Sitting of 16 July 1991

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

    BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords]
    Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.
    Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

    LONDON UNDERGROUND (SAFETY MEASURES) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time tomorrow.

    LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (BURRY PORT HARBOUR) BILL [Lords]
    Motion made,
    That the Promoters of the Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [Lords] 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 of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
    That the Petitions against 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.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 4) BILL [Lords]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 4) Bill [Lords] 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 no later than the day before the close of the
    202
    present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That, if that Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
    Ordered,
    That the Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
    Ordered,
    That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
    Ordered,
    That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words 'under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)' were omitted;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [LORDS]
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Commercial and Private Bank Bill [Lords] 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 of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
    Ordered,
    That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
    Ordered,
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
    That these Orders be Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    Ordered,
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    Ordered,
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    Ordered,
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    NHS Reforms
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the health service reforms.
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss the health service reforms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet leaders of the British Medical Association to discuss changes in the national health service.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): I last met representatives of the British Medical Association on 9 July. We had useful talks on several topics related to the reform programme.
    Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the BMA is concerned about the policy of opt-out for hospitals and I know that he is also aware of the consultations taking place between Withington and Wythenshawe hospitals about the rationalisation of services, especially the closure of the maternity unit. Now that Wythenshawe hospital has expressed an interest in opting out, the management of Withington hospital may now wish to retain all its services, including the maternity unit. Will the Secretary of State give the assurance today that the maternity unit at Withington can remain open until decisions have been taken about whether Wythenshawe can opt out?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no question of opting out. There has been a first expression of interest in establishing a national health service trust for one of those hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman knows—I believe that he recently met the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) to discuss the matter—we are considering that reorganisation, as we are statutorily required to do, on its merits and quite separate from the issue of approving any NHS trusts in due course.
    Mr. Sims: Is not one of the most important aspects of the reforms the emphasis that is placed on health promotion, by encouraging people to eat and drink sensibly, warning them of the dangers of tobacco products and providing doctors with incentives to provide health checks, immunisation and screening? Is it not a fact that the British Medical Association and all doctors fully support those changes?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The British Medical Journal contained a generous leader by Mr. John Ashton, head of the department of public health at the university of Liverpool welcoming the steps that the Government have taken in publishing "The Health of the Nation". There has been widespread welcome for the publication of the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and for the tougher action that we are

    205
    taking on cigarette labelling. Together with the general practitioners' contract and its emphasis on preventive medicine, those steps allow the Government to claim that we are the first Government to take forward those matters with such vigour.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an increasing number of GP members of the BMA are seeking to pass on the undoubted benefits of his reforms to their patients by becoming fund-holders and will he now end the patient list limitation so that an increasing number of doctors can become fund-holders if that is their wish?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. GP fund-holders are bringing forward many innovative new ideas for the better treatment of their patients, which are already being picked up by the district health authorities for the general benefit. Many GPs are pressing me to lower the list size qualification. We are running some experiments and pilot schemes on that, which I hope will be successful.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the innovative movements, but has the BMA suggested that it needs more GP trainers and trainees? In drawing up the junior doctors' contract, has any consideration been given to increasing the number of medical students?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Yesterday evening I met the regional deans, including the dean from Northern Ireland, to discuss these matters. Although in general they welcome the new structure, which protects their budget, we discussed real issues about the total number of doctors needed. That is why yesterday I announced the establishment of a new committee chaired by Professor Colin Campbell to examine and measure objectively the total need for doctors in the years ahead.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the anxiety expressed by Opposition Members about national health service reforms is caused by their astonishment that the Government have listened so carefully and effectively to what GPs and many others have been saying for many years? For example, in Kent, where the number of practice nurses has trebled in the past three years, general practitioners are finding increasingly that the NHS reforms provide them with a tremendous opportunity to improve and innovate.
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is absolutely no question but that the improvements which have been made in general practice and community medicine in the past 10 years have in many cases transformed the services available to patients. Patients know that and welcome it warmly, as they have done in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Robin Cook: If the Secretary of State is so anxious to listen to the views of GPs, which of the BMA's conference resolutions will he be most anxious to discuss when he next meets that body? Will it be the one that records the BMA's view that the reforms of the health service mean that the NHS is not safe in his hands? Or will it be the one that expressed concern at the rapid deterioration of the NHS? Or would the Secretary of State rather meet the 600 consultants who paid for a page in The Observer warning that as a result of the changes there are now serious restrictions on patients' choice? If the Secretary of State prefers the views of patients, will he meet the community health councils, whose conference a week
    206
    ago resolved that contracting could not remedy underfunding? Is not the reality that the Government are not interested in anyone's opinion but their own and will not listen to anyone but themselves?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall address that part of the BMA motion that said that it sought
    "constructive dialogue with the Government rather than confrontation."
    Of course, that is what we shall seek.
    I am surprised to see the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) engage in such debate. He recently visited Walton. It was a rather unsuccessful visit during which he involved himself in the affairs of the Fazakerley hospital with the result that one of the consultants said:
    "These electioneering politicians make me sick. They won't talk about the expansion at Fazakerley … The Fazakerley option was what the clinicians wanted. It is clearly the best way to deliver health care on one site."
    That was followed up by the hospital doctor who said:
    "It is ironic that Labour, which criticises the Government for not listening to the views of doctors on its health reforms, is now itself choosing to ignore medical opinion."
    A little quiet from the hon. Gentleman would be in order.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the new constructive dialogue which has been established between his Department and the BMA. Will the new committee that has been set up merely discuss the health service and the reforms, or could it be extremely constructive and seek to monitor and evaluate the effects of the reforms in the national health service? If the latter is the case, I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could confirm it to the House this afternoon.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the joint work that we intend to do on GP fundholding, in particular with the general medical services committee. I assure my hon. Friend that that will be a continuing assessment and that we shall listen to recommendations which come out of that work.

    Cervical Smears
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have now met the targets set for the time scale of results of cervical smears to be relayed to general practitioners and patients.
    The Minster for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Health authority laboratories must aim to return the results of cervical smear tests within one month to the doctor who took them. Latest figures show that 173 district health authorities—that is 93 per cent.—were meeting the target.
    Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will appreciate that that is an improvement on the previous statistics. Does she recall that on 21 February she said that one third of the laboratories were not meeting that target and that there was a waiting list of about 7·5 weeks for the processing of tests? What is the waiting time in areas where the target is not being met?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Thirteen districts are not meeting the target, the longest wait, at the latest date, being 13 weeks. The vast majority have waits of much less than that. The particular case is being closely investigated, but there has been a substantial improvement. Last July, about two thirds of districts were meeting the target. Now, 93 per

    207
    cent. of them are. Perhaps even more important, nine out of 10 GPs are obtaining their target payments for making sure that they take cervical smears in the first place. This is real health promotion and disease prevention.
    Mr. Marlow: Health Ministers are rightly introducing initiatives to deal with the health care of women, but half the population, by and large, is made up of men. What health care initiatives does my hon. Friend intend to put forward to look after us?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend and I shall enter into urgent discussions with him to see what further steps we can take to improve the health care of men. Women not only make up the majority of the population; they make up the overwhelming majority of those who work in the NHS, and for the most part, they are the decision makers and communicators in their families about health. I agree, however, that we must give further concern to the health care of men, whose life expectancy is not, I regret, as great as that of women.

