squeeze extra energy out of every litre of fuel.
A bigger executive car such as the Rover 827 will deliver 26–6 miles to a gallon of petrol. Its diesel equivalent, the Rover 825, will cover 40.7 miles to the gallon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) said some months ago, an alternative form of engine would enable us to make enormous strides in saving fuel and in reducing the output of carbon dioxide, which is a difficult gas to control. Of course there are other pollutants, but, because a diesel car can travel further on a gallon of fuel, it will cause much less pollution than its petrol equivalent.
The introduction of catalysts to solve the problem of exhaust emissions from petrol cars may be a good and sensible idea, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove pointed out, catalysts actually exacerbate the problem because those dangerous pollutants are turned to CO2. Therefore, the vehicle not only goes less far on a gallon of fuel but emits further carbon dioxide.
It has been said that the wider use of diesel vehicles will lead to an increase in other forms of pollution—black smoke, soot on buildings, health hazards, particulate emissions—and that that is a further reason for not embracing the diesel car. However, despite long-standing research into the consequencies of diesel exhaust, there is no evidence that it is in any way carcinogenic. Although German and United States agencies, which are generally in the lead in research on exhaust emissions, have done an enormous amount of testing, no hidden problems have been discerned. I understand that a committee has been set up in this country, but I have been unable to ascertain w ho belongs to it or what findings it is establishing. Presumably, it is either duplicating experiments conducted elsewhere or developing new experiements.
Particulate emissions are a result of the sulphur content of the fuel used. The European Commission has announced that, by 1996, the sulphur content of fuel should be reduced to a low level. However, there is no national standard for sulphur contents in diesel fuel. The oil companies try to keep it to a reasonable level, but it tends to go up and down according to the refining process. The Government have encouraged the use of unleaded fuel, so it would be easy for them to impose a reduction of the sulphur content of diesel fuel at a far quicker rate. We should be moving as a European group of nations.
There is strong evidence that unleaded fuel, which is more accurately and highly refined than leaded fuel, contains more benzine than leaded fuel. Experiments in the United States have shown that this seems to have carcinogenic side effects on those who inhale the fumes when filling up their cars. Therefore, it is not the case that unleaded petrol has no side effects on health. There is some linkage there, although there is not on diesel fuel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and I have had similar problems in our attempts to encourage the Government to introduce an incentive for the buying of diesel cars, along the line of the fiscal incentive to use unleaded fuel. If people were encouraged to buy diesel cars, it is possible that we would reduce CO2 emissions by the year 2005, or even halt them at the present level. Unless we adopt a policy of incentives, there is little chance of the motor industry and the car user being able to play a part in reducing CO2 emissions.

1281
The Government have many arguments about why no incentives should be offered. We have written to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport—and to the Treasury, because it decides on tax concessions. I imagine that the Departments have consulted each other, so we end up with responses similar to the one from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. She said in a letter to me:
"Diesel fuel, derv, contains roughly 14 per cent. more carbon per litre of fuel than petrol does, and thus generates correspondingly more carbon dioxide per litre consumed."
That is true, but it overlooks the fact that, for the same amount of fuel, a diesel car will go a lot further.
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders—I assume that the House understands that it is well versed in these matters—says:
"Allowing for relative carbon content by volume of fuel, the fuel economy advantage of the diesel, up to 30 per cent. per litre per 100 kilometre term, translates into a CO, advantage in grams per kilometre of up to a 20 per cent. saving over a petrol equivalent."
Although the Treasury and Government Departments say that there is more carbon in diesel, the fact that the car travels further on diesel fuel wipes out the discrepancy and provides a 20 per cent. benefit. Diesel cars are more expensive to manufacture because they are more complex and robust. If, however, we can reduce both the price of diesel cars and the price of diesel fuel, the Government will be able to meet its road transport target by 2005.
If our amendment is selected on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, we hope to introduce a clause that will provide some latitude as regards the 10 per cent. special car tax. We shall concentrate on banding cars, based on their touring fuel consumption. I hope that the Government will consider carefully that interesting concept. Unless they encourage people to purchase fuel-efficient cars—and the only way to do that is through the wallet—they will never meet the target they have set themselves. As soon as the Government appreciate that fact and introduce financial incentives, the target will be met. The car industry will manufacture the products that it knows that it can make and that it wants to make, and that will be good for everyone.
2.1 pm
Mr. Keith Mans: Both Opposition parties have a hang up about nuclear power. They always find a way round admitting that it is a very efficient means of generating electricity. However good our energy conservation measures may be, nuclear energy produces less carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide than power generated by fossil fuels. The sooner we get that message over, the better it will be for our energy policy.
I welcome the debate. I have always believed that we need to keep environmental issues at the forefront of political discussion. I shall concentrate on how local communities can improve their environment. Environmental improvement is not just a matter of the Government telling people what to do. It is up to individuals and organisations to get on with it themselves. That requires a considerable amount of explanation and objectivity on the part of local pressure groups and councillors.
I intend to give an example from my area to demonstrate how things can go right. It might provide a
1282
few lessons for the future. It will not be a complete surprise to hon. Members to hear that the coastline around Blackpool, near my constituency, needs to be cleaned up. Neglect over decades by North West Water was largely the result of lack of Government funding, particularly during the period when the Labour Government were in power between 1974 and 1979. In real terms, the amount spent on cleaning up the sewage around our coasts was reduced from £900 million in 1974 to £400 million in 1979.
It should also be noted that the local Labour party first became involved in environmental matters when the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council opposed a scheme to improve the quality of sewage disposal along the Fylde coast. The method suggested by North West Water was old-fashioned and inadequate, in my opinion, but I suspect that the county's opposition to it had much more to do with the imminent privatisation of the water industry than with any long-term concern for the environment.
I shall not detain hon. Members by describing the subsequent events, apart from saying that the Government rightly decided that the scheme was not good enough and asked North West Water to think again. In the intervening period, environmental awareness locally has increased tremendously, partly as a result of the environment becoming an important issue nationally, but also because local people began to discuss in detail the best way that the coastline could be cleaned up.
Over the past two years the political climate on the Fylde coast has also changed. We now have a Labour-controlled borough council in Blackpool and greater representation by the Labour party in Fleetwood. It will not surprise my colleagues to learn that Labour's view on environmental improvement matters has, as a result of those political changes, also changed. We now hear less about Blackpool's dirty beaches, and although Labour councillors in Fleetwood were largely elected on the basis of their opposition to the pipeline, they now face the possibility of the construction of a sewage works and a pipeline beside the town, both of which seem to have the approval of their Labour colleagues at county hall.
Therefore, it is not surprising that many people in Fleetwood feel betrayed by the Labour party which gave the distinct impression that it supported the town against organisations like North West Water which wanted to treat all Fylde's sewage by way of a long sea outfall or by a sewage plant near Fleetwood.
It is interesting to note that the county council now supports the present scheme. It would be no exaggeration to say that the Labour party locally is hopelessly split on the issue. County politicians want the sewage works to be built so that they can support their Labour colleagues in Blackpool borough. In doing that, they have ditched Fleetwood.
I make that point because it shows the difficulty with local environmental issues if they become bogged down in local politics. That is certainly what has happened in this case. We must ensure that in future environmental matters are dealt with on a slightly higher plain so that we can move forward and find the best solution from an environmental point of view.
The scheme on the Fylde coast needs further improvement. We must find ways to dispose of the sludge effectively. The Select Committee on the Environment—of which I was a member for many years—has said that incineration rather than landfill is the way forward. It is

1283
also worth stating that landfill has problems because of the need to comply with the EEC directive on landfill sites that will come into force in 1997.
I very much support what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said recently about the creation of a new environmental protection agency. I should like it to be called the environmental improvement agency, because that it is what it is all about. It is important for the Government to create targets, for outside agencies to regulate and for everyone else, in the best way possible, to try to improve the environment individually as well as in groups.
2.7 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had a long and interesting debate in which, unfortunately, because it has been so wide-ranging, we have not been able to consider in depth some very important subjects. It is also a pity that we could not have this debate until almost a year after the White Paper was published.
Perhaps the delay was due to the fact that the Government did not want to be reminded of the reaction of the press to the White Paper. Although most papers normally support the Government, the response of the press to the White Paper was lukewarm, to say the least. For example, one paper said that the White Paper contained 350 proposals with more conditions and caveats than an insurance policy. The Times described the White Paper as "a white flag" rather than a White Paper. The Times editorial stated that
"pressure for further improvements is more likely to come from Brussels than from Whitehall, a sad comment on the efficiency of National Sovereignty."
We were told also that it was a
"compendium of muted declarations of hesitant intent";
and that it set
"a floor below which it would be disastrous to sink."
Another paper said that it was
"as feeble as it is lengthy."
It described it not as an action programme but as a discussion paper, and that is after 11 years of Conservative government.
The immediate response to the White Paper was not very promising. Just about everybody in the press, whatever their political complexion, felt that the Government could have done far better.
Several hon. Members have referred to an environmental protection agency to deal with all environmental protection matters, and some hon. Members have queried the birth of the idea. The idea was probably born in one of the fine pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation, the Marine Conservation Society or the Council for the Protection of Rural England. A host of bodies are doing fine work and are acting as an irritant, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) described it, provoking us to improve our environment.
The Labour party's proposal for an environmental protection service under one roof was first made in a statement to the Labour party conference in 1986. It was included as a manifesto commitment in 1987. I have been looking at the White Paper, because the Minister said that it intimated that the Government would consider an environmental protection agency. All that I have been able to find in the White Paper are some references to it on page 232. When describing the medium-term options, the Government said:
1284
"The disbenefits of administrative change will diminish over time, and experience with the new systems may add to the case for some further rationalisation of these structures. One option which the Government will wish to consider in due course would be to create a new umbrella body responsible for overseeing the pollution control work of the NRA and HMIP. Under such an arrangement these bodies would keep their separate identity and independence, but the new umbrella body would oversee their implementation of pollution control and work for greater consistency of approach."
That is the medium-term option, which still does not envisage a single body. Nevertheless, I would be quite happy for the Minister to direct me to the spot in the White Paper at which there is eminent consideration of introducing a single environmental protection agency. Of course, that is only to be lauded. The Prime Minister made a statement earlier this week, and I hope that, as a result, we will develop a coherent position on an environmental protection agency.
The National Society for Clean Air believes that there are many undecided questions about how the agency will work. Reading between the lines of its brief, it suspects that that idea has not properly been worked out and that it has yet to be considered properly by all Departments. Perhaps the Minister could tell me how many times the ministerial committee for co-ordinating environment policy has met since the publication of the White Paper. I have been given to understand that it has met just once, which hardly seems a good record for a Government who are supposed to be concerned about our environment.
The truth is that the Government are reluctant participants in the effort to clean up our environment. They have been forced to act. Let us not forget that they have been in power since 1979. The White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", was produced only after the Government had been shocked out of their wits by the performance of the Green party in the European elections in areas that are normally thought of as Conservative strongholds. That is why the Government were pushed and prompted into action. However, our policies were already well developed. In 1979, after the European elections, the British Labour group, of which I used to be a member, provided the first chairman of the European Parliament's environment policy committee in Mr. Ken Collins, who is a very good friend of mine. He was the first chairman; he was then vice-chairman for a brief period and is now once again the chairman of that committee. That shows the priority that the Labour Members of the European Parliament attached to participating in environmental policy making.
In virtually every policy area, the Government have been dragged along by European legislation. Let us take water quality as an example. The directive on beaches, about which we have heard a lot this morning, was supposed to have been implemented in full by 1986, but the Government will be lucky if they can implement it by 1996. Although the target date in most cases is 1995, there already seems to be some slippage in the programme. It does not look as if those dates will be achieved. Although, as I have said, the directive was supposed to be fully implemented by 1986, it was not until that year, after seven years of Conservative government, that the number of British beaches falling under the terms of the directive was increased from 27 to the top 300. As was revealed by my own questions in the European Parliament, the Government decided to act only after they had been threatened with action in the European Court of Justice.

1285
Although the privatisation of the water industry resulted in the plus of a separate National Rivers Authority to supervise and to try to control the activities of the errant water companies, sewage works were given derogations that allowed them to pollute the water. Despite having those derogations, there have still been instances of privatised water companies polluting water and being threatened with prosecution or prosecuted by the NRA.
On top of that, the chairmen of the water companies have been giving themselves huge pay rises. The chairman of Welsh Water has had an 88 per cent. rise while that company's workers have received about 8 per cent. The water company increased its charges by 16.5 per cent. In the same year its chairman received a massive pay rise, supposedly to reflect the improved performance of the company. It is true that the company made a huge profit, but the chairman was in charge of a company in which the number of pollution incidents for which it was responsible doubled.
The Government should do something serious about such massive pay increases, which the Minister condemned at environment questions last Wednesday. He should consider introducing a fine scheme. A modest £10 reduction for each pollution incident could be knocked off the salary of the chairmen of water companies. In the case of the Welsh chairman, who is one of my constituents, that would result in a cut of more than £7,000.
The chairman of Welsh Water had the cheek and the humbug to be quoted in a long interview which appeared in yesterday's issue of the Western Mail. He said:
"What bothers me more and upsets me greatly is when my boys, the workers who provide the water and clean up our mess, get the flak as well. People just do not realise the value of what we at Welsh Water provide—and all for about 25p a day."
Those workers were not valued sufficiently for the chairman of Welsh water to give them a similar increase to that which his board gave him. That was at a time when pollution incidents doubled.
The Government have hamstrung the National Rivers Authority in taking water companies to court when they pollute. An unpleasant incident has been the result of some correspondence between the Minister and me. It involved the pollution of Eaglie brook with PCBs. In a reply dated 27 June the Minister said that the Germans had been allowed two years to meet the pollution emission standards. Yet a letter was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) from the free university of Berlin. It arrived with us the day before the letter from the Minister. It says:
"Concerning your question whether in Germany the textile industry was given a two-year permit to fulful the PCP directive of the European Community, I have asked the German environmental agency Mr. Neihardt, who is responsible for PCP. He told me that the PCP regulation and the regulation for dangerous materials in 1989–90 came into force and that PCP for textiles was forbidden immediately in Germany."
That means that the textile industry had no transitional period. There seems to be a conflict between what the Minister understands about the position in Germany and what the Germans understand.
Across the board the Government have been dragging their feet. For example, for the sake of energy efficiency, how do we cut CO2 emissions? Simply by following the
1286
recommendations in the House of Lords report which was leaked this week—undoubtedly we shall have the benefit of it shortly—we could make a 10 per cent. reduction in our energy use. We could do that if only, instead of cutting the money available for the Energy Efficiency Office, the Government increased it and made a serious effort to deal with energy efficiency problems. That is one simple way in which the Government could take some immediate action.
The Planning and Compensation Bill does not contain a single measure sponsored by the Government which has anything to do with improving our environment.
Mr. Trippier: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to allow me to reply to the debate?
Mr. Griffiths: The Minister will realise that the informal agreement made behind the Chair has not been honoured. I can see no reason why I should not complete the points that I want to make and leave the Minister whatever time is left at the end. Even if I do that, I believe that every Conservative Member has spoken longer than me. I shall complete my remarks and in the time left the Minister can reply to the debate.
Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: If I give way, that would take time out of the Minister's speech.
The Government have dragged their feet on air pollution, because they have not honoured their commitment to clean up power stations.
Mr. Trippier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: No, I will not.
The Government have not honoured their commitments on flue gas desulphurisation which were made when the directive on emission standards was discussed in Europe.
Mr. Mans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) claims that his speech will be shorter than that of any Conservative Member. I ask him to withdraw that inaccurate claim.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is an interesting point, but it is not one that the Chair can resolve.
Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of us came here to participate in the debate. We had hoped that, at the end, a Minister of the Crown would answer the points and criticisms that we have made. Is not it wrong, unusual and unparliamentary that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman should deliberately seek to speak out time to preclude the Minister from replying to the points raised by my hon. Friends and me?
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is usual for both Front-Bench spokesmen to have an opportunity to wind up such a debate. That is what I would expect to happen.
Sir Hugh Rossi: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there a possibility through our Standing Orders to prolong the debate by resolution of the House? It is clear from what the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has said that he has no intention of allowing the Minister to reply to the debate. As Chairman of a Select Committee representing all parties, I

1287
raised a number of important questions on the Prime Minister's statement at the beginning of the week on which I and many people outside the House are anxious to hear an answer. The hon. Member for Bridgend is now denying us that opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing and experienced parliamentarian. He knows that the Chair has no authority in such matters. We have three minutes only left; we must now make progress.
Mr. Holt: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here when the Chair has ordered someone to sit down. When Bruinvels was here he was ordered to sit down and shut up because the Chair had had enough. Could not you use that authority today?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I use much gentler tactics and hold my fury for another occasion.
Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What advice would you give to me? I asked my hon. Friend the Minister a number of questions and I am now awaiting a response. Have you any suggestions as to how I might receive that response, Madam Deputy Speaker? Will I receive it via the written word or—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman understands our practices and Standing Orders, so he will know that the Chair does not offer advice across the Chamber. It is normal for such advice to be sought outside the Chamber. The hon. Member is seeking information from the Minister, and all I can suggest is that he now gets it in writing, unless we can make some progress so that the Minister has a couple of minutes in which to reply.
Mr. Griffiths: When I was interrupted, I had spoken for less than 20 minutes—far less than many Conservative Members. Nearly five minutes have been taken up by the points of order, and I am sorry if the Minister will not have time to respond. Frankly, the time left for the wind-up speeches was 23 minutes, all because Conservative Members spoke for so long.
Sir Hugh Rossi: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's last statement, do you agree that it has been the time-honoured
1288
practice in the House that, whatever time may have been taken in speeches by Back Benchers, the remaining time at the end of a debate is divided equally between the Minister and the shadow Minister? That practice has been breached disgracefully this afternoon by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have always understood when I have been in the Chair that the time remaining is divided equally between Members on both Front Benches.
Mr. Trippier: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the disgraceful behaviour of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I assure hon. Members who have participated in the debate that I shall reply to them by letter on the points that they raised. I shall at least observe that courtesy, even if the hon. Member for Bridgend does not seem to recognise any courtesy.
It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (FINANCE BILL)
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Wood.]

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Foreign Corporations Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Wood.]

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Deer Bill[Lords], the Land Drainage Bill Lords], the Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bill[Lords], the Statutory Water Companies Bill[Lords], the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill[Lords], the Water Industry Bill [Lords] and the Water Resources Bill[Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a second time.—[Mr. Wood.]

Community Charge
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson: I welcome this opportunity to raise in the House a very important matter. The roots of this debate lie deep in the grubby soil of municipal extremism. For years Labour party activists have seen what they think is an opportunity to attack the Government through town halls. Never mind the provision of good, affordable local services; the cry went up that the town hall must oppose the House of Commons.
The latest manifestation of that was announcements by Labour elected representatives—councillors and, I am sorry to say, Members of this House—that they would refuse to pay the community charge. By what perversion of parliamentary political principle they decided to do that I do not know. If anyone should know that in this country the rule is that of law, it should be democratically elected representatives.
The main result of that was to give heart to those who decided to follow their example, doubtless on the ground that if the people at the town hall, the leaders of the community, said it was all right, it must be all right for them.
In my borough, the London borough of Waltham Forest, £60 million should have been collected last year, but £16.79 million is still outstanding, so that only 72 per cent. has been collected. That makes Waltham Forest the seventh worst performer in the country. The top six—Lambeth, Liverpool, Islington, Newham, Southampton and Birmingham—are all Labour, as is Waltham Forest.
The average collection rate across the country is 90 per cent. Waltham Forest and those others come nowhere near that. By the fact that they have collected so little, they have inevitably dragged the average collection rate down, though in some authorities it is nearly 100 per cent.
One can tell at a glance which authorities are Labour and which have a poor record in collecting community charge—the two go together—as they have all imposed heavy surcharges on their community charge payers this year to make up for their incompetence last year.
The surcharge in Waltham Forest is no less than £50.29. That has caused enormous resentment and public outcry. What a record that Labour council has since it was elected in 1986. In 1987 it increased rates by 62 per cent. It has one of the highest community charges in the country, £438 last year, and is now imposing a heavy surcharge of more than £50 to pay for women's committees and nuclear-free zones. But it has rubbish-strewn streets and the worst education results in London, despite spending the most money. In other words, it has all the manifestations of extreme loony left socialism.
May I dwell a little further on that point. The whole debacle was made even worse by the fact that the chief revenue officer responsible for collecting the community charge was suspended last September. Just before Christmas he was reinstated but was demoted to a lower grade, whereupon—not surprisingly—he left and his position is still vacant. Several other staff members were also suspended. Some were disciplined, some were sacked, and others left. Why did that happen, and why did those in authority let it happen, at such a crucial time? It
1290
happened because one of the staff made allegations of racism. Although I believe that allegations of racism should be looked into, we must also ask why they are made. That member of staff took offence at the picture of a chimpanzee on a wall. Apparently, the chimpanzee had been there for several years—rather longer than many members of staff.
Another important fact is rent arrears in council dwellings. That is germane because under the old rating system, rates were collected—or not collected—with the rent. Under the community charge, that becomes a separate item so that if tenants have become used to not paying their rent and therefore do not pay their rates, by logical extension they will want to get used to not paying their community charge. The London borough of Waltham Forest has a dreadful record in that respect. Arrears as a percentage of the rent roll stand at 18 per cent. and some £4 million are outstanding. That is the ninth worst record in the country. The council is always complaining about lack of resources, but if it collected those £4 million it could start to reduce its capital debt, which now stands at more than £150 million.
The headline in a local paper dated 10 July 1991 said:
"Row over Poll Tax Non-Payers—Labour councillor slams 'selfish' rebels and 'free-loading' residents."
The article says.
"A Labour councillor has made a stinging attack on fellow Socialist councillors who have been refusing to pay their poll tax. And Councillor Greg Hayman rebukes 'selfish' and 'free-loading' residents who think they can pull a fast one and escape paying the much criticised tax. Councillor Hayman has hit out because he has received many complaints from residents about the extra"
money that the council
"has put on to this year's poll tax to make up for the shortfall created by non-payers last year."
He said that the extra surcharge was "simply not fair." The article continued that Councillor Hayman said:
"Some people have been jumping on the non-payment bandwagon because a few councillors, who should have known better, set a bad example. 'Any freeloaders, who think they can get away with it, will find that the council is not soft on non-payers.' Five Labour councillors have so far been prosecuted for not paying their poll tax …Cllr Hayman said: 'Just what were these councillors trying to prove? They have certainly not helped those conscientious people who are struggling to pay their poll tax and certainly not the borough's pensioners who still have to pay one-fifth of the poll tax. 'The actions of these councillors and other non-payers was totally selfish because cuts are now being made which affect residents who need to use the services we provide. If we don't collect the money, we have to cut services as well as putting up the poll tax.' ClIr Hayman said councillors who have still not paid up should resign from the Labour group. He is considering ways of forcing non-paying councillors to stand down. At least two of the rebels have yet to pay the poll tax even after they were taken to court."
That article was in the Islington Chronicle. There seems to be a mild outburst of realism and common sense in one small section of the Labour party. Let us hope that it spreads from Islington to Waltham Forest, although so far it has shown no signs of doing so. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) was sent to prison yesterday for not paying his poll tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Disgraceful.
Mr. Summerson: As my hon. Friend says, that non-payment was disgraceful—and what an example to

1291
set. Are we law makers in this place or law breakers? The hon. Member for Broadgreen certainly learnt the lesson that if one breaks the law, one must pay the penalty.
I am well aware of the difficulties of collecting the community charge, but I am also aware that many conscientious and public-spirited people—the majority—have paid their poll tax and resent enormously the imposition of a huge surcharge as a result of Waltham Forest council failing to collect a reasonable proportion of last year's community charge and of Labour councillors and Members of Parliament, by their example, encouraging non-payment.
What is to be done? I have three suggestions. First, those elected councillors who have publicly announced that they will defy the law should be held responsible, not only for their own non-payment, but the non-payment of others. They should be surcharged and disqualified from office. Secondly, a list of payers and non-payers should be published so that people can see who have paid their dues and who have not. Thirdly, there should be more stipendiary magistrates. Those who organised the "Can't pay won't pay" campaign knew very well what they were about when they urged as many non-payers as possible to turn up at court—the idea being to block the system. They should not be allowed to succeed.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider those suggestions carefully, as my constituents are crying out for redress. I hope that he will also take this opportunity to condemn those Labour councillors who publicly announced last year that they would refuse to pay the community charge, thus heaping an even greater burden on my constituents this year.
2.43 pm
Mr. Norman Tebbit: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) on using this Adjournment debate to raise an important issue which affects his constituents and mine. It also affects the constituents of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who is not here—perhaps because he could not speak on the matter without shame at his record.
This is a disgraceful matter, and I have received many letters from my constituents who are deeply upset and question the legality of a process by which they are called upon to pay the debts of others who wilfully refuse to pay. As my hon. Friend the Minister will explain, that is the law and there is no other option, but it is deeply regrettable that this should have occurred.
As my hon. Friend said, the administration of the local authority is a total shambles. He might also have mentioned, with good cause, the disgraceful state of affairs in the social services department. Many of our constituents and, I am sure, many constituents in Leyton are left without the services that they should have, not because of a shortage of money, but because of an administrative shambles and a gross waste of money.
It is a sad thought that if the council's collection rate is as bad in the current year as it was in the year just ended, there will be a further surcharge of about £12.50 in respect of the uncollected £50 surcharge from this year. That is a measure of the scandalous waste, the scandalous politicking and the scandalous shambles of this council. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take up all the
1292
suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and that he will act on the matter. Something must be done.
2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) on his success in being able to raise this important issue on the Adjournment. Following his question to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities last Wednesday, it is yet another example of his commitment to ensure that his constituents' concerns are voiced in the House. Those constituents are very well served by him and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), whom I am delighted to see speaking in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow.
My right hon. Friend is right. The most destructive kind of politicking goes on in authorities such as Waltham Forest. It is not as if the authority is typical of many Labour authorities. Will the Labour party suggest that Labour authorities that manage to collect the community charge should be disregarded or expelled, as the lunatics, who now appear to be unpopular, have been? Of the' est four authorities in terms of collection charge record, two are Labour—Cannock Chase and Copeland. Cannock Chase has managed to collect 110 per cent. of its charge and Copeland has managed to collect 105 per cent. of its charge. The Labour party needs to get its act together.
Before dealing with my hon. Friend's specific concerns, I should like to set out some background on the level of charges, billing arrangements and enforcement. The Government accepted earlier this year that the burden of taxation falling on local community charge payers was too high. The Chancellor took steps in his Budget to redress the balance. This year, therefore, only 15 per cent. of the cost of local services is met directly by community charge payers, with more of the burden shared nationally through the increase in value added tax. This was reflected in a £140 reduction in the headline community charge. We have held down the charges of the highest spenders through capping. In addition, we have significantly improved the relief available to those whose community charge bills taken at household level were higher than their old rates bill. This year, a couple should pay no more than £52 in combined community charge above the total of the 1989–90 rates bill for the household. Each additional adult is required to contribute only an extra £52. In this way, we have brought down the average community charge payable to £215. We believe that that is affordable. For those on income support and benefit, effective assistance remains in place.
At the same time, we believe that the arrangements for billing people are fair and reasonable. Everybody has a statutory right to pay the community charge in manageable instalments. Nobody becomes liable to pay the community charge until he or she receives a demand notice from the charging authority in whose area he or she is resident. When he or she gets the bill, the charge payer is given a specified date, no sooner than 14 days after the issue of the Bill, by which he or she should pay the first instalment. If the charge payer does not meet that instalment, he or she is given a number of further opportunities to pay.

1293
A first reminder notice is issued, requiring the outstanding amount to be paid within seven days. After this, the authority may also issue a second reminder notice, but it is under no obligation to do so. Our regulations ensure that a charge payer is given at least two and possibly three opportunities to pay his or her community charge instalment. There is a further step before the local authority has to consider enforcement action. If he or she fails to pay the first instalment following the issue of reminders, the charge payer becomes liable to pay the authority the full amount of the community charge for the whole year. He or she has a further seven days in which to pay.
We believe that the charges set this year are affordable and that charge payers are given every opportunity to pay them in a manageable way. There can therefore be no excuse whatever for non-payment, and let me make it very clear that there will be no amnesty for non-payers.
Sadly, there has been significant non-payment. To deal with that we provided local authorities with wide powers to take enforcement action to recover sums due. This procedure starts when the council applies to a magistrates court for a summons to require a person involved to attend a court to explain to the magistrate why he or she had not paid the charge. If the Bill and the reminder have been issued in accordance with the regulations and the person cannot show good cause why the required sum has not been paid, the magistrate will issue a liability order to the council so that it can take action. This order covers both the community charge payable and the costs incurred by the charging authority and the court in obtaining and issuing the order.
We have seen to it that local authorities have stronger and wider powers to recover sums due than they did in relation to the old domestic rates. Local authorities may use distress, with bailiffs removing and selling goods to the value for the debt and their own fees. In addition, we have given authorities the power to attach a defaulter's earnings or to require the Department of Social Security to make deductions from his or her income support payments. These are powerful instruments and, of course, ultimately there remains the possibility of imprisonment for persistent and wilful non-payers.
Most authorities use bailiffs as their first port of call in enforcing the community charge. It is important that the activities of bailiffs are subject to fair but stringent controls. 1 know that local authorities have individual codes of practice. It is, of course, the isolated instances when something goes wrong that attract the media attention.
My Department has been told by the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation that it aims to establish a national code of practice to cover bailiffs work on collecting the community charge. It aims to have this code agreed between the local authority associations, the Certificated Bailiffs Association and consumer groups, such as the National Consumer Council. There is a great merit in that suggestion and I urge all parties involved to do their utmost to ensure that a code of practice agreeable to to all parties emerges from these discussions as soon as possible.
If authorities use their powers to the full extent, they will be able to recover the charge from people who have
1294
not made payment. I acknowledge that last year when enforcement proceedings started some authorities had difficulty getting sufficient magistrates court time to hear the necessary amount of summonses. That situation is much improved and most authorities have reached agreement with their local court. We are greatly indebted to our magistrates for taking on this task in addition to their already heavy agenda of duties. I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said about the need for more magistrates, especially stipendiary magistrates. I shall draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Against that background, how is collection going nationally? We have yet to see the local authorities' returns for the first quarter of this financial year. Returns received from local authorities at the end of the last financial year showed that in England authorities had on average received 90 per cent. of the community charge they expected to collect. That is, of course, an average—some did better and some worse. As an average, it is somewhat lower than what was achieved under the old domestic rates. But it is not a lot lower and it is far from being the horror story that we usually read about in the press.
Looking at individual authorities' records, it is no surprise to find that responsible boroughs such as Westminster have a considerably better collection record than for instance Lambeth, and Islington which my hon. Friend mentioned.
It may help if I say a little about how Waltham Forest fared in this year's revenue support grant settlement. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow will know, it did well. Its standard spending assessment rose by nearly 21 per cent. to £1941 million and its external supportgrant—and non-domestic rate income rose, before taking account of community charge reduction grant, to £160.2 million, an increase of nearly 20 per cent. which is the equivalent of £998 for each adult in the borough of Walthamstow. That is a remarkable amount for each taxpayer to share with the people of that borough.
The community charge originally set by Waltham Forest in 1991–92 was £437, almost the same as in the previous year. The headline charge was reduced to £297 by the Government's general reduction of £140. So in my hon. Friend's borough, as in the rest of the country, people are paying substantially less in community charge thanks to the Government's decision to shift the burden of local spending away from charge payers.
I shall now move on to the specific points raised by my hon. Friend. He was most concerned about the size of losses on collection in his own authority and others which were being passed on to law-abiding community charge payers to meet. I have every sympathy with him. Such losses should not arise. First, it is unlawful and irresponsible for individuals to withhold individual community charge payments, and to attempt to transfer the burden of payment on to those who are rightly making their contribution. That is simply unreasonable. Secondly, as I outlined earlier, we have given authorities very substantial powers to enforce payment of the community charge. If authorities use those powers effectively, they can keep uncollectable losses to an absolute minimum.
I agree that substantial allowances for uncollected charges are unacceptable. Nevertheless, where there are such uncollectable charges, the local authority has a duty to make allowances for the amount of debt that it will not

1295
be able to recover and then set a community charge that takes this into account. I understand and sympathise with those who feel that it is unreasonable to pay for the losses created by the non-payment of others, but they should not break the law themselves. All charge payers are under a legal duty to pay the community charge set by their authority. The element in the bill for uncollected community charge forms part of that charge and charge payers must pay it, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford said.
I fear that it is a general rule of life that the law-abiding pay extra to make up for the behaviour of the feckless, the irresponsible or the criminal. Ask the manager of any High street store how much lower prices would be if it were not for theft and pilfering.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow then mentioned the case of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields). I find it beyond comprehension that someone who was elected to represent his constituents in the House should behave in such an irresponsible manner. As the leader of his party pointed out, Members of Parliament are elected to make the laws, not to break them. The chairman of Bootle magistrates clearly took a serious view of this when he imprisoned the hon. Member for Broadgreen for 60 days. The hon. Gentleman has set an appalling example, and I hope that this does not lead to other people following his irresponsible action.
I understand that the Freedom Association has sent the Labour party a cheque with which to pay the bill of the hon. Member for Broadgreen but that the Labour party
1296
has rejected it. Labour wants to wash its hands of this. I have some advice for the Labour party, which I am glad to see is represented by one of its hon. Members. It will continue to lose credibility in the House and outside until it disowns all hon. Members who do not pay their community charge.
We have recently looked at the provisions for the surcharge and disqualification of councillors in the context of the Widdicombe committee's recommendations and concluded that the provisions were already sufficiently stringent.
Payment of the community charge will remain an important issue this year and next, but perhaps I can end by looking to the future. We have, of course, announced that the community charge will be replaced by the council tax. We have recently completed wide consultations on the new tax and we are currently considering responses to that consultation very carefully. We shall make clear the next steps in due course. Ease of administration and collection have been two of the key factors in designing the council tax. We believe that the proposals that we have put forward will meet all our objectives in this area while maintaining fairness and accountability.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow on raising this important issue on the Floor of the House. I repeat what I said at the beginning—his constituents are fortunate to be represented by so diligent a Member.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Three o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Newtownards Courthouse (Union Flag)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General whether a union flag has been supplied to the courthouse in Newtownards in the constituency of Strangford; why the union flag was not flown on Her Majesty's official birthday; what arrangements have been made to fly the union flag at this courthouse on the designated days; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  A union flag has been supplied to the courthouse in Newtownards but was not flown on Her Majesty's official birthday through oversight. The courthouse is in possession of standing instructions for the flying of flags on all appropriate dates.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Attorney-General for what reasons the Lord Chancellor has decided not to approve the implementation of the scheme proposed by the Legal Aid Board to provide legal advice for defendants in housing possession proceedings.

  The Attorney-General
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has yet to take any decision on these proposals which will be issued by the Legal Aid Board for consultation in the autumn.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Education Budgets
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received about local education authorities adjusting their budgets in a way that reduces the value represented by the 16 per cent. allocated for administrative and advisory purposes and therefore the amount available to grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am aware of general concerns on this issue, and have had one specific representation.

  Social Work Diploma
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if students for the newly validated diploma in social work by the University of Wales will be entitled to a mandatory grant from local education authorities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Education Act 1962 restricts mandatory awards to certain categories of course. The diploma in social work course which is provided by the Cardiff Institute of Higher Education and validated by the University of Wales does not fall into any of these 498
  categories. I understand that the Cardiff institute has now applied to the university for validation of this course leading instead to a diploma of higher education. Eligible students enrolled on Dip HE courses at publicly funded institutions are entitled to mandatory awards under the 1962 Act and regulations.

  History Curriculum
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what extra resources have been made available to fund the new history curriculum.

  Mr. Eggar
  Resources have not been specifically earmarked for the history curriculum. The implementation of the national curriculum is being supported by the Government via specific grants to local education authorities. These grants totalled some £100 million in 1989–90; some £120 million in 1990–91; and in 1991–92 they will support LEA expenditure of around £170 million.

  Eligible expenditure includes the employment of advisory teachers, support for non-teaching support staff, the provision of extra books, materials and equipment and INSET. It is, however, for individual LEAs to apply for these grants, to identify needs and priorities for different subjects in the light of local circumstances and to direct spending towards them.

TRANSPORT

  Weston-super-Mare Distributor Road
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be making a decision as a result of the public inquiry concerning the compulsory purchase of land for the Weston-super-Mare primary distributor road, stages VA and VB.