    NHS Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of capital expenditure in the national health service in 1978–79; and what is the figure for 1991–92.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): NHS capital expenditure is planned to be £1·9 billion in 1991–92 compared with £0·4 billion in 1978–79, an increase in real terms of 68 per cent.
    Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for those excellent figures. He will have laid emphasis on the fact that in 1979 the last Labour Government —to balance their financial books, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund—cut and cut again capital expenditure in the NHS. Those cuts impeded the development of the service in the Birmingham area, which under the present Government is launching the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" campaign, along with hundreds of millions of pounds of investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that only under a Conservative Government is that possible?
    Mr. Dorrell: The track record squares absolutely with my hon. Friend's version. Between 1974 and 1979 the Labour party cut the NHS capital programme by 16 per cent. in real terms, compared with the increase of 68 per cent. that I have just announced. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that in Birmingham we currently have in progress a programme costing £15·9 million at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, £23·4 million at the East Birmingham hospital, £5·6 million at the Good Hope hospital, and £2·5 million at the Dudley Road hospital. That represents a total of schemes in progress of £47·4 million, without taking account of the £310 million which we are committed to spend on the "Building a Healthy Birmingham" programme.
    Mr. Ashley: Before the Minister and other members of the Government try to score too many party political points in relation to figures such as those, may I ask him to find time to read the letter in The Independent today, which is an account by a patient in a leading London
    208
    hospital casualty department which is filthy, hot and overcrowded? Is the Minister aware that that is the reality facing many patients in Britain today?
    Mr. Dorrell: The question that that patient or anyone else wishing to compare the records of the parties on capital expenditure must ask is which of the rival management teams available offers the best prospect of solving the problem—a team which, when it last had the opportunity, cut capital expenditure by 16 per cent., or a team which, since 1979, has seen capital expenditure increase by 68 per cent.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals applied for and were granted trust status in the first wave; and how many have expressed interest in possible inclusion in the second and third waves.
    Mr. Waldegrave: A total of 66 hospitals and other units applied for trust status in the first wave, of which 57 were established as trusts on 1 April this year; 130 expressions of interest were received for inclusion in the second wave, and 107 applications have been submitted. We also expect five or six first-wave candidates which were not established to resubmit their applications. We have not yet asked for formal expressions of interest in the third wave.
    Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, of the four district general hospitals that serve Twickenham, Kingston already has trust status, Ashford has applied for it in the second wave, and West Middlesex and Queen Mary's Roehampton, hospitals intend to apply for it in the third stage? Does he agree that that great enthusiasm for trust status is despite the efforts of Labour politicians to intimidate those national health service staff who might wish to be involved?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The fact that so many hospitals are applying for trust status shows that the staff involved have not been intimidated. We had to make the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) back down from his threats before the House on one occasion. I am delighted to say that, as my hon. Friend already knows, Kingston hospital NHS trust has already reduced the number of long waiters from 2,000 to 400 and the new building will be open this year, and the other applications are coming forward. In the case of Ashford, trust status was strongly supported by more than 80 per cent. of the consultants.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better to sort out what is happening with the first wave before considering another wave? Where trust status has been granted, as in the case of Leeds general infirmary, the impact has been the loss of 10 beds in Cookridge cancer hospital and eight night staff being told on 14 June, without any prior notification, that their jobs were to go. Is not that what is happening?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. The trust hospitals are matching good management to problems which have often existed for many years, and we are seeing quicker and better solutions to those problems for the benefit of patients. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
    Mr. Wiggin: Weston-super-Mare general hospital was fortunate enough to achieve trust status in the first round,

    209
    the trust is working extremely well and I can reasonably claim that the people of that excellent town are receiving better health care than ever before, but will my right hon. Friend discourage the regional health authority from seeking to remove some of the peripheral hospitals such as Burnham-on-Sea and Axbridge simply in the interests of tidy bureaucracy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend would expect, being a relatively near neighbour I am well aware of the issue and I shall look at it closely. I am also aware that the trust is doing extremely well and bringing new benefits to patients every week.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the hospitals included in the figures that he has announced for the second wave is King's College hospital in Camberwell. Since the changes in April, that hospital has been on red alert and closed to routine cases. Before the Secretary of State considers that hospital for a trust, will he reconsider the three invitations to visit the hospital that he has refused? Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to visit that hospital in financial crisis rather than spend time tomorrow only half a mile away from it at the Dulwich picture gallery, where he is opening an exhibition of portraits of old Etonians?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is a very heavyweight contribution. The hon. Gentleman is going to a meeting at King's College hospital tomorrow, and the leaflets advertising his presence contain untruths. I hope that he will take the opportunity to dissociate himself from those leaflets, which say:
    "King's College hospital to opt out of the national health service."
    The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a lie. He has backed down on the point before and I hope that he will do so again now.
    The hon. Gentleman recently made another unsuccessful visit, to Oldham hospital, to campaign against the consultants who wished the hospital to be a trust. He said then that a Labour Government would pour money into the NHS—[Interruption.] Oh yes, he did—I have the quote with me. A local newspaper reported the hon. Gentleman as saying:
    "A Labour Government would pour money into the NHS."
    On a recent visit to the British Medical Association, the hon. Gentleman said that additional expenditure of £6 billion was not out of the ball park, but when he was asked on "Panorama" where the money would come from, he said:
    "These are questions … that you will have to address to John Smith, who is my colleague"—
    there may be some doubt about that—
    "who handles the Exchequer questions."
    May we have answers from the Member who is responsible for those matters?

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing hospital waiting lists in Shropshire.
    Mr. Dorrell: In the 12 months to March 1991, the number of patients waiting for in-patient and day case
    210
    treatment in Shropshire fell by 17 per cent. More importantly, the number waiting for more than one year fell by 58 per cent.
    Mr. Gill: I am most grateful for those encouraging figures. Does not my hon. Friend agree that they are by no means unique in the country today and that, under the Conservative Government, and as a result of the management changes introduced last year, waiting lists have been reduced throughout the country? Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the Labour party that there is scarcely a patient today who cannot see a doctor, scarcely a patient who, having seen a doctor, is denied the drugs and medicine required, and scarcely a patient who, having been admitted to hospital, has not been entirely delighted with the care and attention received in hospital?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, particularly in relation to waiting lists. One figure has been consistently collected before and through the period of the last Labour Government and through this Government's term of office—the number of people waiting for in-patient treatment in the health service. That figure rose by 48 per cent. between 1974 and 1979, and has fallen by 9 per cent. since 1979.

    Clinical Guidelines
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss clinical guidelines; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Ministers and officials have regular contact with representatives of the British Medical Association and discuss a broad range of issues of mutual interest.
    Mr. Wardell: Does the Minister accept that, if the resources of the national health service are to be used to the maximum advantage of patients, it is crucial that clinical guidelines are laid down, both for general practitioners and for consultant surgeons, so that patients can have full confidence that the operations undertaken on them do not do them more harm than good, as is plainly the case in a large number of current procedures, including hysterectomies and operations for glue ear, to give just two examples?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is taking us into deep waters. I would not want the House to be the judge of which medical procedures are correct. We have effective royal colleges which monitor the standards and the Government have greatly strengthened the process of medical and clinical audit, which should further improve standards. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a particular issue with me in relation to a procedure that he fears is being wrongly applied, I shall be happy to put him in touch with the chief medical officer to discuss the issue further.
    Mr. Michael Morris: The key clinical guideline that all patients want when they see the consultant is to be told the date on which they will be operated on. Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on the NHS executive so that that is the norm in all 14 regions of this country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is in some of those spheres of convenience to patients—quite apart from medical standards, which I do not question—that the NHS can do a great deal more. The Government are doing a great deal more both to bring down the waiting times which were left at a high level by the last Labour Government, and to make the service more convenient for patients.
    Mr. Wigley: What clinical guidelines are given to consultants who identify a patient with an urgent need for an operation, cannot cope with the patient within the NHS for months, yet find time to do the operation privately at their own profit? Is that not a matter which should be regulated by severe clinical guidelines?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that urgent cases are admitted—50 per cent. of all cases are admitted at once off the waiting lists in the NHS, and of the remaining cases, the great majority are seen within about five weeks. Recently, the work that we did with the joint consultants committee laid down clear guidelines for the treatment of urgent cases, with the total support of all the professionals involved, including the British Medical Association.

    NHS Ambulance Trusts
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives have been taken by the national health service ambulance trusts; and how this will affect patient care.
    Mr. Dorrell: All three ambulance service trusts have taken positive steps to ensure quicker response times, staff are fully trained and each ambulance is manned with a paramedic. These improvements enhance the quality of care to patients.
    Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the new, well-run Norfolk and Waveney national health service ambulance trust has recently speeded up its paramedic training and has initiated a 24-hour message handling service for general practitioners? Does not this show that trust status leads to good management and value for money, to the benefit of NHS patients throughout the area?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. The fame of the NHS as an organisation that runs good ambulance services has spread beyond these shores. Yesterday, the Evening Standard reported that the Barcelona Olympics will benefit from NHS expertise in the operation of an ambulance service. Labour Members will benefit from hearing a quote from the director of NHS Overseas Enterprise Ltd., Mrs. Wark, who said:
    "The NHS gets a lot of criticism within the UK, but it still has the highest reputation of any health service in the world."
    Most NHS patients would agree with that.
    Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the only initiative taken by the Northumbria ambulance trust, apart from entering the car repair business, has been an increase in the salaries of the officers who first decided to apply for trust status? Does the Minister believe that these increases are in the interests of patients and if he does, will he say why the trust refuses to publish the figures?
    Mr. Dorrell: When the hon. Gentleman asks a question, he should be better informed. Since the establishment of the NHS trust in Northumbria, four new accident and emergency vehicles have been introduced into the service, response times for the ambulance service have improved, standby services in Northumbria have been increased so that there is 24-hour manning on the A1 route to Scotland, there is now one paramedic per vehicle, and the Northumbria ambulance service has been approved by the British Standards Institution under the BS 5750 scheme.
    Mr. Hayes: Is not it monstrous for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to go grubbing round our hospitals and ambulance stations with their trade union friends, cynically manipulating the fears of the elderly and the frail for a few cheap votes? Will my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to come clean and admit that trusts are not opting out of the health service and that it is against the law for them to make a profit?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide of ambulances.
    Mr. Dorrell: I echo my hon. Friend's invitation to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Perhaps I might also make a more modest suggestion, which is that he listens to the Devon branch of NUPE, which is anxious to ensure that the Devon ambulance service has the opportunity to become an NHS trust in the second wave.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the London ambulance service is applying for trust status, but at the same time has vehicles with inferior specifications, a reduction in the number of its officers by 50, a capping of the necessary overtime for emergency services and a move to divide patient transport services into 32 different organisations? Is he aware that the management is appointed entirely and directly by the Secretary of State, who, despite those deficiencies, has refused to see a deputation of London Members of Parliament? Is not this arrogant and undemocratic behaviour, which demands the condemnation of the House?
    Mr. Dorrell: No. The hon. Gentleman has got it diametrically wrong. Mr. Wilby has offered on a number of occasions to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Mr. Wilby is the man who has been charged with the management of the London ambulance service and he is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Some of my hon. Friends have met Mr. Wilby. Labour Members have consistently refused to do so. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was seriously interested in representing the intrests of his constituents, rather than those of NALGO, he would agree to meet Mr. Wilby to learn something about the affairs of the London ambulance service from its management.