  Mr. Chope
  The decision should be issued shortly.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya Wildlife Trust
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Kenya wildlife trust to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from 16 December to 20 December 1991.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made by his Department to ensure that existing food pledges result in immediate food deliveries to the people of Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The world food programme is responsible for the co-ordination of food aid deliveries to Ethiopia. In order to reach those in need as quickly as possible, we channel our food aid through international
  499
  agencies, including WFP, UNICEF, UNHCR and British non-governmental organisations. Deliveries of United Kingdom food aid are phased to take account of in-country storage and distribution capacity. Britain has pledged 93,366 tonnes of food to Ethiopia since last September. A total of 55,000 tonnes is already in the country.

  Africa
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all additional new funds allocated for food aid emergency relief to each country in Africa between January and the present time.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The list is as follows:

  United Kingdom cereals food aid 1991

  Country

  Tonnage

  Estimated cost £ million

  Ethiopia

  67,634

  16·316

  Sudan

  67,500

  14·531

  Somalia1

  8,000

  2·128

  Mozambique

  17,630

  2·953

  Angola

  7,472

  1·700

  Malawi

  6,000

  1·650

  Uganda

  6,706

  0·900

  Kenya

  3,294

  0·400

  Totals

  184,236

  40·578

  1 To be committed when security situation permits.

  Operation Lifeline
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the restarting of Operation Lifeline to the south of Sudan.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have committed almost £14·9 million to Operation Lifeline Sudan—OLS—since it began in 1989. We have already pressed the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples' Liberation movement to co-operate in the continuing implementation of OLS.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money has been allocated to the transport and delivery of food to Mozambique by his Department from January to the present time; and whether he has any plans to make more money available for(a) relief, (b) market food aid and (c) to assist food transport and distribution to Mozambique.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have allocated over £10 million for food aid, including transport, for Mozambique since January. This includes:£3·5 million bilaterally and £4·4 million through the EC for food and its distribution within Mozambique.
  £1·3 million bilaterally and £1 million through EC for food and its distribution to Mozambique refugees in Malawi.

  We shall continue to play our part with other donors in responding to Mozambique's food aid requirements.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Maydown Incinerator
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the incinerator proposed for the Maydown, Londonderry site will be required to have gas/gas heat exchanges to maintain the stack gases well above the gas clear point.

  Mr. Needham
  Any combustion plant including an incinerator will be required to incorporate heat exchangers to ensure that the flue gas temperature does not fall below the acid dew point.

  Departmental Telephones
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will bar telephones in his Department from connection to premium rate services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 8 July 1991]: All Departments in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office in London are reminded that, in the battle to reduce departmental running costs, the use of call barring, especially for premium rate services, can be an effective strategy.

  Where it is technically achievable, call barring is applied to STD and international calls in addition to premium rate services throughout Departments in Northern Ireland and London.

  Experience has shown that there are sound operational reasons for retaining access to premium rate telephone services for selected Government staff.

  Call barring is used on a site-by-site basis to prevent misuse of the telephone system, while retaining an operationally effective service to users. The Department of Finance and Personnel provides central advice to all Departments on the effective use of telephone services. Call logging equipment is used to identify telephone traffic at a significant number of sites.

HEALTH

  Estate Maintenance
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will quantify the total cost of the backlog of maintenance on the national health service estate for each district health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 31 March 1990 (the latest information available) the cost of bringing the NHS estate to an overall condition which exhibited only minor deterioration was estimated to be £1·8 billion. The information by health authority is shown in the tables and includes property due to be replaced within three years, property not used for patient care, property awaiting planned preventive maintenance and property awaiting disposal. These four types of property together represent about 30 per cent. of the total NHS estate. In 1982 a report "Underused and Surplus Property in the NHS" said:"It is clear that the backlog has accumulated over very many years"
  and estimated that the cost of the work required to bring property in England up to an acceptable standard would be of the order of £2·9 billion, at 1990 prices.

  Between 1979–80 and 1990–91 capital spending in the NHS rose by 62 per cent. in real terms. About 77 per cent.

  501
  of the resources allocated to NHS capital are invested in the estate and in the current year over 400 building projects each costing over £1 million are at various stages of planning, design and construction. The capital building programme for 1991–92 exceeds £1 billion.

  District health authority

  Cost to B2(£ thousands)

  NORTHERN REGION

  86,189

  Hartlepool

  5,650

  North Tees

  13,656

  South Tees

  5,296

  East Cumbria

  1,127

  South Cumbria

  8,622

  West Cumbria

  12,293

  Darlington

  4,530

  Durham

  7,272

  North West Durham

  926

  South West Durham

  5,260

  Northumberland

  14,104

  Gateshead

  1—

  Newcastle

  1—

  North Tyneside

  1,014

  South Tyneside

  2,840

  Sunderland

  3,599

  YORKSHIRE REGION

  110,446

  Hull

  5,609

  East Yorkshire

  6,200

  Grimsby

  3,531

  Scunthorpe

  4,809

  Northallerton

  1,525

  York

  2,497

  Scarborough

  1,442

  Harrogate

  400

  Bradford

  16,216

  Airdale

  7,089

  Calderdale

  1—

  Huddersfield

  1,051

  Dewsbury

  412

  West Leeds

  18,240

  East Leeds

  30,525

  Wakefield

  8,306

  Pontefract

  2,595

  TRENT REGION

  98,648

  Regionally managed schemes

  1—

  North Derbyshire

  6,154

  South Derbyshire

  5,841

  Leicester

  20,197

  North Lincolnshire

  2,937

  South Lincolnshire

  1—

  Bassetlaw

  4,373

  Central Nottingham

  17,353

  Nottingham

  20,038

  Barnsley

  1,200

  Doncaster

  5,182

  Rotherham

  1,573

  Sheffield

  13,801

  EAST ANGLIA REGION

  43,151

  Cambridge

  12,912

  Peterborough

  1—

  West Suffolk

  3,043

  East Suffolk

  11,770

  Norwich

  11,572

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  1—

  West Norfolk and Wishech

  2,617

  Huntingdon

  1,237

  NORTH WEST THAMES REGION

  67,408

  North Bedfordshire

  4,967

  South Bedfordshire

  9,579

  North Hertfordshire

  1—

  East Hertfordshire

  1—

  North West Hertfordshire

  1—

  South West Hertfordshire

  3,488

  Barnet

  1—

  502

  District health authority

  Cost to B2(£ thousands)

  Harrow

  1—

  Hillingdon

  1—

  Hounslow and Spelthorne

  1—

  Ealing

  1—

  Riverside

  34,515

  Parkside

  14,859

  North East Thames Region

  212,427

  Basildon and Thurrock

  2,350

  Mid Essex

  13,781

  North East Essex

  25,514

  West Essex

  3,700

  Southend

  350

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  31,458

  Hampstead

  21,895

  Bloomsbury

  1—

  Islington

  7,548

  City and Hackney

  39,675

  Newham

  1—

  Tower Hamlets

  16,500

  Enfield

  5,840

  Haringey

  7,144

  Redbridge

  17,441

  Waltham Forest

  19,231

  South Eastern Thames Region

  122,805

  Brighton

  29,374

  Eastbourne

  3,700

  Hastings

  6,130

  South East Kent

  949

  Canterbury & Thanet

  26,224

  Dartford and Gravesham

  13,923

  Maidstone

  3,136

  Medway

  1—

  Tunbridge Wells

  10,240

  Bexley

  12,832

  Greenwich

  5,426

  Bromley

  1—

  West Lambeth

  10,872

  Camberwell

  1—

  Lewisham & North Southwark

  1—

  South West Thames Region

  164,932

  North West Surrey

  12,142

  West Surrey and North East Hants

  132

  South West Surrey

  6,965

  Mid Surrey

  11,411

  East Surrey

  7,575

  Chichester

  10,506

  Mid Downs

  13,526

  Worthing

  6,682

  Croydon

  6,592

  Kingston & Esher

  10,482

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton

  3,124

  Wandsworth

  66,421

  Merton & Sutton

  9,374

  Wessex Region

  62,060

  East Dorset

  —

  West Dorset

  1—

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  7,843

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  1—

  Winchester

  11,035

  Basingstoke and North Hampshire

  6,132

  Salisbury

  1—

  Swindon

  3,611

  Bath

  30,967

  Isle of Wight

  2,472

  Oxford Region

  93,010

  East Berkshire

  14,962

  West Berkshire

  1,000

  Aylesbury Vale

  13,795

  Wycombe

  9,244

  Milton Keynes

  1,082

  Kettering

  11,786

  Northampton

  4,829

  503

  District health authority

  Cost to B2(£ thousands)

  Oxfordshire

  36,312

  SOUTH WESTERN REGION

  100,226

  Bristol and Weston

  10,741

  Frenchay

  24,119

  Southmead

  5,819

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  8,527

  Exeter

  4,138

  North Devon

  1,759

  Plymouth

  13,389

  Torbay

  2,867

  Cheltenham

  2,933

  Gloucester

  11,700

  Somerset

  14,234

  WEST MIDLANDS REGION

  215,903

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  3,828

  Herefordshire

  7,797

  Kidderminster

  4,283

  Worcester

  6,665

  Shropshire

  7,712

  Mid Staffordshire

  2,424

  North Staffordshire

  7,410

  South East Staffordshire

  28,066

  Rugby

  2,387

  North Warwickshire

  2,750

  South Warwickshire

  29,208

  Central Birmingham

  22,046

  East Birmingham

  1—

  North Birmingham

  15,251

  South Birmingham

  1—

  West Birmingham

  11,765

  Coventry

  17,714

  Dudley

  7,680

  Sandwell

  7,093

  Solihull

  2,857

  Walsall

  2,805

  Wolverhampton

  26,162

  MERSEY REGION

  74,460

  Chester

  1—

  Crewe

  3,448

  Halton

  590

  Macclesfield

  5,288

  Warrington

  3,296

  Liverpool

  36,242

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  2,881

  Southport and Formby

  2,857

  South Sefton

  9,396

  Wirral

  10,462

  NORTH WESTERN REGION

  83,251

  Lancaster

  3,068

  Notifications of food poisoning which were (a) formally notified, (b) ascertained by other means and (c) total by regional health authority: 1979–90

  Year

  North West Thames

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  1979

  775

  1,209

  609

  687

  1980

  743

  804

  622

  622

  1981

  815

  642

  596

  641

  1982

  (a)

  923

  912

  659

  660

  (b)

  281

  435

  96

  606

  (c)

  1,204

  1,347

  755

  1,266

  1983

  (a)

  1,060

  907

  894

  745

  (b)

  637

  427

  176

  665

  (c)

  1,697

  1,334

  1,070

  1,410

  1984

  (a)

  1,174

  1,206

  1,024

  620

  (b)

  728

  783

  227

  689

  (c)

  1,902

  1,989

  1,251

  1,309

  1985

  (a)

  1,169

  1,174

  1,079

  920

  (b)

  717

  480

  260

  550

  (c)

  1,886

  1,654

  1,339

  1,470

  504

  District health authority

  Cost to B2(£ thousands)

  Blackpool—Wyre and Fylde

  5,168

  Preston

  1—

  Blackburn, Hynburn and Ribble Valley

  5,088

  Burnley, Pendle and Rosendale

  1—

  West Lancashire

  8,380

  Chorley and South Ribble

  2,558

  Bolton

  1—

  Bury

  800

  North Manchester

  18,804

  Central Manchester

  1—

  South Manchester

  9,478

  Oldham

  4,542

  Rochdale

  8,655

  Salford

  3,114

  Stockport

  2,499

  Tameside and Glossop

  3,296

  Trafford

  3,512

  Wigan

  4,290

  NHS National Total 84 per cent.

  1,534,915

  Projected Total 100 per cent.

  1,832,304

  1 No returns received to Cost to B.

  2 To an acceptable level.

  Guidance on Hospital Discharge
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent steps his Department has taken to encourage health authorities to ensure that guidance on hospital discharge is followed in hospitals from which they purchase services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Existing guidance continues to be binding on health authorities. Purchasers will be able to specify in their contracts with providers the discharge procedures they wish to see followed.

  Food Poisoning
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table showing for each district health authority in London the number of food poisoning incidents reported for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is not available in the form requested. Cases of food poisoning reported to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys by each of the four Thames regional health authorities for the period 1979–90 are set out in the table.
  505

  Year

  North West Thames

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  South West Thames

  1986

  (a)

  1,143

  1,591

  1,253

  1,111

  (b)

  712

  599

  376

  605

  (c)

  1,855

  2,190

  1,629

  1,716

  1987

  (a)

  1,534

  2,073

  1,706

  1,376

  (b)

  825

  583

  382

  631

  (c)

  2,359

  2,656

  2,088

  2,007

  1988

  (a)

  1,856

  2,439

  2,315

  1,848

  (b)

  736

  582

  405

  869

  (c)

  2,592

  3,021

  2,720

  2,717

  1989

  (a)

  2,205

  3,037

  2,974

  2,314

  (b)

  852

  734

  585

  724

  (c)

  3,057

  3,771

  3,559

  3,038

  1990

  (a)

  2,507

  2,756

  2,502

  2,160

  (b)

  731

  775

  780

  913

  (c)

  3,238

  3,531

  3,282

  3,073

  Note:

  (a) "formal notifications" are made by the doctor in attendance to the proper officer for each local government district under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984.

  (b) cases "ascertained by other means" are identified during outbreak investigation.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for curtailing the publication of national health service waiting lists; what consideration he has given to the implications of such a proposal for health budget holders wishing to shop around for treatment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have no intention of curtailing the collection and publication of information on waiting lists and times.

  We currently collect and publish information on waiting lists and times in districts within which treatment is provided. However, this does not show waiting performance of individual hospitals, and is a poor guide for "shopping around". From April 1991 we are also collecting figures by district residence. Both sets of figures will be collated within my Department for up to two years so as to ensure continuity of data while the new data flows settle down.

  Thereafter we propose to collect centrally only the residence-based figures, in order to monitor purchasing health effectiveness in securing early treatment for their residents. Statistics on waiting times at individual hospitals will continue to be held at local level, as now. Arrangements will be made for ensuring the wide availability of hospital level information to purchasing health authorities, GP fund-holders and others before the central collection of provider-based statistics is finally dropped.

  Medical Manpower
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the report of the review of continence services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) on 10 July at column 410.

  Children's Homes
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many residential placements each local authority in England and Wales intends to provide in children's homes in 1992;
  506
  (2) how many new local authority children's homes were opened and in which local authorities in England and Wales in (a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and (d) 1991;

  (3) how many residential placements were provided in children's homes on 1 June in each local authority in England and Wales;

  (4) how many local authority children's homes were closed and in which authorities during (a) 1988, (b) 1989, (c) 1990 and (d)

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information available centrally relates to the number of children in the care of each local authority who are in children's homes rather than the number of homes or places. This information relates to the local authority responsible for the child not the authority responsible for the home.

  This information is published in "Children in Care of Local Authorities", a copy of which is available in the Library. The most recent edition is for the year ending 31 March 1988: the 1989 edition will be published shortly.

  Child Care Initiative
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the recent child care initiative from the European Community Social Affairs Commissioner and Her Majesty's Government's policy towards it.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have no knowledge of any recent child care initiative taken by the European Commission. The Council recommendation on child care mentioned in the press release issued by the Commission on 3 July has not yet been forwarded to the Government.

  HIV-AIDS Tests
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many tests for HIV and AIDS have been carried for each health authority in England and Wales for each of the past five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 July 1991]: Data on the number of tests carried out for the human immunodeficiency virus (there is no test for AIDS) by region and district are not collected. However, an indication of the trends in testing can be obtained by

  507
  examining the total numbers of HIV tests (not including the tests associated with unlinked anonymous testing) carried out by the public health laboratory service laboratories for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These are given as follows (to the nearest 500).

  Number

  1986

  102,500

  1987

  161,000

  1988

  142,000

  1989

  141,000

  1990

  167,500

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many tests for HIV and AIDS have been carried out on pregnant women in the past five years in each health authority in England and Wales;

  (2) how many of the pregnant women who have been tested for AIDS in England and Wales over the past five years had positive test results; and how many were informed of the result of the test, by health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 4 July 1991]: Data on pregnant women tested via voluntary named testing are not collected centrally.

  In the anonymised HIV ante-natal survey a total of 52,813 samples were tested between January and September 1990. The numbers tested and the prevalence rates are as follows:

  Area

  Number of specimens tested

  Prevalence-one person in

  Inner London

  23,166

  500

  Outer London and rest of South East England

  13,668

  1,500

  Rest of country

  15,979

  16,000

CIVIL SERVICE

  Polygraphs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what use has been made of polygraphs in the civil service during the past five years.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

WALES

  Orthopaedics Treatment Centre
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what bids he has received for expansion of the operating theatre complex at the treatment centre for elective

  Receipts from the sale of council houses1

  £000s

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Alyn and Deeside

  691

  388

  446

  847

  1,155

  943

  1,150

  2,257

  3,724

  2,147

  Colwyn

  754

  705

  532

  415

  544

  605

  758

  1,305

  1,407

  787

  Delyn

  773

  651

  1,068

  3,889

  453

  681

  1,089

  1,070

  1,986

  85

  Glyndwr

  791

  1,212

  627

  438

  1,498

  727

  709

  1,875

  2,017

  867

  Rhuddlan

  412

  335

  373

  391

  627

  467

  844

  1,541

  1,457

  881

  Wrexham Maelor

  2,009

  1,388

  719

  867

  1,320

  1,997

  3,095

  4,433

  10,329

  4,322

  Carmarthen

  1,628

  1,348

  963

  944

  632

  741

  845

  1,549

  1,793

  1,697

  Ceredigion

  1,628

  1,888

  1,193

  819

  580

  1,020

  869

  2,291

  3,133

  1,877

  Dinefwr

  712

  596

  336

  329

  484

  768

  730

  1,198

  1,279

  1,260

  Llanelli

  1,645

  1,874

  2,139

  1,352

  1,141

  1,695

  1,984

  3,258

  3,383

  2,236

  508
  orthopaedics at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar; what number of waiting list initiative artificial knee and hip operations are to be undertaken under the terms of the bid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A bid of £300,000 for additional theatre facilities to serve the whole of the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar has been received from South Glamorgan health authority under the 1991–92 waiting times initiative. It does not specify the additional throughput that will result and my officials are in touch with the authority.

  Official Visit (America)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his full itinerary for the recently completed investment mission to North America.

  Mr. David Hunt
  During the mission I undertook engagments in the states of California (San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego) Minnesota (Minneapolis/St. Paul), Michigan, Connecticut, New York state (Buffalo, Rochester, New Jersey) and New York city; and in Canada I visited Toronto, Peterborough and Ottawa. I visited 20 companies and met over 200 senior company representatives.

  Footpath Inquiry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now announce the date and venue of the public inquiry regarding the diversion of footpath 46 at Frampton road, Gorseinon, Swansea.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The order was made by Lliw Valley borough council under the Highways Act 1980 in May and has been advertised. There has been one objection. The order must now be submitted to my right hon. Friend for determination. Once it has been received a public inquiry will be held before a decision is reached. As promised in previous correspondence, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman once the inquiry has been arranged and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of council house sales in each of the Welsh housing authorities since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information which is available is shown in the following table; figures for 1979–80 and 1980–81 are not available on a consistent basis.
  509

  Local authority

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  2,623

  1,539

  1,666

  1,108

  1,053

  1,123

  1,245

  3,137

  4,217

  2,367

  South Pembrokeshire

  112

  1,121

  1,511

  1,009

  456

  446

  728

  1,745

  1,976

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  954

  1,586

  1,005

  723

  3,406

  1,386

  1,511

  2,932

  4,750

  2.162

  Islwyn

  1,653

  8,274

  2,775

  1,767

  1,541

  2,193

  2,550

  4,118

  4,229

  1.531

  Monmouth

  285

  260

  3,036

  2,563

  1,974

  2,088

  2,763

  4,097

  4,689

  2.144

  Newport

  1,878

  2,623

  2,884

  3,135

  7,534

  3,486

  3,490

  6,972

  8,513

  2.745

  Torfaen

  2,674

  3,722

  3,009

  2,552

  1,465

  4,811

  3,532

  7,170

  9,380

  4.875

  Aberconwy

  1,095

  1,270

  804

  692

  734

  858

  1,071

  2,566

  3,201

  183

  Arfon

  1,054

  2,200

  723

  851

  548

  777

  738

  2,085

  2,570

  1,242

  Dwyfor

  1

  512

  244

  156

  220

  143

  129

  352

  521

  591

  Meirionnydd

  0

  1,013

  664

  341

  394

  407

  590

  1,054

  1,296

  497

  Ynys Mon

  1,085

  875

  486

  517

  1,144

  920

  739

  2,918

  3,868

  1,910

  Cynon Valley

  0

  2,494

  1,120

  560

  526

  1,062

  1,015

  1,302

  557

  2,078

  Merthyr Tydfil

  1,379

  1,784

  1,032

  849

  1,257

  1,627

  1,842

  2,663

  3,156

  1,213

  Ogwr

  1,403

  3,816

  9,104

  3,204

  3,106

  3,674

  2,998

  5,144

  6,220

  3,466

  Rhondda

  362

  191

  230

  202

  275

  398

  355

  557

  738

  628

  Rhymney Valley

  1,880

  2,659

  2,073

  1,719

  1,615

  2,839

  3,175

  3,023

  4,407

  3,541

  Taff Ely

  20

  992

  1,886

  1,724

  1,802

  2,910

  3,663

  4,707

  6,155

  365

  Brecknock

  1,922

  328

  1,149

  1,015

  918

  1,159

  1,324

  1,977

  1,325

  0

  Montgomeryshire

  10

  104

  946

  648

  782

  1,207

  1,065

  1,864

  2,230

  1,068

  Radnorshire

  701

  670

  689

  281

  317

  296

  595

  774

  881

  500

  Cardiff

  2,355

  1,515

  4,015

  5,039

  6,312

  11,529

  9,179

  14,349

  16,819

  8,319

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,449

  2,762

  2,766

  2,274

  2,084

  3,297

  2,947

  5,755

  5,079

  2,260

  Port Talbot

  890

  435

  1,950

  1,850

  2,080

  2,517

  3,063

  4,211

  5,182

  2,624

  Lliw Valley

  734

  1,266

  502

  623

  960

  1,372

  1,343

  1,731

  2,968

  2,475

  Neath

  1,636

  1,140

  714

  947

  1,410

  1,539

  1,864

  2,482

  3,038

  1,951

  Swansea

  0

  1,607

  1,831

  6,027

  1,580

  2,260

  3,588

  8,467

  9,624

  4,375

  TOTAL DISTRICTS

  39,198

  57,143

  57,210

  52,667

  53,927

  65,968

  69,175

  118,929

  148,097

  71,269

  1 Includes the repayment of principal on local authority mortgages on council house sales.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been received from the sale of council houses in Wales since 1979; how much of this sum has been kept by the councils; and how much has gone to central Government.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Capital receipts from council house sales have totalled £734 million from 1981–82 to 1990–91. These receipts are not, and never have been, returned to central Government but are used by councils themselves either to finance new capital expenditure or to redeem debt.

  Cardiff-Wales Airport
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the Government's response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report, HC 166 of Session 1990–91, on Cardiff-Wales airport.

  Year £

  Highest award £

  Average award £

  Total compensation £

  Fixed minimum award £

  April 1981—31 March 1982

  136,500

  1,267

  21,976,696

  250

  1982–83

  112,000

  1,492

  29,444,675

  250

  1983–84

  123,250

  1,553

  32,820,772

  1400

  1984–85

  303,500

  1,785

  35,293,451

  400

  1985–86

  175,809

  1,844

  41,559,996

  400

  1986–87

  400,000

  2,200

  48,241,764

  400

  1987–88

  496,400

  2,482

  52,042,581

  2550

  1988–89

  307,781

  2,484

  69,381,286

  550

  1989–90

  834,703

  2,679

  72,721,563

  550

  1990–914

  n/a

  3,138

  110,433,000

  3750

  1 From 1 February 1983.

  2 From 7 November 1986.

  3 From 1 February 1990.

  4 Provisional figures.

  510
  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce that the repsonse has been published today as Command Paper 1584.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the highest award of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each year from 1981 to date, (b) the lowest award, (c) the average award and (d) the total award in the same years.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is shown in the following table:
  511
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the aggregate amount of compensation paid by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each year from 1981 to date and (b) the total number of recipients.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Total value of awards £

  Number of recipients

  April 1981–31 March 1982

  21,976,696

  17,350

  1982–83

  29,444,675

  19,733

  1983–84

  32,820,772

  21,133

  1984–85

  35,293,451

  19,771

  1985–86

  41,559,996

  22,534

  1986–87

  48,241,764

  21,925

  1987–88

  52,042,581

  20,991

  1988–89

  69,381,286

  27,752

  1989–90

  72,721,563

  27,926

  1990–911

  110,433,000

  35,190

  Totals

  513,915,784

  234,305

  1 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of single member decisions of Criminal Injuries Compensation Board awards for each year from 1981 to date.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information on awards made by the board, which includes decisions taken by more than one member following a hearing, is given in the following table:

  Year

  Monetary awards

  Nil awards

  Interim awards

  Total

  April 1981—31 March 1982

  17,350

  4,395

  3,875

  25,620

  1982–83

  19,733

  5,354

  3,297

  28,384

  1983–84

  21,133

  7,622

  3,356

  32,111

  1984–85

  19,771

  6,940

  3,152

  29,863

  1985–86

  22,934

  6,711

  3,792

  33,437

  1986–87

  21,925

  6,480

  3,571

  31,976

  1987–88

  20,991

  6,484

  3,316

  30,791

  1988–89

  27,752

  8,219

  3,977

  39,948

  1989–90

  27,926

  8,580

  3,307

  39,813

  1990–911

  35,190

  14,841

  4,106

  54,137

  1 Provisional figures.

  Prison Escapes
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department received following the foiled attempt at a mass escape from Crumlin Road prison, Belfast, in October 1989 about the smuggling of Semtex, a pistol and ammunition into the prison in the heels of trainer shoes; and what subsequent action was taken to alert all prisons in the United Kingdom to this technique.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Officials from the prison service in England and Wales meet officials from Northern Ireland and Scotland several times each year to discuss security and to share information. This is regular and ongoing.

  The problems of concealment of various weapons and other contraband in footwear is very well known. Specific warning advice was issued to governors in England and Wales in December 1985 about the dangers of weapons being concealed in this way. Similar advice on the dangers
  512
  of contraband items being concealed in shoes was issued on eight separate occasions between August 1982 and April 1991. The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Prisons (Industrial Disputes)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons which at 9 July had an industrial dispute; and if he will also list the nature of the disputes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Industrial disputes, registered under the agreed disputes procedure between prison service management and the Prison Officers Association, were recorded at 49 prisons in England and Wales as at 11 July 1991. The establishments are listed. The majority of the disputes are about staffing figures. Other disputes cover matters including shift systems, local conditions and overcrowding, prison regimes and opposite sex postings policy.

  Acklington

  Albany

  Askham Grange

  Bedford

  Birmingham

  Bristol

  Bullwood Hall

  Cardiff

  Castington

  Chelmsford

  Coldingley

  Durham

  Erlestoke

  Featherstone

  Frankland

  Glen Parva

  Hatfield

  Hindley

  Hull

  Leeds

  Lewes

  Lindholme

  Littlehey

  Liverpool

  Long Lartin

  Manchester

  Moorland

  New Hall

  Northallerton

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Onley

  Oxford

  Pentonville

  Preston

  Risley

  Shepton Mallet

  Stafford

  Stoken

  Styal

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  Swinfen Hall

  Thorp Arch

  Wakefield

  Wetherby

  Winchester

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Wymott

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictive practices exist in the prison service.
  513
  Mrs. Rumbold
  The "fresh start" agreement in 1987 involved the abolition of a number of inefficient working practices and systems of attendance. This was followed last year by the removal of outdated national restrictions on the civilianisation of prison officers' work. There is still scope in some instances for securing the more efficient matching of work and resources within individual establishments. That is something which is currently being addressed through an establishment-by-establishment work identification exercise known as the corporate objectives process.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on improvements in productivity at Brixton prison since the inception of fresh start.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under "fresh start" efficiencies in the use of prison officers' hours are being achieved through progressive reductions in their average working week. The extent of the efficiencies which are achievable varies between establishments depending on the way that work is organised and on changes in workload since 1987. At Brixton, between April 1987 and April 1991 there was a 24 per cent. efficiency improvement in the use of prison officer hours, which is slightly more than the national average of 22 per cent.

  Number of houses for which consent was given for transfer by district councils to other landlords by voluntary disposal

  1989–90

  Voluntary disposal to:

  District council

  Private companies

  Housing associations

  Co-operatives

  Scottish homes

  Other

  Angus

  36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Clydebank

  —

  —

  218

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  —

  14

  7

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  —

  88

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  24

  72

  —

  1

  Tweeddale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  West Lothian

  —

  26

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  36

  152

  297

  —

  3

  1990–91

  Voluntary disposal to:

  District council

  Private companies

  Housing associations

  Co-operatives

  Scottish homes

  Other

  Argyll and Bute

  —

  12

  —

  —

  —

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Clydebank

  —

  96

  —

  —

  —

  Dundee

  —

  82

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh

  —

  —

  11

  —

  16

  East Lothian

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  Glasgow

  —

  704

  154

  —

  2

  Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Motherwell

  —

  —

  140

  —

  —

  Orkney

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  —

  —

  54

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  244

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  244

  927

  359

  —

  20

  Forth Valley Enterprise
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of public money given to Forth Valley Enterprise, with a breakdown stating the amounts given to individual training companies; and whether he will express all the amounts as expenditure per trainee.
  514
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the effect on the "fresh start" initiative on prison regimes.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since the "fresh start" initiative to improve efficiency in the use of prison service manpower was introduced in 1987, there has been a general improvement in the level of regime delivery with an 8 per cent. increase in activity hours per inmate in 1989–90 and a further 7 per cent. increase in 1990–91.

SCOTLAND

  Local Authority Housing (Transfers)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authority houses have been voluntarily transferred to(a) private companies, (b) housing associations, (c) tenant co-operatives, (d) Scottish Homes and (e) any other landlord by each housing authority in Scotland in each year since 1989.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The following tables give details of voluntary disposals of local authority houses to which my right hon. Friend's consent was given in 1989–90 and 1990–91 in terms of section 12(7) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 or section 74(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The distribution of funds from within its grant-in-aid to local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 2 July,Official Report, column 131.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: The advertising companies employed by my Department in connection with the campaigns referred to in my answer of 2 July, Official Report, column 131 are Faulds Advertising Ltd. of Edinburgh and The Leith Agency of Edinburgh.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the commencement date and duration of each of the publicity campaigns given in his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 131.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: The duration of the advertising campaigns referred to in my answer of 2 July, Official Report, column 131 are as follows:

  Road Safety:

  Television: 8 April to 30 June 1991

  2–29 September 1991

  2–29 March 1992

  Radio: 3 July-2 September 1991

  6–26 January 1992

  Press: October and November 1991 (exact dates remain under discussion)

  Crime Prevention:

  Television and Radio: 4–25 October 1991

  Fire Prevention:

  Exact timing remains under discussion

  Right to Buy:

  Exact timing remains under discussion

  Children's Hearings:

  Press: Week commencing 26 August 1991

PRIME MINISTER

  EC Environment Policies
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement of his policy on(a) EC proposals to ban the sale of fish contaminated with pesticides and (b) plans for the EC's own environmental protection agency.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom has consistently supported the concept of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and greatly regrets that the delay in deciding its location is holding up its establishment. We see the provision of objective, reliable and comparable environmental information at the European level, which is the aim of the EEA, as the only sound basis for formulating environmental policies. As to the first part of the question I am not aware of any EC proposals on this subject.

  Marine Pollution
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the outcome of last year's conference of North sea states; what is his policy on(a) a ban on dumping of nuclear waste at sea and (b) a declaration to reduce output of pollutants blamed for blooms of toxic marine algae.

  The Prime Minister
  We made it clear at last year's North sea conference that we have no plans for disposing 516
  of radioactive waste from ships or seabed artificial structures into or beneath the seabed. We have always followed the recommendations of the competent international organisations on the dumping of waste and agree that this disposal option is not suitable for the North sea. Nevertheless we have not completely ruled out sea disposal for large items such as boilers from decommissioned power stations and are keeping under review whether this disposal option may be required at some further date.

  Algal bloom, including toxic marine algae, occurs naturally in the marine environment, but, in slow-moving shallow water areas with a high proportion of freshwater from rivers, nutrients from agriculture and sewage discharges can be a determining factor. In the North sea these conditions occur along the eastern coastal seaboard particularly in the Wadden sea and Skaggerak. Given the circulation pattern of the North sea, discharges of nutrients from the United Kingdom do not contribute to this problem.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what initiatives he plans to take to advance the aims of avoiding world over-armament as agreed in annex VII of the Presidency conclusions of the European Council meeting at Luxembourg on 28–29 June.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: We are actively pursuing a number of initiatives to encourage greater responsibility and transparency in the international transfer of conventional weapons, and to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The five leading arms exporters met in Paris on 8–9 July and agreed to develop machinery for continuing consultations on arms transfers. A further meeting will be held in London.

  The Paris meeting also endorsed our initiative to establish a United Nations register of arms transfers. The initiative has attracted wide support. The European Council on 28–29 June announced that the Twelve will present a resolution to set up such a register at the next United Nations General Assembly.

  These issues are on the agenda of next week's London economic summit.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the arrangements in place for the assistance by the United Kingdom of environmental clean-up, environmental protection and industrial development for countries of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: The know-how fund is the main focus of the United Kingdom's environmental and industrial assistance to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. On 21 June we announced an environmental programme for eastern Europe worth £5 million over three years. Multilaterally we co-ordinate our efforts through the G24 with participation by all OECD countries and relevant international organisations. There are separate G24 sub-groups which address environmental issues and investment and economic/industrial restructuring. In addition to EC's Poland and Hungary aid for economic reconstruction (PHARE) programme has so far made available some £152 million for economic/industrial restructuring and £71 million in environmental help.

  G7 Economic Summit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what environmental initiatives(a) he intends to raise and (b) Her Majesty's Government have been informed that other heads of state and Governments intend to raise at the forthcoming G7 economic summit in London.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: The summit is an informal meeting between Heads of Government. I hope that the summit will give impetus to the run-up to the UN conference on environment and development, in particular on climate change, the protection of biological diversity and the conservation of forests.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with representatives of international businesses concerning the G7 summit; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: I met representatives of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) on 2 July to exchange views on the issues likely to arise at the London economic summit. The ICC endorsed the importance which the Government attach to low inflation as a necessary condition for sustained growth in the world economy and shared the Government's wish to secure early progress in the Uruguay round of GATT talks. We also discussed the ICC's ideas on technical assistance to the Soviet Union and the countries of central and eastern Europe.

DEFENCE

  Chipmunks
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the annual costs of running the Royal Naval grading flight of Chipmunks out of Plymouth airport for each of the last five years, setting out the individual figures for flying costs, airport costs and training costs.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The total annual cost of the grading flight over the period in question was:

  Year

  £000s

  1986–87

  772·0

  1987–88

  901·5

  1988–89

  929·0

  1989–90

  952·7

  1990–91

  978·0

  MOD Police
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost to his Department of moving the headquarters and other facilities of the Ministry of Defence police to RAF Wethersfield; and from which subheads of which votes these funds will be taken.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The relocation has been agreed on the basis that costs will be more than offset by the savings which will be made.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all United Kingdom nuclear fleet submarines, the year each submarine came into service, the likely year for each to be decommissioned and the plans for that decommissioning, including possible location; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The nuclear fleet submarines currently in service are:

  Vessel

  Accepted into service

  Valiant

  1966

  Courageous

  1971

  Swiftsure

  1973

  Sovereign

  1974

  Superb

  1976

  Sceptre

  1978

  Spartan

  1979

  Splendid

  1981

  Trafalgar

  1983

  Turbulent

  1984

  Tireless

  1985

  Torbay

  1987

  Trenchant

  1989

  Talent

  1990

  In addition, Dreadnought was withdrawn from service in 1982–83 and is currently stored afloat at Rosyth. Churchill, Conqueror and Warspite were withdrawn from service in 1990 and are currently in the process of being decommissioned. Churchill is at Rosyth and Conqueror and Warspite are at Devonport.

  It is not our practice to release in advance details of projected dates or planned locations for decommissioning nuclear-powered submarines.

  Manpower
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the current and planned totals for(a) three-star posts and (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
  I refer the hon. Member to I he answer I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on 11 July 1991.

  Injured Grenadiers
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the meeting which took place between his officials and the solicitor representing the three injured guardsmen.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The meeting provided a full and useful discussion on the merits of the case. MOD officials provided some further information to the solicitor and undertook to provide other information as requested.

  Redundancies
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer given by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 2 July,Official Report, column

  519
  149, what is his policy on informing hon. Members about forthcoming announcements of redundancies at his Department's workplaces.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend's general practice is to give notice to those hon. Members whose constituents are mainly affected whenever the number of civilian staff in question is 25 or more. That is the same threshold as is agreed for consultation with trade unions at departmental level. Proposals of lesser scale are normally handled at local level.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Norwegian Fishing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy in the European economic area negotiations with Norway to insist that any new fish provided by Norway should be allocated among EC member states in accordance with the principle of relative stability.

  Mr. Curry
  Under relative stability, established EC fishing opportunities are divided among member states according to fixed keys, although new fishing opportunities may be allocated according to new keys. In the negotiations for a European economic area, the Government are continuing to work strenuously to safeguard the principle of relative stability.

  Cows Milk (Dioxin)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet determined the source of the dioxin found in the milk of cows from the Bolsover area.

  Mr. Maclean
  A detailed research programme will shortly be under way on the two farms concerned and on a number of other farms in the area. However, the complexity of the scientific analyses that need to be carried out means that there will be some delay before they can be completed.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports of damage to farm workers following exposure to organophosphorous sheep dips he has received in the last six months; and whether he has received any similar reports relating to other types of sheep dip.

  Mr. Maclean
  Between 1 January and 30 June 1991, seven reports of suspected adverse reactions to sheep dips involving farmers and farm workers have been received by the veterinary medicines directorate. Six involved organophosphorous compounds and one a nonorganophosphorous compound. The reports cover incidents which occurred between July 1985 and April 1990. All are being followed up.

  In addition, we have received 18 brief reports from the National Poisons Centre which our officials are also investigating. We are not yet able to say whether these reports include duplicates of those mentioned, specifically involve farmers or farm workers, or relate to the use of organophosphorous compounds.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effects have been identified on agricultural employment by Reading university in its evaluation, commissioned by him, of the set-aside scheme and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have recently received Reading university's evaluation of set-aside and am now studying it. The university will be publishing its findings later this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Conventional Forces in Europe
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the updated memorandum of understanding required under the conventional forces in Europe treaty giving the details of the location of British forces in the United Kingdom and continental Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  A copy of the updated British data exchanged in accordance with section VII of the protocol on notification and exchange of information to the CFE treaty has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the updated memorandum of understanding required under the conventional forces in Europe treaty giving the details of the location of United States forces in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have received in accordance with section VII of the protocol on notification and exchange of information the data provided by the US Administration as required under the CFE treaty, which includes details of US forces in the United Kingdom.

  United Nations Emergency Operations Office (Africa)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to make representations to the United Nations Secretary General concerning the re-establishment of an office for emergency operations in Africa.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. We welcome the United Nations Secretary-General's announcement on 7 July that he is strengthening the Office of the Under Secretary-General dealing inter alia with relief operations in Africa in order to be able to respond effectively to emergencies. The Office is to enjoy the responsibilities and powers which fell to the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa until its closure in 1986. We are pursuing separately in the United Nations our initiative to support and improve the United Nations response to humanitarian emergencies.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current salary of the governor of Hong Kong.
  521
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The present salary of the governor of Hong Kong, which is set and paid by the Hong Kong Government, is Hong Kong dollars 160,100 per month.

  Croatia and Slovenia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the position adopted by each EC country, including the United Kingdom, at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers regarding the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia as independent sovereign states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the Brioni agreement of 7–8 July Slovenia and Croatia have agreed to suspend for three months implementation of their declarations of independence. EC Foreign Ministers met in The Hague on 10 July and confirmed their support for the Brioni agreement. The EC has also agreed to support constitutional talks aimed at meeting the aspirations of all Yugoslavia's peoples.

  Expo 92
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage Crown colonies to bring forward proposals or exhibits for the British pavilion at Expo 92, Seville; and if he will list those Crown colonies so far approached.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No such steps are being taken because, as has been made clear in answer to previous questions, it is not our intention to solicit exhibits for the British pavilion at Expo 92 on a geographical basis.

  British Hostages
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British hostages are presently believed to be held in Lebanon; what are their names; on what dates each of them was taken hostage; what information he has about organisations involved in these kidnappings; what is the latest information he has about the whereabouts of the hostages; what steps are being taken to ensure their immediate release; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We believe there are three British hostages being held in Lebanon. Mr. John McCarthy was kidnapped on 17 April 1986; Mr. Terry Waite on 20 January 1987; and Mr. Jack Mann on 12 May 1989. We do not have firm information on which organisations were involved in the kidnappings, or on where in Lebanon the hostages are currently held. We continue to make every effort to secure the release of the hostages, and remain in close touch with all parties we believe may be able to help in achieving this goal.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will place in the Library the applications of bodies to be recognised as supervisory bodies under the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) on 19 December 1990 at col.187.

  Domestic Accidents
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 20 June,Official Report, column 282, if he can break down the various causes of fatal accidents in the home.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information requested is published by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys as table 5 in "Mortality Statistics", series DH4 (numbers 13–15 for years 1987–89), copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  New Homes
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has completed his examination of new homes structural warranty services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on structural warranties for new homes the Secretary of Slate has been consulting widely on possible remedies. He is considering the outcome of this process of consultation and will announce his decision in due course.

  BCCI
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what equity shareholding CCL Assurance had in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International; and what information he has on the amount of clients' funds invested in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International by CCL Assurance.

  Mr. Redwood
  CCL Assurance has told my Department that it has no equity shareholding in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). It has also provided me in confidence with information about the location of all its assets, including assets representing its policyholders' funds.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department is carrying out an investigation into CCL Assurance, in connection with the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  Mr. Redwood
  I am prepared to consider any information the hon. Member may provide which might warrant an investigation.

  Bass, Preston Brook
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 8 July, if he has anything to add to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 577 about assistance to Bass at Preston Brook.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to amend the statement made in my answer of 28 June, that Preston Brook is not in an assisted area. It is, and companies there can qualify for DTI regional assistance. I apologise for this mistake, which arose from an administrative error in my Department. Action is being taken to prevent recurrence. I can now add that Bass received £494,102 of regional development grant under the original scheme, paid in 1987–88; this grant was not linked to job creation.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 187.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: There have been no such surveys.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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 20.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: The Department does not normally employ contractors in a purely promotional or public relations capacity. Four advertising agencies are currently retained in connection with activities listed in my earlier answer. They are: WCRS (enterprise initiative); BMP DDB Needham (various); Barkers LBW Human Resources Advertising (staff recruitment); and Spring, O'Brien, Tolson (inward investment—activities in the United States of America).

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will deposit in the Library an analysis of the estimated distributional impact using the Treasury's interdepartmental group on tax-benefit modelling's tax-benefit model of the proposed council tax in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales using the illustrative bills published by the responsible Departments, which is, as far as possible, comparable with appendix 7 of HC 289 of Session 1990–91 and the answer of 22 May, Official Report, column 471;

  (2) if he will publish a list of those parliamentary answers on the impact of (a) the council tax and (b) other local government tax options which have been based, in part or in whole, upon evidence derived from the Treasury's interdepartmental group on tax-benefit modelling's tax-benefit model.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information to indicate the distribution of households with one, two and three or more adults by region has been provided. No answers have been given on the impact of the council tax using the interdepartmental group on tax-benefit modelling's tax-benefit model.

  Since 1988 the Department of the Environment has made extensive use of the interdepartmental group on tax -benefit modelling's tax-benefit model to illustrate the distributional impact of the community charge, and the effect of the transitional relief and community charge reduction schemes. A large number of parliamentary answers have been provided which are reliant to some degree on information from the model. We do not, however, intend to publish any analysis of the impact of the council tax derived from the model.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking in order to implement the recent Luxembourg agreement to reduce the level of permitted nitrates in drinking water.

  Mr. Baldry
  The directive agreed at the recent Environment Council in Luxembourg did not change the level of nitrate permitted in drinking water. It provided for action to reduce leaching of nitrate from agricultural sources into raw water. The Government are considering the scope and content of the measures needed to implement the directive.

  Squash Clubs
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the method by which uniform business rates are applied to commercially operated squash clubs.

  Mr. Key
  No. Most non-domestic property is subject to rates. Ratepayers who were dissatisfied with their rating assessments had the right to challenge them within the first six months of the life of the 1990 rating lists.

  Water Companies
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the turnover in the last year before privatisation of each of the English and Welsh water authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the companies. However, this information is contained in the annual reports and accounts for the year ending 1989, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Local Government Boundary Commission is going to publish its report on the response to its draft proposals on its review of the boundary of the borough of Rotherham with the boundaries of Sheffield, Doncaster, the county of Derbyshire and the county of Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Key
  The conduct of the review is a matter for the commission.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have bid for city challenge funds.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Twenty-one. In addition to the 15 local authorities invited to participate in the pacemaker round of city challenge on 23 May [Official Report, column 549], Coventry, Newham, Sandwell, St. Helens, Stockton-on-Tees and Sunderland have submitted bids.

  Next week my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Local Government, and I are due to visit the 15 invited authorities to receive presentations of the bids.
  525
  I have been impressed by the hard work, enthusiasm and commitment behind all the bids. This is precisely the spirit we are aiming to foster through city challenge.

  I have considered carefully six additional bids that we have received and decided that Sunderland and Stockton-on-Tees should also be asked to present their bids to a Minister. We shall then consider their case alongside the invited bids.

  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is today writing to the other four authorities to thank them very much for their bids, but to let them know that they will not be successful in this year's pacemaker round of city challenge.

  We hope that they will build on what they have achieved and that they will participate in the further round of city challenge which we intend to hold next year, subject to the successful progress of the first round.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has conducted any research on the use of nuclear reactors as facilities to neutralise bacteria and viruses in raw sewage during their decommissioning phase.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: No such research has been carried out by this Department.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration had been given at the time of the 1985 Budget to proposals for transitional arrangements to obtain the tax subject to the Woolwich case judgment and to clause 50 of the Finance Bill; when the intention was first made public; and in which way.

  Mr. Maples
  The 1985 Budget announcement followed confidential discussions between the Inland Revenue and the Building Societies Association over a period of some months, about the building societies' tax scheme as a whole, including the transitional arrangements required on the changeover from an annual to a quarterly accounting system in line with that for banks. A Budget day press release mentioned the need for transitional provisions to deal with the changeover.

  Soft Drinks Industry
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of tax paid by the soft drinks industry in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maude
  We estimate that VAT accruing on consumer's expenditure on soft drinks in 1990 was £430 million. Figures for taxes paid by the soft drink industry itself are not separately identifiable.

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the projected additional yield in tax revenue from(a) income tax, (b) VAT and (c) corporation tax over five years consequentially of an
  526
  annual compounded economic growth rate of 2·5 per cent. assuming that tax rates remain as they are and personal allowances are increased in line with the previous year's inflation.

  Mr. Maude
  Tax receipts would be expected to rise broadly in line with growth in the economy, perhaps a little faster because of a contribution from real fiscal drag. However, estimates of the effects of economic growth on individual taxes will depend, among other things, on the composition of that growth between the different sectors of the economy, and could be made only at disproportionate cost. Rising tax receipts, under resumed growth in the economy, are an element of the Government's medium-term fiscal projections, published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Projections of tax revenues are shown in FSBR table 2A.4.

  Taxation
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the procedure for informing the next of kin about the tax position of the person who has died and when this procedure started.

  Mr. Maude
  There is no procedure for informing the next of kin about the tax position of a deceased person. This is because an individual's tax affairs are confidential. So when a person dies, the Inland Revenue discloses details of the deceased person's tax affairs only to his or her duly constituted legal personal representatives or persons authorised to act on their behalf. Next of kin very often become the legal personal representatives, but this is not always the case.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many demands by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for alleged VAT arrears have been found to be incorrectly calculated in the last 12 months.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Customs and Excise does not maintain a record of incorrect demands for VAT arrears. In the year ended March 1991 approximately 35,000 final demand notices were issued each month for outstanding tax (including civil penalties, surcharge and interest) which had previously been declared by the registered trader as due (or assessed by Customs and Excise) and not paid. Each demand contains a paragraph advising the trader to contact Customs and Excise if they believe the amount demanded is not due or payment has already been made.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public opinion surveys carried out by his Department since his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 10.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: The only public opinion survey that the Treasury has been involved in is the "Share Ownership Survey 1991" which the NOP included on its random omnibus survey between 16 January and 11 February 1991. The cost of £28,780 was shared equally between the Treasury and the international stock exchange.

  Foundation for Sport and the Arts
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table setting out the rate of football pools betting turnover for each of the past 10 years and the rate of pool betting turnover that would be required to provide(a) £75 million and (b) £70 million to the proposed foundation for sport and the arts, expressed (i) numerically and (ii) as a percentage increase.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: Pools turnover (mostly on football pools) based on pool betting duty receipts in each of the last 10 financial years was:

  Year

  Turnover £ million

  1981–82

  443·8

  1982–83

  473·1

  1983–84

  486·4

  528

  Year

  Turnover £million

  1984–85

  512·9

  1985–86

  553·5

  1986–87

  598·2

  1987–88

  647·5

  1988–89

  656·1

  1989–90

  714·7

  1990–91

  766·1

  It is estimated that, to provide (a) £75 million and (b) £70 million to the proposed foundation for sport and the arts, chargeable turnover (ie not including the exempt donations by clients) would have to rise to (a) £1,000 million and (b) £933 million, representing increases of (a) 30·5 per cent. and (b) 21·8 per cent. over chargeable turnover for 1990–91.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to formally open Northampton Combined Court on Friday 19th July. Accordingly, as these arrangements were made before it was known that this House would be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Friday 19th July.

British-Sudanese Relations
11.6 a.m.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton Lord Mowbray and Stourton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether in view of numerous positive steps taken by the Sudan Government, they will norrnalise British-Sudanese relations and resume development aid.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we follow developments in Sudan closely and keep our policy under review. We welcome the reported release of certain political detainees and the more forthcoming attitude of the Sudanese Government to the international relief effort taking place in their country. But serious problems remain on human rights and in other fields. We are also concerned that little has been done to settle the long-standing civil war. There is therefore no reason to reverse our policy on developmental aid but we shall continue to play a substantial part in the massive relief effort now under way.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very full Answer. Are the Government aware that two months ago the special correspondent of The Times in Khartoum gave it as his opinion that the Government of the Sudan were genuinely trying to mend fences with their friends in the West—of whom they like to think we are one? Is the Minister also aware that the massive humanitarian food effort that the Government are undertaking—and I accept that they have given massive aid in the past year—will not bring relief to all the 7 million people? Are there not also 3.5 million displaced persons? Are there not now also an additional 2 million refugees, including a large chunk of the Ethiopian army? Are the Government satisfied that there is no danger of the food being stockpiled and not distributed because of the vast distances in that country?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the tragic circumstances described by my noble friend are
1592
exactly as he says. They could hardly be worse. I must tell my noble friend that we have found much to criticise in the policies pursued by the present government in Sudan; in particular their abuse of human rights, their failure to address the country's dire economic difficulties and their failure to make any serious attempts to settle the civil war. The Foreign Secretary reviews UK policy on Sudan regularly. We welcome the limited improvements which have taken place, but this is not the time to change our policies in what is still a very confused and volatile situation. No political conditions are attached to UK humanitarian aid. We believe that our policy on humanitarian aid is as effective as it could be in the circumstances.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how much aid, apart from humanitarian aid, this country is able to send to the Sudan? Does he agree that the problems of transport and infrastructure in that country are immense? Can he say what steps are being taken to overcome those problems? Also, does the Minister agree that all the suffering and problems are due to the civil war which is taking place there and that the refugees in the south are being bombed by government forces? Can the Minister say what hope there is of a settlement of that war?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are initiatives taking place to settle the problems, notably from Nigeria, which we welcome. As long as the administration takes the attitude that it does there is very little that we can do. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked what the Government are doing beyond giving humanitarian aid. I have to tell him that at present the policy is not to give developmental aid until the Sudanese Government change their policies.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the attitude he has expressed meets with the approval of those on these Benches? We hope and trust that the Government will be able to concentrate any aid through the voluntary bodies, as those bodies feel they can get the aid through. Has any improvement taken place in the military fundamentalist government in their attitude to the Christian and pagan communities in the south which have been persecuted for a very long time?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, where possible we encourage and assist any voluntary aid. As to the attitude between the Moslem and Christian elements, we have difficulty in discerning any improvement in that relationship.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister go further and agree that the term "civil war" is somewhat inappropriate? Is it not the case that a Moslem regime in Khartoum is persecuting the Christians of southern Sudan? The bombing of the refugees referred to by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is only the latest example of the brutality of the regime. Would not the correct policy be that all humanitarian aid and indeed all other aid should be channelled direct to the people who are

1593
suffering and not through the regime in Khartoum, which, next to Saddam Hussein's, is probably the most unpleasant regime in that part of the world.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, what my noble friend says is broadly true. However, I still think that it comes under the description of civil war. The humanitarian aid is directed where it is needed—to those areas where innocent people are suffering.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give the House some idea of the number of prisoners in Sudan being kept without trial? Can he further say whether the more cruel parts of Sharia law are being applied at the moment?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have evidence that the promise to release political prisoners was kept. We welcome that. We are not clear whether there may have been fresh arrests and fresh detentions without trial. With regard to the noble Baroness's second question, I am afraid that I failed to hear it. I should be very pleased to hear it again.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does the Minister know whether amputations under Sharia law are being applied, especially in the south?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer that question. I do not have the answer. I shall be very pleased to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, it is very difficult in a Starred Question to explore the full horrors of what is happening to persecuted people in the Sudan. Will the Minister therefore represent to his colleagues that there should be a mention of this problem in the gracious Speech so that we may fully explore the matter in the autumn if there has been no further improvement?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the situation is indeed desperate. I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's remarks to my right honourable friend.

Education: Grant Maintained Schools
11.15 a.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many schools have been given grant maintained status; how many are presently being considered; and how many are eligible for grant maintained status.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has approved applications for grant maintained status at 96 schools and is minded to approve a further three. A further 57 applications are being considered following ballots in favour of grant maintained status. There are some 23,000 maintained primary and secondary schools in England. All are eligible to apply for grant maintained status.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as those figures show that only 2 per cent. of schools have chosen to opt out after all the time, trouble and money spent on promoting the scheme, how can the Government justify their continuing boasting about the success of it? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that opt-out schools engaged in building projects are receiving an allocation two-and-a-half times greater than that available in the local authority sector? They receive £240 per pupil compared with the £100 per pupil available in the local authority sector.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the aim of the policy on grant maintained schools is to extend parental choice, enable resources to be used for the benefit of pupils and so raise standards and give parents and governing bodies the opportunity to have much more say in the running of their schools. The local control of schools should raise parental involvement and staff morale. We are not disappointed with the results of our policy. We are delighted that parents and governors in all kinds of schools are considering the option of grant maintained status.
With regard to the noble Lord's second question, I shall need to check the figures. The noble Lord's figures do not match mine.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that educational change is always slow, and that although it has taken two years for the first 100 grant maintained schools to come into operation, it actually took eight years for the first 100 comprehensives to do so? Does my noble friend agree that one of the unfortunate reasons why more grant maintained schools have not come into operation has been the vicious intimidation of parents wishing to do so by some of the nastier elements of our education establishment? Therefore I wonder whether my noble friend will concur that, when the Conservatives win the next election, the present flow of applications for grant maintained status will turn into a veritable flood?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting comparison with regard to comprehensives which had not previously occurred to me. We are aware of the considerable disquiet expressed by a number of parents over the conduct of a local authority during a ballot earlier this year. We deplore any kind of behaviour which impedes the conduct of an open and informed debate on grant maintained status. Parents should be able to choose the best course for their school in an atmosphere free from pressure, threats and misleading statements. With regard to my noble friend's other point, he may agree with me that there may be some outside who do not know what my noble friend and I know; which is that we shall win the next election. There may be some who prefer to see that outcome confirmed rather than risk their new-found freedom being wrenched away and replaced by suffocating control.
Baroness David: My Lords, is it correct that if the Secretary of State approves some of the applications now before him, 55 per cent. of Hillingdon's secondary schools and 40 per cent. of Kent's

1595
secondary schools—both, incidentally, Tory authorities—will become grant maintained? Does he not consider that, if that happens, the local education authority will have a difficult time because of what will happen to its central administrative services? Is it not likely i hat there will be a breakdown of such services as school meals, education welfare and so on?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the process is evolutionary. The size of the sector will depend on the number of schools choosing to apply for grant maintained status. In time we expect grant maintained status to become the natural organisational model, at least for the delivery of secondary education. But not all schools are ready to assume that. We shall need to watch and monitor the situation and act in the circumstances.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House which counties are now in the lead in giving grant maintained status?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot do that this morning. However, I shall write to my noble friend on the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say if, when an application for grant maintained status is refused, a reasoned refusal is given stating the grounds? Further, can he say whether such a refusal is open to public inspection?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my understanding is that reasons are given and that the information is made public. It is certainly made available to the applicants, who are then free to make what use of it they wish.
Bareness David: My Lords, with due respect to the Minister, he did not really answer my question. I asked what the effect would be on a local education authority if a large number of schools suddenly become grant maintained? How will it maintain its other services when a large portion of its work will have gone? It is the effect on other schools and on the services, such as education, welfare, school meals and so on, that worries us. Have the Government any advice for those authorities?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the pattern changes every year. Nothing stands still in this or in any other field so far as concerns local authorities. However, the various circumstances are taken into account by my right honourable friend in the annual settlement.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the ultimate responsibility for grant maintained status must rest with members of the party opposite who, by their wanton destruction of grammar schools, made it necessary for this new status to be invented?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: Yes, my Lords; I must agree with my noble friend. It is hard to envisage that
1596
we would be having this discussion if the old arrangements for grammar schools were still, happily, in place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to have to intervene in the discussion. I did not expect the House to become engaged in a kind of political argy-bargy this morning. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the Minister's earlier replies on the matter. Nevertheless, I thought that we were dealing with an education Question. Is the Minister aware that the 1988 Act, under which this process takes place, does not allow these schools to change status? Therefore, the noble Lord's question about grammar schools is completely beside the point. Such schools are not in a position to change their status; this is not a method of introducing grammar schools. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord probably knows the regulations better than I do. However, if he wants politics kept out of the debate, then he should, as a member of that party, say that he will refuse to confirm that grant maintained status will be abolished under any future Labour Government.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am supposed to put what I say in the form of a question and so does not the noble Lord understand that quite the reverse is the case? These schools are a blot on the educational landscape and we shall do our best to remove them.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in dealing with the first part of my supplementary question, the Minister simply stated the aims of opting out. However, he did not say anything about the fact that only 2 per cent. of schools have opted out. Can he give the House some indication of what percentage the Government will consider in this respect? Further, rather strangely, he said that my figures did not agree with his. Will he now give me the figures as regards the percentage of building development in schools?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I shall have to read the noble Lord's question. I must say that I did not quite understand it. I am not sure whether it is easy to compare like with like. However, so far as concerns the first part of the noble Lord's question, there is no target and there is no deadline. We want to give a choice.

War Veterans
11.23 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will give a Minister direct responsibility for matters affecting war veterans; and if not, why not.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, direct responsibility for matters affecting war veterans forms part of the departmental remit of a number of Ministers. There are no plans to change that arrangement.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, thank the noble Earl for his generosity in giving me so much time to discuss the matter and related issues. However, is he aware that the almost ludicrous situation was not created by former servicemen and women; they simply have to put up with the frustrations which follow from the current situation?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the immense debt of gratitude owed to war veterans and other former service personnel. I also pay tribute to the work carried out by ex-service organisations such as the Royal British Legion and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. However, I cannot agree that there is a need for either a new ministerial post or a new department to co-ordinate the present administration of veterans' affairs.
While the Government can, of course, see the apparent attractions of having one department to look after the interests of former servicemen and women, we do not feel that that would necessarily result in a better service for them. That is our most important and continuing aim. A separate department would simply add another layer of administration to the present situation, without providing corresponding benefits.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the national president of the Royal British Legion recently had a very helpful meeting with my noble friend and kinsman Lord Henley? Declaring my own interest as the president of Surrey county branch of the Royal British Legion, is my noble friend aware that these war veterans are increasing in number every year? Indeed, they need more and more treatment every year. Therefore, can the Treasury and the DSS get together on the matter? A little benevolence on both sides might be a good thing.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, although the establishment of a separate department may seem an attractive proposition, we are not persuaded that it would lead to a better service. War pensioners are those who suffered actual disablement as a result of service. The war disabled do have special status in this country, as do war widows. Arrangements have been made for war pensioners who have been referred to the appropriate National Health Service hospitals for treatment of their accepted disability to be given priority, subject only to the needs of emergency and urgent cases, which must take precedence. I shall certainly draw the second point to the attention of my noble friend.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on some occasions, when various departments are involved, one specific department is put into the position of being the lead department? Would it not be natural, in this case, for the department dealing with defence to become a lead department?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the advantage of the present arrangement is that each
1598
departmental Minister has clearly defined responsibilities for policies and services. If the proposed new department were to have a co-ordinating role it would have to seek the advice of the department responsible for the policy or service in question before dealing with veterans' problems. As I said, that would create a time-consuming extra tier of administration.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, will my noble friend try to persuade the existing departments to improve their arrangements? In a reorganisation of artificial limb and appliance centres which took place four years ago my personal records and measurements were irretrievably lost, although they had been needed every two years since 1946. No doubt others have suffered in the same way.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I can only express regret for what happened to my noble friend. Inevitably, from time to time mistakes are made. There are already many services in the UK which do not exist in other countries; for example, the National Health Service. The fact that such services are available to the whole population is one of the reasons why separate provision does not have to be made for war pensioners.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that, under the Options for Change review, the armed forces are due to be decreased by about 40,000 by the mid-1990s? Many of those people will have served in the Gulf war, in the Falklands conflict or, indeed, in Northern Ireland. What proposals do Her Majesty's Government have to ensure that the transition from armed service life to civilian life is satisfactorily completed?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, following the examination currently taking place into the future structure of the three services, the reductions which will have to be made will, so far as is possible, be achieved by natural wastage. However, in order to achieve balanced forces over the shortest period possible, inevitably, there may be a need for some redundancies. The size of such redundancies will differ between the services, but in each case they will be voluntary. Only as a last resort will there be compulsory redundancies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House how the Government propose to ensure that those who are made redundant settle back satisfactorily into civilian life? In other words, what facilities will be made for retraining, education, new housing, and so on?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, substantial resettlement programmes are already in place. We are still examining redundancy terms, but we are confident that they will be along the same lines as previous redundancy schemes.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that several Ministers have no doubt discussed this matter with their senior civil servants, and have failed to

1599
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, would it be possible for representatives of the Royal British Legion to take part in those discussions and proffer their advice?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I shall pass the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend in another place.

Mr. Salman Rushdie
11.31 a.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has so far been the cost of providing police protection for Mr. Salman Rushdie.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the cost of providing protection for Mr. Rushdie is a matter for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. In any case it would not be proper for me to disclose information about police protection which might indicate its scale in a particular case.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my friend for that Answer. I understand his difficulty about revealing the cost in this or any other case, but what steps are being taken to deal with the people who make the threats which inevitably cause the police to incur enormous public expense?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government deplore any incitement to criminal action whether it comes from outside or inside this country. The main threat came from Iran. It continues to exist, because the death threat against Mr. Rushdie has not been revoked by the Government of Iran. Unfortunately, the threat to him is assessed to be still very high.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the recent past there have been two murderous attacks outside this country on people involved in the publication of the book? Does that not demonstrate the continuing need for Special Branch protection for Mr. Rushdie? Is the Minister aware of the anxiety of many of us, which was expressed during a debate on an Unstarred Question, at the DPP's failure to prosecute those who have made explicit threats against Mr. Rushdie's life?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris. is correct. There have been two attacks. A Japanese professor who translated Mr. Rushdie's book has been stabbed to death in Tokyo. The motive has not yet been established. I understand that there has been an attack in Italy, but I am afraid that I have no further details of it. There are formal and long-standing arrangements for the assessment of terrorist threats. It is not appropriate for me to comment upon them in detail. Where instances of incitement to criminal action appear to have occurred, it is for the local police force to investigate. A decision on whether to prosecute in any case is a matter for the police and the CPS. It is not a matter for the Home Secretary.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while the Government's efforts to improve
1600
relations with Iran are easy to understand, public opinion will lag a long way behind until the threats have been removed?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, whatever the case relating to Mr. Rushdie may be, does the Minister agree that he is not responsible for his present plight? Does he not deserve sympathy rather than any suggestion that he may be in some way responsible for public expenditure properly undertaken by the Government to prevent happening to him what has happened elsewhere to translators of his work?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone has suggested—certainly not in the House—anything like that about Mr. Rushdie. His life has been threatened in such a way to entitle him, like any other British citizen, to request protection. The police have taken the action that they consider appropriate.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I do not wish to appear to disagree with my noble friend Lord Jenkins, but could Mr. Rushdie be asked to make some contribution to the protection that he is enjoying as he has made a great deal of money from the book that he wrote?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, Mr. Rushdie's private means are immaterial to his need for protection. Any arrangements that may be made between Mr. Rushdie and the police are a matter for him and the police.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what would satisfy the Government that police protection is no longer required? Would an undertaking or a pronouncement by the head of the other Government involved be adequate, because even then threats might come from other sources? Otherwise, it seems to everyone in the House that the protection might continue for many years.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition may be right when he says that the protection might continue for many years. The protection will remain in place so long as the police judge that the threat to Mr. Rushdie remains high.
Lord Annan: My Lords, have the Government made representations to the Government of Iran that it is that contempt for human rights which, in so many Moslem countries, creates great difficulties and brings law and order into contempt and greatly increases the difficulties in reaching any Middle Eastern settlement?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is right when he says that the contempt for common laws and the laws of this country is most despicable.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am well aware that the Home Secretary is not responsible for prosecutions? Is he aware that in debate some of us expressed our anxiety

1601
at the fact that the DPP had decided not to prosecute when there appeared to many people to be abundant evidence of a threat to Mr. Rushdie's life?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, that is a matter for the police and the CPS.

Commonhold
11.36 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about commonhold and related matters. My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is making a corresponding Statement in another place.
The Government have decided to introduce for England and Wales a scheme providing for the freehold ownership, and communal management, of flats and other interdependent buildings with shared facilities.
That new scheme, called commonhold, was proposed in 1987 in a report of a working group of officials chaired by Mr. Trevor Aldridge, a Law Commissioner. After arranging in 1988 for draft legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission to give effect to those proposals, the Government issued a consultation document in November 1990 inviting comments on the draft legislation. That document also raised a number of issues of major principle relating to commonhold and leasehold enfranchisement. More than 1,000 replies were received, and the Government are grateful to all those who commented.
It is proposed that commonhold should be available for all types of land use—whether residential or commercial. Conversion of existing premises to the commonhold system will be optional, although it may be necessary to make provision to override the objections of a small minority of leaseholders.
In addition to providing for the freehold ownership of flats and other relevant properties, the scheme would establish standard democratic management arrangements, though with scope for variations, and that in turn would simplify conveyancing. There would also be a scheme for orderly winding up for use where, for example, the commonhold property is damaged beyond repair or has reached the end of its useful life.
The Government have also decided to give long-leaseholders of residential flats collectively the right to buy from the freeholder, at market value, the freehold interest in their block.
It is proposed that that right will apply to properties containing two or more flats held by qualifying long-leaseholders, where at least two-thirds of the flats are held by qualifying long-leaseholders, and where not more than 10 per cent. of the internal floor space, excluding common parts, is used for non-residential purposes.
If at least two-thirds of the qualifying long-leaseholders vote in favour of purchasing the freehold, and the number voting in favour comprises at least
1602
two-thirds of all householders ordinarily residing in the block, the landlord will be obliged to offer the freehold for sale to them.
In conjunction with the commonhold proposals, the Government have decided to implement, with modifications, the main recommendations in the Law Commission's Report on Transfer of Land - The Law of Positive and Restrictive Covenants (Law Com. No. 127). Those recommendations are designed to produce satisfactory arrangements for the imposition on freehold land of positive and negative obligations which can be enforced against successors in title to the original owner of the land.
Those changes will benefit at least 1.5 million leaseholders of flats. They underline our commitment to home ownership. They will greatly extend many people's freedom to take responsibility for their own affairs. I am confident that they will be widely welcomed.
Legislation to implement those proposals will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time for it can be found.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for making the Statement and assure him that it is much welcomed on this side of the House. I believe it is correct that we are the only country in Europe which still has the leasehold system. Even where countries have adopted our legal system, they have seen to it that the leasehold system is either abandoned or much reformed.
The legislation could not come at a more welcome time. Many of us urged that it should have come sooner. There is genuine concern in the country about the way in which maintenance and service charges have spiralled over the years to become almost intolerable. One hopes that this will be alleviated by the suggested legislation which has been forecast by the noble and learned Lord.
Will the noble and learned Lord indicate where the recommendations of the Law Commission are not being followed? The reason I ask is that I gathered from the Statement that the Government would implement the main recommendations of the Law Commission, but with modifications. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord would indicate which proposals of the Law Commission have been rejected.
I pay tribute to the department of the noble and learned Lord for the way in which its consultation document contained the draft Bill with explanatory notes. That draft Bill made up the major portion of the consultation document, occupying over 300 of its 340 pages. Am I right in thinking that because the Bill is in existence we ought to be able to ensure that the legislation flows speedily? The noble and learned Lord said that it would come into the programme as soon as possible. One hopes that he can obtain precedence by virtue of the fact that the draft Bill already exists.
The noble and learned Lord may be able to help me. I am not clear what will happen where unreasonable prices are sought by the freeholders. Will the noble and learned Lord consider the problem? Will there be the possibility of independent valuation where it is thought that the demands of the