    Junior Hospital Doctors
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to meet the British Medical Association to discuss working arrangements for junior hospital doctors.
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of the British Medical Association to discuss junior doctors' hours.
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has further to improve the working arrangements of junior hospital doctors.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We launched a new deal for junior doctors on 12 June aimed at reducing their hours of work and improving their living and working conditions. This has the full backing of the ministerial group on junior doctors' hours which includes British Medical Association representatives. This group, and its supporting technical group, will continue to meet to monitor progress in implementing the new arrangements. I spoke at the BMA's hospital junior staff committee conference on 15 June.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a welcome new agreement, but that its success depends on the co-operation of the consultants, nurses and ancillary workers and that there will have to be some changes of attitude towards junior hospital doctors, particularly among some senior consultants?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, Sir. However, the agreement is a great breakthrough. For 15 months the consultants, junior doctors and the NHS management worked together to hammer out the agreement setting explicit limits on the amount of time that junior doctors should work. It is not good enough that they should be working night and day. It is not good for the junior doctors; it is not good for the patients. The consultants and the royal colleges have had to think carefully about the implementation of the agreement and I am confident that, through the ministerial group, we shall continue to see vital progress.
    Mr. Eastham: On junior doctors working long hours and the consequences for patients, has not it taken between five and six years to obtain the agreement and is not it true that it is not expected to be fully implemented until the end of 1996 and that even then junior doctors' hours will be reduced to only a 60-hour week? Will the Minister give us a guarantee that there will be no change of mind and that funding will be available?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Before taking lectures from the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that when the Labour party was in government junior doctors worked an average of 91 hours a week. That is now down to about 81 hours. There is, of course, a difference between contracted hours of duty on call and actual working hours. We make it clear that the maximum amount of time on shift working should be 60 hours immediately and 56 hours by the end of 1994.
    If the hon. Gentleman wants more details, he should go to the regional conference in Manchester on 25 July, one of nine regional conferences, where the guidance will be spelt out and those who have only a partial understanding of the agreement will have the opportunity to understand the full significance of the breakthrough.
    Mr. Moss: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on her expert handling of the successful negotiations on junior hospital doctors' conditions of service. This is a major step forward—a view endorsed by the BMA in its recent letter to me. However, bearing in mind the fact that some 50 per cent. of medical students are women, what special steps, if any, does she propose to take to help women junior hospital doctors in particular?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I pay tribute to all the junior doctors' leaders who worked so hard to secure the agreement. It is another example of practical working together, quite distinct from the rhetoric of adversity and conflict peddled by the Opposition, and building up solid achievements and making progress. My hon. Friend is right that half medical students are women and we are concerned about losing so many of them. There are growing numbers of women general practitioners and doctors. As a practical step forward we have quadrupled the number of part-time registrar posts and developed further initiatives to secure their future so that they can serve the health service on the basis of their training.
    Mr. Nellist: The Minister will be aware of the case on which I have corresponded with her and the Secretary of State and which I raised with the Prime Minister about three weeks ago of a young junior hospital doctor who worked almost 120 hours during his first week at a hospital and who, at the end of those seven days, collapsed and died. Given that the agreement of which the Minister has spoken this afternoon means that in five years' time, in 1997, it will still be possible for junior hospital doctors to work 72 hours a week, is not that still too little of an agreement to stop the stress and strain on the young doctors replicating that experience, thus risking another death in the next five years?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree that being a junior doctor is much more stressful than it used to be. Modern medicine is much more complex and detailed. Ensuring that juniors are better supported, a better pastoral system, and improved working conditions are all part and parcel of the agreement. It is important to ensure also that junior doctors are properly supervised and that their working arrangements are adequately considered. The 72-hour maximum applies to doctors on duty, but those working consistently on a shift system would work a maximum of 56 hours. To ensure that progress is achieved, we not only established regional working parties but provided 200 extra consultants this year and an additional 50 staff grades. We have backed the agreement with new resources.

    Operations (Waiting Lists)
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had been waiting for an operation (a) for more than one year and (b) for more than two years on 30 April; and what were the comparable figures a year before.
    Mr. Waldegrave: Information on numbers waiting for operations is not available for April 1991, but provisional figures for all specialties show a fall of 20 per cent. in the number waiting more than one year since March 1990. The number waiting more than two years reduced by 39 per cent.
    Mr. Smith: Is not that an outstandingly successful achievement in the course of one year? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has less to do with the quantity of health service resources and more to do with the quality of management? How does that successful record compare with the achievement of the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend that the health service is getting better at avoiding long waiting lists and that it is treating more people more quickly. The last

    215
    Labour Government, like all previous Labour Governments, left waiting lists higher than they found them.
    Mr. Galbraith: Is not the Minister aware that the number of patients currently awaiting treatment is at 906,406, higher than in 1979, when the figure was 752,400? Is he aware that the percentage waiting more than one year remains almost unchanged at 25 per cent.? Does the Secretary of State agree with Sir Terence English, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who commented today on waiting lists:
    "The overall provision of resources and manpower are currently insufficient … to provide patients with the benefits of modern surgery"?
    Is not the real problem that identified by Sir Terence English—underfunding?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am a little disappointed with the hon. Gentleman, who should know better. He knows that he arrived at his first figure by not comparing like with like. In-patient figures have fallen. The hon. Gentleman was badly briefed on his second point. We have 40,000 fewer long-wait patients than did Labour, which is a drop of about 25 per cent.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to refer to our co-operative work with the Royal College of Surgeons, announced today, in respect of waiting list management. We welcome the college's contribution, which fits very closely with the guidelines that we issued.

    Women's Health
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken by the Government to improve the health of women; and how it will build on this work for attaining future targets.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Government place a high priority on improving the health of women. We are one of the first countries in the world to introduce computerised call and recall breast cervical cancer screening programmes. We recently published a booklet to publicise the help and services available to women.
    Mrs. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent survey of 5,000 women showing that cancer remains their single most worrying health concern? Does not that prove, if proof were needed, that the Government were right to guarantee a cervical smear to every woman between the ages of 20 and 64 and breast screening to every woman aged between 50 and 64? Were not the Government also right to hold out on targeting, despite all the opposition, to ensure that general practitioners encouraged women to come forward for cervical screening? I am pleased to report that all 70 GP practices in Wolverhampton have achieved one of the two targets set for them.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely powerfully. Labour advocates a two-tier health service in which inner city areas would have a lower target. We held out for all general practitioners to achieve higher targets, of the same standard, across the country. To help inner city areas, we introduced deprivation payments. That is the way to extend health care. My hon. Friend is right that health promotion and disease prevention for women have been a real breakthrough.

    HIV Testing
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions the Government have drawn from the voluntary named HIV testing studies among pregnant women initiated by the Medical Research Council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The results of the voluntary named testing studies in ante-natal clinics initiated by the Medical Research Council are being analysed. They will be published in the autumn.
    Mr. Strang: What is the Government's response to the vote at the annual general meeting of the British Medical Association in favour of routine provision of voluntary named testing for all women who attend ante-natal clinics? Does the Minister accept that if the Government are to implement such a desirable policy, they must first tackle the insurance companies, which ask people whether they have been tested and downgrade them for insurance purposes, regardless of whether the results were positive or negative?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. The recent results of anonymised testing are worrying: in many inner-city areas, there is a risk of about one in 200 pregnant women being HIV positive, while in rural areas the proportion is about one in 16,000.
    As a result, we have set up the AIDS action group, which will focus work on areas where the prevalence is high. We want to build on that and we shall give careful consideration to the BMA resolution, which states that it should be easier for women to present themselves voluntarily for testing.
    I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of the insurance aspect. We have made it clear that we feel that someone whose test has produced a negative result should be treated in the same way as someone who has not taken a test. Research is under way and we shall be making an announcement shortly.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Trotter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is hosting the economic summit.
    Mr. Trotter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the electricians' trade union on Tyneside play a great part in the economic success of our region? That union is not tied to out-of-date practices. Did my right hon. Friend know that Eric Hammond had recently warned his members of the dire consequences of socialist policy and does he agree that those consequences should be made known to all trade union members?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that all trade union members are becoming increasingly aware of them. Eric Hammond was talking about the minimum wage policy, which he said would
    "cause industrial unrest, discourage training, harm the economy, put more people on the dole and create a cycle whereby inflation continues to rise."