1603
freeholder are exorbitant? What will be the legal position of those leaseholders who do not choose to buy the freehold or literally cannot afford to buy it?
The noble and learned Lord said that,
"it may be necessary … to override the objections of a small minority of leaseholders".
Can he be more specific as to how those objections could be overruled?
As your Lordships will appreciate, these questions seek clarification. They do not in any way seek to oppose what the noble and learned Lord outlined in his Statement. I repeat that the proposals are most welcome on these Benches.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement which the noble and learned Lord has just made to the House. The measures he announced are the result of a painstaking process of consultation. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in congratulating the noble and learned Lord and his officials on the way in which the inquiry has been conducted.
The need for those who have long leases on flats to have the opportunity of buying them is overdue. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pointed out, ours is the only country in Western Europe and perhaps in the world that has this system. It is about time that it was changed.
I wish to put two questions to the noble and learned Lord. The first touches on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. When the law comes into operation, in the case of disputes between leaseholders and the owners of the property, will some simple arbitration system be set up in order to avoid recourse to expensive legal processes? The noble Lord referred to disputes about the valuation of the property, but there could be disputes on other aspects of the transfer of the property under the new arrangements.
Secondly, I draw attention to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 which facilitated the enfranchisement of houses which were held on long leases. That legislation contained certain anomalies and although it was subsequently modified, they remain and limit the value of the houses which could be enfranchised to the level of rates then chargeable on those houses. That seems an unreasonable anomaly, particularly since, as I understand it, there will be no such limitation on the value of flats which will be subject to the commonhold proposition. Therefore, the point I wish to put to the noble and learned Lord is whether the opportunity will be taken under the commonhold legislation to correct the anomalies under the previous legislation which affected the enfranchisement of houses.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome they have given to the Statement I thank them also for what they said about my officials, which I strongly support.
As is obvious, this is an extremely complicated and technical matter. I felt that it was wise to expose as fully as possible the draft legislation on the commonhold so that many who have great experience in these matters could give us the benefit of their
1604
comments. We have received a great deal of useful comment and I believe that that is a good way of proceeding.
On the changes in relation to the Law Commission report, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the passage in my Statement when I said that we propose to implement the positive and restrictive covenants report with modifications. We have moved on somewhat from the position at the time of the report. The Law Commission proposed a land obligation and a development obligation with a manager in respect of the second. Bringing forward the commonhold proposals may obviate the necessity for that second approach. Therefore, rather than departing from the Law Commission's proposals, we are modifying them in the light of later developments.
As to disputes about the value of the property, we anticipate using the leasehold valuation tribunal to deal with them. The expertise of that tribunal would be useful in this matter. Disputes about entitlement might conveniently be referred to the county court. However, it is to be hoped that in the light of the comments we have received we may be able to draw up the legislation so as to minimise disputes on entitlement. Disputes on value can never be completely resolved; it is therefore more likely that disputes will arise in that quarter.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me about the part of the Statement which says that in respect of commonhold,
"it may be necessary … to override the objections of a small minority".
I wish commonhold to be a consensual matter. I hope we shall be able to demonstrate that commonhold will be an extremely useful form of tenure. Therefore, people will want to acquire a commonhold tenure. However, it has been pointed out to me that even in the best regulated circles there can be a small minority of tenants in a block who for no good reason may refuse to consent to a commonhold scheme. I am leaving that matter open for discussion as regards the size of the minority involved and other such matters. I have tried to set out the principles that we have so far agreed to. The details are open for discussion and will remain so until a Bill is drafted. I welcome discussion with anyone who wishes to raise points on these matters.
At present, where a minority of leaseholders do not wish to purchase a freehold the majority that wishes to do so has to pay for that freehold. The aspect of compulsion with regard to the purchase of a freehold interest will take on a different aspect under our proposals. I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I believe I have dealt with the first point he raised. He also referred to the 1967 Act. We have built on the ideas of that Act in our ideas for enfranchisement under these proposals. My colleagues in the Department of the Environment have the primary responsibility in relation to the policy followed under the 1967 Act. I understand that they have undertaken to consider whether anything needs to be done as regards the terms of that Act. However, no decision has yet been taken to make any changes in these proposals as regards that Act.
11.51 a.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is there not an anomaly where one house in a terrace is composed of three leasehold flats, the tenants of which may be enfranchised, whereas the adjoining leasehold house is occupied by a single tenant who cannot be enfranchised? I hope I have interpreted the words of the noble and learned Lord correctly. Should not that anomaly be removed at this stage?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall be glad to refer that comment to my colleagues in the Department of the Environment. However, there is a limit to the number of considerations that one can deal with at any one time. We are trying to deal with the extremely complicated subject of flats. We would be wise to adhere only to that subject for the time being.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, was it not the case that under the previous legislation leasehold tenants could already purchase their freeholds?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that depended upon the conditions of the lease. We are not proposing to apply the same provisions to the commonhold scheme as applied in the 1967 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, will be well aware that the freeholds of houses can be purchased subject to certain conditions. The noble Lord pointed out that if the same provision did not apply to flats there may be an anomaly. As I said, I shall draw that matter to the attention of my colleagues, but here we are really discussing the matter of flats. That is a difficult enough subject by itself. We must be careful not to attempt to deal with too many different aspects of the matter at one time. Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a highly technical subject—the matter of flats alone occupied us fully—and I do not wish to complicate matters by trying to deal with too many other aspects.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, do the new proposals apply to the tenants of freeholders or to the tenants of tenants of freeholders? Are both categories of tenants included in the new proposals or just one category?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we are discussing qualifying leaseholders. The mere fact that between them and the ultimate freeholder there may be superior leases does not impede the rights of the qualifying leaseholders. Clearly regulations will have to be drawn up to decide how the value of the scheme in question will be split between the ultimate freeholder and the superior leaseholders. That matter may involve a degree of complexity but our proposals will cover that situation.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, has the problem of the management of blocks of flats been solved, particularly as regards services and structural repairs, in relation to the freehold tenants?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that central problem is addressed by the commonhold proposals. It is proposed that there should be commonhold associations which would in effect own the common parts of the building and have responsibilities in that
1606
connection. I hope that as a result of all the consultation that we have undertaken we shall be able to produce model clauses for the commonhold associations. Those model clauses would, we hope, apply in most cases.
As I said in the Statement, we have taken into account the possibility that modifications may be required to meet particular situations. However, I hope that we shall be able to produce a satisfactory general provision which would, so to speak, give a structure as regards the management of blocks of flats. The opinions of the owners of the flats would predominate in that provision in accordance with the machinery to be set out in legislation.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that the style, dignity and beauty of many of the London squares and terraces will be preserved under the new system? Those attributes have been safeguarded by private landlords as freehold owners for a long time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously the provision we are discussing constitutes an important change. The decision of leaseholders to adopt this new arrangement will be influenced by their opinion of the present arrangements. Leaseholders who live in the kinds of property that my noble friend has just mentioned will carefully consider the implications of the new proposals. As regards the valuation arrangements, there will need to be procedures for dealing with the consequential effects on other land held by the freeholder of a particular acquisition. That may well have a bearing on the point raised by my noble friend.
Lord Monson: My Lords, exactly 24 years ago this week your Lordships' House debated in Committee the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which was introduced by a Labour government. About a fortnight prior to that event that respected Conservative statesman, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaking from what was then the Opposition Front Bench, described the leasehold system as decidedly beneficial. He said that it had enabled his family to live in a much better house than otherwise would have been the case, given that the price of leasehold houses was considerably lower than the price of freehold houses as the former are a slowly wasting asset. Of course, much has changed in the past 24 years. There was terrible inflation in the 1970s coupled with tax breaks which, rightly or wrongly, make investment in freehold property more advantageous than almost any other form of investment.
It is a sad fact that many, though by no means all, mansion blocks have been acquired by absentee landlords, many of whom are based overseas and many of whom behave badly and even unscrupulously towards their tenants. From the practical point of view the Government are probably doing the right thing in the present circumstances. The leasehold system may in the present circumstances be no longer a practical system on the whole, but it is not an inherently immoral system. I hope the noble and learned Lord can assure the House that in contrast to

1607
the iniquitous provisions of the 1967 Act—many members of the Labour Party were uneasy about that Act—there will he no element of confiscation in the prices fixed when the freehold compulsorily changes hands.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, it is proposed that the value should be the market value. What is required is an effective system for the ownership of flats which is not leasehold. That does not mean that leasehold would not be perfectly suitable in some cases depending on what the parties want. The purpose of the commonhold proposals is to produce a workable solution to the ownership of flats. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, commented earlier, many systems in other parts of the world which have adopted the general principles of the common law have already introduced methods of dealing with the matter. We seek to do that now.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the proposal also apply to Crown properties?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would not be the intention to apply this measure to Crown properties in general. Crown properties and properties which are owned by charitable housing trusts would not be subject to the compulsory aspect of the measure. As regards tenure, the form of land tenure which we propose would be open to anyone who wanted to use it. The idea is to introduce a new system which would be available and capable of being used where the parties want it and there are interdependent properties of the kind one finds with flats. That proposal stands apart from the proposal for enfranchisement which I have described.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that when the 1967 legislation was considered there was a great deal of discussion about its implications as regards the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result a compromise was reached and protection given for the larger estates which have served the country very well in many ways. Are the Government satisfied, bearing in mind that there will not be any confiscatory element, that there will be no question of the new legislation contravening the European Convention on Human Rights, which precludes taking property from one person to give it to another person?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have taken the view that, for the reasons which my noble friend has mentioned, the proposal is in accordance with the convention. We have the benefit of certain decisions of the European Court since the introduction of the 1967 Act which help in the exposition of the jurisprudence of the convention.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord clarify some points for me? First, in his Statement he mentioned the management arrangements. That is the area in which most of the problems have arisen. Even in those flats where small companies have had to be set up to take over the flats there have been d faculties in collecting dues, maintenance fees and so on. Will such existing companies be able to opt
1608
into the commonhold arrangement? Secondly, will the rights of pensioners and people who cannot afford to buy a freehold or participate in the proposal be protected in the commonhold arrangement? Thirdly, how will the proposal apply to those former council tenants who are now owner occupiers? Although the council is the owner of the property can new owner occupiers in council blocks apply to buy the freehold?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, so far as concerns the question of management, the noble Lord is perfectly right. One of the difficulties is to establish a satisfactory management structure. That is precisely what the commonhold association is designed to achieve. However, no structure can eliminate completely the difficulties which arise when one is dealing with human beings who have different views. With the help of all those who have experience of these matters we have tried to devise a structure of management for blocks of flats which is the most satisfactory that we can obtain.
Secondly, so far as concerns pensioners or people who cannot afford to buy, if they do not wish to participate in an attempt to purchase the freehold they would not be obliged to do so. If such people were in a minority in the block, if the freehold was purchased the pensioner would have as his freeholder the other people in the block who had made the purchase. They would have responsibilities towards that pensioner or other such person in the same way as the previous freeholder.
The third point which the noble Lord mentioned concerned the situation of a tenant who had acquired a lease from a public authority such as a local authority. The situation there would be that the local authority would be subject to the same general rule as I have described. People with secure tenancies would not be prejudiced by being required to have a change of landlord. In such cases we would arrange that the purchasers of the freehold would give an appropriate lease to the local authority.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will appreciate that the uncertainty that will exist between his Statement today and the introduction of legislation could be very harmful to many people. The early introduction of legislation will be vital. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether my noble and learned friend could say anything further about the introduction of legislation. Can he say whether it will be a matter of months?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot add to what I said in the Statement. Obviously there is a good deal of detailed work to be done. My right honourable friend in another place and I thought it necessary to say how far we had progressed on the question of principle. There is a good deal of detail to be settled, on which we need considerable help from those with experience in this area. This reform has been in progress for a long time. The time has not been wasted because it is a difficult matter. I would not wish to rush it and get it wrong. I am anxious to have it in effect as soon as possible but on the assumption that we have allowed sufficient time to take account of what people

1609
feel about the best way forward, particularly in relation to the type of detailed matters which have been raised by your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the way in which he has dealt with the bombardment of questions on his Statement.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I would hope that that is the kind of service which the House would expect of me.

Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1991
12.8 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 1299), laid before the House on 5th June, be annulled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to make it clear that the two Prayers will be taken separately. They are totally different subjects. They were printed separately on the Order Paper but on the list of speakers provided for noble Lords they have been grouped together.
In rising to move the Motion in my name I should point out that we opposed the student loans Bill when it went through this House. Nothing that has happened in the scheme's first year has made us change our view. We are still of the opinion that the scheme is a bad one. We were concerned, as were the NUS, the CVCP and the CDP, by a number of aspects and the operation of the scheme so far has borne out our initial concern. Despite a very low uptake—and I hope that the Minister, in reply, can tell us the percentage of those eligible who have taken up loans—the National Union of Students has had to deal with a number of complaints. I shall speak of some of the problems which have been encountered. The regulations we are discussing today could have provided the opportunity to rectify some practical problems, but that has not happened.
The application procedure, far from being a simple matter as suggested by the Student Loans Company, is complicated and confusing and has led to long delays in processing applications. Students who avoid taking out loans until they are in serious financial need are finding that it takes considerably longer to have their applications processed than the promised 21 days. There are no guarantees in the regulations. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this point.
The requirement by the SLC for applicants to provide contact names has already proved difficult in a number of cases, particularly with regard to the insistence on one of the names being that of a relative. Potential applicants are wary of giving that
1610
information as they do not know how it will be used. The general perception among students is that those names will be used in the debt collection process or even that the person named will be guarantor of the loan. In the case of students with no living blood relative or who are estranged from their relations, specific problems have arisen. I remember that we discussed these issues in Committee on the Bill. It would be helpful if those matters could be officially clarified. They are not dealt with in the regulations that we are debating.
The matter of identification—the requirement to produce a birth certificate—has led to delays. I should like to quote from a letter from the company to the NUS which states that:
"a student may change names whether by deed poll or marriage which of course would mean the information on a passport would be radically different to that on the birth certificate. Since our fundamental requirement is to identify individuals uniquely we have concluded that a passport is unsuitable and the birth certificate is required".
That contradicts the experiences of students who have encountered difficulties in having their applications accepted by their colleges at the eligibility stage where birth certificates have been refused as a means of identification as a student has changed his name since birth. A more flexible approach could surely be used. That matter is not dealt with in the regulations. Perhaps I may say in passing that an old-age pensioner may obtain a bus pass in London by presenting a passport.
The insistence on repayment in paragraphs 4(1) (c) and 8(8) of the regulations being by direct debit from the borrower's bank or building society is not satisfactory. Students have been refused loans on the grounds that the type of bank account that they have does not operate direct debits. Many people genuinely dislike signing a direct debit, believing that they lose personal control of an important aspect of their finances. That could well act as a deterrent to potential borrowers. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether some other method might be made available.
Perhaps we may have some clarification on repayment. Why was the threshold set at 85 per cent. of national average earnings? Why has it been decided not to take into account an individual's personal circumstances? That point is still unanswered and we should like a reply. Such an arbitrary arrangement sits uncomfortably alongside the Government's intention of doubling the number of students in higher education, given that that objective presupposes a considerable increase in the numbers of returning students, many of whom will have families to support as well as other commitments, such as mortgages.
I should like to give an example of a 29 year-old woman at Sheffield Polytechnic. She has had to leave both her home and her course because of loss of housing benefit and income support. She had lived in the same house for six years, but now sleeps on friends' floors. She cannot find vacation work. She has used up her grant and loan, totalling £2,690, and failed to obtain access funds. Her bank manager has told her that an extension of her £300 overdraft would not be in her best interests. She wrote to Kenneth Clarke. The reply that she received from the DES stated that she

1611
should seek help from educational trusts and charities and suggested that she should go to her local library to look in reference books for direction.
Why has the Student Loans Company made it clear that only one application may be made each year? There is nothing in the Act or regulations which suggests that that is the case. Such a lack of flexibility will penalise those students who wish to borrow prudently by borrowing only what they absolutely require, term by term. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter. Will a change be made here? The NUS asks that the commitment given to it that the SLC will never use debt collection agencies be written into the regulations. It would be reassuring to have that done.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of the administrative costs of the scheme borne by the universities, polytechnics and colleges. On Third Reading on 29th March 1990 in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, moved an amendment, at col. 1007, proposing that:
"The Secretary of State shall provide to such institutions full compensation in respect of all work required in connection with the certification or otherwise of a student's eligibility".
That amendment had wide support. There was a long discussion, in the course of which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, stated at col. 1014:
"the Government are willing … to meet the reasonable costs of this scheme … the best way of getting it right is to have a commitment from the Government that they will meet the costs. That I have given".
However, after further probing, he refused to accept the amendment and it was defeated by three votes—80 to 83.
The costs have not been carried by the Government. The average cost of completing each certificate has been £7. The institutions have received £3.50 and they asked in May that the amount should be increased to a minimum of £7 per certificate and uprated for inflation. I should like to remind the House that, when the banks were originally going to deal with the matter, they were to be granted a £12.50 handling charge. The institutions also pointed out that they had not received payment for certification completed in the spring term. The reply received from Mr. Vereker, Chairman of the SLC, stated:
"What the company actually pays next year will depend partly on what it can afford—and this fee is a large element in its budget … whereas it is an insignificant amount for most institutions".
That is absurd. Besides £55,000 of fixed, non-recurrent costs, recurrent costs amounted to £390,000. It is well known how hard pressed universities and polytechnics are for money to carry out their rightful work of teaching and research. It is grossly unfair that they should have to carry any of the costs of administering a scheme that they did not like and were reluctant to take on. Do the Government agree that they have not carried out the commitment made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on Third Reading to pay the costs? Perhaps they will think again about the matter.
The scheme has had its operational teething problems. The total cost has been much greater than the Government foresaw. Mr. Howarth admitted that
1612
it was twice as great. Will the Minister tell us the total costs incurred in the introduction, promotion and implementation of the scheme?
Given the problems and difficulties and the suggestions that I have outlined, it is clear that the scheme is in need of review, and sooner rather than later. Will the Government agree to that? It is wrong that there is still no provision for postgraduate students, part-time students, most further education students or for the over-50s. When the Bill was discussed, the Minister said that it would be easy to extend the scheme by regulation in the future. There is no such extension here.
I want to end with a few comments on students and debt. While many students will be in debt regardless of the scheme, it seems irresponsible in the extreme for the Government to have introduced a scheme which will force thousands of young people into high levels of debt without providing resources for debt counselling. In particular, it is virtually unheard of for loans to be made to people with no realistic indication of the level of interest to be carried by the loan, or of the level of repayments to be made. It is highly unsatisfactory that young people should be exposed to such levels of debt without being given either the information or the counselling that they need to make a reasoned decision which will necessarily have serious consequences for their future.
We must remember that grants are frozen and general entitlement to income support, housing benefit and unemployment benefit has been taken away. The vacation hardship grant has gone in spite of promises to the contrary that there would be a safety net. There are already stories of students this summer who cannot find jobs and who will be in complete penury if their parents are unable to support them. I have given one example. Access funds are woefully under-resourced. Will they be substantially increased next year? I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is so.
It is hard to believe that the present arrangements will encourage to enter higher education those students who come from the poorer sections of the community, those who dislike debt and are frightened of it and those whose families have not been accustomed to enjoying higher education while the richer and slicker students take out loans, make a quick killing by buying and selling electricity shares or merely investing the money at a high rate of interest. The scheme of support followed by this Government is highly unsatisfactory and not good for the future of education in this country.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1991 (S.I. 1991, No. 1299), laid before the House on 5th June, be annulled.—(Baroness David.)
12.20 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this is one subject on which, were it not quite so important or quite such a mess, I should feel rather hesitant to speak. Everything has been said before. We have pointed out to the Government the hundreds of problems raised

1613
by this scheme. There has been criticism from all parts of the House; I see that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, joined this side of the House in pointing out to the Government how awful the scheme was. The noble Baroness could have said, "Here is Hansard. Read what it says about the student loans Bill. This is what has happened. Everything that we said would happen has happened".
The two main problems of the scheme are, first, that it does not provide enough money and, secondly, the safety net is removed. Those are the reasons that the scheme is such a disaster. The noble Baroness has done a good job in going over much of the fine detail and describing what is wrong with the scheme as it has been implemented. However, the basic problem is that the Government did not provide adequate compensation for the loss of benefits. Benefits would have meant keeping the whole grant system intact. We had something of a Heath Robinson contraption but it worked. Housing benefit during term time brought students' income up to a reasonable level by subsidising rents, and social security benefits preserved students from having no resources at all during the long vacation. When the Government removed the entitlement to social security they should have said that no student would be unemployed during the long vacation. In good Marxist tradition they should have guaranteed that unemployment would not exist.
That is the only way in which the scheme could work. Students need some form of income. If they are adults, they should not be dependent on their parents or other relatives. The noble Baroness illustrated the point. She described how someone was told to go and look in the charitable sector. Has the charitable sector been enlarged to the extent that it can cope with every student who cannot find a job in the long vacation? We are in the middle of a recession. We shall only discover how deep it is in the fullness of time. Unless something is done now about these problems, they will become very much worse.
Clearly the access funds must be expanded if we are not to take an immediate step backwards or if the last safety net of social security is not to be put in place once again beneath students who are on a financial tightrope. Perhaps the Minister can say that at least all the administration costs for the universities will be covered. If the universities have to take out of their budgets large chunks of money, ultimately it means that the students will be harder pressed to find resources for such things as books or will have to do more work by themselves, thus affording them even less time for part-time employment.
The Government must counsel students on handling the resources that they possess. I pointed out on numerous occasions to the Government and no one contradicted me—in fact I believe that I received the full support of the House —that at the age of 18 the vast majority of students are quite inexperienced at handling money. They have not been wage earners. When an 18 or 19 year-old goes to university he will have come straight from school or a college; he will
1614
not have been in employment and will have had no experience in handling money. For example they will not know about controlling direct debits which they may feel are frightening. They do not know how exactly to control their very small income, which becomes more important because it is a small income. More counselling must be made available. Moreover, many students will probably find that the banks are rather more amenable than they imagined. That is what I discovered when I spoke to students. But the students have to know how to approach the bank. If one panics and buries one's head in the sand, which is a very understandable reaction of many people who get into debt, the bank can do nothing and ultimately will try to recover the debt through whatever procedures are available to it. A bank is a financial institution; it has not been designed to support the education system.
Ultimately, the Government must be prepared to tackle this problem as a whole and try to replace all those provisions which they abandoned when they introduced the loans scheme. They must offer support during the long vacation—that is especially in question here—and find some way to regulate the regional variations in costs covered by housing benefit. Otherwise students will sink increasingly into debt. As the noble Baroness said, as indeed did almost everyone who spoke on the Bill, this scheme is a disincentive to every student who comes from a non-university background. Usually they are students from the poorer elements of our society. An economic definition is perhaps the best one to use. It cannot be expected that people who have no tradition of higher education or who do not have wealthy parents—poorer parents are by and large more likely to be unemployed in the present economic climate than those in the better-off brackets—or who come from the non-professional brackets, will increasingly enter higher education. We cannot expect to expand our university base.
The Government spoke about doubling the number of students by the year 2000. Their present course practically guarantees that the numbers will remain frozen. They may even be reduced, especially in the short-term, if they continue to fund higher education students in this way.
12.27 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, all those who have an interest in or hold some responsibility for the welfare of students in higher education must be most grateful to my noble friend Lady David for raising today the matter of student loans and these recently issued regulations. We are also most appreciative of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with his realistic description of the realities of the present situation.
We are now almost in mid-July. As I understand it, anyone who wants a loan based on the current academic year must complete his application within the next couple of weeks, accompanied by the necessary birth certificate, contact names and the other conditions mentioned by the noble Baroness. I suppose that if it has not been secured already one

1615
would be very lucky indeed to obtain a loan of any dimension based on one's studentship at the present time.
For some students the full horrors of ensuring vacation subsistence are only now fully sinking in. Meanwhile, university staffs understandably feel in need of some respite, after the hassle of organising the final examinations, degree ceremonies and so forth and before they tackle the problems of the new intake for next year. Surely in those circumstances one must strongly support the claim of the universities for realistic reimbursement of the cost of administration.
To suggest, as the DES has recently done, that the level of reimbursement should depend on what the student loan company can afford, is a gross breach of faith. Universities did not ask to be burdened with the responsibility of helping a student loans company to run its business. As my noble friend Lady David indicated, the universities were told by a Minister on the Government Front Bench in this House that they could expect reimbursement of their reasonable costs. That simply has not happened. The position would be even worse if a greater proportion of students took up the loans that might be on offer. The Government complain that too few students have taken up these loans. If one had a higher proportion one might reduce the unit cost but one would clearly increase the gross administrative expenditure. If that is not to be met in full, it is not very likely that universities will be keen to extend the scheme further.
It is not the fault of the universities but of Government that three separate sectors of administration now have to maintain similar, but not identical, records of the personal particulars of large numbers of students. The local education authorities have to do so because they handle the mandatory and discretionary awards which are available to the majority of students. The Student Loans Company has to maintain its records for top-up loans. The universities themselves are responsible for the administration of the access funds, quite apart from the normal records of fee-paying, college awards and the like. I suggest that there is not much of an incentive to universities to increase the burden of loans administration in that scenario.
As has been emphasised by the two preceding speakers, there is great reluctance among many students to avail themselves of loans, in particular among students from families who are not accustomed to living on credit. If I may say so respectfully, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, dealt with that point very well. When one considers the experience in recent times of borrowers in other contexts, one can understand a certain reluctance. Family pressures on students in areas such as South Wales, and even more so now in the rural districts of Wales, mean that many who might otherwise have been attracted by student loans are now desperately deterred from falling into debt if they can possibly help it. They are under great psychological pressure. Recent figures show that in Wales the proportion of full-time employees whose pay falls below the Low Pay Unit's poverty level is now 35 per cent., the third highest in the country.
1616
One can therefore understand how difficult it is to persuade students to incur cumulative debts even on favourable terms. Quite rightly, the Government may claim that they are better terms than might be obtainable on bank loans. I am told by the Dean of Students in Cardiff—by far the largest unit in the federal University of Wales—that it is true that students from well-to-do families at first contemplated taking out student loans with a view to reinvestment. They then realised that as the current rate of interest on the student loans scheme is 9.8 per cent., that was perhaps not such a good idea. The percentage reflects last year's financial climate. As one can see from paragraph 7 of the regulations, one will always be a year behind the current inflation rate. For the next academic year that presumably will be somewhat more favourable. But why cannot students have the same advantage for example as those on the career development loans scheme, where interest accruing during the course does not fall directly on the student?
Naturally current concern centres on the vacation problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, emphasised, very few students can obtain decent holiday work this year. It is quite ridiculous for the Government to pretend that that is not so. We may not have to resort to soup kitchens for students—that was headlined this week in one of the newspapers in South Wales—but paid work is very scarce indeed. Meanwhile payments to landladies to retain out-of-college accommodation are a must for many of our Cardiff students. If they do not retain their accommodation during the vacation by paying for it, we know from experience that there will be chaos in the first two weeks of next term, with students sleeping on the floor and very little academic work attempted.
When the reality of the situation—as fully recognised by the college authorities—was brought to the notice of the DES this week, a spokeswoman said, "Of course there is a £25 million access fund to get anybody out of trouble". That is a myth, as Sir Aubrey Trotman Dickenson, our Principal at Cardiff, tried to explain to the DES in recent correspondence. We were encouraged to use the access fund much earlier in the academic year to meet the needs of present students who are within the official categories. In Cardiff alone we have spent not far short of a quarter of a million pounds through the Government access fund, including about £12,000 that we had managed to accumulate in interest, and several thousands of pounds of the Welsh Church fund money which we have at our disposal.
I am told that, while global figures for next year have been announced, as at mid-July we do not have individual college details of the amount of the access fund for next year, which will start at the end of August, still well within the difficulties of the summer vacation. Nor do we know the conditions for access funds which may be laid down for next year. If someone does not apply before the last day of July for a student loan and has to rely for help on access funds, it is completely unrealistic to suppose that university administrators can achieve what they consider an

1617
intelligent administrative job. As was put to me by one of our most experienced administrators, the attitude of the DES is "simply out of touch with reality".
Finally, perhaps I may refer briefly to a class of student in which I am particularly interested—those attending the residential adult colleges. Those students were cut off, as were other students in mid-course, from vacation housing benefit or income support. But they are not eligible for student loans. I spoke earlier this week to the warden of Coleg Harlech, which is the only such residential college in Wales. The warden said that the students were in an impossible position. They have been cut off in mid-course from the benefits which, until April of this year, they had every expectation of receiving. The college is in no position to suggest that they should receive access funds because the money is not available, having already been disbursed.
I do not wish to take any further time of the House. However, I hope that between the three of us we have convinced the Government that the regulations before the House solve virtually none of the problems with which university administrators are now confronted.
12.38 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am most grateful to have been given the opportunity to speak. I had not originally intended to do so until I heard the interview on the radio this morning with the Minister responsible for higher education. Is the Minister aware that all those who share the Government's stated wish to create wider access to higher education are deeply concerned about the major problems which face students this summer?
On the radio this morning the Minister claimed to have increased support for students by 25 per cent. That appears to have taken no account of the loss of housing and social security benefits, which must represent substantial sums, and the withdrawal of the vocation hardship grant which was hitherto available but which was withdrawn abruptly.
Is the Minister also aware that it bordered on the cynical for his honourable friend to go on to say that he was sure that the ingenuity of students would find them jobs during the long vacation? This is a time of recession which rightly concerns us all and which is affecting exactly those parts of the economy where students might hope to find such jobs. In any event, the solution is not open to those carrying out post-graduate work. They, too, have no access to loans. It was also suggested in the same interview that universities should have better budgeted their special access funds. How does one manage funds which were never sufficient in the first place? I shall not take up the time of the House by repeating figures which have already been discussed. However, I am deeply concerned that the Government should demonstrate both good sense and generosity in recognising that a real problem exists which at least requires an urgent review of the provisions for emergency help, in particular the vocation hardship grant.
12.41 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not know whether it is appropriate to thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, for praying against these regulations. However, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It is always good that such subject matters are aired from time to time. Perhaps I may amplify upon the regulations and respond to the many points that have been raised.
These regulations are made under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. They provide the framework for the second year of the student loans scheme. They are modelled closely on the first regulations which were subject last year to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Under those regulations the scheme has operated smoothly and efficiently this year. It has made more money available to students. Full-year loan and grant have been 25 per cent. higher this year than the grant alone last year. By 10th July more than 191,000 students had applied for loans. The Student Loans Company had made loans worth more than £64 million. I take this opportunity to pay public tribute to the staff of the company, who have worked so hard to ensure the success of the scheme.
Before the regulations were drafted the department asked a number of bodies for their views; for instance, the local authority associations, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, the Standing Conference of Principals and the National Union of Students. The views expressed by all those bodies were given full consideration. We must all ensure that the scheme continues to operate successfully to the maximum advantage of its student customers. These regulations have been drafted in that spirit.
The regulations contain the loan rates for the academic year 1991–92. Those rates entail a further significant increase in student support. Full-year support will this autumn be more than 30 per cent. higher than two years ago. As the loan grows relative to the grant it is likely that many more students will wish to take up loans on the generous terms offered.
Our success in driving down inflation shows the benefit of linking loans to the RPI. In the coming academic year student loans will be linked to the June 1991 RPI. That figure was announced today after the noble Baroness spoke and has remained unchanged at 5.8 per cent. Loans indexed at that rate remain an attractive prospect.
We have also taken steps to ensure that borrowers with moderate incomes may defer repayment. We have increased the deferment threshold in line with average earnings to an annual equivalent of more than £12,600. Most of those earning above the threshold will repay over five years. Those who take out loans for five academic years or more will repay over seven years. Monthly outgoings will be manageable; that is, about £30 a month in cash for a student who started a three-year course last autumn.
Several noble Lords have taken a keen interest in the special arrangements for the repayment of loans by disabled borrowers. They will have noted that the existing provisions have been extended in the new

1619
regulations. These reflect the Student Loans Company's policy which has been discussed in detail with bodies representing the disabled.
The company will disregard certain disability-related benefits when assessing income for deferment. The company may allow borrowers receiving such benefits to postpone repayments or repay over a longer period. If their income is higher than the deferment threshold but they incur major special costs the company may allow them to postpone repayments for a year at a time. Such postponement may last longer if the borrower is unemployed and declared long-term unfit for work. Moreover, it may last until the loan is cancelled if the borrower is unemployed and declared unlikely to be fit for work again. The company is working closely with such organisations as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and SKILL, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities. Very good relationships have been established with those bodies. I would expect the house to welcome that, especially the noble Lord, Lord Addington. However, he did not do so when he spoke.
I shall now address the points that were raised by your Lordships. It was said that the take-up rate of the loans has been poor. As at 10th July more than 191,000 students had applied for loans and more than 166,000 students had received them. That represents 30 per cent. of eligible students. The company will continue to issue loans until the end of July.
Borrowers must pay by direct debit as at present unless the company agrees otherwise. Direct debit is quick and cost effective. We believe that it is in the interests of the borrowers, the company and the taxpayer. The regulations merely place beyond doubt that a student must sign a direct debit mandate before taking out a loan.
The issue of birth certificates was raised. Students born in the United Kingdom must produce their birth certificates to show information that is vital to the processing of their application. The Student Loans Company needs to know their full names at birth, and the date, country and place of birth. Birth certificates provide that information which the company uses to generate a reference number for each student. It is essential for the efficient administration of the scheme and it also protects the taxpayer and the student against possible fraud or mistaken identity. The noble Baroness, Lady David, raised specific complaints upon which I cannot comment. However, I should like to look more closely into them.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned the case of a student at Sheffield Polytechnic who is in financial difficulties. Again I cannot comment upon the matter. The polytechnic was this year paid some £250,000 in access funds to help students in financial difficulties. It is free to decide how to target those funds effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about the cost of administering the scheme in the financial year 1991–92. The company's budget for administrative costs is £12.17 million excluding VAT. We believe that costs during the next few years will be in the range of
1620
£10 million to £20 million as we have consistently forecast. We believe that the public expenditure savings will outweigh the costs in the medium term.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned debt collecting agencies. The Student Loans Company's objective will be to recover loans cost effectively. The great majority of students will wish to repay. We do not wish to disguise from them that they are entering into a commitment and that that is a serious matter. For those who cannot afford to pay there are generous deferment arrangements but if borrowers seek to evade their responsibilities and refuse to pay, the company will take such action as is deemed necessary, which could involve court action.
The noble Baroness asked how much the company will pay next year. The company is considering carefully with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of Principals of Colleges the size of the fee for the coming academic year. There will be an announcement in due course.
The noble Baroness mentioned delays in paying the loans. I believe that the company is efficient. Its target is to pay loans within 21 days of receiving applications, making due allowance for the prompt return of the loan agreement by the student. It is achieving that target in the vast majority of cases. Total success depends upon students completing their application forms correctly.
All noble Lords mentioned access funds. Access funds will increase to £25.8 million next year compared with £25 million this year—a 3 per cent. increase. Given that the full year's support for 1991–92 is 30 per cent. higher than two years ago, we consider that next year's provision for access funds will be sufficient if properly targeted by the institutions.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when will the access funds cover the full loss to students resulting from loss of housing benefit?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we believe that the overall package has achieved that and more. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that this was a dreadful and unpopular scheme. However, he did not say what he or his party would do or what it would cost. He asks for more money almost every time he speaks. To give the noble Baroness her due, she spoke about various aspects of the scheme from her great knowledge but the noble Lord makes a blanket request for more funds. Where are they to come from?
Lord Addington: My Lords, this matter has been gone over many times and I had assumed that the noble Lord had read Hansard, which contains various suggestions which we have made. We are merely asking that students should be treated in exactly the same way as everybody else in our society.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, to listen to some noble Lords one would imagine that we were towards the bottom of the international league table in the way in which we treat students. It may interest the noble Lord to know that among the advanced countries we are equal second or third as regards the

1621
proportion of full-time higher education students receiving government assistance. The figure for the UK is 82 per cent. against the figure of 12 per cent. for socialist France. Our treatment of students is, has been and remains absolutely outstanding and we have a record on that of which we are proud.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked why there should be one application each year. I believe that it is reasonable to expect students to plan their finances. They can apply at any time during the academic year. If they apply in the first term, they can ask for the loan to be paid in three instalments. There is the necessary flexibility. Borrowers may defer payments for a year at a time if their income is below 85 per cent. of the national average earnings; namely, £12,660 per year. Any outstanding loan is cancelled after a fixed period, normally 25 years or if the borrower dies. Setting the threshold at 85 per cent. of the national average earnings ensures that borrowers whose incomes are low need not repay for a year at a time. We believe that that is fair to the taxpayer and the borrower.
The suggestion was made that loans will deter students. I do not believe that there is any evidence of that; in fact, the reverse is true. Participation is increasing rapidly. In 1990 new enrolments were up by 10 per cent. provisionally and we expect a further increase this autumn in the number of full-time students in higher education.
All noble Lords have been worried about the scheme encouraging debt among students. Schemes such as this are widely used internationally. I understand the anxieties but I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect young people to start taking responsibilities, particularly when they are making perhaps the most important investment which they will make in their lives.
As regards vacation support, access funds can be made available at any time in the academic year up to 31st August. We have given the institutions greater flexibility by withdrawing the previous requirement for 85 per cent. of the academic year's allocation to be spent by the end of the financial year. Most eligible students have not applied for a student loan and that suggests that many have sufficient resources.
Many students will obtain temporary employment. In a recent survey conducted by Barclay's Bank, 60 per cent. of students rated their chances of obtaining summer employment as either good or very good and almost half expected their vacation income to exceed £1,000. The disabled and lone parents are eligible for housing benefit and income support.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was worried about students getting increasingly into debt. For those earning less than £11,580 per year the repayment may be deferred. As I said, the 1991 regulations increased the threshold to £12,660 in line with the increase in average earnings. I believe that monthly repayments should be manageable for those earning above that threshold.
My noble friend Lady Park said that loans do not compensate for lost benefits. Loans compensate most higher education students for any benefits forgone.
1622
Most students claim no benefits and the entire loan is again for them. We believe that the access funds will continue to help students in financial difficulties.
The question was universally asked about the unfairness of institutions paying for the administration of the scheme. There are strong feelings about that, which we have recognised. Discussions are taking place between the company and the institutions and I expect an announcement to be made before long.
It is alleged that students are worse off. We have provided the resources to end the need for students to rely on benefits. Full year support from the uprated grant and loan is 25 per cent. higher than the support from grant alone last year. I shall study with care the Official Report and if I have omitted anything, I shall be pleased to write to noble Lords.
The student loan scheme will allow the continued growth of higher education which we all wish to see. Higher education is now expanding rapidly. Ten years ago only one in eight people entered higher education. That figure is now one in five and we expect it to be one in three by the end of the decade. This year new enrolments were 10 per cent. higher and we expect a further increase this autumn.
With the introduction of loans, the cost of that growth will be shared more equally between students, parents and the taxpayer. Loans enable students to anticipate their own future income as graduates and to obtain substantial extra resources when they are most needed. The regulations build on those which your Lordships approved last year. They will help a good scheme to work better and I commend them to the House.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord found it impossible to answer a single one of my questions.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. A large number of questions were asked. The noble Baroness asked—
Baroness White: My Lords, I do not wish to take up the time of the House as there are other debates to take place today. No doubt the noble Lord will take the trouble to write to me on some of the points which I raised.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I repeat my apologies and I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
1 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have spoken in support of my Motion. It was notable that nobody spoke in praise of the Government. I am sure that the Minister took a lot of trouble in drafting his answer, but it showed little flexibility. The points that I raised indicating that difficulties have occurred are clearly not going to receive attention. The only area in which there appeared to be a bit of give related to administrative costs. I am relieved to hear that there will be further discussion on that subject and I hope that the outcome will be good.

1623
The Minister said that the scheme has worked efficiently. The points I raised showed that there are a good many ways in which it does not work efficiently. Identification, the time taken for the applications to go through and the repayment by direct debit have all caused problems. Clearly nothing in that regard is to change.
The Minister made no comment on my request for counselling about debt. I made the point with regard to repayment that it is bad to go into debt without knowing what one's commitments will be. That is the difficulty. We are glad to hear that inflation is down to 5.8 per cent., though it was hoped that the figure today would be lower. Presumably next year they will be paying 5.8 per cent. on their loans but repayment this year is based on the 9.8 per cent. figure for inflation from the previous June. Therefore, those who obtained loans this year will be carrying a larger debt ahead
There was much anxiety about what is to happen this summer. I hope that, if evidence arises showing that students are suffering real hardship, the Government will reconsider the matter. That was generally viewed as something that will cause trouble. The Minister made much of the access funds but they have clearly not been sufficient. I noted that he said that they are to be increased by £800,000. That represents only a 3 per cent. increase and therefore does not even compensate for inflation. I am sure that it has not been adequate to help the students.
We shall watch with interest to see what happens during the course of the next few months. I hope that the Government will be more flexible. If there is evidence that things are bad I hope that they will make further concessions towards the students. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

British Railways Board (Finance) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Education (Information on School Examination Results) (England) Regulations 1991
1.3 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1991, No. 1265), laid before the House 311 30th May, be annulled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in praying against the regulations I want to make the Labour Party's position clear. In our document on the education standards commission, Raising the standard, we said,
"Crude examination results should be made publicly available, and should be given to governors and parents".
To clarify that I shall read the whole paragraph, which states,
"Crude league tables allow under-performers at the top and bottom of the tables to escape scrutiny, and may also mean that excellence and effort by schools in areas where
1624
attainment on entry to a school is low goes unrecognised. Crude examination results should be made publicly available, and should be given to governors and parents. But in management terms, it is also of great importance to know of the progress which the school is making with the child. Eton College is always likely to achieve better crude results than a secondary school down the road in Slough. What everyone needs to know is whether the secondary school in Slough is doing as well as it should, or could, given its intake".
What matters is the interpretation that is put on the results published, as I argued in Committee on the Education Reform Bill. I said that results must be placed in the correct socio-economic context. Parents will need to make a judgment on the schools in their area and HMIs and LEAs will need that information in order to make judgments on the performance of teachers. I reiterate that crude exam results on their own will not allow for a proper and fair judgment by either.
I turn to the regulations. They appear as the first use of the power the Secretary of State was given by the Education Reform Act to require the publication of the educational achievements of pupils in such form and manner as he may decide. Therefore I believe that they deserve parliamentary scrutiny. The Government's original intention with this power was to require LEAs to produce annual reports. The consultation document, The National Curriculum 5–16, dated July 1987 stated that the reports should show, "aggregated assessment results over a timed series for each age cohort in each authority's schools".
Thankfully, wiser counsel prevailed and, although there are faults in the regulations, there are welcome aspects too, particularly the decision to require the publication of non-GCSE, A/AS level examination results. Schools, quite rightly, should have to publish information on the full range of their pupils' achievements in City and Guilds, Royal Society of Arts and BTEC assessments.
The principle that parents and the community should have access to reliable information of a high quality about the comparative performance of schools is firmly supported, as I said. The group the Government established to advise on those matters —the Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT)—reported in December 1987. It stated that,
"there is a fear that results will be published in league tables of scores. We believe that most teachers and schools would not object to assessment results being reported to those who know the school and can interpret them in the light of a broader picture of its work and circumstances. They would object, however, to the publication of partial information which is not set in that context and is therefore potentially misleading—particularly where significant decisions are based upon that information".
Unfortunately, the regulations, although an improvement on the draft regulations circulated last November—they require, for instance, some information to be reported by gender—still invite unfair comparisons and give a partial picture of a school's work. Although there are criticisms about the information required in Regulation 5, it is the summary of GCSE results required by Regulation 6 and the summary of GCE A/AS level results required by Regulation 7 that are of most concern.
I shall consider first Regulation 6, the summary of GCSE results. The summary information requires

1625
schools to present the results of the previous year as well as the current year in a manner that suggests that valid comparisons can be made. That is misleading. Any change between the years is almost certain to have no statistical significance. If there is a difference it is likely to be due to the prior achievement of pupils on entry to the school. The comparison of a school's results with those of the LEA for the previous year is also unlikely to show anything of significance. A comparison with the national picture will merely indicate the difference in socio-economic characteristics between a given LEA and the rest of England. As such it will tell parents nothing of use about a school's results.
Regulation 6(1) (a) requires that the number to be used as the denominator for calculating percentages is the number on roll the previous January. Thus all Easter leavers will reduce a school's results. A school that is particularly successful in placing pupils in employment at Easter will be penalised although it is likely that Easterleaving has nothing to do with a school's quality but more to do with the prevailing socio-economic circumstances. Next year it will still be possible for pupils to leave at Easter.
No allowance is made for pupils with statements of special educational needs even if they have had the national curriculum modified or disapplied—this in spite of a statement by the then Secretary of State to the Commons Standing Committee examining the Bill. On 12th January, 1988 at col. 419, Mr. Baker said:
"The 'school report' could exclude results for children with special educational needs—SEN—at least in subjects for which the curriculum is modified".
That omission from the regulations may mean that schools will be reluctant to take pupils with statements as they will reduce the school's comparative results. The new rate of the percentage calculation is defined in terms of the national curriculum year group. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether pupils in the examination year group but born outside the 1st September to 31st August year of the majority of pupils taking the examinations will or will not have their results added to the school's total. For instance, in some inner city secondary schools there can be a sizeable group of pupils who have joined the school from other countries and who do not have English as their mother tongue. These pupils often delay taking their GCSE examinations for a year. They will not count towards the denominator of the percentage, but will they contribute to the numerator? If they do, this can mean that a school may have a success rate of over 100 per cent. If not, the achievements of these pupils will never contribute to the summary of a school's results.
As the summary only takes account of GCSE results, the achievements of pupils who take pre-vocational studies will not only not contribute to the school's results, they will actually reduce them. I shall refer to this again on A/AS level results.
Regulation 7 specifies the method of calculation and presentation of summary information on GCE A/AS level results. The method is completely new and bears no resemblance to that upon which there had
1626
been consultation and is, quite frankly, a complete nonsense. The original proposal concentrated attention on the balance between A and AS levels which may not have been what the DES wanted. The regulation requires points to be awarded to each result. For example, on GCE A level, grade A equals 10 and grade B equals 8, and so on. For GCE AS level, grade A equals 5 points and so on. While that may be a suitable way for sifting candidates for university or polytechnic entrance, it is not a suitable way of comparing the achievements of schools. People who try to turn ordinal numbers—in this case, grade positions—into ratio numbers so that they can achieve average scores invariably get unsatisfactory answers. If nothing else, it might pressure schools into putting more candidates forward for A levels in the hope that they might get higher results.
A more fundamental objection is that in calculating percentages the denominator is the number on roll the previous January. While it is reasonable to argue that at present virtually all year 11 (16 year olds) are doing GCSE, this is not the case for year 13 (18 year olds). The whole emphasis in the recent White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century is for the diversification of, and equality between, examination and assessment goals beyond the age of 16.
The White Paper states:
"We want academic and vocational qualifications to be held in equal esteem. Vocational qualifications are appropriate for many more young people than currently take them, but too few are prepared to look at alternatives to A levels".
However, pupils not studying for AS/A levels will be treated as dead weight in calculating a school's average score and thus reduce it. A school with a small sixth form with pupils just studying for A levels is liable to get a high average score, but a large sixth form providing a comprehensive range of courses will have a low score. This is ridiculous. Is this really what the DES wants? Surely this is an example of the lack of co-ordination of policies between different departments.
I turn now to the matter of publishing better information. The link between school achievement and socio-economic factors is well-known. The TGAT report, while not favouring the statistical adjustment of examination results for socio-economic factors, recommended in paragraph 134:
"Any report by a school should include a general report for the area, prepared by the local authority, to indicate the nature of socio-economic and other influences which arc known to affect schools. This report should give a general indication of the known effects of such influences on performance".
On this recommendation the then Secretary of State stated:
"It would be helpful for each school's results to be published in the context of a report about the work of the school as a whole, including a description of its circumstances and catchment area, and a general statement about the broad effect of socio-economic factors on performance. That will allow for an informed interpretation of assessment results" —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee J, 12/1/88; col. 425.]
Unfortunately, the DES has never formally consulted on this recommendation and it would be useful to hear why the DES has rejected it.
At Report stage of the Education Reform Bill, my noble friend Lady Blackstone moved Amendment No. 124 requiring the publication of results adjusted for socio-economic factors. Unfortunately, there was not a favourable ministerial reply.
The adjustment of examination results for socio-economic factors is increasing. The 1989 HMI report The Use Made by Local Education Authorities of Public Examination Results noted:
"The joint evaluation of examination and socio-economic data is undertaken with varying degrees of statistical intensity in several LEAs and appears to be under consideration in a growing number of them".
There is much research being undertaken in this area throughout the western world and there is increasing acceptance that the statistical technique of multi-level modelling is much better than other methods for adjusting examination scores. Can the Minister say why the department rejected the use of this technique to make fair comparisons of results? The DES appears to have withdrawn from research in this important area. Nothing has been produced by the DES statistical branch—now renamed the analytical services branch—since 1983 when it produced work that attempted to adjust LEA performance for socio-economic factors. It is regretted that the DES has not been able to support the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' admirable project on multi-level modelling of examination results.
The present Secretary of State's commitment to the fair comparison of school examination results is noted. In his recent speech to the City Technology College dinner he stated:
"Of course, considerable care will need to be taken in interpreting what public examination results achieved in CTCs mean in terms of the CTCs' success in enhancing the performance of pupils across the ability range. It is by fair comparisons that CTCs will be judged by pupils, parents and the general public".
That appeared in a DES press notice on 16th January 1991. It is regretted that the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for the fair comparison of examination results has not yet extended to those of maintained schools. How soon will the Secretary of State review the fairness of the reporting mechanisms in these regulations and inaugurate consultation on a better alternative? I hope that in his reply the Minister will respond to some of the questions I have put to him. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations (S.I. 1991, No. 1265), laid before the House on 30th May, be annulled.—(Baroness David.)
Lord Addington: My Lords, may I very briefly say that the noble Baroness, Lady David, has put her finger on a very important point. It is patently absurd to have blanket results for schools if their intake is not known. The point made about special schools is particularly important. If, for instance, a school has a very good unit for dealing with dyslexic children, it may well be enhancing the school. However, in crude terms of results it may well mean that they have a lower aggregate score—we are effectively looking at a score table here.
1628
Surely there must be some way that the Government can introduce a system which reflects far more the educational worth in something a little more subtle than simply saying, "You've got X number of passes this time round. Therefore you must be a better school".
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady David, for her welcome of those parts of the regulations of which she approves. Again, I shall attempt to respond as much as I can to what she said, although some of her points were of a technical nature. In any event, I shall respond, whether this afternoon or in writing. I shall send copies to any other noble Lords who have taken part.
Schools have up to now been required to publish information on their GCSE, A and AS level examinations, under the provisions of regulations laid in 1981. Schools were not required to publish what we regarded as important pieces of information. For example, schools did not have to publish examination results other than GCSE, A and AS levels; they did not have to give an indication of the number entered for or attempting an examination, nor the number who failed an examination. They could publish their results in any format of their choosing and this, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, could make comparisons difficult.
Our aims in laying these new regulations were threefold: to ensure that parents have access to a clear summary of schools' examination results, in a common and consistent form, as soon as they are readily available; that parents are able to assess the relative success of the school in examination terms and can make choices based on this information; and that the managers of the education service, at all levels, are able to make informed decisions based on the information available.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that all parents are concerned about the education of their children. Is it not better that parents are able to draw conclusions and make choices on the basis of clear and accessible information?
The regulations, as I have said, require schools to publish their GCSE, A and AS level results in a common and consistent form. Perhaps I may describe some of the information which the regulations require schools to produce: the number of boys, girls and all pupils in year groups 11 and 13; their results in all public examinations; the number of pupils entered for an examination, achieving each grade, failing to achieve a pass grade, and not attempting an examination for which they were entered; GCSE, A and AS level results for each school to be summarised in a consistent form each year and compared with those for the school, the LEA and England for the preceding year.
The regulations will enable parents properly to assess the examination performance of their child's school and to make comparisons between schools. I am sure noble Lords will agree when I say that how its pupils perform in public examinations is a key indicator of how well any school is doing in meeting its duties.

1629
More and more young people are now studying for vocational qualifications in our schools. The regulations will ensure that their results are reported as well. It is our aim to achieve parity of esteem between what are commonly called academic and vocational qualifications; a point to which the noble Baroness referred. The regulations acknowledge the importance which we place on vocational qualifications by requiring schools to publish all of their examination results, not simply their results in academic subjects. The regulations recognise the achievements of those pupils who take vocational options.
These regulations did not simply materialise out of thin air. We have been accused of not having thought matters through; of encouraging schools to publish crude tables of results. However, the regulations were the result of carefully considered views and were finalised only after extensive public consultation. The consultation showed broad support for the principles which we put forward in the draft regulations. It should be remembered that it is as important for the education service to have clear information about pupils' attainments in public examinations, as it is for parents.
The regulations laid before the House have benefited from the comments received on the draft we issued for consultation. I have many examples of how we have listened in our consultations. The regulations now require schools to publish, for GCSE, for A/AS overall, and for national curriculum core subjects, the relative success of boys and girls in a school. That came about as a direct result of consultation. We are accused of forcing schools to present data without reference to factors such as size of school or the social and economic background of pupils at a particular school. We are told that we do not recognise the excellence of and effort made by schools in areas where attainment on entry into a school is low. But the regulations do not preclude schools, or indeed LEAs, from supplementing this information with any additional information which they would care to add. Nor do they preclude them from providing information to set their results in context. We encourage schools wherever possible to include whatever additional information they wish. It is important that parents are able to see as complete a picture as possible of pupils' achievements in public examinations.
The party opposite, which now claims to be moving towards us as the party of the consumer, after long domination by producer interests, cannot be opposed to the principle. How does the Labour Party propose to do it, if not in the way that we suggest? Does it intend to blind parents with science by giving them a complex set of data about social background and the like to set alongside exam results? Parents are not fools. If they see two schools which look otherwise alike, and one gets far better results than the other, they will draw their own conclusions. The fact is that schools which are otherwise alike—even, perhaps especially, in deprived areas—do achieve very different results. Those results are not the only test of
1630
quality, but they are bound to be what matters primarily to parents. Our proposals will enable parents to make their own judgments without being barraged with a lot of sociological gobbledegook. Raw data is better than cooked data. They will challenge schools not to hide behind excuses but to strive for the best results that they can attain. That must be good. It must be better than the vague proposals that we have heard about educational standards councils and sp on. Under our proposals the consumers—pupils and their parents—really are sovereign.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked whether it would be better to move towards reporting the progress made by pupils during their time at school rather than just what they achieve at the end. I have to accept that that would be ideal, but it is not possible now. There is no clear, accurate baseline against which to assess their progress. It will become possible as the results of the assessment made at the end of earlier key stages become available.
I was asked whether LEAs or schools are required to publish league tables of results. The regulations are about what schools publish in their prospectuses and the annual report to governors. They do not apply to the provision of LEA-wide information except for GCSE and A/AS summary data; but that is in average only. However, how comparative information between institutions can be made more widely available to parents, students, employers and others is under active consideration.
I was asked whether vocational examination results are to be included in the summary data. The changing pattern of provision of vocational qualifications makes it impossible for them to be included in summary data at this time. However, we shall keep the matter under review. The noble Baroness asked for a year group definition. All pupils in a given year will have their results counted.
On the question of the summary of GCSE, A and AS results, the noble Baroness suggested that comparisons could not be valid. Some variation is to be expected. Parents will want to see an indicator of progress and schools will be free to set out the changes which have been made and put it into context. The suggestion was made that Easter leavers will affect the results. It is essential to take a common baseline for comparisons. A census date must be set. The date given corresponds to the standard census already set.
The noble Baroness referred to compensating for socio-economic differences. The information must be clear and accessible. I remain to be convinced that any adjustments to take account of ill-defined background variables would not distort the picture.
I was asked for the results of pupils with statements of special educational needs to be reported. The achievements of pupils with such needs will not always be poorer than those of their peers. Indeed some pupils with special educational needs are gifted. Schools are free to record the number of statemented pupils in the relevant year group if they wish. The existing regulations already require special educational need pupils' results to be recorded.

1631
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned dyslexia, as one would expect with his keen interest in the subject. The GCSE examining groups have a well-established common policy for dealing with candidates who face disadvantage in their examinations due to various difficulties, including dyslexia. The A level boards have a similar policy. Both will consider making special arrangements for dyslexic pupils if a candidate's examination centre submits a report from an education psychologist. The usual arrangement is to allow dyslexic pupils up to 25 per cent. extra time in the examinations, giving them longer to read papers, to plan, and to correct their answers. Any additional arrangements are made at the discretion of groups and boards.
This summer has seen the first national testing of seven year-olds in English, maths and science under the new national curriculum. We hope that the testing of 11 and 14 year-olds will be introduced over the next year. We are convinced of the need for schools to publish their school-level results at the end of each key stage, Making this information readily accessible as soon as is practicable on a consistent basis is essential to inform both the choices made by the clients of the education service and the decisions made by its managers at all levels. It is our intention that the regulations now before the House will in due course be complemented by and, as regards the results of year 11 pupils, subsumed within those of regulations governing the publication and tranmission of national curriculum assessment results at all key stages. These regulations then represent the beginning of a process whereby evidence of pupils' attainments at all key stages will increasingly become available, permitting secure comparisons to be made over time.
The publication of examination results is a complex issue and one which requires careful handling. The requirements which these regulations place on schools is a sensible balance between simplicity and comprehensiveness. They provide a sound basis for schools reporting their results. Parents have a right to know Low the results of one school compare with another. These regulations mean that parents now have access to a clear summary of schools' examination results, in a common and consistent form as soon as they are available. They also allow parents to assess the relative success of the school in examination terms and to make better-informed choices about what is best for their children, based on this information. I therefore commend these regulations to the House.
1.32 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his support and the Minister for his reply. I apologise for the technical nature of the matter. I agree that it is difficult. However, I believe that the issues I raised were both important and legitimate. I am glad that we have been able to put them on the record. I shall study the Minister's reply with great care. I believe that there are a few points to which he did not reply; for example, I asked what would be the effect on the results if one had children who were not in the year group. I cited the example of students whose first language was not
1632
English. They will probably be a year older. As I said, I believe that some of my points were not answered. However, I hope that the Minister will study what I said and write to me if certain aspects were not covered.
The main aim is to ensure that the publication of these results is firmly based so that they can be properly interpreted both by parents and by the LEA. I do not think that the Minister referred to any DES activity in the statistical way. If he writes to me, I should be interested to know whether any change will take place in that connection. It seems rather a shame: either the department is not doing it, or it appears not to be taking note of extremely good work which is being carried out elsewhere. However, I do not think that that topic has any great fascination for the House. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

London Underground Bill
1.33 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to permit the building of a 15 kilometre extension of the Jubilee line from Green Park, in the West End, to Stratford in the east. Assuming Royal Assent is granted early in the new year, the extension should open in 1996. By the year 2001, the Jubilee line including the extension is expected to be carrying a total of 167 million passengers per year. That compares with the Victoria line which, by 2001, is expected to be carrying a total of 153 million passengers per year.
The Bill is promoted by London Transport. It was deposited in Parliament in November 1989. An additional provision was subsequently deposited. A further Bill (the No. 2 Bill) was deposited in November 1990. These were all considered by an Opposed Private Bill Committee in another place. They have now been consolidated into the Bill which is now before the House. It was given a Third Reading in the other place on the 24th June. The sound system in the Chamber appears to be "coming and going". If I change my position a little, perhaps it will improve.
The Bill proposes the biggest addition to the underground system since the Victoria line was built in the 1960s. The new extension will start in a tunnelled junction with the existing line, just south-east of Green Park station. It then runs under Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge and Docklands. It will cross the Thames four times: here at Westminster, then between the Surrey Docks and the Isle of Dogs, then across to North Greenwich; and a fourth time from there to Canning Town. At Canning Town, the line will come to the surface. It will then follow the existing British Rail route—the North London line—to serve the communities of West Ham and Stratford in the Borough of Newham. It will terminate at Stratford.
The proposals for the Westminster station will be of special interest to the House. Your Lordships will

1633
recall that London Underground's original proposals involved works in Parliament Square. I am happy to say that the scheme has been completely revised. Our green square will not now be affected. All the work will now be confined to the Bridge Street site; that is, the existing station will be expanded on its existing site, below ground level, to provide all the new facilities needed. Above it, a new parliamentary building (phase 2) will be built, on a concrete "raft" over the station. The same architect, Mr. Michael Hopkins, will design both the new station and the parliamentary building. I believe that this will provide a very satisfactory outcome to the needs of both Parliament and the transport system.
The Jubilee line extension will bring many benefits to a wide area of London: it will be a major addition to the transport services to Docklands; it will help sustain inner-city regeneration there; it will link two of the main rail termini—Waterloo and London Bridge—with the West End and docklands; and, very significantly, it will bring parts of south-east London—notably Bermondsey and Greenwich—onto the tube map for the first time. The project has wide support. I believe that no one opposes the principle of its construction. However, I know that noble Lords will have certain concerns. I should like to touch very briefly on some of them.
I know that many of your Lordships have an interest in the subject of listed buildings and conservation areas. The House is rightly concerned to ensure that buildings of architectural importance are not demolished or interfered with, for the purposes of public works, without proper consideration.
In March your Lordships gave a Third Reading to the London Underground (Safety Measures) Bill. There was one particular clause in that Bill which troubled your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Elton moved an amendment to delete it. The clause concerned the disapplication of the listed buildings provisions in the planning legislation. Your Lordships were concerned about the principle of interfering with the general law by a Private Bill.
Put shortly, when the safety Bill and the Jubilee Bill were deposited in Parliament, both contained a blanket disapplication of the listed buildings legislation. That approach attracted considerable criticism, inside and outside both Houses. As a result, a compromise was found. The promoters amended the Bills, so that they now contain a schedule which sets out the listed buildings, or buildings in conservation areas, which will be interfered with or demolished. That solution appealed to the Committee on this Bill in another place. It also satisfied those of your Lordships who sat on the opposed committee dealing with the Safety Measures Bill. I understand that it also has the support of the Government.
However, that does not mean to say that a provision of this kind will be used in every case involving listed buildings. Each case will have to be examined to determine whether the normal planning procedures should be followed or whether the circumstances justify the approach adopted in the Bill.
1634
In the case of the Safety Measures Bill, I am pleased to say that, after a full explanation, my noble friend Lord Elton withdrew his amendment.
The Bill now before the House follows the compromise I described. Some 45 buildings and structures, either listed or unlisted but within conservation areas, are included in the schedule to the Bill (Schedule 9). But only one listed building (grade II) will require demolition. That is the building above Westminster station: Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge Street. The new Buildings Sub-Committee and the Select Committee on Services in the other place support its demolition. They have held both formal and informal meetings with the promoters. In its report of 15th May 1990, the Select Committee referred to the proposals for Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge Street put forward by Michael Hopkins, the architect appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment for phase 2 of the new parliamentary building project. It said:
"We consider that Mr. Hopkins has made out a strong case for replacing the existing buildings—which even in their original form we regard as being architecturally mediocre—and we wish to support this in principle".
The committee sitting on the Bill in another place approved the report of the Select Committee. However, it made it a condition of demolition that a resolution approving a design for the new parliamentary building had to be passed by the other place before demolition.
I believe that the loss of one Listed Building is a very limited impact for a project of this magnitude. The promoters have given an undertaking that they will maintain full and close consultation with English Heritage and the relevant local planning authorities, throughout the whole period of works, in respect of the buildings listed in the schedule. I hope noble Lords will accept the approach that has now been adopted.
The architecture of the new stations has been given special attention. It is intended that the calibre of the architects appointed will contribute greatly to the creation of a transport system worthy of the 21st century. The architects who have been commissioned have been very carefully selected following interview and review of the work of over 70 practices.
The environment is a matter about which your Lordships have a great and continuing interest. I believe that the promoters are acting in an equally responsible way here too. An independent consultancy was commissioned to carry out an environmental assessment of the proposals. The consultants' report (the environmental statement) was published in March 1990. There have since been two addenda to cover major revisions to the proposals. I deposited copies of each of those in the Library about two weeks ago.
The chairman of LT and LUL, Mr. Wilfrid Newton, has given an undertaking that London Underground will adopt the consultants' recommendations. Those recommendations provide ways to mitigate possible impacts of the project. They are being built into the design and into a code of construction practice.
Your Lordships have always had a special interest in planning for the disabled. Nowhere is that more important than in transport investment. At present,

1635
wheelchair users cannot travel on the "deep tube" parts of the London Underground system. The extension, however, will be designed from the outset to make their journeys possible. Every one of the new stations will have lifts built in. I hope the day will come when that will apply to old stations. Subject to approval by the Railway Inspectorate and the LFCDA—I am afraid I do not know what that means —disabled people will therefore be carried on the deep-level tube for the first time. Studies are now going ahead to find ways in which that can be extended to the whole system.
Other forms of disability are being planned for too. Detailed design of stations will meet the needs of people who are hearing-impaired or sight-impaired. Examples are an extra 50 centimetres on handrails beyond the end of stairs; colouring white the first and last risers on each flight of stairs; and care in design to avoid sharp objects and sharp edges. As your Lordships know, a particular hobby-horse of mine is provision for "wheels"—not just for the disabled, but for people with heavy luggage, parents with push-chairs, and so on. Many of those measures help meet their needs too. I believe that these new station designs are a sign of real progress in providing for disabled people, and for able-bodied people with special needs. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming it.
The most important consideration of all is safety. Your Lordships will know well the recommendations of the Fennell Report following the King's Cross fire. We recently considered some of the improvements resulting from those recommendations in the Safety Measures Bill which related to three existing stations. London's underground system was the world's first. The first line the Metropolitan) opened in 1863. The first deep-level tube (the Northern line) celebrated its centenary last year (1990). There is always a requirement for modernisation, and a review of modern standards. For this major new extension, however, the opportunity exists to build in maximum safety from the outset. The Jubilee line extension project has already developed a safety plan to make safety the top design priority.
I hope that noble Lords will support the Bill. It will bring real benefits to wide areas of London. It will be of great assistance in urban regeneration. I urge the House to give the Bill the Second Reading that it deserves.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time —(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
1.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness for the exemplary way in which she introduced the Bill and anticipated problems which some of us wish to address to her. She did all that despite temporary acronymic and microphonic difficulties. I have to speak for myself. I represented a London constituency in another place for a considerable time and as a Londoner I support the extension of the Jubilee line. I endorse the Bill. I admired the way in which the noble Baroness dealt with questions relating to the disabled and to
1636
able-bodied people with special needs. She even addressed, almost automatically—she felt that she would need to in my case—the environmental implications. She also properly referred to the safety implications which are of considerable interest to all.
The extension will provide new access facilities to the London Underground system, particularly for the residents of south London. That will undoubtedly be of benefit. Some anxiety was expressed in another place about Jubilee Gardens and Canning Town, to which the noble Baroness did not refer. Those issues will be picked up when the matter is dealt with by the Select Committee.
There is no doubt that London will be exposed to considerable inconvenience. That is inevitable with a development of this size. It will cause some perturbation while it goes on, but it is the end product that matters.
I should like to ask the Minister how the development will be financed, because that is a matter of considerable interest. As one would expect, there is no indication of that, nor should there be, in the Bill. It is for the Government, who in effect nationalised London Transport and who clearly have some responsibility in this matter, to give a clear indication to Londoners as to who will pick up the hill. I do not mean this Bill; I mean the financial bill.
One understands that the developers have indicated considerable interest in providing some financial support. But what are the details? How do the Government propose that the development will be financed? Will the passengers be expected to pick up the main burden through increased fares?
Quite apart from the helpfulness of the noble Baroness, the promoters have been extremely helpful in the supply of briefings which I imagine have not been confined to me. If they had been, I should be grateful but surprised. As I said, there are the interests of the petitioners. When people petition against Bills, they have to go to considerable expense. Some people with legitimate concerns are not financially well endowed, but they feel that they need to be represented by counsel. One can only hope that wherever possible the promoters of the Bill will seek to mitigate any inequities that necessarily arise in situations of this kind. One hopes that they will use their endeavours to enter into compromises even while the Bill is being considered in this place because one would expect that of them.
I became a little concerned that the Bill seeks to remove some consultation procedures in dealing with certain aspects of the development that is to take place. I wish to know why. It seems to be a departure in principle from the line closures which have been covered by other legislation. To some degree, it seems to be inconsistent with the London Regional Transport Act 1984 whereby the London Regional Passengers' Committee was set up and given the right to receive objections from London transport users. On that basis, it makes recommendations to the Minister who has to take account of a variety of economic and social issues before coming to conclusions, in order to ensure that passengers' interests are taken into account.

1637
It is true that in this instance London Regional Transport has asked passengers to submit views in writing, and to that degree the views have been taken into account. Nevertheless, the rights of the consumer have in some measure been reduced. One wonders whether that is necessary. One clause in particular removes the need to fulfil statutory obligations to which I have referred, such as the closing of the stretch of line between Green Park and Charing Cross. I wonder why that is necessary.
I warmly welcome the Statement made by the Minister, Mr. Freeman, at col. 780 of Hansard in another place on 24th June this year when he said that that would not set a precedent.
I hope that the promoters of the Bill will give further consideration to ways and means whereby Jubilee Gardens may be preserved. The noble Baroness was good enough to refer to disapplying listed building controls in a limited way. Here again, one feels reassured by her remarks. The issue caused anxiety in another place but it is clear from what she said that the promoters will approach this difficult and often controversial issue with caution and care.
Having raised one or two additional points, I hope that the Bill will proceed to a satisfactory conclusion. In the interim I hope that the promoters will take further account of the anxieties that have already been proclaimed in the petitions which have been lodged. No doubt there will be other problems as the work proceeds. I am sure that the promoters will take account of the sensitivity of the matter and accord those who are concerned the greatest possible consideration.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I join the general welcome which the Bill has enjoyed this afternoon. I welcome it particularly because it seems to me that it confirms the Government's commitment to expanding London's public transport infrastructure and also because it contains an element of private funding. I share the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, in finding out just what that element of the total costs will be.
In detail, one must welcome the expansion of the Waterloo underground station and the four new crossings of the River Thames, none of which will be accessible or available to the private motorist. That must help us with our congestion problems. One must welcome the fact that of the 12 stations involved, nine will offer interchange with other underground routes; six will offer interchange with British Rail and three will have significant bus interchanges. I feel that all these facilities will serve to enhance our public transport in London. Many will contribute, through opening up new route opportunities, to a substantial reduction in road congestion.
Thanks to the two speeches already made, I have only one reservation on which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, touched; that is, congestion. I do not wish to pre-empt either this House or another place, but those of us who are active in the London transport field know that in a few years' time we hope to have
1638
work proceeding on the King's Cross international station. We shall have the Jubilee line extension, the subject of the Bill. We shall have East-West cross rail and projects to rebuild underground stations at Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Holborn Kingsway and London Bridge.
I feel that the latter is something of a microcosm of the problem. I can see a time when we or London Transport rebuild London Bridge to cope with the safety and congestion requirements treated in the Bill on safety measures. We know that the Jubilee line extension will go through the Borough Market area. We know that British Rail has plans to enhance its surface network around Borough Market and it is not impossible that the link to the Channel Tunnel will also be in the area.
All these contribute to local congestion while the work is in progress. The other projects which I have mentioned, plus road ventures which I have not, will contribute to congestion on a much wider scale. My noble friend has already told us that Chelsea-Hackney has been deferred on previous occasions on grounds of congestion. Can he confirm that the Department of Transport, which after all is funding in part or in whole so many of these projects, keeps a wall chart of the projects, showing when they take place and trying to phase the timetable so that both local and more widespread congestion is minimised? I strongly support the Bill.
1.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Baroness Gardner of Parkes on her introduction of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to set out briefly for your Lordships the Government's position on it.
The Government whole-heartedly support the Bill. The Jubilee line extension is vital to the maintenance of the momentum for regeneration in Docklands. It will also bring substantial benefits to the surrounding areas, many of which are not currently well served by public transport. My noble friend described some of them.
In the Docklands, London has a very great asset: an area of tremendous potential close to the heart of the capital which became available for development when the docks closed. It is already a great success and a tribute to what can be done when the public and private sectors co-operate. The Jubilee line is, however, essential if Docklands is to realise its full potential. That potential is to become no less than London's third city alongside the City of London and the West End, providing capacity for growth and helping London to maintain its competitive position as Europe's first city.
The Docklands Light Railway has proved to be a very effective catalyst. But development has exceeded all the expectations when the DLR was planned. The DLR is being upgraded and the extension to Bank will open shortly. This initial service will more than double the capacity of the DLR compared with what was available at the beginning of the year. When a second Bank platform is opened, more than three times the

1639
capacity that was available in January will be provided. However, even this will not be enough. Docklands urgently needs the high capacity, arterial route which the Jubilee line will provide.
The Jubilee line extension will provide a fast link to all poi its of the compass: to the north and north-west via the existing Jubilee line from Baker Street and Green Park; from the west and south-west by interchanging with the District and Circle lines at Westminster; from the south-west counties via Waterloo; from Kent and south-east London via the British Rail lines into London Bridge; and from the east and north-east on the lines into Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street via Stratford and West Ham. It is these high quality connections which the Isle of Dogs must have if it is to grow and provide approaching 150,000 jobs by the end of the first decade of the next century.
It would be wrong, however, for me to overlook the benefit; which the extension will bring to areas of East London outside the Isle of Dogs. Not only will the line open up Docklands to a wide catchment area, it will also promote renewal in the surrounding areas—in Southwark, Bermondsey, Tower Hamlets, Newham and the Greenwich peninsula. The extension has a very much broader role than just supporting commercial development on the Isle of Dogs: the effect it will have in fostering inner city regeneration will be much wider.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about one of the most important features of the whole project when he asked how it is to be paid for. The line will need to be grant aided. Ring fenced grant will be provided. As for all such public projects, grant is determined annually each autumn for three years ahead. The Government believe that those who will benefit From the project should contribute towards its cost. There are several contributions from developers and the major contribution will provide some £400 million in cash. In addition passengers will contribute to the project through the payment of fares. No decision has yet been taken on whether any extra fares will be payable for this improved service. As I believe the noble Lord implied, a combination of various factors will come into play to pay for the line.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also asked me what the Government's attitude was to the closure of the Green Park to Charing Cross section of the existing line. The Government are familiar with the concern that has been expressed by the London Regional Passengers Committee and others about the use of Private Bill powers to secure permission to withdraw a railway service. I can assure your Lordships that the Government do not lightly support the setting aside of established statutory procedures. However, where such closures are an essential consequence of a railway proposal, the Government take the view that it is highly desirable that Parliament should decide on those closures at the same time as it considers whether the power that is sought to carry out the proposed works should be granted. In such cases the. disadvantages arising from a closure must be weighed against the benefits of the works proposed. It makes little sense for the two to be considered
1640
separately or for both to be considered in two separate procedures. At best that would involve a duplication of effort and at worst there would be a risk that Parliament's wishes might be frustrated. I hope therefore your Lordships will agree that this provision is a reasonable and appropriate one.
While I have stressed the very large benefits that the Jubilee Line will bring, I do not deny that a degree of disruption and inconvenience will be caused during the construction of the new line. Other noble Lords have referred to this matter. My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked me to confirm whether the Department of Transport keeps an eye on such disruption. I can assure my noble friend that the department is vigilant in this regard. As my noble friend mentioned, that is one reason why we felt it would not be wise to go ahead with both the Chelsea to Hackney line and the East West cross rail line at the same time.
I have visited some of the sites of the proposed Jubilee Line. One of the good things about the proposed construction is that a large amount of the spoil can be taken away by barge along the river. That will keep lorries off London roads. London Underground has gone to considerable lengths to minimise the impact on the areas through which the line will pass, and whose communities it will ultimately serve.
Like other noble Lords I note that there are 87 petitions against the Bill and the petitioners will have the opportunity of presenting their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are today to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I therefore wholeheartedly urge your Lordships to support the Second Reading of the Bill so that the benefits which the Bill will undoubtedly bring may be reaped without unnecessary delay.
2.5 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I particularly thank them for the support they have given to this project, which will be such a valuable one for London. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to Jubilee Gardens. I believe the compensation risk is the biggest factor that has determined the siting of the line. However, that matter, along with others, will be taken into consideration. As regards Canning Town, London Transport itself has accepted that the design for the station is not ideal. However, it would cost another £7 or £8 million to produce a design such as that used for Newham station. The developers would have to be satisfied that that extra cost was merited. On the other hand the station that will be provided at Canning Town has been designed by an eminent architect and will be of high quality.
Mention has been made of the number of petitions that have been presented. We are all aware of that fact. However, I believe the promoters have a positive approach towards genuine anxieties. They have already shown how willing they are to meet people to discuss changes where those changes are practical and