    217
    No wonder Opposition Ministers do not want to hear what a trade union leader has said. That is only one in a long line of devastating indictments of Labour's minimum wage policy. It is beginning to look like Napoleon's retreat from Moscow: bad news and more bad news every day.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to confirm that the Bank of England and the Treasury have known since the publication of the March 1990 Price Waterhouse report that serious irregularities were operating in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International?
    Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bank took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] This is a very important point. It took action as soon as it was satisfied that it would have evidence to support the use of its statutory powers. It cannot act on mere suspicion.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that the 1990 Price Waterhouse report said that BCCI was then virtually bankrupt and that hundreds of millions of dollars were being given in unsecured loans? Does he not think that if businesses, individuals and council treasurers had been aware of those conditions, they would then have formed an appropriate opinion on whether to use BCCI? A great deal of hardship and misery might thus have been avoided.
    Mr. MacGregor: The point is that the Bank must act according to the Banking Act 1987. Actions under that Act are subject to appeal and the Bank must therefore have evidence that would stand up in court before it does anything. It cannot act on rumours; it must have good evidence before acting. In this case, it acted as soon as it had such evidence.
    Mr. Kinnock: We are not talking about the Bank or the Government acting on the basis of rumours. We are talking about both bodies acting on the basis of a serious report from the auditors. The bank has now closed, 200,000 people have lost all or part of their savings and councils of all political descriptions have lost scores of millions of pounds. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Government accepted their share of the blame for these conditions instead of trying to shift the blame to the shoulders of people who simply could not have known what was going on in the same way as the Government could?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no question of shifting the blame. On the question of the individuals concerned, the right hon. Gentleman knows that under the deposit protection scheme compensation is paid to depositors up to certain levels of deposit. That gives considerable protection to small depositors. It is essential for the Bank to act on evidence that would stand up in court and it did so as soon as it had that evidence.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to reconsider the laws governing prison visits and the number of visitors allowed at any one time so that
    218
    all 28 Labour Members who agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) about nonpayment of the community charge may visit him together in gaol?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend asks an intriguing question, but it has a serious point. Since he raised the matter of the 28 Labour Members, it is worth mentioning that three years ago the Leader of the Opposition said that he would wipe out the Militants once and for all. He failed then, which is why we have called upon him to take action ever since. My hon. Friend has made the good point that the influence of Militant in the Labour party is still strong.
    Mr. Rees: Will the Leader of the House bring to the Prime Minister's notice the serious allegations made in The Guardian today about a "World in Action" programme which reported the comments of a former member of the Joint Intelligence Committee and the fact that serious matters are not brought to the attention of Cabinet Ministers or Parliament? They are serious allegations which should be investigated. Will he ask the Prime Minister, when he has finished today, to institute an inquiry, because such allegations cast doubt on matters that should not be in question?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen that "World in Action" programme, but I shall arrange for it to be looked at and will draw the right hon. Gentleman's point to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Q.3 Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to get a message to the Prime Minister at the economic summit to ask him to express regret at the assertion revealed today in The Sun that the election of Mr. Bush to the Presidency was based on a disgraceful campaign of slurs and attacks? Those assertions are apparently made in a letter from the general secretary of the Labour party.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the report and I hope that it is not true. If it is true, it is a disgraceful slur and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition would wish to have it withdrawn.
    Ms. Walley: With so many international leaders meeting in London this week, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell the House why his Government have no policy on British shipping? Now that the House has been denied the opportunity to debate and vote on this matter, will he tell us why he is not giving the support to British shipping that other countries enjoy?
    Mr. MacGregor: There already is support for British shipping, but it was made clear in one of the debates last night that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering proposals put forward during that debate.
    Mr. Knowles: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.

    219
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Knowles: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when he sees the Prime Minister—
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will he recognise him?
    Mr. Knowles: During the Group of Seven conference and discussions with President Gorbachev, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make it clear that the Baltic states have not been forgotten, that none of the G7 countries has ever accepted the Soviet conquest of those three states and that that must be a starting point for any discussions about aid and investment?
    Mr. MacGregor: I certainly take note of my hon. Friend's point.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Leader of the House aware that at this morning's annual general meeting of British Airways, Lord King announced that, because of the appalling incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport in his dealings with American airlines, British Airways is considering selling off all but its core operations, including an aero overhaul plant in my constituency which employs 1,000 men and women? What is he going to do to prevent such a calamity for south Wales?
    Mr. MacGregor: I certainly reject the allegation about my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The whole House knows of the way in which he has conducted these matters.
    Mr. William Powell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to re-read the excellent speech made a few days ago by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the future of our education system and will he pay special attention to the passage which deals with the future of city technology colleges? Can we expect early action by the Government to ensure a great increase in the number of CTCs?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thought that it was an admirable speech which showed the tremendous progress that has been made under our education policies. My hon. Friend makes it clear that one programme—only one among many—is that for city technology colleges. There are now 13 in operation or about to be in operation and two more in the pipeline. They are undoubtedly making a big impact in inner-city areas by extending technology and involving industry and commerce. My right hon. Friend mentioned two other ways in which the programme can be carried forward—allowing local education authorities to invest in CTCs and allowing grant-maintained CTCs. It is worth pursuing both ideas and I am sure that we shall do so as soon as legislative time permits.
    Mr. Wallace: To revert to the BCCI affair, is the Leader of the House satisfied that in all respects the Bank of England and the relevant Government Departments took the proper action at the proper time?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I believe that the Bank of England acted on the evidence at the proper time.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to read the report that has just been issued by the Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau? Does he agree that it is encouraging to hear overseas business men say that we have better-qualified and better-trained engineers than the Japanese and that we now have almost no strikes in this country? Does not the report show that under this Government the British disease of the 1960s and 1970s has now been cured—[Interruption] Would not that be reversed under a Labour Government?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not at all surprised that some members of the Opposition did not want my hon. Friend to finish his question, because they do not like good news. I believe that the Invest in Britain Bureau survey is the authentic verdict on the country's economic progress and policies. It is worth telling the House that the majority of those involved in the survey found that British factories were more productive than those in the rest of the world. They found our industrial relations excellent and improving. They found that our workers had the skill and expertise that they wanted and they intend to make further investments in this country.
    Opposition Members did not like the comment that my hon. Friend made about the so-called "British disease" of the 1960s and 1970s. It is worth referring to the statement made recently by Gavyn Davies in reference to current trends on pay and prices. He said—[Interruption.] I am not surprised that Opposition Members do not like it. He said—it is directly relevant to my hon. Friend's point—
    "This means that Britain's perennial problem of excess labour cost is being solved."
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Leader of the House confirm that in addition to describing the incompetence of the Secretary of State for Transport in giving away large chunks of British Airways' business to American Airlines and United Airlines, Lord King also said that he was reviewing the practice by British Airways of making large donations to the Tory party? He said that he was considering opening negotiations with the Labour party, because, unlike the Government, we have a transport policy. As the leader of a large transport undertaking, Lord King wanted there to be a Government with whom he could work in helping British transport undertakings to create more jobs and more business for this country.
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that any industrialist considering opening negotiations with the Labour party will ask it about its policy of an extra £35 billion on public expenditure and about the consequences of that for higher taxation, higher borrowing and higher interest. I hope that such an industrialist will ask it about its policy for the minimum wage and about its industrial relations policies which will take us back to a situation such as we had, alas, in the late 1970s and which we hope never to see again.