1641
possible. If a proposed change would prevent the line from proceeding, however, the promoters must of course stand firm. The promoters are to be congratulated on the response they have shown to petitions so far.
Every speaker has referred to the problem of congestion. My noble friend Lord Mountevans was concerned about this matter. I realise that the whole of London looks like a permanent building site and will probably continue to look like that for a long time. We must accept that there will be some congestion as a result of these proposals. It can be minimised, but a marvellous new underground line cannot be constructed without people suffering some inconvenience in the process. It will be worth suffering that inconvenience to obtain this new line. I again thank those who have spoken in the debate. I also thank the Minister for his helpful comments. I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
2.7 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the Government's intention to bring forward this short draft order in his speech on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill in another place on 19th November 1990. The principal purpose of the order is to give effect to two of my noble friend Lord Colville's recommendations in his review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987. The two recommendations are those in paragraph 7.3 of my noble friend's report about remands into police custody and in paragraph 16.4 on the copying of documentary exhibits in committal proceedings.
At the same time, the Government wish to take the opportunity provided by the draft order to make a number of minor amendments to existing legislation in the criminal justice field.
Article 3 of the draft order deals with my noble friend Lord Colville's recommendation on remands into police custody. The article would empower magistrates' courts to remand accused persons to detention in police custody for up to three days for questioning about other offences of which they are suspected. That provision would bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales, where magistrates' courts already have such powers.
In a number of his annual reports on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, my noble friend Lord Colville has expressed concern about the practice of extending the detention of terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland in circumstances where there is already evidence to prefer charges, in order to
1642
enable the police to question the individual about other offences of which he or she is suspected. My noble friend believed that there was a way out of that particular difficulty. That was the principal reason why he recommended that provision should be made in Northern Ireland, similar to that in England and Wales, for a remand of an accused person into police custody for up to three days.
Article 3 of the draft order would, therefore, provide the police with an alternative route to extending an individual's detention under the PTA in circumstances where there is already sufficient evidence to prefer charges. The article would enable the police to charge such individuals at an earlier stage, and then bring them before a magistrates' court to seek a remand back into police custody for questioning about other offences.
There is one other important respect in which the article should help the police. When a person is charged with an offence in Northern Ireland and remanded in custody he is usually held in HM Prison, Belfast. If the police wish to question that person about other offences of which he is suspected, or about which the police believe he may have information, any interview must take place at the prison, and a prison officer must remain in attendance. However, Article 3 would enable such individuals to be remanded back into police custody at a police station or at one of the terrorist holding centres, as appropriate, for further questioning. Therefore, the new provision in Article 3 should assist the police by removing the difficulty of interviewing suspects in prison.
The Government believe that that is a sensible new provision. It has been made on the recommendation of my noble friend Lord Colville and offers some, albeit limited, scope for a reduction in the use of the powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in Northern Ireland.
Article 4 of the draft order deals with my noble friend Lord Colville's recommendation in respect of the serving of documentary exhibits in connection with committal proceedings. The article would provide the prosecution with a discretion, in connection with a preliminary inquiry, either to serve the accused with a copy of a written exhibit or to furnish such information as may be necessary to enable the defence to examine the exhibit.
The requirement to serve a copy of a written exhibit is mandatory and is the cause of the difficulty since, if the written exhibit contains sensitive or confidential information (such as information likely to be useful to terrorists in planning acts of violence), there may be good reason why it should not be served on the accused. As the law currently stands in Northern Ireland, the prosecution is, in effect, required to hand back to an accused the basis of his or her wrong-doing and to give him or his associates the opportunity to repeat it. The Government agree with my noble friend Lord Colville and the Director of Public Prosecutions that that is a mischief which must be tackled.
Article 4 would bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales, where the prosecution already has the discretion which Article 4 would confer on the prosecution in Northern Ireland.
I would like to assure your Lordships on one point. The Government's intention is that copies of written exhibits should continue to be served on the accused in the usual way, and only in exceptional circumstances should copies be denied. But even where copies are denied that will not involve any infringement of the accused's rights. The House will wish to note that the accused's rights are protected by the requirement in Article 4 for the prosecution to serve notice of where and when written exhibits may be examined by the defence, in cases where those exhibits are not served.
Article 5 of the draft order would extend the time limit for a claim for compensation made under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 by a person who was under 18 when the injury was sustained. That provision is required to remove an anomaly created by an amendment made to the 1977 order by the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. That anomaly could in certain circumstances place minors criminally injured before the 1988 order came into effect at a disadvantage relative to those injured after it came into effect in so far as time limits for making applications are concerned. There are probably few such cases, but, as they involve violence to children and young persons, including cases of sexual abuse, the Government have concluded that the anomaly created by the 1988 order must be removed.
Article 6 makes minor technical amendments to extra-territorial legislation, consequential from the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.
Article 7 amends the Probation Board (Northern Ireland ) Order 1982 to clarify the Probation Board's powers to fund schemes run by voluntary organisations for the prevention of crime and the rehabilitation of offenders. The article also clarifies and extends the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to inspections of the Probation Board and of services provided by voluntary organisations in connection with the board's activities.
Those are the provisions of the draft order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clear manner in which he introduced the order. As he said, it has nothing to do with the Criminal Justice Bill. It concerns the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 and the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977. We on these Benches support the concept of extending the time limit for a claim to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Order and giving the Secretary of State extra powers to inspect probation hostels and bail hostels.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear explanation of the provisions which go a long way towards filling some of the lacunae that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross pointed out in his report. However, perhaps my noble friend will clarify one point in Article 3. New paragraph 4(D) refers to an accused person who is not under the age of 21 years and is not already detained under a custodial sentence.
1644
Am I right in thinking that that fills a gap? Is the age limit for those offences 16 or 18? What is the significance of the age of 21? If my noble friend cannot explain now, I should be grateful if he would explain later.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I apologise for not being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, spoke to the order. It appears that I misread my timetable. I thank the noble Lord for having introduced the order. I thank him also for having made available an explanatory document when the proposal for the order was first published in March. So far as I can see, the March proposal has not been amended in the light of consultations. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
From these Benches we respectfully and wholeheartedly welcome Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6. Articles 3 and 4 give effect to the recommendations of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I am sure that Article 5 will bring relief to victims who are minors when they suffer injury. Otherwise, there is the danger that a minor would be caught in the trap of failing to bring his claim within three years of the date of injury. The proposal therefore makes for justice.
Perhaps I may now turn to Article 7. The Minister explained that it deals with the power of inspection of the Probation Board and the relevant establishments. I should be grateful for clarification of, or assurances about, a few inherent matters that arise from the provisions of the article. First, how are we to reconcile new paragraphs 14(1) and 14(5)? Under the former, an inspector is empowered to undertake an inspection if directed to do so by the Secretary of State or if he has obtained the Secretary of State's approval. However, under paragraph 5 he can also enter any relevant establishment and investigate its management, even though he has not been authorised to do so by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister can explain the circumstances in which an inspection will take place on the inspector's individual initiative.
Secondly, is it necessary or right that the inspector should have the right to enter the premises of an establishment when his entry has not been authorised by the Secretary of State or by a magistrate's warrant? In asking those questions, I am mindful that the order provides that it is a criminal offence for any person to obstruct entry. I am also mindful that the protection of private property is a key feature of the law. In my view, that is sufficient reason for asking those two questions.
Thirdly, I am interested to learn the qualifications of the inspector. Where the inspection is undertaken under paragraph 14(1), the inspector is entitled to demand and examine accounts, books, records and documents. I am sure that he should have such powers but, even though he is so clothed, in this imperfect world it may not be easy to get to the truth. That is why I should like to know whether the inspector will have the necessary accountancy skills to analyse the detailed financial information that may be produced in order to satisfy himself, for example, that the Probation Board is not being exploited or even

1645
defrauded; or whether he will have the power and the resources to buy in the financial skills if he finds that such expertise is required.
Fourthly, under paragraph 14(1) the inspector has to report to the Secretary of State the outcome of an inspection. We accept that that must be so. But I note that he is under no statutory duty to report the outcome of an inspection under paragraph 14(5). Should there not be a statutory duty to report the outcome at least to the Probation Board and possibly to the establishment which has been the subject of the inspection?
I come to my final question. We are told that if he thinks fit the Secretary of State may publish the inspector's report in such form as he deems proper. That means that there can be two reports: the complete report, which may not be published, and a summary or edited version. That raises a particular concern. If the report contains serious allegations of misconduct on the part of an individual member of staff—staff of the Probation Board or the relevant establishment—I wonder whether we can have an assurance that the individual member of staff involved will be given reasonable opportunity to respond to the criticism before the report is submitted to the Secretary of State. I also seek assurance that the identity of the individual who is so criticised will not be disclosed in the published report.
Obviously I seek those assurances for reasons connected with justice. But having asked those few questions, I am pleased to support the order.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for having taken part in this short debate on the order and to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for the welcome that he gave to it. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Lyell, for whose intervention I am also grateful, that Article 3—indeed the order—does not apply to persons under the age of 21. The Government considered the case for applying the power to remand to police custody to those under 21 years of age but concluded that it would represent a significant and unjustified change in policy in relation to the treatment of children and young persons. However, we shall keep under review the possibility of applying the power to those under 21 years of age and will reconsider the case if there is a clearly demonstrated need for the power to be so extended.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for giving me notice of the questions that he asked about Article 7, relating to the probation service. The noble Lord's first question was how Article 14(5) and 14(1) can be reconciled. There will essentially be two types of inspection. The first, as envisaged in Article 14(1), will be on the basis of a multi-annual programme intended to cover all aspects of the work of the Probation Board over a number of years. Such inspections will be signalled in advance and subject to prior discussions with the board on both timing and content. The second type of inspection, authorised under Article 14(5), will be in the nature of spot checks, unannounced and without prior notice. That will be particularly valuable in providing reassurance
1646
about quality of treatment in residential establishments such as hostels and centres providing treatment under the fourth condition of a probation order. There was consultation about bringing forward this order and the Probation Board was consulted.
The noble Lord asked about the protection of privacy of property under the order. He questioned the justification for allowing an inspector to enter an establishment without the authority of the Secretary of State or a justice's warrant. Article 14(8) defines an inspector as a person appointed by the Secretary of State. In carrying out an inspection under Article 14(5) an inspector will therefore be acting under the general authority of my right honourable friend, will have been formally appointed as such, and will carry a written authorisation to that effect. I should not have thought it necessary, or indeed practicable, for the inspector to seek prior approval to carry out every single spot check.
The noble Lord asked about the qualifications of the inspectors. They will be members of the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland. Their expertise lies primarily in the field of professional practice although as members of a government department they would have access to financial advice if necessary —a specific point that the noble Lord put to me. However, the financial affairs of the Probation Board are subject to regular scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland Office Internal Audit Unit has access to the board's books, and its accounts are audited by the Northern Ireland Audit Office.
The noble Lord suggested that there should be a statutory duty on an inspector to report on the outcome of an inspection. As I have explained, we are referring to spot checks. However, I give an assurance that should any substantive problem be identified then a detailed inspection would be made, followed by a full report.
Finally, the noble Lord asked this question. If serious allegations of misconduct are made against an individual staff member in a report, will the individual concerned be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before the report is submitted to the Secretary of State? What about identity not being disclosed? We envisage that the normal procedure would be for a draft report to be made available to the organisation under inspection, giving it an opportunity to comment and react before the final report is sent to my right honourable friend. Unless a criminal investigation were to be called for, it would be for the Probation Board or another body as the employer, to decide how best to handle allegations against an individual. It would be contrary to natural justice for disciplinary action to be taken without making the matters known and giving an individual the opportunity to respond. It would not be normal practice for individuals to be named in any published reports but I cannot absolutely rule that out in every single circumstance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of his detailed questions. I hope that those responses may be of help to the noble Lord and to the House. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations 1991
2.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the new Emergency Provisions Act comes into effect on 27th August. the whole of the 1978 Emergency Provisions Act will be repealed, including the regulations contained in Schedule 3 to that Act. Since these regulations remain essential provisions the Government believe that Parliament needs to ensure their continue survival after the repeal of the 1978 Act. That the purpose of this statutory instrument. It consolidates the existing regulations in Schedule 3 to the Emergency Provisons Act 1978 without amendment. I shall do my best to answer questions about the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 18th June be approved [23rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining why it is necessary to bring forward these consolidation regulations. I was mindful that the Emergency Provisions Act 1991 will not come into force until the end of August. The regulations are made by virtue of the regulations contained in Section 27 of the 1978 Act.
Noble Lords will recall that during the passage of the Emergency Provisions Bill through this House earlier this year some of us were concerned about the extent and the scope of the regulation-making power contained in Section 58 of the Bill. On Report I asked whether the power in Section 27 had been used during the preceding 23 years. Apart from those specified in these regulations, have any other regulations been made under Section 27? Perhaps the Minister will answer that question which was asked two months ago.
As today is 12th July it is necessary to express my appreciation of the way in which the RUC has kept its eye on file parades and demonstrations which are such a distinctive aspect of life in Northern Ireland. They could so easily become controversial and explosive. I read in the Chief Constable's report for 1990 that during that year there were 2,713 parades compared with 2,317 in 1989. Furthermore, 2,467 were Loyalist parades while 246 were Republican. No parades were prohibited but 10 were re-routed. There was only one case of disorder associated with a parade compared with five cases in 1989.
That speaks well of the police but as the Chief Constable points out it involves the allocation of resources which could be made available for other police services. Having heard this morning that last night there were disorders in the Province we should acknowledge the difficulties which face the police. We express our thanks and appreciation for the successful
1648
way in which they have been able to control the situation. Some of their powers flow from these regulations.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining that the regulations are substantially a consolidation of the 1978 Act. Broadly speaking we on these Benches support them. Furthermore, since the words appear in cold print before us perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 4 of the regulations. Does it not appear to be one of those occasions when, in the effort to block every possible loophole which may cause security problems, the Government have gone rather too far in asking that a funeral may be required to be followed solely in vehicles when it causes a breach of the peace—or there is a perception that it may do so—or when it causes serious public disorder or undue demands to be made of Her Majesty's forces or the police?
We all understand that funerals in every society are at all times occasions of great emotion. Feelings run high. Funerals can be and quite often are used in Northern Ireland for symbolic and political purposes. We all understand that quite well. However, paragraph 4(a) covers the situation where, if there appears to be the possibility of a breach of the peace or public disorder, a senior officer can insist on people travelling in vehicles. In that case, why is it necessary to have paragraph 4(b) too? Is this not an instance of that tilting between liberty and security which goes a little too far? When the Minister replies, perhaps he will reassure us that the RUC and the security forces distinguish between mere inconvenience to themselves —and as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, the security forces are constantly inconvenienced because it is a difficult situation—and serious public disorder or the possibility thereof. If it deals only with occasions when there may be serious public disorder, I am still curious as to why there is a need for paragraph 4(b) as well as paragraph 4(a). With that reservation, we support the order.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that today is 12th July and many demonstrations are taking place throughout Northern Ireland to commemorate one of the events which allegedly happened in the glorious and bloodless revolution of 1688 which culminated in the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.
In Northern Ireland people do not march for the good of their health. Today there is a triumphalist march taking place throughout Northern Ireland which will engage the sympathies of many thousands of people from the majority community who believe that their culture and ethos are under attack from nationalism or Irish republicanism.
I listen to the radio even in this country, which does not report very well on Northern Ireland. Fifty yards from my former home in Northern Ireland there were riots last night and into the early hours of the morning. Policemen had been injured and there were sectarian confrontations on the New Lodge Road, in

1649
West Belfast and in Derry. All that is in the wake of the so-called peace talks which came to an end last week.
I believe that the House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, who have asked significant questions about the regulations. I do not pretend to be an expert on Northern Ireland affairs although I lived there for many years, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, was correct in drawing attention to paragraph 4. The law must engage the sympathies of many people. However, this law under paragraph 4 will be totally unenforceable. If we agree to this, we shall be agreeing to a law which, when it comes into force or needs to be upheld by the security forces—the RUC and the army—will be totally disregarded.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has already said that paragraph 4(a) makes provision for a breach of the peace or serious public disorder. Throughout many years of government in Northern Ireland when it was governed or dominated by the Unionists, that decision was taken by the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, who was a member of the Orange Order and of the Unionist Party. Most of the significant people in charge of the RUC were also of the same political persuasion. As such, they met with extreme opposition from members of the minority.
I remember taking part in a demonstration on 5th October 1968. It was a demonstration demanding from people in Britain civil rights and equal citizenship. I remember the alliterations between Belfast and Birmingham. All we were demanding at that time was equal citizenship with other parts of the United Kingdom. But the Minister for Home Affairs, who was a Unionist in a Unionist government, decided otherwise. He decided that in some way or other we were wreckers of the constitution, communists and troublemakers. I make no claim to fame in this regard, but on 5th October I was the first person to be beaten up by the police in Derry for demanding equal citizenship with other parts of the UK.
The Minister for Home Affairs took the decision at that time. Much has happened since then. Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, an RUC inspector will be taking these highly political decisions. He will have to decide whether a march or a demonstration which is going to take place is liable to cause a breach of the peace. I remember when the IRA and their supporters from Noraid, supported by the infamous Mr. Galvin, deliberately organised a parade in West Belfast—my former constituency —designed to provoke and cause a riot, which it did. An IRA supporter by the name of Sean Dounes was killed. We are still living with the consequences of that killing. That decision had to be taken by a senior member of the RUC. From the Catholic, the nationalist and—dare I say it?—the SDLP point of view, it was a wrong decision. As I say, we are still living with the consequences. There were demands for inquiries that will go on ad infinitum.
The second reason for the requirement is that the occasion may,
1650
"cause undue demands to be made on Her Majesty's forces or the police".
That can be interpreted in any way one wishes. If a senior member of the RUC who happened to be Catholic took a decision under those circumstances he would be forever regarded as being a traitor, anti-Irish and pro-British. If he was a Protestant—these things are readily found out in Northern Ireland—he would be regarded as being anti-Catholic, anti-nationalist and a Unionist.
The provision which has no possibility of ever being enforceable is the one which relates to steps being taken at funerals, where the inspector may,
"where it appears to him to be necessary for the preservation of public order, give directions requiring persons taking part … to travel in vehicles".
If ever an order goes through this House which will be totally unenforceable it is this one. We should not pass orders which will be called into disrepute. Everyone must remember the hunger strike funerals in 1981. I have vivid memories of them. They were not specifically designed to cause, but caused a lot of emotion in Northern Ireland. In the circumstances they caused affront to the Protestant and Unionist community in Northern Ireland.
Today in Northern Ireland there are Unionist and Orange parades taking place through Catholic districts which cause great offence to the Catholics living in those areas. As I said at the outset of my remarks, people do not march for the good of their health. Marches in Northern Ireland are designed either to defy a government edict or to prove the superiority of one tribe over another. For example, should an IRA man be killed next week there would be a massive emotional response, as we saw two or three months ago. Thousands of people who are not necessarily IRA supporters will attend that funeral because the IRA man is of their tribe. Those people probably would never sanction bombing or killing. However, when an IRA funeral is taking place of a neighbour, or a neighbour's son, who has been killed, people will attend that funeral. How in the name of God—and I say this quite explicitly—can the RUC tell all those people to go by car? There are not enough cars in Northern Ireland to take them all to funerals. Think of the traffic jam there would be if the RUC were to attempt to force those people to use cars. But they do not have cars and they do not even know people who have cars. Think of all the difficulties that would emerge if the RUC were to issue an order saying, "This is an IRA funeral. On its way to the cemetery it is bound to cause emotion and hostility among the Protestant population. Therefore, we are now directing you to use cars". Do your Lordships know what would happen? It would cause a riot. Policemen and civilians would be killed. Why include such a restriction in an order which we know will be totally unenforceable?
As your Lordships know, I have no sympathy whatever with the IRA. That is why I do not want to give them a plus and put an awful obligation on members of the RUC. Therefore, we should not, without great deliberation and good knowledge of Northern Ireland, approve Article 4(b) forcing people, on the orders of a policeman, to travel by car to

1651
funerals. That would be totally unenforceable and it would give the IRA a great plus in its propaganda efforts all over the world.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before my noble friend answers the very eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the other remarks that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Prys-Davies, perhaps he could enlighten me in one respect. I have virtually the same question as the noble Lord, Lord Holme. It seems to me from what is produced in Article 4 of the regulations before us today t hat it would not appear in the order if there was the slightest chance that it was either unnecessary, otiose, or, in the very eloquent words of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, unenforceable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, rightly points out, funerals are particularly emotional times. I have had experience of being in the Province during a particularly emotional period after the Gibraltar killings. The funerals resulted in scenes of appalling emotion, which we saw on our television screens, and were followed by tragedy. Can my noble friend enlighten me on whether and how he thinks the police might be able to enforce this measure—if, indeed, they would want to? I see this article as being in the nature of a long-stop provision on which there are very long odds on whether it would ever be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, drew attention to the fact that today's date is inscribed in the history of Northern Ireland for one particular section of the community. I note that according to Article 1 the order should come into force on 1st August 1991. If we go back to 1969 that would appear to preclude marches of the other section of the community which I understand normally take place about 15th August. I am sure that the regulations will not arouse passions of partiality on that score.
With regard to Orange parades and parades of that type, perhaps I may refer to the town of Portadown, a Protestant town with a substantial Catholic minority. About four or five years ago there was a serious problem. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will know of it. In an area known as the tunnel, where the street goes under a railway bridge, an area which tends to be inhabited by many Catholics, there had been increasing trouble. I recall that 20, 15 and 10 years ago there was little trouble, but eight, seven, six and five years ago there was increasing trouble because of elements who wished to take part and, above all, to push the limits of triumphalism a little wider. More and more people came. They behaved in a needlessly arrogant and insensitive way. However, the problem was resolved, perhaps with long-stop provisions of the type in Article 4. Indeed, two or three years ago, during my career in the Province, the problem of the march going through a particularly sensitive area had been resolved through discussions and talks between members of the RUC and the minority community. That is not to say that such relations or avenues of communication would work or would be quite as effective in the scenario, envisaged in Article 4, of a funeral which, as the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Fitt, pointed out, tend to rouse the emotions. My own thoughts are that Article 4 is in the nature of
1652
a long-stop and that nothing we, let alone I, say today should inhibit the continuing good relations between the RUC and people who might feel high emotion when, for one reason or another, a funeral goes through a mixed area, as was the case in Portadown. If my noble friend can enlighten me, I shall say no more.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I apologise to the House for intervening when I have not been present throughout the whole debate. It is not a very good rule, but it is one that I follow repeatedly, that when someone I respect enormously speaks on a subject in which he is deeply versed I am inclined to support him. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on everything. I think he takes too pessimistic a view of the prospects of life in the Irish Republic. Nevertheless, on a matter of this kind, I follow him faithfully. He is a man who has suffered for his convictions and knows what he is talking about in a way that perhaps no one else in this House does.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. On the face of it this is a ridiculous provision. Perhaps the Minister has fair minded arguments of his own but on the face of it the provision is ridiculous. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say something which I hope is not offensive. He is the oldest Member of the House taking part in the debate. I ask the noble Earl to call on his experience. Does he recall the great funeral in Dublin in 1916 of O'Donovan Rossa? All the great emotional issues throughout Irish involvement with Britain have been occasioned by great funerals. When O'Donovan Rossa was being buried, Patrick Pearse, the co-founder of the Irish Republic, said at his graveside, "They think they have bought one of us and intimidated the other half but while Ireland holds these graves, Ireland unfree will never be at peace." That was the great emotional call to arms where Patrick Pearse said, "The fools, the fools, the fools; they have left us our Fenian dead and whilst Ireland holds these graves, Ireland will never be at peace". My noble friend is old enough to remember. That is why—
The Earl of Longford: I was at my preparatory school at the time!
Lord Fitt: Yes, my Lords; he was 15 years old.
That is why I advise the Government not to include such a provision which would place the responsibility on a member of the security forces—I totally support them in Northern Ireland—to say, "Anyone attending this funeral must travel in a car". It would be impossible to administer and it would give the IRA and its madmen supporters from Noraid in America a great propaganda victory. I do not want to see that happen.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, several noble Lords have taken part in the exchange on this order. I thank them. Perhaps I may first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He asked whether the regulations are the only ones which have been made under Section 27 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act

1653
1978. The strict answer to that question is, yes. However, this regulation-making power has been included in the emergency legislation for many years. It was included in the first emergency provisions Act in 1973. A set of regulations was made under the power contained in the 1973 Act which is still in effect. I refer to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Regulations of 1975. They make provision to control the parking of cars in order to hinder car bombings and hijackings. The regulations provide that unattended vehicles must be secured and immobilised.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that, in the context of Northern Ireland, this is a sensible, prudent and modest measure. While it does not prevent car bombings and hijackings, it makes them more difficult. Therefore, the measure assists the security forces in a practical way in order to protect people and property in Northern Ireland. It is those very modest and important considerations which I seek to put forward in support of the regulations which I am proposing to consolidate.
The rest of our exchanges have concerned Regulation 4(a) and 4(b). In that context, we must remember, as today is the 12th and as there has been violence overnight in Northern Ireland, that we depend enormously upon the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Its members have very great demands made upon them all the time but especially on this particular day, and, I have no doubt, in the weeks to follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked a perfectly reasonable and penetrating question. He asked why it was necessary to have both Regulation 4(a) and 4(b). Essentially, the important word in Regulation 4(b) is "undue". The police have to make a judgment on whether a proposed funeral—some funerals being likely to cause public disorder—will impose an undue demand on the armed forces or on the police. Noble Lords will know that some funerals in Northern Ireland are manipulated by the paramilitaries of both sides for their own purposes. For example, paramilitaries often seek to take a funeral cortege of one of their members through areas where the population is likely to be extremely hostile. Of course, if a sufficient number of police officers or soldiers are available, the funeral cortege can be protected. I believe that it is appropriate to include in the regulations the allowance for the police to make a judgment on whether that will place an undue demand on police resources which, after all, are finite.
The provision has been a part of Northern Ireland law for many years. It has been used with discretion by the security forces, in conjunction with other public order powers, on many occasions. In that context, perhaps I may say a word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Of course, I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for saying that he felt that if the powers in this regulation were of no effect then, presumably, they would not have been included. My noble friend, with his knowledge of Northern Ireland, felt that they existed as a long stop. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, intervened as he did. I respect his
1654
enormous experience, but the power contained in Regulation 4 has existed for over 10 years. It has been found to be a useful and necessary provision, as my noble friend Lord Colville concluded in his report.
The provision is enforceable. It is used in conjunction with other police powers to require funeral corteges to follow a specific route and to travel directly to a cemetery. The regulation merely enables the police to require persons taking part in a funeral to travel in vehicles. Here we come to the crux of the matter. I recognise that the power can be used only in certain circumstances. There will be circumstances in which it cannot be used. It will have to be an operational decision for the chief constable and his senior officers. I should not for one moment cross swords with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, but the use of that power must be difficult and in some cases could not be used at all. Bearing in mind that there are occasions when it could be used, and that it has been on the statute book, we believed that it was right to continue to include it in the order. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1991
3.1 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the two sets of regulations and the draft order relate to three categories of election in Northern Ireland: parliamentary, European and local. The three instruments have elements in common, and I believe it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if they are taken together. The Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents and Amendment) Regulations relate to conduct of parliamentary and, in one very small respect, to local elections in the Province. Regulations 4 and 8 introduce a new "specified document" to parliamentary elections. Specified documents were introduced by the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985. Any elector who goes to a polling station in Northern Ireland to cast his vote must produce one of a range of personal documents before the polling clerk can give him or her a ballot paper. The aim of that change was to reduce the risk of personation of electors, and the Government believe that it has had a significant impact.
Nevertheless, the Government are concerned to ensure that the requirement does not deprive any elector of the legitimate right to vote, and keep the list under review. The original list of specified documents consisted of a full driving licence, a passport, pension and benefit books, and so forth. We propose to add the plastic National Insurance number card—a relatively new version of the old manilla card—which has been issued routinely to young people entering the labour market since the mid-1980s. It is not thought to

1655
be susceptible to forgery. Adding it to the list will give young voters a wider choice of documents, and will, we hope, encourage them to vote.
Regulations 5 and 6 also make a minor, and somewhat technical, change concerning the availability to candidates at local elections of computerised data and address labels derived from the electoral register. They lay down that those candidates are entitled to data and labels for the district electoral area in which they are standing. Their entitlement was somewhat ambiguous before.
Regulation 7 results from a change made to the law on absent voting by the Representation of the People Act, 1990. The 1990 Act, which has not yet been applied to Northern Ireland, provides that people who move house there from one electoral ward to another need make just one application to get an absent vote for all elections until they appear on the electoral register at their new address. The same problem in Great Britain has been addressed by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1991, approved by your Lordships' House on 10 May. The application of this sensible reform to Northern Ireland has been delayed only by the need for consultation on whether applications in Northern Ireland should be attested by a third person. In the light of the consultations, we decided that on balance attestation should not be introduced. But if we see evidence that measures against abuse are necessary we will consider amending these regulations. On these two matters of postal voting, we are now bringing Northern Ireland entirely into line with Great Britain.
The European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulation, 1991 the second set of regulations, concerns the application to European elections in Northern Ireland of the specified documents and absent voting provisions which I have just described.
Finally, the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order, 1991, the third of the documents covers much the same ground in respect of local elections. Article 4 amends the local election rules to take account of the new specified document and to bring the rules in respect of some of the other specified documents into line with those which apply at other elections. Articles 5 and 6 concern absent voting.
Articles 2 and 3 concern a quite different topic, the expenses of candidates at local elections. The maximum limits of expenses for candidates at local elections in England, Wales and Scotland were increased from 9th April this year by the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates Expenses) Order 1991. Article 3 of this order replicates that increase for Northern Ireland. The increase proposed is around 14 per cent., which is about the increase in the retail prices index since 1989, when the limits were last set. Article 2 revokes the 1989 order by which that was done.
I beg to move the first of the three measures to which I have spoken.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Belstead.)
3.7 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we welcome the three orders before the House because we are anxious to encourage electors to vote. I am particularly pleased to hear from the Minister that a form of attestation will not be required where an application is made for an absent vote for an indefinite period. That could be a troublesome point so we are pleased that attestation will not be necessary.
We are also glad to note that three additional documents can be produced by an elector at a polling station in order to obtain a ballot paper. Can the Minister confirm whether the plastic card issued by the DSS is available to every elector? Also, is it available free of charge?
Perhaps he can tell the House whether impersonation is still a serious problem in the Province. I ask that because there is no specific reference to the offence in the table of notifiable offences attached to the 1990 report of the chief constable, unless I have missed it.
I have one question to ask the Minister about the first order, the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1991. I was and still am in difficulty with Article 5. I wonder whether there is a technical flaw in the drafting. Article 5 purports to insert an amendment to paragraph (a) of subparagraph (2) of paragraph I of the schedule. I read paragraph 1 not just once but twice and I was unable to find paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (2). It appeared to me that perhaps the amendment should be inserted after paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) of the main paragraph 2. I do not wish to confuse the House; the Minister may well say that I have got it wrong.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, we on these Benches support these orders as we believe they represent a useful closing of loopholes. I hope, however, I may detain your Lordships for a few moments by extending the discussion to the matter of representation generally in Northern Ireland. It is noteworthy that both European and local elections in Northern Ireland are conducted by means of proportional representation whereas that is not the case in Northern Ireland as regards Westminster elections. Proportional representation is considered to be a useful cement in Belgium as regards cross-communal representation between Francophones and Flemings.
The Government must be increasingly on the defensive as regards this anomaly in that the people in Northern Ireland who cheerfully vote by proportional representation are denied a fair system of voting for Westminster elections. I readily acknowledge that this is a wider issue and the Minister may not wish to respond in detail to it today. However, I believe this anomaly has now become a standing reproach to the Government and has been given additional significance by the fact that the Plant Report—two noble Lords on the Labour Benches contributed to that report—has revealed Labour's interest in proportional representation for various elections within the

1657
United Kingdom. This matter is now on the agenda and I believe that the Government will have to respond to it fully at some stage.
Reference has been made by noble Lords on both sides of the House to today's date. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, have referred to the overnight violence that has occurred in Northern Ireland. I wish to refer to some rather better news in that a GALLUP poll that took place in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom has shown that over 70 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland want the Northern Ireland talks to be resumed. That is the Government's wish also and they are supported in that desire by the people of Northern Ireland and also by people in Britain and the Republic of Ireland.
The poll also revealed that 61 per cent. of people in the Republic of Ireland say that they are prepared to see Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution amended if that would help to establish a new constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland. Even at this time of great partisanship, which we recognise will continue over the coming weeks, there is a sense in which public opinion in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic is running ahead of the politicians and the parties. I hope that as we consider this matter of elections we shall not forget the wider picture of representation or the prospects for peace in the Province.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the three measures that we are addressing indicate the fallacy of believing that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley as was said by a famous ex-Prime Minister. Northern Ireland is not and never will be Finchley. The very fact that we are discussing electoral practices and laws today is an indication of that position. In no other part of the United Kingdom are there orders and regulations such as these to counteract impersonation or the stealing of other people's votes.
While that practice may take place in Scotland, England or Wales, it is not a great problem. In those countries people do not tend to steal other people's votes. However, that practice occurred on a large scale in Ireland long before partition. I have stood in local government and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland and I know what happens at elections.
Public, or rather parliamentary opinion began to be focused on this practice just after I lost my seat in West Belfast and was succeeded by the Sinn Fein candidate. Most of the Northern Ireland supporters of Sinn Fein are young people. They are not frightened by authority. They are not frightened by the presence of the police or the security forces. They will walk into polling stations and do their damnedest to steal other people's votes.
In my young days as a politician, people who would have voted for me but who were inclined to be absent or were incapacitated in one way or another would send their relatives to my Tally rooms, as they were known in those days, to hand in their cards. I did not, allegedly, know that at the time, but my supporters would arrange for those votes to be cast. It was illegal in the purely legal sense. However, had those people
1658
not been incapacitated or unable to vote for some other reason they would have voted for me. Therefore, I was not taking any votes away from my opponents.
That is not the position now. The position now is that some of the less reputable candidates will instruct their supporters, and perhaps finance their supporters, to take votes—to personate votes—which would otherwise be cast for another candidate. That is totally undemocratic. It is an abuse of the democratic system.
Personation takes place among all the political parties in Northern Ireland. Everyone is involved in it, particularly with the postal vote. The postal vote represents an abuse of the democratic system of elections as we know it in the United Kingdom. People will fill in phoney certificates. They will get doctors who are their own supporters to issue phoney medical certificates. It is understandable. It is a practice which differentiates Northern Ireland from England, Scotland and Wales where that problem does not exist.
We may be running into a little difficulty. Two of the orders relate to local government and to the Representation of the People Act. I am not sure how electoral law applies in other parts of the European Community. However, I notice that in relation to European elections there is no mention of the plastic card. It will become legitimate in relation to local elections in Northern Ireland and parliamentary elections. However, I am not sure whether that concept can be pursued in relation to European elections because I do not know whether in the other 11 countries of the Common Market it is obligatory to have a plastic card showing your social insurance number. Knowing Northern Ireland as I do, if it is not obligatory in the other 11 countries of the EC there will be some smart-ass lawyer in Northern Ireland, who will probably be a supporter of the Republican movement, who will immediately take the case to some European court or other.
If we are to have the card for local government elections and for elections to Westminster and not have it for European elections, under the PR system we could run into difficulties in relation to our EC membership. I am sure that our ex-Prime Minister and others would say that that proves their case that the European ideal will, to some extent, be taking away the sovereignty of our people in relation to our ability to decide how we conduct our elections.
I lived in Northern Ireland and fought many elections, both under the first-past-the-post system and, in the latter end of my political career, since 1973, under the PR system. I have never been very sure, either then or today, whether or not PR was the best electoral system.
PR in Northern Ireland has brought some good people into the Alliance Party at a very late count. Most of the Alliance people who have been elected have come in at a late count with the transfer of votes. However, it has also brought into politics some of the worst political and sectarian bigots. So, although the system brought some good people into the Alliance Party, it also brought into politics some of the worst sectarian bigots that I have ever seen in politics in