Points of Order
3.32 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A press conference is taking place at the moment to amplify an answer to Question 98 on today's Order Paper. It concerns the relocation or redistribution of responsibilities within naval bases in this country. It is of particular interest to Scottish Members and to Members in the south-west. The matter is sufficiently important to require the presence at the press conference of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They have already declined to come to the House to advise hon. Members of what is being said at the press conference. Do you consider that they should be required to come to the Dispatch Box to explain their actions?
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows that I deprecate press conferences given in amplification of answers to questions. If I had had that knowledge before midday, I might have taken a different view when making my decision on this matter.
Mr. O'Neill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following up your helpful remarks, would you instruct the Leader of the House, who has answered questions today, to require his colleagues to come to the House? This is not a matter of party advantage. We do not know what the outcome of the question will be. The House is entitled to know and to have the same access to Ministers which members of the press have.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am dealing with a point of order already. The question was to me. I have no authority today to do what the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) asks, but I will look sympathetically at the matter tomorrow.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you examine today's Order Paper, you will see that the question is in my name. That will not surprise anyone because I have been campaigning in Scotland about the importance of the Scottish input in the defence infrastructure of the United Kingdom. It is quite proper that I, among others, should take an interest in having the question answered.
Mr. Speaker: That was not the thrust of the point of order. It is perfectly in order to answer a written question. The purpose of the hon. Member for Clackmannan was to seek my view about a press conference being given to amplify the answer. I have made my views clear.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning, which did not finish until 1 pm, the Secretary of State for Scotland was pressed precisely on this issue and refused to give a reply? Does that not show contempt for the Scottish Grand Committee as well as for the House?
Mr. Speaker: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his last comment; I am afraid that I did not hear it.
Mr. Clarke: Several times this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee the Secretary of State for Scotland was
222
asked a precise question. He refused to reply. He refused even to say whether a press conference would take place, although the Committee sitting finished as recently as 1 o'clock today. Does that not display contempt both for the Scottish Grand Committee and for the House?
Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the Secretary of State had heard about the press conference; I certainly have not.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that in the last year or so hon. Members on both sides of the House have attempted to get an answer about naval bases. I understand from members of the press, who seem to have been told at about 12 o'clock today, that all the naval bases are mentioned. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, have any power to ensure that an early statement is made to the House so that we can question Ministers. I understand that the news is good; Ministers may have felt that they had to come to the House only if the news was bad. We could offer them our congratulations—or, at least, we could find out where we are.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with this matter first. The whole House knows my view that, if press conferences are to be held, a statement should first be made in the House. I feel strongly about that, and I have already made my views plain. I cannot do anything about the matter today, but I may seek to do so tomorrow.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I raised this very point with the Leader of the House during business questions on Thursday. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that matters would be delayed—in effect, until the return of the House in October. I have no complaint about the use of written questions, but I have complained—and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take my complaint on board—that when hon. Members, assiduous in their duties, timeously ask during business questions what is likely to happen, it shows gross disrespect to the House if the Leader of the House does not exercise his responsibilities to the House as a whole and ensure that Ministers give us the information rather than giving it to the press.
I am not being wise after the event. I raised the question on Thursday. We need a strict undertaking from you, Mr. Speaker, that you will use your good offices on behalf of the House to speak to the Leader of the House, who has responsibilities to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot say any more than I have said. I have already made it plain that tomorrow I shall look sympathetically upon any requests made to me.
Mr. Donald Dewar: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong the points of order, but it is important to draw to your attention the fact that there were exchanges with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the subject during the Scottish Grand Committee this morning—they were most unrewarding in terms of information given. I should also draw to your attention the fact that I have just received a copy of a letter delivered today to the convener of Fife region from Vice Admiral Sir Hugo White, the flag officer, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which says:

223
"I am therefore writing to let you know that the Secretary of State for Defence will today announce a proposal to reduce progressively the base's capability"—
that is, Rosyth base—
"and that it will eventually support only minor war vessels. The base infrastructure will therefore be subject to a planned rundown related to the dates to be agreed for the changes to Type 42 Destroyer base ports. This will sadly but inevitably lead to significant job losses and the prospect of accompanying redundancies."
That information is being bandied about and supplied to people outside the House, which makes it doubly important that the House should be informed. We must be given the chance to hear the information today and to cross-question Ministers about what it means and why so many competing stories are being put about concerning the future of the base.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot say more than I have already said about it. If the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman thinks that the matter is so urgent that we must have a statement today, I remind him that that can be achieved only through the usual channels. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the equivalent of press conferences should be given to the House by the Secretary of State, and not to outside bodies before us. If the Minister does not make a statement tomorrow, I shall look sympathetically on a private notice question.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are vital matters of national security and public defence. I understand that there is a possibility that, when President Gorbachev comes here, he will be accompanied by members of the KGB. In view of the recent evidence of KGB-type activities in the people's republic of Liverpool, where political dissidents have been subjected to clandestine photography and worse, if any statement is to be made, would it be possible to establish that these witch hunts are purely part of the digestive system of the Labour party and have nothing to do with the old guard in the entourage of President Gorbachev?
Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of what you have heard and the way in which you have responded to it, will you entertain the moving of a motion under Standing Order 20 so that the matter can now be properly debated on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Speaker: Not today.
Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all understand that you have repeatedly said that you deplore such situations and, equally, that you have no power to force Ministers to come before the House and make a statement, but may I ask you, Sir, to bear in mind the fact that you have powers that could influence Ministers' thinking very strongly? Ministers might well feel that a PNQ alone is an easier option than a full statement. But if you said now that you would consider sympathetically not just an application for a PNQ but an application under Standing Order 20 for an emergency debate the following day, it might have an effect on the Minister's disposition to come here tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical at the moment.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We hear a great deal about parliamentary sovereignty and about how you are here to protect hon. Members. We fully accept that you are not responsible for Government business. However, we had the Leader of the House here a few moments ago, and he has now left. Would it not be appropriate to have some discussion behind the Chair that resulted in a statement being made on this matter at 7 o'clock tonight?
Mr. Speaker: I have already made my views about that clear. The hon. Gentleman is merely repeating what I have just said.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we have a heavy day ahead of us on the Finance Bill.
Mr. Dewar: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to prolong the points of order, but this is a matter of importance. Opposition Members are naturally reluctant to let the matter drift away without any firm understanding of what will happen. It seems to me that there is a firm view—which I think will be shared by Conservative Members with defence interests—that there should be a statement today, particularly in view of the letter that I read to the House from the flag officer. Would it not be possible to get some indication now—I know that the Leader of the House is not here—from a responsible Minister that there will be a statement later today, perhaps most conveniently at 7 o'clock?
Mr. Speaker: That would certainly be a possibility, but, as I have already said, it is a matter for the usual channels and not for me. I cannot force the issue.
Mr. Tony Banks: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told the House that he had for a long time expressed a close interest in the developing plans for the rationalisation of the Royal Navy support infrastructure. No one would dispute that, Sir, but the hon. Gentleman happened to table last night the question that has been used as the reason for the press conference.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the Order Paper. Questions 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 were all tabled before 10.30 pm yesterday. All of them were tabled by Conservative Back Benchers and all of them call for statements from Ministers. I understand, Sir, that this is perhaps more appropriately a matter for the Procedure Committee, but it would greatly assist those of us on the Procedure Committee, and all those interested in good order, if you expressed your opinion about clearly planted questions being tabled the previous night, thus making it very difficult for Opposition Members to put in their four penn'orth.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Procedure Committee and he can do that himself.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), may I say that I had to be in Scotland this morning. At the same time that the Scottish Grand Committee meeting was held in this House, the news was broadcast at 12 o'clock in Scotland that the Government had confirmed, not the factual situation about Rosyth, but what we now know is a

225
version of events. We are dealing not simply with contempt of the Scottish Grand Committee or contempt of the House, but with news management in order to present what by any standards is a partisan account of events to mislead the House and the public. There must be a statement at 7 o'clock to clarify matters.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that in order to run this show there has to be a careful balance between yourself, the usual channels and the House as a whole. It has been obvious for some time that the Government are trying to upset that balance by the use of planted questions, not only at Prime Minister's Question Time, which has been commented upon in most of the newspapers lately, but also in questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a fortnight ago, who planted a question with a Conservative Member from Lancashire about the state of dioxin in milk in my constituency and nowhere else in Britain. We have seen a further usurpation of that balance today. There are occasions when Mr. Speaker must restore the balance
Far from just deprecating what is happening, it would make a great deal of sense today if the Speaker of the House of Commons made it clear to that bunch on the Treasury Bench that they should get someone to the Dispatch Box later today. You could say that, and it would help to restore the balance.
Mr. Speaker: I have already said it.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is obvious from questions put to you that I am under attack, I must stress that my interest in the matter arose primarily because we knew that we would be debating in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning the Scottish economy and employment prospects in Fife, which are tied up with the naval base and its future. Therefore, I deemed it prudent to approach my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to see whether I could have an early response to my many requests about the decision on the future of the Royal Navy support, and they gladly agreed that that should be done today.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Time was when Ministers always made statements to the House before they made them outside. I hope that we can get back to that practice. This Chamber is the forum of the nation. This is where statements should always first be made, not to those outside.
Mr. James Wallace: You have made your views perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, and you have dropped the broadest of hints. In order that there may be some time for mature reflection on what you have said, I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 235.