1659
Northern Ireland. That may apply only to Northern Ireland. It may be that the United Kingdom does not have sectarian bigots.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if you look hard enough you will find them.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I shall take my noble friend's word on that point.
It is possible that we could bring in some disruptive forces. This is not the time to discuss the merits or the demerits of the system. When I was a Member of Parliament I supported PR for elections in Northern Ireland, but I had to tell the majority of my Labour colleagues in another place that, if I were an Englishman representing an English constituency I would not support PR. However, I supported PR in Northern Ireland at that time, given the circumstances that existed there. I wish to God that it had brought in more good people, but it brought in as many bigots as it did good people.
These three measures are all about democracy and elections. They are about giving the people an opportunity to vote for candidates who will determine their lifestyle in the future. With my knowledge of Northern Ireland, I wish to make one point. I have no intention of causing offence or of creating animosity, particularly as regards the Minister. The orders will not bring back democracy to Northern Ireland. I say that as an anti-Unionist and as one who has never supported the Unionist Party. Since 1985, elections have become a non sequitur in Northern Ireland.
The Catholic community in Northern Ireland, of which I was a part and with which I would still have close contacts, takes the view that, now we have the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we do not need to have elections in Northern Ireland. In an ideal situation we would have a coalition government of Catholics, Protestants, Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland. That will never happen in my lifetime and I hope that I live until I am 90 years of age. The Catholic population says that it is doing very well under direct rule and that it is the least objectionable option. The direction of affairs in Northern Ireland from Westminster has not been disadvantageous to the Catholic population. If it thinks that things are going wrong and it is not getting a fair crack of the whip, it refers its objections to the Government of the Republic who, under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, can make representations on its behalf. It is an international agreement between two countries—the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The Catholic population is therefore quite happy with the status quo.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does Mr. Hume agree with my noble friend that this is the most satisfactory way of running affairs?
Lord Fitt: My Lords, Mr. Hume might not want to say that out loud, but I have known him for many years and I know the Catholic population in Northern Ireland as well. The Catholic population in Northern Ireland would like to think that there would be a restoration of the Stormont assembly at which people could vote on the three measures that we are debating
1660
this afternoon. It would like to think that there would be a resurrection of the Sunningdale talks with a cross-community government in which the Catholics would participate at a high level. They will not have that. They know that they will not have it. I do not say that they are quite happy, but they find the present form of government under direct rule from Westminster to be the least objectionable arrangement. If they feel that they are being pushed into a secondary position and that their objections are not listened to, they can always send Mr. Hume and his cohorts to talk to the Irish Government. Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 the Irish Government will then be able to make valid representations through the British Government, which will listen to them and take whatever action is necessary.
In conclusion, I repeat that, although we have these measures which make provision for people to participate in an electoral system which they hope will bring a democratic solution for their particular ideals, that will not in fact happen. I do not object to the measures. I think them right in terms of the United Kingdom and the democratic system, though I told the Minister that I expect trouble from the European Community on the matter of plastic identity cards. But I say to the noble Lord who will reply to the debate—certainly I do not want to elicit any hostility—that while the Anglo-Irish Agreement is in existence there will be no question under these or any other measures of bringing about a devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, interesting though his remarks were, will not expect me to follow him down the road that he pursued. I do not share his fears about the appropriateness for the European elections of the introduction of this additional specified document, the national insurance card. Some European countries use identity cards, but we have always taken the view in this country that we did not believe that to be right. There is a difference of practice. So it is a fear which I do not think we need hold.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me two specific questions about the specified documents. First, he asked whether all electors could obtain the Department of Social Security national insurance number card, which is one of the new introductions in the order. The answer is that the cards are issued automatically to all persons when they reach the age of 16 years and to those aged 18 to 23 years. Consequently anyone in those age brackets should already possess one. It is not proposed to make a blanket issue of the cards to other age groups but replacement cards can be applied for through local DHSS offices in Northern Ireland if existing old style cards have been lost or misplaced. No charge is made for the issue of a replacement. But we should not forget that there are several other specified documents which are held by different people.
The noble Lord asked about the incidence of personation. He made the point that it is an offence which is not to be found in the chief constable's annual

1661
reports. The noble Lord has an eagle eye and is quite right. The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, in his last published annual report, drew attention to attempts made at the last local elections in Northern Ireland to use forged medical cards, but he could not quantify the extent to which their use might have been successful. Where an offence is suspected, I understand that the chief electoral officer brings his information to the attention of the prosecuting authorities. The offence, which is an indictable one, is not separately shown in the chief constable's annual reports, as the noble Lord said. However, I understand that prosecutions are rare and come under the category of "other notifiable offences" in the appendices to the chief constable's report.
Finally, the noble Lord felt that there was a drafting error in the order. We have looked carefully at the point, because once again the noble Lord gave me notice of his question. My advice is that the whole of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 was replaced by Article 5(5) of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1987. As a consequence the legislation may be a little confusing but the point has been checked and I am satisfied that the amendment is correct, even though the noble Lord gave me cause for thought.
Finally, I refer to a matter which did not come as a total surprise to me. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised the subject of proportional representation. If the noble Lord will forgive me I echo what he said. It is a wider question which no doubt will be discussed in this House or in another place on another occasion. The system of the single transferable vote has not been adopted for the Westminster elections in Northern Ireland primarily because it is considered inappropriate to have some Members of Parliament elected on a different basis from others in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord was trenchant in his remarks. I believe that there are different considerations which apply in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain. But I shall not take the argument further today if the noble Lord will forgive me. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1991
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Variation of Specified Documents and Amendment) Regulations 1991
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statistics (Confidentiality) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
3.31 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to amend the disclosure provisions in the Agricultural Returns Act (Northern Ireland) 1939 and the Statistics of Trade and Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.
The Agricultural Returns Act allows only the Department of Agriculture to collect information. The Statistics of Trade and Employment Order empowers any Northern Ireland government department to collect information. Information is currently collected under the order by the Department of Economic Development, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the Department of Agriculture.
The problem that the order seeks to address is that the current legislation allows only a restricted number of government departments to process information gathered under the provisions of the legislation and does not permit the use of computer facilities outside government. This is clearly a potential constraint on the Government's policy of trying to obtain the greatest value for money in the provision of services to departments. The proposed amendment in the order remedies the situation. I shall try to answer any questions that noble Lords may put. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I listened to the Minister but it is with some reluctance that we on these Benches approve the terms of the order. The Minister will know that it is an area of great sensitivity which has much troubled the House on many occasions. Indeed I recall that the House divided on the issue about three or four months ago. If information has been given to a department on the understanding that it is given for a particular purpose, then it should not be used or disclosed for another purpose. That is a principle which I believe the House values.
The purpose for which disclosure is authorised by the order is very loosely prescribed. I note that the purpose under Article 3(1) and 3(2) is not identical. I

1663
also note that Ministers speak of the right under the order to disclose to external contractors. Who are included in the term "external contractors"?
I seek to press the Minister for two assurances. First, can he assure the House that information of a personal nature, information about the profitability of an undertaking, or information which could be detrimental to the interests of the individual who gave it, will not be disclosed to a third party without the consent of the individual?
Secondly, can the Minister assure the House that the information will be disclosed only on condition of or against an undertaking that the third party will protect the confidentiality? The only safeguards in the order are the criminal penalties. I do not underestimate the value of the criminal penalty but it may be inadequate. In any event it will not undo any damage caused to an individual by the breach of confidentiality.
Clearly we are uneasy about the order. I hope that the Minister will say more about the way in which it will work and that we can be reassured.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I wish briefly to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in thanking the Minister for his presentation of the order. I too seek the same reassurance; that personal information of a confidential nature will be at least as well protected as it is at present and possibly better. It is clear that the order envisages that confidential information will be handled by third-party agencies or contractors on behalf of the Government. Therefore, we on these Benches seek those same assurances and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reaction to the order. I apologise to them and to the House for the fact that it was tabled at comparatively short notice. The decision to proceed is based on seeking efficiency but it is balanced by the requirement for confidentiality. In the event that information is released to outside organisations for processing on behalf of a department—they are the type of organisations that we have in mind—the confidentiality of the information will be safeguarded by existing legislative penalties and by the contract terms and conditions under which the information is released.
Perhaps I may be a little more specific. An obvious concern is the issue of personal information. We are talking about information which, for example, from the Department of Agriculture could be concerned with land farmed by a specific farmer which affects his personal financial affairs. An obvious concern is that the potential release of corporate or personal information to organisations outside government may imply a breach of confidentiality of information relating to a company or individual. The confidentiality of any information so released would be safeguarded, first, by penalties under existing legislation which would apply to personnel in a non-governmental organisation in the same way as to civil servants. Secondly, an additional safeguard would be provided by contractual terms and
1664
conditions if it were decided to purchase computing or other services from an organisation outside government. Thirdly, personal information would be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, says that he trusts that the information will be at least as well protected as it is now as regards this Northern Ireland order, I unhesitatingly say in reply that this will be so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Genetically Modified Organisms (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
3.38 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the order was tabled at a comparatively late date. It will introduce a new system of controls over genetically modified organisms. I shall refer to them as GMOs. The controls are virtually identical to Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. They relate to the importation, acquisition, keeping, marketing and release to the environment of GMOs. The order is important since it will extend existing controls on GMOs, which currently relate mainly to the protection of human health and safety in the workplace, to the protection of the wider environment.
There is no precise definition of a GMO, as many of your Lordships will know better than I. GMOs are the products of scientific research and experiment involving the use of artificial methods of reproduction or replication. Basically the technology involves the alteration or deletion of genes. It does not cover traditional selective breeding methods, for example, in relation to horses.
Under the order, the new controls will relate to any living organisms except human and human embryos. Work is taking place on a wide range of projects, for example, the modification of food crops to protect them against natural predators, the climate or insect pests. Bio-technology has had an excellent safety record over the past 20 or so years. However, with the ever increasing importance of environmental protection and the potential impact on the environment of GMOs it is timely that our controls should be strengthened.
There are three main elements to the order. First, there will be a requirement, depending on the circumstances of each case, on persons who intend to import, acquire, keep, market or release a GMO to do the following: carry out a risk assessment of the organism concerned; notify the Department of the Environment of his intentions; obtain the consent of the Department of the Environment.
Secondly, the order will place a general duty on those involved in operations with GMOs to employ the best available techniques not entailing excess cost, for preventing damage to the environment. Thirdly, the order will provide for the appointment by the

1665
Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland of suitably qualified inspectors to enforce the control system and set out the conditions under which they will operate. This approach is in line with the recommendations of the 1989 report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and is consistent with EC directives on GMOs.
The close working interrelationship which exists between the human and the environmental health aspects of GMOs must continue. Detailed regulations are being prepared by the Department of Economic Development and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland setting out details of the new regime. This again reflects the position in Great Britain, where regulations are being prepared by the Department of the Environment and the Health and Safety Commission.
The field of genetic modification is complex. We shall work with colleagues in London on these specialised issues. The only area in which this order would differ from the 1990 Act is that it does not provide for an advisory committee. Access for Northern Ireland interests to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment in London is already available under the committee's terms of reference. This will ensure that those operating the scheme in Northern Ireland will keep up to date with new developments.
This order will place control on GMOs in Northern Ireland on a similar footing to the rest of the UK. This is important for two reasons: it will give greater protection to the environment; and it will enable the UK to comply with the EC directive on this subject.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th July be approved.-(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking us through the terms of the order. The noble Lord pointed out that it is virtually identical to Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We accept that it is desirable that legislation on this important subject should be identical throughout the United Kingdom.
Nevertheless, if there are likely to be significant developments in this field in Northern Ireland—and the existence of the order implies that there may be such developments—should not the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have his own advisory committee?
At the end of his speech the Minister claimed that a Northern Ireland advisory committee is not necessary as Northern Ireland will have access to the London advisory committee; that is, the committee set up under Section 124 of the 1990 Act. Is that adequate? Will the London committee have sufficient appreciation of developments in Northern Ireland?
On the other hand, will the Northern Ireland Department have up-to-date appreciation of the thinking in London? The Secretary of State for the Environment, based in Marsham Street, will be looking to the Committee for advice in connection with the powers contained in Sections 111, 112 and 113 of the 1990 Act. Articles 8, 9 and 10 contain corresponding powers in this order. That means that
1666
advice from the London committee will be sought although that is not specifically provided for in the order.
As the department is content to rely on the specialist advice emanating from the London committee, perhaps it would be preferable for at least one of it members to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have not seen the terms of reference of the committee and the 1990 Act is silent on its composition. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the Secretary of State has a nominee serving on the committee.
Our main anxiety is the absence of the advisory machinery. Perhaps I may briefly raise one other matter. Article 10 empowers the department to set up a scheme of prescribed fees and charges in respect of the many consents that are required by the order. The schemes to be made under the 1990 Act must be laid before Parliament. Will the schemes to be made under this order also have to be laid before Parliament in the absence of an elected assembly for Northern Ireland? I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for responding to this specific order and to other noble Lords who are still in the Chamber for listening to the debate although not taking part. As the noble Lord recognised, it is an important order although it is effectively harmonising the legislation in Great Britain. It is important that we place the order on the statute book because the European Community directive needs to be complied with by 23rd October of this year. That is the reason the order has been brought forward at this rather late stage in the summer Session.
The noble Lord made a good point when he drew attention to the representation on the advisory committee for genetically modified organisms in relation to Northern Ireland. He asked whether the Secretary of State should have his own advisory committee. As I understand it, membership of the advisory committee in London includes persons appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on the recommendation of the Secretaries of State for both Scotland and Wales. Therefore, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, his first point that there should be a Northern Ireland special advisory committee is not such a good point. However, I shall certainly draw his second point, that there should be nominated representation, to the attention of my right honourable friend. I know that we are looking at the question of a similar appointment for Northern Ireland and the noble Lord adds strength to our elbow.
In relation to fees and charges the noble Lord asked whether the scheme under Article 10 should be placed before Parliament. The provision is that the scheme will be subject to scrutiny by the examiner of statutory rules in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will meet with the approval of the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

St. Mark's Hospital, London
3.50 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris Lord McGregor of Durris rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy for the future of St. Mark's Hospital in the City Road, London.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, asked the Government on 25th June whether there were plans to close St. Mark's Hospital in City Road, London, so much anxiety was expressed on all sides of the House that it seemed appropriate to enable your Lordships to consider the future of this small hospital at greater length than was possible at that time.
St. Mark's is a notable institution which celebrated its sesquicentenary in 1985. Over many decades it has reinforced a worldwide reputation for diseases of the rectum and colon, a reputation created by a fusion of clinical experience, research and teaching. St. Mark's has become a centre of intellectual radiation in its fields of clinical practice and study. Its annual report for 1990 shows that the 30 consultants produced 162 papers in scientific journals, 27 chapters in books, and had a hand in the publication of seven text books, either new or in revised editions. Five surgeons from St Mark's lectured and demonstrated last year at 25 different hospitals in all parts of the world. No wonder that this small institution within the administrative jurisdiction of the City and Hackney health authority is regarded at home and abroad as a unique centre of excellence. Moreover, a high level of patient care has been part of this achievement.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has asked me to say how much he regrets that unavoidable absence deprives him of the opportunity to speak of the comfort which his patients derive from St. Mark's and their anxieties about its future. Your Lordships will have seen that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, wrote in the same vein to The Times yesterday.
For the past 15 years St. Mark's has experienced insecurities arising from uncertainties about its future. In 1977, 1982 and today there have been proposals from the health authorities to remove the hospital to a new site. Everyone agrees that the present location is unsatisfactory as a result, among other circumstances, of old buildings, present fire hazards and inadequate provisions for intensive care and anaesthesia.
St. Mark's is not wedded to its Victorian shrine in the City Road and will be happy to move to more suitable. premises provided—and this is the crux of the matter about which all the staff feel passionately—that its separate identity and integrated facilities for clinical work, research and teaching are preserved; for those make up the foundation upon which its quality and repute have been built and now rest.
I do not intend to rehearse the past and sometimes abrasive history of negotiations between St. Mark's and its district authority. I attended a meeting this week at which the chief executive of that body, Dr. Grant, said that the conclusion of its clinical policy group was that:
1668
"Unless the finance could be found to allow St. Mark's to move on to or adjacent to [another] site in such a way that it could retain its own identity, it should be left where it is".
Dr. Grant gave me permission to quote his conclusion which he has put to the regional authority; so there is now common ground among those immediately involved.
What is proposed is that the district will seek £1 million to tackle the outstanding backlog of maintenance consisting primarily of measures to ensure fire safety. This minimum of capital work will allow St. Mark's to stay on its present site for a further four or five years while the district puts together the finance to allow it to move to a new building. It is hoped that this new building will be at or adjacent to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. In fact St. Mark's and Bart's are far advanced in discussions about a future connection which might include bringing a range of specialisms into a new institute of gastroenterology, with which St. Mark's, while retaining its separate clinical, research and teaching identity, could be closely associated.
So far, therefore, it seems that a breathing space has been secured to enable proper and detailed planning for the future of St. Mark's to be undertaken. This proposal is strongly backed by Professor Lesley Rees, the Dean of Bart's medical school, and Mr. James Thomson, the clinical director of St. Mark's. St. Mark's is not an expensive hospital. It has only 74 beds but last year performed 1,300 operations and 1,000 endoscopies at an expenditure of £3.5 million. Securing its future will not involve significant increases in expenditure but will call for new administrative flexibility to meet the unusual recruitment of patients; a recruitment which is thus described in the annual report by the clinical director. He writes:
"we receive patients from a wide area of the country and a given district which refers patients one year may not need to do so in another year. We are therefore dependent on extra-contractual referrals … to ensure adequate funding.
"During 1990 approximately one third of our in-patients were from our own North East Thames Region (with less than 5 per cent. from our own District). The remainder (64.5 per cent.) came from all the other regions (105 of the 193 districts) Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland … but with a strong emphasis in the South of England".
It is not therefore surprising that the district health authority, charged with securing medical services for its own small area of population, should think of,
"small specialist hospitals [as] something of an anomaly within the framework of the acute hospital services".
This anomaly has in some cases been dealt with by conferring on such specialist hospitals as Moorfields, the Brompton, the Maudsley, Broadmoor, the Eastman Dental Hospital and several others, the status of special hospital authorities which deal directly with, and obtain their funding from, the Department of Health. I understand, though, that the future of such special health authorities is in doubt after 1993.
Other specialist institutions have not been so fortunate as those I have mentioned. Their experiences have raised sharp anxieties among those at St. Mark's attempting to plan the transition from the City Road to a new location at Bart's or elsewhere. I have time to cite only one instance—what has happened to the

1669
hospitals of St. Peter's, St. Paul's and St. Philip's and the Shaftesbury Hospital, which perform specialist referral functions in nephro-urology akin to the functions of St. Mark's in respect of intestinal disorders.
The St. Peter's Hospitals likewise possess high international repute with, I am told, no equivalent elsewhere in the world. In 1988, when the Bloomsbury health authority announced the early relocation of St. Peter's Hospitals into the Middlesex site, it was stated that all services would be supplied and managed by the Middlesex Hospital. The Minister, the department, the regional manager and, subsequently, the district manager and St. Peter's agreed that,
"the siting and management of these services should enable the St. Peter's group to continue to function as an identifiable whole".
In discussion at that time it was agreed that the management of the clinical support services should remain associated with the management of the St. Peter's clinical services as a functional whole.
Yesterday I received a letter from Mr. Roger Henderson, QC from which, with his permission, I shall now quote. He writes:
"I was appointed by the Secretary of State as the Chairman of the Special Committee"—
that is, the special committee dealing with the relocation of the St. Peter's Hospitals—
"in succession to Stewart Bates QC on his elevation to the Bench. My tenure of office was intended to last at least until the relocation of the 3 P's had been satisfactorily implemented. My letter of appointment was expressed to be until the end of March 1991. I was somewhat diffident about seeking re-appointment and therefore thought it right that the matter should be raised by Sir Alan Greengross, the Chairman of the District Health Authority, and by the doctors of the 3 P's on the Special Committee. They duly wrote on a number of occasions to ask the Secretary of State to extend my tenure, but have received no response whatsoever, despite the fact that the vital elements of relocation have not been finalised, and there is increasing concern that there will be seriously deficient arrangements".
In general, the committee has been unable adequately to fulfil all the purposes for which it was established. According to Mr. Henderson's letter, among persisting difficulties the region is still,
"seeking to require the 3 P's to take [radiological] equipment which will fail to meet [their] essential requirements".
In the light of that experience, the fears about St. Mark's are not phantoms; they are a realistic assessment by reasonable people of its possible future.
I shall not weary the House with comments upon the problems of applying the intention that money shall follow the patient to a hospital like St. Mark's, which attracts some two-thirds of its patients from all over the United Kingdom. An administrative structure as inevitably complicated as that of the health service must contain such conflicts as may at present afflict divisional health authorities and specialist postgraduate hospitals of international standing in their areas. Those conflicts should not be inflated into abrasive disputes, because neither the district nor the region can be blamed for situations which only the Government can regulate.
It is not my present purpose to criticise or, for that matter, to praise the Government's new policies for the NHS, beyond saying that if they cannot deal with
1670
the important, though limited, problem which I have attempted to outline, they will have to be revised. At this stage there are more mysteries than certainties in the outlook for St. Mark's. No doubt the most promising development would be an association with Bart's which preserves St. Mark's separate identity and clinical, research and teaching functions, although such special funding as might be conferred by the status, or something similar, of a special health authority would be essential.
Who can predict the future of Bart's—a teaching hospital of the University of London—and whether or not it becomes a trust? My only question to the Minister is whether he will put to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the importance and urgency of his receiving a delegation to discuss St. Mark's and thus to secure a stable framework for its planning over the next three or four years during which the district has agreed to maintain it on its present site.
St. Mark's is an outstanding British achievement, created by generations of medical dedication, research and intellectual excellence. Surely the Secretary of State will not permit its destruction by administrative and unimaginative shortsightedness. I have spoken as a patient who has benefited from the knowledge developed at St. Mark's. I believe that this is a subject on which the voice of the patient should be heard. That is in the interests of those who will need treatment in the years to come. I am sure, too, that this is a subject to which the Secretary of State should devote his personal attention.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for tabling this Question. The importance attached to it by your Lordships is shown by the large number of speakers at this intolerably late hour on a Friday.
My wish to make a brief contribution arises from having followed the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, with which I entirely agree, and from my feeling that it was worth stating in the House how disappointed the House was on 25th June when the Question was last asked, when it appeared that the Minister had not been fully briefed and was not in a position to explain what was going on between the district and St. Mark's. As we all know, she is a devoted and dedicated Minister, but that she was clearly unaware of the full ramifications of the problem is disturbing. It is like the failure of important people to receive a reply from the Secretary of State about the other hospital to which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, referred. I myself in my modest way wrote to the Secretary of State about the problem and have not received a reply.
It seems to me that the problem reflects not only the future of this important hospital—I have no medical qualifications for saying any more on that—but also on the Government's general capacity to fit into their health reform general principles (which I find acceptable) the particular problem of a small number of specialist hospitals. They are specialist not only in

1671
the treating of patients but also in research and training for this country and overseas. As I say, the problem reflects on the capacity of the Government to fit the se hospitals into the pattern of the health service which is naturally and rightly to some extent dictated by the distribution of population through regions and districts. There are not many such hospitals but they are of great importance to the future of the health service and to the health of the country. They confer great distinction internationally upon the country.
In other areas of government, the distinction between what is for local provision and what is of national importance is fully recognised. No one would suggest that the new British Library should be concerned only with the reading habits of the residents of Camden. No one suggests that the University of Oxford should confine its attention to the inhabitants of Oxfordshire. Yet we received the Answer that the whole responsibility lay with the City and Hackney health authority. Its expenditure on St. Mark's comes to about 2 per cent. of its budget and naturally enough it provides only a tiny trickle of patients, who, because of the nature of their maladies, are drawn from all over the country.
I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the Government to devise a system by which those hospitals that have been designated already should retain that status and St. Mark's should clearly be added to their number. As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, pointed out, it is desirable for the future that the hospital should benefit by attachment to another teaching hospital which is also involved in undergraduate teaching. No hard and fast divisions should exist in the fields of teaching and research. St. Bartholomew's, for geographical reasons if for no others, seems appropriate. The principle should certainly be that a hospital of this kind should be treated as an institution which must retain its identity and, where possible, be in a location where its needs are fully served.
I very much hope that the Minister who will reply today will be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, that the Secretary of State will personally receive people who can put him in the picture. Otherwise, the whole reputation of the National Health Service reforms will suffer as a result of something that is tiny, in the budgetary and administrative picture taken as a whole, but which for the medical world is very important both for itself and as a symbol.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Motley: My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, particularly as regards the congratulations he offered to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, on introducing this matter. It is remarkable that so many noble Lords are present at this hour on a Friday. The number of noble Lords who are present underlines the importance that we attach to the future of St. Mark's.
I wish to concentrate on the future of St. Mark's. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, cannot be present today. However, she replied to a Written Question that I tabled on 3rd July. I asked
1672
that the decision on the future of the hospital should be taken by Ministers and not by the health authority concerned. I also asked for an undertaking that no such decision would be taken in a parliamentary recess. The answer did not refer to the future. It stated:
"The provision of health services … is a matter for City and Hackney Health Authority".—[Official Report, 3/7/91; col. WA69.]
The Minister also stated that the health authority would follow the normal consultation procedures once a decision had been made. In Whitehall vernacular that means that Whitehall does not want Ministers to interfere. It is a good thing for the Government if a health authority takes a decision. If there is a big row the Government do not have to take any responsibility for the decision. One could infer from that position that the Secretary of State is not really interested in these matters and that his officials regard him as a personalised rubber stamp. We all know that that is far from being the case. The Secretary of State is intelligent and has a distinguished—one might almost say brilliant—scholastic record. He will be only too well aware of the virtues of research and scholarship.
I am simply asking why Ministers should not take these decisions. As far as I am aware, there is no statutory arrangement for pursuing matters of this kind. However, that is not the case as regards planning law which is very complex. There are provisions whereby the Secretary of State can call in matters of other than purely local importance for his personal consideration and decision.
In the medical world, St. Mark's is the equivalent of a Grade I listed building in the architectural world. In that case why on earth should the Minister, or preferably the Secretary of State, not call the matter in for his own consideration? I can understand that the Department of Health may not want to prohibit decisions being taken during a parliamentary recess. It may hope that with the passage of time anger will die away and the matter will be easier to handle. I remind your Lordships that the regional board we are discussing had to be overridden by Mrs. Currie, the Minister at the time, when it proposed to remove a radiotherapy provision from Southend hospital and transfer it to a place that was almost impossible for patients from the Southend area to reach. Happily, the decision was overruled and the difficulty did not arise. However, it was only overruled after a lengthy parliamentary campaign.
I hope that the number of patients treated at the hospital will be taken into consideration in this case. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that the allocation for St. Mark's accounts for only 2 per cent. of the health authority's expenditure. Nevertheless there is no particular reason why the health authority should feel responsible for financing a hospital of international importance. I am advised that St. Mark's is the only hospital anywhere in the world that gives training in colopractology as distinct from general surgery. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, will correct me if I have used the wrong term. Its research into hereditary aspects of cancer of the bowel has been of immense importance. Consultants almost everywhere specialising in this field have been trained at St. Mark's.

1673
I hesitate to say this in the absence of the noble Baroness, who has another engagement and whose commitment to her responsibilities and to the health service I do not doubt, but when she spoke on 4th July she appeared to suggest that it was the number of treatments which mattered. I suggest that if a few days in St. Mark's makes it possible for someone to have cancer removed and therefore live a longer life, that is more important statistically than someone being treated for sunburn in a casualty department in the unlikely event of our having a heat wave in this country. I hope that the number of treatments will not count for too much, but if it does, I hope that the number of tests which St. Mark's undertakes on potential patients with a hereditary risk of cancer will count. I am sure that that will place the hospital in a favourable position in relation to other hospitals.
In 1948 the late Aneurin Bevan who, despite lacking the benefit of a Harvard or Oxford education, had an instinctive wisdom to which I can personally testify, and indeed, he was richly endowed in that respect, separated St. Mark's and other similar research and postgraduate hospitals from the general hospitals. Later, in 1974, special hospital authorities —but not St. Mark's, and I do not know why—were placed in a special category. The simple answer is for St. Mark's to have that status now and to be accountable directly to the Department of Health. I believe that the intention is that the Department of Health should act as a regional board for the special hospital authorities. That would make a great deal of sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made a very telling remark when he said that it would be absurd if Oxford University had to be financed by the citizens of Oxford. That would be a total nonsense. If such a lunatic proposal were to be put forward and carried, I am sure that there would be a demand —probably led by the present Secretary of State and, if not, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—that All Souls should have a special exemption as a centre of excellence. In medical terms St. Mark's is equivalent to All Souls, although it does not have the material comforts or elegance of that marvellous establishment in Oxford University.
In education it is well recognised that the funding of universities should not be tied to residents or fall under any jurisdiction except an independent one funded by the Exchequer. That principle has recently very properly been extended to polytechnics and colleges of further education which also draw their students from a wide field. As already stated, St. Mark's probably draws only 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of its patients at most from the area of the City and Hackney health authority. I therefore endorse the statements which have been made that it is essential for St. Mark's to be independent and that it should not only have its own budget but also be accountable for that money directly to the Department of Health and nowhere else. I have some doubts about the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that that can be arranged with Bart's. That would be dangerous because—
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, it was not my suggestion that St. Mark's should have a close association with Bart's. It was the suggestion of St. Mark's and Bart's which I was reporting to the House and which I was given permission to report.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I intended to remark only that it was a suggestion that the noble Lord had put before us and to mention the reasons for not wishing that to happen. It would not be more than a few years before the merger meant that it would be impossible to retain the reputation, identity and facilities of St. Mark's. Admittedly my experience is second-hand—I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has much experience of this—but I understand that when it comes to fighting for scarce resources, as is sadly the case in hospitals, consultants striving to achieve their beds and sessions in operating theatres make the ambitions of politicians seeking a safe parliamentary seat look like the work of mere amateurs. It is therefore essential that St. Mark's should have a separate international identity. We are throwing away 150-odd years of international reputation. It must have the facilities and beds at its disposal. It would disintegrate if it were to be otherwise.
As this is an important matter and it is desirable that all aspects are canvassed, I hope that the Secretary of State will agree, as already proposed by the noble Lords, Lord McGregor and Lord Beloff, to receive a small deputation when the matter can perhaps be examined in greater detail. I hope that we shall have an affirmative response from the Minister on that point. I had given the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, notice that I intended to raise some of these points, but I understand that she is not able to be present today.
4.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for his cogent opening of the debate. I speak with no specialist medical knowledge, nor as an ex-patient, but as one who has known many people who have been through the hospital and whose lives have been transformed by the treatment that they have received, as is the case with so many hospitals. An interesting point that has not been made is that the hospital deals with the second biggest killer by cancer after lung cancer. Cancer of the rectum and colon is the second biggest killer among men and this hospital deals with it.
The problem is that the other specialties have a certain fashionableness about them. When one considers the amount of money spent on the treatment of lung cancer and the associated advertising and the small amount spent here and the small amount asked for, one realises that often in medicine, as in all other things including the Church, what is popular and fashionable runs through our society. The rectum and colon have inevitably never been fashionable and popular.
It is sad that this hospital, which has been a pioneer since the 1920s, did not share in the opportunities afforded to Moorfields, the Maudsley and the

1675
National Hospital in Queen Square, which also deal with specific specialties, and that it did not have the same designated status which has to a degree protected those others from the situation that has developed at St. Mark's. It is difficult both for the local district and for the area to deal with the problem. In this case that is the regional authority and the City and Hackney Health Authority. One does not wish to make the debate going on in London any more difficult.
Speaking as one who comes from further afield I ask why one always has to consider London as the best place for such hospitals. The city is so monstrously expensive at every level of activity. Sometimes one wonders why there are not important places of this kind associated with major hospitals in what we laughingly call the provinces, where development could grow at much less cost in a wider space.
Ken McKee, one of the two pioneers of hip replacements, was for many years a member of my congregation when I was a vicar. He in Norwich and Charmley in Wigan were the pioneers of an operation which is now done worldwide. Moreover, it is done by registrars, not by the most senior consultants. That is now absolutely normal. To begin with the operation was performed in two provincial hospitals. Even with the monstrously complex back-up that is required for some forms of cancer treatment, one wonders why we should be trapped into a "London debate". It may be necessary, however, and, if so, one accepts it.
I mentioned Ken McKee and Charnley because they were names of my youth. They are now largely forgotten except through books. They pioneered a whole series of treatments in complex development which meant so much to so many, including, as I look around this Chamber on a packed day, many who appear from the way they walk to have shared in that particular experience, some of them more than once. Having known those people who led the way, I believe that St. Mark's is in very much the same situation. Forty per cent. of its referrals are tertiary—it is like the National, the Maudsley and Moorfields hospitals. When the very best elsewhere cannot manage treatment, patients see St. Mark's as almost the last point to which to refer. It is absolutely key for the country.
An American once described St. Mark's as a Mecca. After some of the debates in this House, that is an unfortunate label to place upon the hospital, but it shows how a man who came from what is probably the most medically sophisticated nation in the world regarded it. It would be a tragedy if it followed the way of the 'three Ps". I used to live in Bloomsbury and in my time there the feeling about the disappearance of hospitals there and the way in which they had been treated still lingered and will always linger. One hopes and believes that the same will not be allowed to happen here. Therefore I support other noble Lords in requesting that close attention at the highest level be given to this matter.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I was most interested to hear the debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, for bringing forward this topic. I visited Iceland as a Member of this House on an official visit and was met by people who trained at St. Mark's. They spoke very highly of it. They still, to this day, refer patients to St. Mark's. I knew the building—the exterior, not the interior—because my dental surgery was just around the corner, and I was there for over 30 years.
Many interesting points have been raised. I was fascinated by the suggestion of the right reverend Prelate that a place in the provinces might be desirable. I believe that as time goes by that will happen increasingly in the future. London hospitals are facing the problem of losing the population around them and costs in London are particularly high.
The point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, about extracontractual referrals are a cause of great anxiety for everyone in a teaching institute at the present time. Many patients would prefer to be treated nearer to home and more regions with different places in the country are now able to carry out treatments. As a result, the highly specialised hospitals suffer from receiving only the extremely difficult cases while their overheads and costs rise. It makes it that much more difficult if they do not have some bread and butter work as well. The point made by the right reverend Prelate about possibly seeing some hospitals moving out of the capital has to be considered.
I have expressed my personal views. However, I am vice-chairman of the regional health authority for this hospital. I therefore believe it important to establish the region's position. The regional health authority is very aware of the high quality of the treatment and research carried out at St. Mark's and fully supports its desire to retain a separate identity and to continue its excellent work. There has been general agreement that St. Mark's should relocate eventually into St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
However the problem is that the region is not in a position to fund such a move at the £17 million level requested by St. Mark's. Indeed, in the current climate the region would have difficulty even to fund the £6 million suggested by the City and Hackney health authority. Noble Lords may know that the region has had to cancel the forward capital programme because of the decline in property values. Those were a factor in the calculations. The sale of surplus land was to have played a major part in financing new developments and improvements and that was in addition to the government allowance of about £70 million a year that we receive. Without doubt, the value of the St. Mark's site will also have been affected.
As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, stated, there was talk of allowing St. Mark's to remain where it is. I understand that the district health authority is now considering such a course. The regional health authority could allow that only if the building was safe. Suggestions have been made today and at other