Division No. 212]

[3.47 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Beggs, Roy

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

226

Carr, Michael

Salmond, Alex

Cartwright, John

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Douglas, Dick

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Fearn, Ronald

Trimble, David

Howells, Geraint

Wigley, Dafydd

Johnston, Sir Russell

Kennedy, Charles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Maclennan, Robert

Mr. James Wallace and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

NOES

Adley, Robert

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Evennett, David

Allason, Rupert

Farr, Sir John

Arbuthnot, James

Favell, Tony

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Ashby, David

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Aspinwall, Jack

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Atkinson, David

Fookes, Dame Janet

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Forth, Eric

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Franks, Cecil

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Freeman, Roger

Batiste, Spencer

Fry, Peter

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Gale, Roger

Bevan, David Gilroy

Gardiner, Sir George

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Gill, Christopher

Body, Sir Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Boswell, Tim

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Bottomley, Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gorst, John

Bowis, John

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gregory, Conal

Brazier, Julian

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Bright, Graham

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

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

Grist, Ian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Grylls, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Hague, William

Buck, Sir Antony

Hanley, Jeremy

Budgen, Nicholas

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

Burns, Simon

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Burt, Alistair

Harris, David

Butler, Chris

Haselhurst, Alan

Butterfill, John

Hawkins, Christopher

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hayes, Jerry

Canavan, Dennis

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Carrington, Matthew

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Cash, William

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hill, James

Chope, Christopher

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

Home Robertson, John

Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Sir Peter

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cormack, Patrick

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cox, Tom

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cryer, Bob

Irvine, Michael

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Jack, Michael

Curry, David

Jessel, Toby

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

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Day, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Devlin, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Dickens, Geoffrey

Kilfedder, James

Dicks, Terry

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Dixon, Don

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dorrell, Stephen

Knapman, Roger

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Dover, Den

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Dunn, Bob

Lamond, James

Durant, Sir Anthony

Latham, Michael

Eggar, Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Emery, Sir Peter

Lee, John (Pendle)

227

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Rowe, Andrew

Lightbown, David

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lord, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Loyden, Eddie

Shaw, David (Dover)

Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Maclean, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Shersby, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Sims, Roger

Mans, Keith

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maples, John

Skinner, Dennis

Marlow, Tony

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Speller, Tony

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maude, Hon Francis

Steen, Anthony

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stevens, Lewis

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Moore, Rt Hon John

Stokes, Sir John

Morley, Elliot

Summerson, Hugo

Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moss, Malcolm

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mowlam, Marjorie

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mudd, David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Neale, Sir Gerrard

Thorne, Neil

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thurnham, Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Tracey, Richard

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Tredinnick, David

Norris, Steve

Trotter, Neville

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Twinn, Dr Ian

Page, Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Patnick, Irvine

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ward, John

Pawsey, James

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Warren, Kenneth

Porter, David (Waveney)

Watts, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Wheeler, Sir John

Price, Sir David

Whitney, Ray

Raffan, Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Wiggin, Jerry

Rathbone, Tim

Wood, Timothy

Riddick, Graham

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Tellers for the Noes:

Roe, Mrs Marion

Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you consider, as you no doubt will, the stunt that we have just witnessed, I suggest that there are two points that you might like to bear in mind. The first is the time at which the television cameras stop showing the proceedings in the Chamber. There is a definite interest for those who do not wish good news to be announced in the House to prolong the proceedings so that there is no longer live coverage of them.
Secondly, bearing in mind what you said before the Division in relation to points of order, may I ask you to consider the rumours that have come to my ears at least that there might have been a statement this afternoon about the matter had the Labour party wished to have one —[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Will you consider the matter, Mr. Speaker, remembering that if there is shown to be substance in it, that would shed an entirely new light on the behaviour of the Opposition?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I cannot deal with rumours.
Mr. O'Neill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware, following that time-wasting smear from the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), that had the Government wished, they could have made a statement in the House at 3.30 and announced what they would regard as good news in prime television time? We requested through the usual channels that such a statement be made, but that was declined. That is the truth of the matter.
The four-page answer to the question is of such complexity that it requires the House to give it its considered opinion and concern. So it is important that the Government business managers should come to the House and explain what they propose to do about this state of affairs.
From a rough reading of the answer, I am led to believe that there will be in excess of 2,000 redundancies, with a sizeable number of people having to be moved across the United Kingdom. This is a major issue of security, defence and economic significance and the Government cannot escape that fact.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): In the absence of the Leader of the House, may I clarify two points? First, it may be for the benefit of the House if the usual channels had discussions following the exchanges that have taken place in the last few minutes. Secondly, I shall report those exchanges to the Secretary of State for Defence. I must emphasise that discussions took place this morning and that it was understood that a statement would be required only if Rosyth was closed. Rosyth is not closed.
Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I should like to read the letter that I have received from the Minister of State. Without going into all of it, I wish to record how insulting the procedure adopted by the Government has been to the House. They held a press conference at 3.30 and the letter was put on the Letter Board for myself and other hon. Members. The letter, which partially explains the situation, says at the end:
"I would be grateful if you would treat this as in confidence until the announcement has been made."
We are asked to treat in confidence matters that are in the public domain. That is an insult to the House and to all our procedures. We should receive from the Government a promise that a statement on the subject will be made this evening.
Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) referred to a stunt. I did not take part in the vote because, like several hon. Members, I hesitated to vote for a motion that would make people leave the Strangers' Gallery. Such motions and points of order—to which you have listened, Mr. Speaker, very courteously—would not have arisen had not the House been treated with utter contempt. If we are not to have the necessary statement, as a last resort hon. Members have a duty and responsibility to their constituents to ensure that their voice is heard by means of motions, points of order, or any other means.
Sir David Steel: Further to the point or order, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Leader of the House, the Government Chief Whip told us something about the past. Will he say what the Government propose to do and whether there will be a statement tomorrow, as the House wishes?
Mr. Wilson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question arises from the smears of the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). The rules of the House state that we should not refer to the Press Gallery or the Strangers' Gallery. Is it within the rules that, in such a serious matter, an hon. Gentleman can suggest that concern about thousands of jobs being at stake is expressed simply to play to the cameras in television prime time? That is an outrageous and offensive suggestion, especially by a right hon. Gentleman who is supposed to hold a position of prestige within his party. Can the rules relating to Galleries and the media be extended to television cameras?
Mr. Speaker: I think that I shall now close the debate by saying that this may serve as a lesson to the whole House and that, in future, important statements should be made in the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1608) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

Helicopters and Heliports
4.7 pm
Ms. Kate Hoey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to helicopter safety and air traffic control; to amend the law relating to planning controls on heliports; to protect the environment by restricting noise levels and controlling the use of helicopters; to assign responsibilities and duties in relation to helicopters; and for connected purposes.
It is widely acknowledged that the law relating to helicopter movements and landing sites is unsatisfactory. Under the General Development Order, operators can use temporary or ad hoc sites for landing and take off for up to 28 days a year without planning permission, or consent from the Civil Aviation Authority. The days can be consecutive and there is no restriction on the number of movements. Helicopters can land on and take off from any site, so long as the pilot regards it as safe. They can use gardens, car parks, roofs of buildings, and so on. Planning permission may be required for the construction of hangars or landing pads, but it is not required when landing or taking off is incidental to the main use of the land—for example, when it is from an office building or a private house.
No one is responsible for monitoring that ad hoc use of helicopters and it is easy for the 28-day rule to be breached. The noise review working party of the Department of the Environment stated that the use of helicopters at private landing sites had greatly increased in recent years and was expected to increase further. However, because there is no requirement for the CAA to monitor helicopter overflights, especially in the central London zone, there is no record of landings, movements or routes flown.
For safety reasons, the CAA restricts single-engined helicopters in London to defined routes, especially following the River Thames. However, twin-engined helicopters are not restricted to routes and can fly anywhere over London in accordance with air traffic control instructions. Both the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities have been pressing the Government for licensing controls on commercial services to be given to a representative Londonwide control authority, which would consult local authorities.
Although a London helicopter advisory committee has recently been set up, its terms of reference do not include drawing up a Londonwide policy on helicopters. There is clearly a weakness with regard to strategic planning policy on the location and control of heliport and helipad facilities in London. The London planning advisory committee, set up after the abolition of the Greater London council, did not include a policy on heliports in its 1988 strategic planning advice for London; nor did the Secretary of State's planning guidance for London.
Helicopters create a particularly unpleasant and disturbing noise because of the volume, pitch and type of sound produced—the characteristic blade slap. The effect is that helicopters generate greater fears of crashing, induce feelings of visual intrusion and are generally perceived as more annoying than fixed-wing aircraft. In addition, there are problems in relation to measuring the noise because there is no consensus on a formula. According to the Airfields Advisory Federation, a widely

231
respected independent organisation, the current Government standards are widely regarded as outdated, and were not originally developed for helicopters.
Objection to helicopters on the basis of noise goes far beyond the simple syndrome of "not in my back yard", or nimbyism. The effects can be psychologically damaging and stressful for those living and working in close proximity to where the helicopters are used. The length of the Thames riverside is plagued by helicopters as it is considered the most suitable location for heliports and helipads. However, in its planning guidance to boroughs, the Department of the Environment specifically draws attention to the river being one of London's greatest assets and asks boroughs to give particular attention to the character of any development proposed on or near the river. That is precisely what boroughs from Richmond to Tower Hamlets want to do, but they do not have the powers to control the increasing environmental pollution from helicopters.
The River Thames is being allowed to become the noise sewer of London. A public inquiry into the plans for Cannon street heliport last autumn showed how strong the opposition to an increase in helicopter use in London was among people who live and work there. Any day now we expect the Secretary of State's decision on that proposed heliport. I hope that he refuses permission. A couple of weeks ago, the London Docklands development corporation applied for a helipad facility on Trinity Buoy wharf in docklands. As it is its own planning authority, it will be seeking permission from itself. I urge the Secretary of State to call in that application as a matter of urgency.
Surely no one sees the increase in helicopter facilities as an answer to London's traffic problems. Everybody, including the Department of the Environment, puts it way down the list of priorities in transport policies. But slowly and steadily, by stealth, more and more private individuals and businesses are making use of the helicopter to fly their way out of congestion.
I believe that the benefits, in terms of the numbers of users and time savings, can be argued as being small compared with the costs of the noise impact and environmental concerns. Overflying helicopters represent a noisy, intrusive assault on quality of life. Each flight disrupts and disturbs literally thousands of people. The economic growth that that flight would have to generate in
232
order to lead to a net increase in quality of life would have to be massive. However, challenged to demonstrate overriding need, the applicant in the Cannon street case last year said that the heliport was necessary, for example, to speed a London architect's trip to examine brick samples in Wales.
In 1984, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that he was terminating the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick. He said:
"Noise can be a potent destroyer of the quality of life … Helicopters seem to have a special vibrating noise …in the light of the environmental disturbance caused by the service we could not justify allowing it to continue in operation".
If that was true of flights between Heathrow and Gatwick, it must be no less true of flights over the much more densely populated centres of our cities.
The final part of my Bill would clarify the registering of complaints, a process which at the moment is complex, confusing and unpublished. Time after time, the buck is passed between the CAA and the Department of Transport. A constituent of mine from the Waterloo area had her complaint passed backwards and forwards only to be referred to the British Helicopter Advisory Board, a company representing helicopter manufacturers and operators. Helicopter operators routinely and flagrantly ignore the routing and other regulations. Only the most persistent members of the public are likely to have their complaint registered. They need to sort that out.
I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill and take a step towards recognition that helicopter use in urban areas needs to be reduced and that helicopters and cities are not compatible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms. Kate Hoey, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours and Mr. Nigel Spearing.

HELICOPTERS AND HELIPORTS
Ms. Kate Hoey accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to helicopter safety and air traffic control; to amend the law relating to planning controls on heliports; to protect the environment by restricting noise levels and controlling the use of helicopters; to assign responsibilities and duties in relation to helicopters; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 October and to be printed. [Bill 215.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Order for Third Reading read.
  4.17 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This is my first Finance Bill. Previously, the attractions of serving on the Finance Bill Committee seemed somewhat abstruse, but I knew that many hon. Members returned, their enthusiasm unabated, year after year to serve on it. Therefore, it was with some interest that I engaged in the exercise to see what was so entrancing. Now that I have joined that happy band, I have been initiated into all sorts of obscure and riveting mysteries such as stock lending, manufactured dividends and approved share option trusts. We have had an occasional insight into the Opposition's taxation policies, although the insight was generally provided by the Government rather than the Opposition. It has been a useful exercise.
  Those of us who have seen the Bill through from the beginning to the end have, by and large, seen serious debate undertaken in a serious spirit. There have been disagreements on important matters, but that is inevitable. The debate has, however, been conducted in a spirit of good humour from both sides of the House. I now begin to see the attractions of these proceedings, which provoke so much devotion among their followers.
  My hon. Friends the Economic Secretary and the Minister of State are veterans of Finance Bills, but for them, as for me, this is the first occasion on the Treasury Bench, and I pay a warm tribute to the hard work that they have put in, both upstairs in Committee and in the still watches of last night on Report.
  The Bill has received a thorough consideration. We have not always accepted the arguments made for amendments, but that is hardly surprising. Frequently, we have accepted arguments and have responded constructively to many of the amendments. All these issues have been properly ventilated and explored in a useful exercise.
  We have introduced several new clauses and amendments since Second Reading. A number of those were foreshadowed in the Budget statement, but were not ready for the original publication of the Bill. For example, clause 5 provides for a reduction in the rate of pool betting duties from 40 to 37½per cent. That follows proposals for a Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which was announced by the Pools Promoters Association. That subject was discussed, shortly before we pulled stumps last night, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). My memory of what took place at that hour is somewhat hazy, but I seem to remember that they were the protagonists in that discussion.
  Clause 65 gives effect to the Budget announcement of a new relief from income and corporation tax to encourage business gifts of equipment to schools and other educational establishments. This is a practical measure intended to give help to business and to help education and business work in partnership.
  234
  Since Second Reading, the Bill has gained an entirely new part IV, dealing with stamp duty. Clauses 105 to 110 abolish a raft of minor stamp duties. Last year we announced our intention to abolish stamp duty on securities to coincide with the introduction of paperless trading and the TAURUS system. Part IV means that stamp duties will be abolished on all property except land and buildings. That continues the splendid tradition in recent years whereby in each Finance Bill the Government abolish at least one tax. We have exceeded expectations on this occasion by abolishing not one or two taxes but a multitude of stamp duties, and I am proud to be the begetter of that measure.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Does not my hon. Friend think that there is something rather quaint about our tax system which has no fewer than 88 reliefs and allowances against the six main taxes which, in the current year, cost about £87 billion, while the six main taxes in themselves raised only £82 billion? To my simple mind, that shows that either all taxes are twice as high as they need be, or we have twice as many taxes as we truly need.
  Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. For the first time we have set out in the Red Book the effective value of the various tax reliefs so that exactly the sort of comparison that my hon. Friend has made can be made. That does not involve a judgment on whether it is right or wrong to have such tax reliefs, but it does at least enable there to be informed discussion on the relative merits. I make no secret of our view that, in general, it is better to reduce reliefs and reduce the rates of tax. [Interruption.] That is a general proposition. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) agrees with it.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown indicated assent.
  Mr. Maude: That is splendid. We now have full consensus on the matter and that enables us to proceed with renewed confidence.
  My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point and it is also right that every Chancellor of the Exchequer should have in his mind when he frames his Budget the balance between overall rates of taxation and the reliefs that are given against taxation.
  Mr. Tony Favell: This is a good point at which to ask my hon. Friend about the framing of future Budgets. It was announced last week that, in future, budgetary plans for taxation and expenditure will be submitted to a European Commission star chamber. Can my hon. Friend say when that will be done? Will it be done before the Budget statement is made to the House? If there is a conflict between the House and the Commission, whose view will prevail?
  Mr. Maude: I do not recognise from my hon. Friend's description the exact proposition to which he is referring. I am not aware of any intention by the Government to submit their processes to such a procedure. Perhaps my hon. Friend will elucidate.
  Mr. Favell: The Daily Telegraph of 10 July said:
  "Mr. Lamont, Chancellor, yesterday agreed to submit Budget plans for taxation and expenditure to an annual EC 'star chamber' of Finance Ministers responsible for bringing the 12 disparate national economies into line."
  Mr. Maude: There is no proposition that we should submit what we put in our Budget for anyone's scrutiny before we present it to Parliament. That would be a wholly intolerable proposition. I reassure my hon. Friend that we have no intention of doing such a thing. It has been agreed that, after the event, we will send the Commission a version of our medium-term financial strategy, which is a broad part of the Red Book, to help the Commission in reaching a judgment on how convergence is progressing. However, I unequivocally assure the House that we have no intention of submitting our Budget, with all its detailed fiscal measures, for scrutiny other than by the House.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps the Financial Secretary has not studied the draft treaty on European economic and monetary union, but one of its articles clearly states that the budget balances of all member states will have to be examined by the Commission which, after observing certain procedures, can then make recommendations regarding those budget balances. That represents a transfer of power over fiscal policy to the Commission, which will be empowered to make recommendations.
  Mr. Maude: I am reluctant to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable in such matters. He referred accurately to the draft treaty, which is the previous presidency's working document. At this stage, not a single word of it is agreed. It is a working document, and, as I told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee a week or two ago, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Therefore, nothing in the draft treaty is taken as having the agreement of any member state.
  Even if the draft treaty were agreed, it is a different proposition to suggest that a member state's overall budget balance should be subject to scrutiny and examination by institutions of the European Community after the event. If there is to be economic and monetary union—and I am not in a position to judge whether there will be—the convergence of budget deficits will be important. Everyone taking part in the negotiations agrees that monetary union could not be sustained if excessive budget deficits existed among member states.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The draft treaty makes reference to excessive budget deficits and, if the United Kingdom's deficit proved excessive, is it not the case that the Commission could consider that situation, make recommendations and, at the end of the day, bring a stop to that excessive deficit?
  Mr. Maude: Such a provision may be contained in the draft treaty, but it is not agreed. It is agreed that if there were to be full currency union, it could not be sustained if excessive budget deficits existed among member states. We have argued consistently, as have other Community members, that the best sanction against excessive deficits is not binding limits and rigid, centrist, prescriptive rules but the market. Provided such a deficit is transparent, a member state would have considerable difficulty in financing it, so the market will provide its own remedy. That argument remains to be resolved. Some member states believe that binding limits and prescriptive centrist rules will be necessary, but we disagree. We will continue to discuss that aspect, but I assure the right hon.
  236
  Gentleman and the House that the text of the draft treaty has not yet been agreed by the United Kingdom or by any other member state.
  Clause 69 and schedule 15, which were added in Committee, extend the period over which companies can carry back trading losses and set them against profits from one year to three years. We believe that that will be particularly welcome to companies which, although fundamentally sound and with healthy profit records, are experiencing losses during the recession. That measure alone will be worth a quarter of a billion pounds to companies in 1992–93.
  That brings me to the core of the Bill, which remains the same as it was on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor described his Budget as a Budget for business, and the Bill reflects that priority, easing the burden of taxation across the whole spectrum of industry.
  Clause 23 cuts the main rate of corporation tax for 1990 from 35 to 34 per cent., reducing this year's tax bills by £380 million. Clause 15 halves the rating period for reclaiming VAT on bad debts, reducing it to one year. That means bad debt relief, which will give traders a cash flow boost of £340 million this year.
  We are also providing help for next year, when the recovery will be under way. Clause 24, one of the shortest and simplest—but most splendid and significant—provisions in the Bill, sets the main rate of corporation tax for 1991 at 33 per cent. That gives the United Kingdom the lowest rate of corporation tax in the European Community, and among G7 countries. It means that, next year, companies will have an extra £83 million at their disposal to invest as they choose.
  That was one of the issues on which the Government had an amicable but frank disagreement with Opposition Members. They wanted to give increased allowances to some forms of investment, which would, in our view, have taken investment choices out of the hands of business, where they belong. As we discovered when we examined the Opposition's amendment, it would have meant a higher rate of corporation tax overall—which was not heavily advertised by Opposition Members when the amendment was moved.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we cannot increase any taxation by means of the Finance Bill; we are prevented from doing so by the money resolution.
  Mr. Maude: The House will have heard that explanation, and can decide for itself how much weight to attach to it.
  The Bill also helps smaller businesses. Clause 25 raises the profits limit for the small companies rate, and for marginal relief, by 25 per cent. That will benefit 30,000 smaller companies, and means that the limits have been raised by 150 per cent. since 1988. Clause 68 allows unincorporated businesses to set any trading losses against capital gains of the same or the following year.
  Those are the highlights of the business measures in the Bill. To them must be added a number of deregulatory measures, announced in the Budget, which do not require legislation—such as the raising of the VAT threshold to its highest-ever level in real terms and the introduction of quarterly payments of PAYE and national insurance contributions for some 600,000 small employers.