1677
times that the building is unsafe. That is a matter that must be checked. Safety is of great importance. However, the regional health authority can give no commitment to refurbish the present building which is very old.
The issue of special health authority status is interesting. The region has no views as to whether the hospital should achieve special health authority status or become a national health trust. That is purely a matter for the department.
I speak now wearing not my regional hat, but my personal hat. For 15 years I served as a member of the special health authority concerning the Brompton and National Heart Hospital. We had a slightly similar situation. For years people were treated in a very old building, the National Heart Hospital, in Wimpole Street. On occasions when I inspected the hospital, I felt that it indicated how good the treatment must be that people were prepared to come to such an old place which required much attention. The state of the building does not seem to affect the quality of patient care. However, last week I visited the newly-built Brompton and National Heart Hospital. There is no doubt that when one rehouses those marvellous institutes in places of high standard it makes a tremendous difference to the morale of not only everyone working there but also of the patients who like to be treated in better surroundings. However, the difficulty for the regional health authority is financial.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I do not speak on this subject as an expert, or as someone who has enjoyed the facilities of the hospital. I live locally. However, St. Mark's is not just a local London hospital but a national and international facility.
The age of the building, safety and other arguments require us to consider whether we should move St. Mark's to another location or rebuild and refurbish it. There are medical reasons for saying that St. Mark's should be adjacent to, but certainly not part of, another hospital. Those are clearly important considerations.
More importantly, however, I must emphasise the uniqueness of a small, internationally famous research-oriented hospital. I know from experience in the university sector that such establishments are extremely hard to maintain. They are easily destroyed and never recovered. In the long run it proves to be more economic to maintain them than to find replacements for them. I sincerely believe that even on the grounds of long-term economy we should examine carefully the case for keeping St. Mark's as it is under whatever arrangements are most suitable. We should give it such supplementary help as is necessary but we should not lose its unique identity or quality.
During the recent National Health Service reforms many interesting ideas were put forward about choice and the different ways of financing national health. I do not wish to comment upon those but to point out that a hospital such as St. Mark's is unique. It has a niche role in the provision of specialist facilities; it is not a supermarket. Ultimately people must go to that
1678
hospital and if such a facility were dissipated it would be more expensive to provide the same service on a one-off basis at regional hospitals.
I hope that, whatever course is adopted—either the interim plan of refurbishing St. Mark's present building and eventually moving it adjacent to, though not making it part of, another hospital, or the erection of a new building —the issue will be treated as a national priority and not dealt with at regional health authority level.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, our debate about St. Mark's Hospital in the City Road continues after my Starred Question tabled on Tuesday 25th June, which had support from all sides of the House. Again today we have all-party support. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for carrying on the debate.
We are talking about a small hospital which has become renowned for its excellence not only throughout Britain and Europe but throughout the world. Indeed, it is known by specialists throughout the medical universe who work in the field of diseases of the rectum and the colon as "The Holy of Holies of the Back Passage".
Excluding noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today I know four patients who have benefited from the expertise at St. Mark's. One is a young man in his 20s who had a peri-anal fistula. He was treated in a Birmingham hospital, where he was operated on without success. Some time later he was again operated on in a hospital in Darlington, County Durham, where he was admitted twice. Between hospitalisation he received mammoth doses of antibiotics but with no success. Finally the surgeon sent him to St. Mark's for the treatment of his recurring and persistent problem. He was operated on and discharged within a week, since when he has had no problems. That is typical of the results of St. Mark's Hospital.
Another case is that of a woman from Norfolk who was transferred by her Norfolk surgeon for treatment of a complicated fistula. She was cured by the late Sir Alan Parkes, a surgeon at St. Mark's. The third patient I know to be transferred was a high-lesion tetraplegic who had undergone numerous unsuccessful operations at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Buckinghamshire, on a complicated recto-vaginal fistula. St. Mark's was the last resort and, happily for her, the treatment was successful. The remaining patient was from Yorkshire and suffered from inflammation of the bowels and an unknown shadow. After investigation at St. Mark's, the situation was resolved.
Some 40 per cent. of its patients are tertiary referrals; that is, patients referred from other hospitals throughout the United Kingdom and from abroad. St. Mark's is a major research centre with an international reputation for its work. Some 650 visitors from all over the world come to it every year. Many senior registrars working in its specialty, which is very important, as many of your Lordships know only too well, are trained there and that training is

1679
then spread across the country. As consultants they then teach other doctors and nurses the high quality methods used at St. Mark's.
It is obvious to all who understand and appreciate the National Health Service that St. Mark's Hospital is a national resource and not a local issue. Funding should be decided at a national level and not at district or regional level.
All concede that St. Mark's Hospital must move but that it must be maintained and properly funded as a specialist intestinal unit. For over 150 years St. Mark's has been situated in City Road. It has only 74 beds but it performs 1,300 operations and 1,000 endoscopies yearly and 75 per cent. of its medical staff are consultants, who in the past five years have published between them 575 scientific papers and 28 books on their specialties.
Does that excellent record not now deserve a new hospital? Ideally it should be placed on the campus of a teaching hospital which has all the back-up services. It seems important that it should have intensive care services and full anaesthetic cover. It deserves that and it is in the interests of the country that it should become directly answerable to the Department of Health as should other specialised supra-regional or national units.
When community health councils were established, I served on one. I then moved on to serve on a regional health authority which had 17 districts. With the recent reorganisation of the health service I have been anxious about many of the specialised units. When only about 3 per cent. of the local population uses a specialised unit, it is understandable that the community health council does not show particular interest. Therefore, those hospitals or units of national or supra-regional status are without the full support of community health councils.
It is understandable also that health districts may not be very interested because they are interested in the local population. In time, when the funding scheme of the money following the patient begins to work, it may work very well but it will not work if the patients follow the money. I shall be grateful if the Minister will give an assurance today that there will not be delays for tertiary referrals. That is of the utmost importance to patients who have serious complications.
St. Mark's Hospital deals with serious medicine. It has a discipline and procedure which patients must follow. We hear so much party political talk about waiting lists but the sort of work which goes on at St. Mark's Hospital is far too serious to become a party political issue. Patients who have had their lives saved at St. Mark's know how important that is.
Every year there is a tragic loss of life from cancer. It is through dedicated medical personnel coming together with research facilities that advancement can be ma de against cancer and other complicated conditions. That research must go on and expand.
It is difficult to get across the message of how vital these specialist places are when government Ministers such as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, are lucky enough never to have been ill or to have been a
1680
hospital patient. Perhaps today we have in the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, a Minister who will convey our anxiety to the Secretary of State.
It is about time the Government gave these centres of excellence like St. Mark's a pat on the back rather than, like Pontius Pilate, shrugging and saying, "Let the district or region decide". The work carried out at St. Mark's under conditions that are far from ideal is an example of achievement. It is inconceivable that anyone could think of dismantling such an operation. That is why a team of your Lordships has gathered on a Friday afternoon to give support to St. Mark's, which leads the Western world in the treatment of and research into intestinal diseases, including cancer. Even though in time St. Mark's may be rebuilt on an ideal hospital site—wherever that may be—opinion seems to be unanimous that it should stay intact and independent as a special health authority or its own trust. It does not want to be swallowed up and perhaps disembowelled.
Whenever there is a threat of closure or a NHS reorganisation I become concerned at the time spent in meetings and discussions while patients are waiting for treatment. With this threat to St Mark's it must be the patients who feel most confused and worried. The National Association for Colitis and Crohn's Disease was founded and inaugurated at St. Mark's in November 1979. There are now over 16,000 members. For those suffering from Crohn's Disease, St. Mark's has been a saviour. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some assurance to those patients that their support will not disappear and that the words written by the Government, "patients first", are sound and not hollow.
It is a pleasure to work with noble Lords who have an interest in St. Mark's. I take this opportunity of thanking all the expert people working there for providing such an excellent standard of care; long may it last.
4.53 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, for initiating this debate about which I ought to declare more than a passing interest. I worked at St. Mark's from 1958 to 1964 and retain a great affection and respect for that outstanding institution. It has been encouraging to hear of the high esteem in which your Lordships hold St. Mark's. Certainly wherever one travels in the world everyone has heard of its reputation.
During the past 10 years two of the presidents of the Royal College of Surgeons have been consultants at St. Mark's—the late Sir Alan Parks and more recently Sir Ian Todd. Many of its consultants during the past 50 years have been household names in the medical profession. One of the most distinguished gastro-enterologists at St. Mark's for many years was Sir Francis Avery Jones, who is well into his eighties and as brilliant as ever.
The problem we are discussing today, as your Lordships have said, concerns also the other small specialist hospitals like the urology hospitals, St.

1681
Peter's, St. Paul's and St. Philip's—known affectionately to many noble Lords as the three Ps. One has to see the future of all those hospitals in terms of what is happening nationally. Since 1965 approximately 7,000 beds have been closed every year irrespective of which government have been in power. There is a steady decline in the number of beds. That simply reflects the substantially reduced length of stay which is now thought desirable and the fact that half the operations in general surgery can and should be done on a day-case basis.
In the 1970s it was agreed by all the political parties that the resources on the hospital side of the National Health Service had to be redistributed more fairly throughout the country. With the declining population in London that inevitably meant that resources would be moved out. In turn, that would mean a reduction in the total number of hospitals. We have had a great increase in technology, both in diagnosis and treatment, and it is quite clear that we cannot have large numbers of hospitals packed into a small area, each having all the high-tech facilities, including intensive care. Moreover, we are quite rightly obliged to reduce the total number of hours worked by junior staff.
All these policies—agreed by all parties—inevitably mean that amalgamation of more London hospitals will have to occur. The secret of success in this movement is at all costs to try to preserve the identity of these hospitals with their international reputations. It would be ideal if some way could be found for them to have separate buildings within the curtilage of the larger teaching hospitals.
It should be said that there will be advantages in some of these amalgamations. Both the undergraduate and postgraduate hospitals will thereby be stimulated to achieve greater heights, especially in some of the fast developing specialties like genetics and immunology. Another possibility which is being actively considered is whether some of the postgraduate hospitals should amalgamate to become self-governing hospitals as it is quite clear that some of them could thereby stand on their own feet.
There is overwhelming support for St. Mark's to continue to flourish and whatever plans are being discussed I very much hope that its identity will be preserved: preserved in name, with its own budget and if at all possible with its own building within the curtilage of one of the other hospitals rather than being sunk without trace in one floor of a large institution.
As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said, those at St. Mark's who are charged with negotiating at this time are all reasonable, charming and rational people. I hope that they will be heard at the highest level.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, for bringing this debate to us, even on a Friday. It is not a Test Match day so it will be all right.
Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord brilliantly presented the factual side of the St. Mark's case. I do
1682
not think that any noble Lord could improve on the form of the arguments he presented. However, there are one or two small points that I should like briefly to explore. Before I do so, perhaps I may also say that while I lavish praise on the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, I also give great accolades of praise to all the other speakers. My former student, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, distinguished himself this afternoon with his speech.
I can see that there may be constraints on the department at the moment because of the administrative routes between districts and regions and concerning recognised teaching hospital status. However, at the end of the day all of us who are clinicians, and, I, suspect, the nation as a whole, are wondering whether this small part of the NHS—St. Mark's, the three Ps and the others, which are cutting edges in the quality of care in the NHS—will be given what the rest of us see as equal consideration to that given in the recognisable past to the purchase of computers on a large scale for the accounting side of the NHS and the development of very many new posts for the management side of the NHS. In a way we are looking now—the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, made this point—for a sign that the Department of Health puts high in its priorities places where high quality care is developed. That is an important aspect of the present exchange of views. I realise that, because of the administrative cogs that must turn, the department may have to wait a little while before it can say much. But at the end of the day, if it lets down St. Mark's, many of us will feel, sadly, that the espousal of excellence in the health service is beginning to slip away.
I do not want to go too far in regard to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough—I come from nearby Cambridge—but I should like to try to explain why there are so many postgraduate institutes in London. It is relevant to the relationship which will, I hope, develop between St. Mark's, Bart's and wherever else. In the Victorian era, physicians of great general diagnostic skill, great therapeutic power and powers of persuasion were becoming specialists in diseases of the heart, the lungs, the nerves and so on. They began to realise that they had practically no prospect of training in a general hospital the support services that they wanted for their kind of cases. The nurses passing through the teaching hospitals had to become general nurses. The matron would not leave them to deal with heart cases for the whole of their year in medicine. Therefore, the physicians quite rightly struck out for themselves and founded the Brompton Hospital, the Queen's Square Hospital, the Maudsley Hospital, a great centre for the study of mental diseases; and some of them set up St. Mark's in City Road.
One therefore must not be surprised that from the Victorian and Edwardian eras right up until the health service came to distribute our medical care equally over the whole country, people got into trains and came to London for that fateful second opinion, for an operation or for treatment. If it was a special type of treatment they would find their way to those specialist hospitals.

1683
After the setting up of the health service the specialist hospital had to protect its educational status, with research and teaching activities going on in postgraduate institutes. One of the great sadnesses to me is that St. Mark's seems to have lost its postgraduate institute status. I shall come back in a moment to why I think that is important. To return to my point, it was because the great hospitals, from whose loins sprang the postgraduate institutes, were in London where the population was a great stew of human disease that one finds so many of the elderly specialist hospitals here in London. However, the right reverend Prelate is quite right that many of the new developments are likely to be located on the periphery. Noble Lords who have heard me speak on this subject will know how anxious I am that the Department of Health should not put at hazard the wonderfully uniform health service that we have all over the country. That is one of our greatest triumphs. When one visits America and one sees that nearly 50 million people—that is almost the population of England and Scotland—do not have access to a doctor one realises why youngsters like myself hold on to the triumph of the developments which came with the health service.
I believe is most important that I should explain that I am not too unhappy about the idea of St. Mark's being lodged in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. I take that view because, when St. John's Hospital for Diseases of the Skin in Leicester Square wished to relocate, a deal was struck that it would relocate in St. Thomas' Hospital. It is now my great privilege to be the chairman of the united medical and dental schools of Guy's Hospital and St. Thomas' Hospital. Therefore, I know a little about the movement of St. John's into St. Thomas' Hospital. That move was much helped by the fact that St. John's had a postgraduate institute under the umbrella of the University of London. By bringing it in to St. Thomas', we got all the salary scales right and the whole thing clicked into place like a change of gear.
I do not think that the people of St. John's felt that the move was quite so simple. However, we also received money from the site. How sad it is that the value of land has tailed away. But that money allowed the governors of St. Thomas' to gut and spend many millions of pounds—I am not sure how much was involved, but I suspect that it was in the order of £10 million—in refurbishing a part of St. Thomas' to set up the Institute of Dermatology. St. John's Hospital was lodged inside St. Thomas' with its own status and its own teachers who came from the original building. When Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal visited last yea r I had just been made chairman. I was very proud to be able to show her the beautifully refurbished accommodation for the dermatologists.
Poor St. Mark's seems to me to be in trouble because it does not have such a splendid dowry. If it did, those concerned could look St. Bartholomew's Hospital straight in the eye and say, "We can take care of many of our own requirements." Just as specialist hospitals sprung from the loins of the old teaching hospital, I wonder whether it would be fair if they returned now to save their parents who are having a
1684
very hard time because of the redistribution of the population. People no longer have to come from Birmingham to London for a second opinion. However, not much harm would be done—and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, shares this view—if there was a consolidation in the great teaching centres.
Administratively speaking, small hospitals are expensive. For example, some apparatus is not in constant use. The possibility of having intensive care, high-powered radiological, new magnetic resonance-type of investigations in bowel disease in a big centre like Bart's, with a big throughput of students who inevitably stimulate the research workers, seems to me to be a wonderful prospect; that is, if we can get it.
It means that the Minister's department would have to be as enthusiastic about the idea as everyone else has been in the House today. It would also mean that we would have to embrace the concept of a St. Bartholomew's/St. Mark's institution. It is possible that we may even have to embrace a rugby football team with the name of St. Mark's stitched on to the rugger shirts. I do not mind what we have to do, provided that those men from St. Mark's are happy in their new environment.
In conclusion, I should like to say how conscious I am of the importance of these small hospitals to the NHS. That is why we are all here today. We feel that they are absolutely vital for the ongoing elevation of the standards of care in the health service. I received a lovely letter from an old Oxford friend, Mr. Richard Turner-Warwick, who is a surgeon at the London University Institute of Urology to which reference has been made. I shall plagiarise his last paragraph. He says that he is not seeking my
"personal support for the Specialist Hospitals in general".
or for his own hospital—although, as a matter of fact, he has it; and I believe he knew that before he wrote to me. He continues,
"but I want to assure you that their contribution to the National quality of our Health Service is indeed threatened and in need of more appropriate protection".
That is why I came here today from Cambridge to plead with the Minister.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for tabling the Question. We have had an excellent debate on an important topic. The ground has been well and expertly covered, and so I can be brief. All speakers have agreed that St. Mark's is a hospital of national and international importance which provides a magnificent service to its patients from this country and from abroad. We all know that "a centre of excellence" is a phrase which is sometimes misused, but it applies to St. Mark's.
As the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, said, what happens to St. Mark's will be a true test of the value of the NHS reforms. It will show whether, under the reforms, a hospital of that nature can maintain its integrity and identity as a separate unit. As has been pointed out, it is the only hospital in the Western world which is dedicated solely to the treatment of intestinal diseases.

1685
One way, and perhaps the best way, to secure the future of St. Mark's, is for it to become a designated teaching hospital like other comparable specialist hospitals. It will be interesting to learn whether the Minister agrees that that will be the best solution. With 65 per cent. of St. Mark's patients coming from outside the North East Thames Regional Health Authority area and 97 per cent. from outside the City and Hackney DHA area it is clear that a major financial and administrative anomaly will result—it has resulted—if the hospital is not treated as a valuable national resource, which is what it is. From listening to the debate, it seems that the future of the hospital cannot be planned if it has to fit within the capital and budgetary restraints of one DHA.
One solution mentioned by a number of speakers is a move to a new site at Bart's Hospital. There is much to be said for that solution; but, as we all agree, it is the maintenance of St. Mark's as a separate clinical, teaching and research centre that is crucial. The question is much more than one of mere estate management. I emphasise that St. Mark's and Bart's are considering a proposal to which at present both are attracted, but that is subject to a range of caveats. Both recognise that any arrangement which did not ensure a separate functional identity for St. Mark's would be unacceptable.
As we are all aware, it is a question not of buildings but of funding. The problems for the DHA or RHA are considerable. We can sympathise with the managers. They are trying to implement the NHS reforms; they are struggling with their budget; and they are trying to catch up with the backlog of maintenance and safety work. That amounts to £19 million for St. Mark's and Bart's alone. With all those problems with which to deal, the temptation over time to cut into St. Mark's budget will be more than any regional or district manager could resist if such a specialist unit remained within his budget. The Government should do their best to remove that temptation.
The situation is further complicated by the high proportion of St. Mark's patients who come from outside the district and the region. The figures have already been quoted. Will the Minister say whether my understanding of the situation is correct? I live in Wiltshire, and before the reforms, if I needed the special care given by St. Mark's, I could be referred there by my GP or, more likely, by the appropriate consultant at my district or regional hospital, just as, for example, a member of my family was referred by our GP to Bath, then to Bristol, and eventually to Great Ormond Street and Moorfields for separate conditions. Can I now be referred to St. Mark's only if my DHA has a contract with St. Mark's, or if it does not have a contract is prepared to use part of its limited extra-contractual referral budget to send me there'? If my GP is a budget-holder he can presumably do a deal with St. Mark's direct.
A number of your Lordships have referred to the Starred Question put down on 25th June by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The Minister replied to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. She said:
1686
"We believe that because this specialist treatment is so well known and recognised, St. Mark's will continue to attract patients and, as a result of the National Health Service reforms, the income will follow".
My noble friend Lady David referred to postgraduate visitors from overseas. The Minister again said:
"The well-deserved reputation of St. Mark's is such that it will inevitably attract income, including, I hope, income from overseas".
Finally, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who asked:
"Should the Department of Health not make it a special health authority and fund it centrally",
the Minister's response was:
"My Lords, under our reforms we offer the possibility that in the case of services which continue to attract patients, as a national resource of this kind can, the income will follow". —[Official Report, 25/6/91; cols. 488–490.]
If that is the case, then I draw your Lordships' attention to the report in the Guardian today:
"Hospital patients are having their medical notes marked with a bright yellow £ sign if there is a question over whether the person's district health authority will pay for treatment.
"The fluorescent stickers, bearing the £ sign and the words Non Contract Case, are being attached to files at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Bournemouth, to identify patients from districts with which the hospital does not have fixed contracts".
The report continues:
"Districts are supposed to have set aside money for such 'extra-contractual referrals,' mainly for cases where GPs want to send patients outside the local district, but most authorities have budgeted only small sums and these are already heavily depleted in some cases".
That is obviously crucial in the context of St. Mark's which takes many of its patients from outside either the district or the region. It is important for the Minister to spell out exactly how this will work with St. Mark's as it is so heavily dependent on outside referrals.
Before a final decision on St. Mark's can be taken, there are a number of questions which must be satisfactorily answered. The Minister will be aware that I informed him before the debate that I would ask these questions. At the outset I can say that from these Benches I support the suggestion by a number of noble Lords that the Secretary of State should receive a deputation to consider the future of St. Mark's.
Does the Minister agree that, in addition to the deputation, an expert working party should be set up to consider the future of St. Mark's and other national referral teaching centres? The problem has been referred to by a number of speakers. The working party could see how these very valuable units can best fit into the new pattern of NHS care. Will the department agree to contract directly with St. Mark's to enable it to become a designated teaching hospital on the lines of an SHA? Such a step would protect the national teaching, research and referral role of the hospital. If it has to remain within the RHA and the DHA and their budgets do not allow sufficient funds to secure the future of St. Mark's, is the department prepared to make up the shortfall from central funds?
Can the Minister explain why St. Mark's is different from the other specialist London hospitals which have been referred to by a number of noble Lords: Moorfields, Great Ormond Street, the National Hospital for Nervous Diseases, the Brompton

1687
Hospital, the Maudsley and the Eastman Dental Hospital? They all have an international reputation for clinical care, research and teaching in specialist fields exactly the same as St. Mark's.
I do not propose to go back over the ground so excellently covered by all speakers in the debate. Every aspect has been thoroughly explored. We must hope now that the Minister can provide an answer from the Government which will properly secure the future of this outstanding example of the very best of clinical care in teaching and research.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for introducing the debate. I also wish to thank noble Lords for their patience in waiting so long. It is a reflection of the importance of the debate that they have done so. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, demonstrating another unique quality of St. Mark's which has not come up, wished to add to the debate and apologised to me for being unable to be present. No one could have heard the debate without attaching enormous importance to the support that exists for the hospital. It was difficult not to be moved by the strength of feeling evident on all sides of the House.
The question of St. Mark's future was raised in your Lordships' House on 25th June and has received considerable coverage in the press. Such interest is certainly evidence of the support for the hospital and of the esteem in which it is held. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, asks what is Her Majesty's Government's policy for the future of St. Mark's. What is at issue, however, is not government policy, but the possible outcome of local discussions which are currently taking place. There is no doubt about the valuable specialist services and postgraduate training provided by St. Mark's.
Various noble Lords have asked me questions. I received advance notice of some of those questions and I am grateful for that. In reply to questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord McGregor and Lord Carter, I was asked whether a working party could be set up to consider the options for St. Mark's. I believe that that matter can be considered. I was also asked whether a delegation could visit Ministers. I feel sure that my noble friend Lady Hooper and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be happy to consider any representations which noble Lords may wish to make.
The matter of special health authority status for St. Mark's is an issue that I shall return to later. As regards funding, it is a matter for the regional health authority to determine its capital priorities. The RHA will wish to consider all demands on its capital. It would not be right this afternoon for me to pre-empt its decisions or speculate on the merits of those decisions.
I have also been asked about the effects of NHS reforms. St. Mark's is internationally recognised for its work in the field of colo-rectal diseases, including cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. It has also started a register of
1688
patients with familial polyposis coli. That register has now been expanded to a large number of other hospitals. The hospital treats patients from all over the country and 50 per cent. of its patients are referred from other UK hospitals. The NHS reforms ensure that where there is a need and a demand for services those services will continue. I say that mindful of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on hold-ups to tertiary referrals.
As my noble friend Lady Hooper has already made clear in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on 25th June, there are no plans to close St. Mark's. However, a dialogue between the health authorities and the hospital has been taking place for a considerable time. The dialogue has been about the benefits of providing facilities elsewhere. This discussion has been positive, with recognition by all parties of the advantages of relocating St. Mark's.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was in favour of refurbishment of the hospital on its present site. I do not wish to enter that discussion but I understand that that view is held by some people. The clinical director of St. Mark's has recorded the staff's welcome of the opportunities flowing from a move to a new site, provided such a move does not destroy the integrity of the hospital. The discussion has not been about whether St. Mark's should relocate, but about the cost and scale of such an exercise.
I should like to provide some background to these discussions, and to go over the reasons for looking at relocation as an option. The current location of St. Mark's Hospital on a separate site, isolated from other acute provision and facilities, is a cause for concern. Indeed small specialist hospitals have increasingly looked to the advantages accruing from integration in the framework of acute health services. I shall return to this point later. In recent years, as medical technology has become increasingly sophisticated, the problems associated with being a small specialist hospital on a site separate from a general acute facility have become more apparent. Although St. Mark's Hospital provides a wide range of high quality specialist services, it looks to other parts of the district's hospital services, and particularly to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, for a number of support services.
The condition of the St. Mark's buildings is another important factor. Given the age of the buildings it is perhaps not surprising that the physical layout of services and facilities does not match modern standards. There is no doubt that the site is crowded. Much of the space is inefficiently used, being taken up by corridor and staircase space, and services are spread across many levels.
The condition of the buildings leaves much to be desired. The fabric of the buildings has now outlived operational use as a hospital. Substantial redevelopment, both external and internal, is required to address issues of functional suitability, building and plant refurbishment, usage of space, fire safety and compliance with health and safety regulations. Considerable expenditure would be needed to bring the buildings up to modern standards of acceptability.

1689
A third factor in considering St. Mark's future is the adequacy of its facilities. As I said, St. Mark's, although offering high quality specialist services, lacks a number of desirable support services. No one disputes that. For instance, the hospital has no special provision for the care of the critically ill. Those patients are currently treated on the general wards or in the theatre recovery area. Patients requiring intensive care often face a transfer to another site. I believe that we would all agree that having to move such vulnerable patients is extremely undesirable. In addition, pathology services and the provision of out-of-hours anaesthetic services are extremely limited at St. Mark's. There is little scope to improve those services on the present site.
Discussions are taking place with the health authorities, and I would not wish to pre-empt any decision. The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, asked why Ministers could not make decisions. I have tried to convey the fact that at present Ministers cannot make decisions because there are systems in place for dealing with these matters.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Whereas in planning, for example, there is a large body of legislation laying down what has to be done, so far as I know there is nothing in the health service legislation which requires the process which the Minister is now describing to be undertaken. It is entirely an administrative matter.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, my advice is that that is not the case. As I understand it, we are obliged to allow the present procedures to run their normal course.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, we have not been given any legislative reference. I have asked for that.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, unless I receive some advice I cannot give such a reference.
As I shall explain more fully later, decisions may in any case need to be considered by the Secretary of State. It may be helpful, however, to look at the advantages of one of the options under consideration. The relocation of St. Mark's Hospital to St. Bartholomew's could provide solutions to some of the problems which have been outlined. There would be a better infrastructure for supporting the clinicians in their invaluable work. They would benefit from the extra resources available at Bart's, with all the facilities of a multi-specialty acute hospital. Bricks and mortar alone do not make a hospital; it is the quality of the services which is most important. However, when the fabric of a building is in such condition that it hinders the efficient delivery of the service, one must look at the costs of bringing the building up to scratch. In the case of St. Mark's it is estimated that over £4 million would need to be spent on essential backlog maintenance. The possibility of relocation must seem an attractive option when one considers the financial savings which it would represent—money which could then be spent by the health service to provide better patient care.
1690
There has been some questioning about the possibility of St. Mark's being in some way managed centrally. That point was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord McGregor and Lord Mulley, and others. The whole thrust of the NHS reforms has been to encourage greater devolution of management. The reforms seek to delegate responsibility to the local level as far as possible. That includes delegation of functions from regions to districts, and from districts to hospitals and units. Hospitals will be more responsible for running their own affairs. The consideration of extending central management runs counter to the reforms.
When the London Advisory Group recommended the creation of the special health authorities in 1981, not all special hospitals were thus reconstituted. Some were not included because they were too small to be managed as a separate entity, because they did not have a postgraduate institute or because they needed rebuilding. Those criteria have not changed. Therefore, to respond to my noble friend Lord Beloff, rather than adding to the number of existing special health authorities we are considering how best they can fulfil their functions in the new NHS. It is not therefore appropriate to add to their number. That is not the way forward.
On the question of research—this matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—there are surely benefits in relocating St. Mark's to a teaching hospital with well-established postgraduate medical education and research. I understand that Bart's currently has funding for education and research amounting to 20 per cent. of its total budget. Regions will be developing their plans as part of the recently announced comprehensive NHS strategy and programme for R&D. Regions are likely to consider what is done at St. Mark's and other similar hospitals as they develop their plans.
The identity of a hospital is an issue on which noble Lords feel strongly. It was perhaps the matter to which most reference was made. But need that identity be lost? I emphasise that the discussions that have been going on for some considerable time are concerned with finding solutions to St. Mark's problems, not with wanton destruction of its value or identity.
Relocation need not be seen as a threat to a hospital's identity. A similar situation has arisen with the relocation, nearing completion, of another small, single-specialty group of hospitals which has been mentioned. The St. Peter's group is a renowned centre for the treatment of benign as well as malignant diseases of the kidney, bladder and urinary tract. It also embraces the Institute of Urology. From January 1992 the group will be re-housed within the Middlesex Hospital. In other words, its situation parallels that of St. Mark's considering a move to St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
There may be lessons to be learned from that, but there is a certain amount of conflicting reporting here. In contrast to the quotation used by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, from Mr. Henderson, the Chairman of St. Peter's Medical Committee and the Dean of the Institute of Urology have recently written to colleagues in the medical fraternity giving advance

1691
notice of the move. They have written of the advantages of the better facilities that they will enjoy, the potential for close collaboration with the medical school, and the opportunities and benefits of working in a multi-specialty environment. Such a positive view of the relocation of specialist services may well encourage those who see only dangers in the discussions about the future of St. Mark's. Considerable thought is being given to ways in which St. Mark's identity may be protected; for example, its name, its operation of its own budget, a separate medical records function and its own medical executive committee.
As I emphasised at the outset of this debate, there are no plans for the closure of the hospital. There has, however, been some concern about the way in which proposals may emerge. Perhaps I may reassure the House about the normal process for dealing with proposals for either closure or significant change of use of health buildings.
It is the responsibility of the district health authority to come up with proposals and to consult the community health council. The CHC is a group appointed to represent the users of the health service. If CHCs do not agree with the district's proposals, they are free to put forward their own proposals. District health authorities should also consult widely with MPs, local authorities and other interested bodies like the family health service authorities. District health authorities must carefully consider any CHC proposals, as well as any other comments that they receive, alongside their own plans.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how the 65 per cent. of St. Mark's patients who come from outside the area of the regional health authority will be able to transmit their views to the CHC so that they can be taken into account in its response?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot explain that, but one cannot always get round that in any event. Wherever a specialty exists, one cannot always have the widest possible consultation. It always devolves to an area to deal with what is best in that area. To that extent, we do not live in a perfect world. If the noble Lord can come up with a better suggestion, I am sure that it will be considered.
The regional health authority may support the CHC, in which case the district would have to look at its plans again and revise them accordingly. If the region supports the district's plans, they are sent to Ministers of the Department of Health for a final decision. Ministers become involved when agreement cannot be reached between the CHC and the local health authority. They take into account all views and make the decision that they believe is in the best interest of the health service.
I have spent some little time on the process for considering the proposals in order to reassure your Lordships that decisions cannot be taken in a cavalier fashion Consultation is an integral part of the process and at all levels there must be consideration of views and opinions. Should any plans be put forward in which interested parties disagree, there would be
1692
ample opportunity for those views to be expressed. A decision would need to take account of them and of the interests of the health service as a whole.
I believe that I have answered one or two questions as I have gone along but there are some outstanding ones to which I should like to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the mechanism for referring patients to St. Mark's. GPs are free to refer patients to a hospital whether or not their district has a contract with that hospital. In an emergency, patients will always be treated immediately. In less urgent cases it will be up to the district to consider, in the light of all its priorities, whether patients can be treated straightaway or whether they may have to wait a little.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, asked about the future of the SHAs, suggesting that it may not be secure after 1993. There are commitments for continuing essential funding of London postgraduate SHAs after April 1991. Ministers will be considering what arrangements will be most appropriate in the future.
My noble friend Lady Gardner and the right reverend Prelate said that we should not be obsessed with keeping things inside London, to which I agree. We are likely to see increasing development of services outside London. Indeed, that has been the policy of successive governments, recognising the shifting population away from London. Changes need to be managed carefully, taking into account, for example, the advantages of a specialist hospital being located in or near a teaching hospital.
My noble friend Lord McColl asked about trust status. The background is that in July 1990 a trust application was received from the proposed City and Hackney Trust. The proposed trust included St. Mark's Hospital and the application proposed that St. Mark's should transfer to the St. Bartholomew's site, which retained a distinct identity. The proposal, which would have involved capital investment of over I6 million, was supported by the senior clinicians of St. Mark's.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health did not establish the City and Hackney Trust, although he expressed confidence that it had the potential to become a successful trust in the future. One of the reasons why he did not feel able to establish it was that the effect of the capital plans on the unit's costs and prices would have rendered it uncompetitive. The City and Hackney has revised the capital plans and as part of that revision believes that the transfer of St. Mark's can be achieved at a much lower cost than the £16 million originally proposed.
The trust project team of City and Hackney are currently considering whether to resubmit the application this year. Senior clinicians of St. Mark's will need to decide whether they wish to be included in the trust proposal or whether they prefer to seek trust status as a separate entity. Either option is open to them. St. Mark's is a small hospital and in considering whether to apply separately it would need to consider carefully whether the hospital's income was sufficient to cover its costs and overheads including the capital cost of the current hospital's buildings which have a

1693
high capital value and will be in need of substantial repair if the hospital does not transfer to St. Bartholomew's.
As was said during the debate, St. Mark's draws its patients from a large number of health authorities. It needs to consider the overhead costs of setting up a separate management structure to enable it to cope with the large numbers of service contracts which it would manage.
Finally, on that subject, whether the decision is made to seek trust status separately or to remain within the City and Hackney unit, the application will be subject to public consultation and detailed financial assessment. The Secretary of State will make a decision on the basis of four key criteria: first, the benefits to patients in improvements in the quality of the services—and the proposed trust would deliver them; secondly, the strength and effectiveness of its leadership and management; thirdly, the involvement in management of key professional staff, especially clinicians; and, fourthly, the proposed trust's financial viability. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the NHS management executive will offer whatever help and advice they can. However, it is for senior clinicians at St. Mark's to decide what course of action they feel is best.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, gave us a fascinating historical perspective of the development of London hospitals. His observations on hospitals with postgraduate status were of especial interest. He asked whether we are committed to high quality care. The Government fully recognise the importance of centres of excellence producing high quality care. However, we are not convinced that that means providing every service in the same place, as now. Services in London, as in other major centres, are constantly adapting and changing to meet medical advances and changes in the population.
I hope that I have offered some reassurance about the respect in which St. Mark's Hospital is held, and about the discussions which have taken place on options which include housing its valued services in a better location. Those discussions have not yet finished. Other options may emerge. I hope that I have conveyed the feelings of my colleagues on the painstaking procedure which would have to be followed in the event of a proposal for significant change.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and my noble friend Lady Hooper will study with interest what your Lordships said today. They will be left in no doubt about the strength of feeling that the future of St. Mark's inspires. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, asked that the patient be heard. I assure him that today the patient has been heard.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may take one crumb of comfort from his wide-ranging, if not wholly reassuring, statement; namely, his assurance that Ministers, including the Secretary of State, will receive a deputation to discuss the future of St. Mark's.

London Docklands Railway (Lewisham, etc.) Bill
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they have made the following orders to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
That the Promotors 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;
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 their first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
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;
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;
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;
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.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes
before six o'clock.

  IRAQ: NUCLEAR FACILITIES
  IRAQ: NUCLEAR FACILITIES
  ZERO INFLATION
  ZERO INFLATION