  237
  Together, those measures fully justify my right hon. Friend's description of his Budget as a Budget for business.
  Mr. James Wallace: As I recall, the amount of relief that those measures would give businesses, in particular small businesses—according to the figures given at the time of the Budget—was exceeded by the amount that businesses would have to spend because of the Government's decision to impose a 10·9 per cent. uniform business rate increase in England and Wales. How does the Financial Secretary justify that extra imposition?
  Mr. Maude: A great many taxes are—to use the technical phrase—buoyant: they increase their burden year by year to reflect inflation, with no need for positive Government decisions. Those taxes, which are levied on a percentage basis, have the effect to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, without the Government's making any positive decision.
  It has always been understood, since the introduction of the uniform business rate, that it could not be increased by more than the rate of inflation. That is a much better deal for business than the deal offered by the old business rating system, under which businesses in some parts of the country were penalised by swingeing increases levied by hopelessly irresponsible councils with a malevolent approach to business. Some of our great cities have been devastated: swathes of land have been laid bare by councils that have levied such high rates that business has simply moved away. Businesses that suffered under such appalling regimes will have regarded last year's increase, which was limited to the rate of inflation, as relatively benign.
  I have referred to the measures on business taxation and I should refer briefly to other measures, particularly on the themes of reform and fairness. Clauses 29 to 31 tackle different sorts of benefits in kind and, quite properly, they have generated a good deal of debate and careful examination. However, in all that debate, I do not think that anyone has sought to challenge the basic principle underlying our approach which is that, as far as possible, payments in benefits in kind should bear the same taxation as equivalent payments in cash. That is the only fair approach and I believe that it is widely accepted as the right approach.
  Another matter of fairness is the taxation of non-resident trusts. Clauses 78 to 87 and schedules 16 to 18 are designed to counter avoidance of capital gains tax through the use of non-resident trusts. It is one of the technical areas in the Bill where the Government have benefited from helpful comments from some of the representative bodies. As a result of that, we introduced a number of amendments in Committee and on Report.
  The Budget process is about deciding what the Government should spend and how they should raise the money to do it. That means that the Government have to cost every one of their proposals. They have to do so publicly and openly and then, openly and honestly, levy taxation to pay for that spending. The results are there for Parliament to scrutinise and for the public to judge. Curiously, the Opposition have been more reticent about their proposals. Nothing has been costed, nothing has been added up, but everything is a priority. So, as a service to the public, we costed the Opposition's proposals for
  238
  them. We did so very modestly, with no fee charged and no exaggeration. We concluded that Labour's spending programme amounts to no less than an extra £35 billion—equivalent to an extra 15p—
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has Government speculation about Labour's public spending programme got to do with the Third Reading of the Finance Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) is quite right. I hope that the Minister will set a good example by sticking to the content of the Bill.
  Mr. Maude: I was endeavouring—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is relevant to the rate of taxation that is to be applied by the Finance Bill. If the policies that were—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our practice on Third Reading of any Bill is to confine the debate to the provisions in the Bill.
  Mr. Maude: I am endeavouring to do that. I am endeavouring to give to the House an account of the deliberations in Committee when we spent a good deal of time discussing the standard rate of income tax. We had an interesting and illuminating debate on the clauses dealing with income tax which enabled us to draw attention to the fact that Labour's spending proposals would mean, unless they are wrongly costed, that there would be a 15p increase in income tax.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister realises that if I allow him to discuss these matters, I have to allow other hon. Members to rebut his arguments. We would then start a debate not about Third Reading but about entirely different matters. I hope that the Minister will recognise what I have said and will observe it.
  Mr. Maude: I submit myself fully to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and accept entirely what you have said. The House might welcome the opportunity to allow Opposition Members to try to rebut what I have said, but I think that there will be sighs of relief from Opposition Members that they have been prevented from commenting on the costings.
  Dr. John Marek rose—
  Mr. Maude: I see that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is straining at the leash to leap to his feet and tell us in what particulars our costings of the Labour party's proposals are wrong.
  Dr. Marek: I want to help the Financial Secretary. Clearly, it has escaped him that the clause to increase value added tax from 15 to 17·5 per cent. is contained in the Bill, so I invite him to discuss that. It would certainly not be out of order for us to know why the Government increased VAT.
  Mr. Maude: I shall be glad to discuss that if the hon. Gentleman is keen to do so. We have already debated it and a further debate will not illuminate any dark secrets which have not been properly discussed.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall give way in a moment.
  We increased VAT to raise £3·9 billion—if my recollection is correct—and to ensure that the books balanced when we reduced the headline figure of the community charge by £140 for every charge payer. It was an open policy which we have fully justified. We have had amusing debates about it and it is now on the statute book. It was especially interesting that when we announced that step in the Budget, the immediate response of the Leader of the Opposition was to huff and puff, to say that it was outrageous and monstrous and some such farrago of nonsense about how awful it was to tax children's sweets. A Labour Government introduced VAT 15 years ago—a fact which appeared to have escaped him at the time. However, when we had discussed the increase in VAT we waited with bated breath for the Opposition to vote against us and to try to vote down the outrageous measure to increase VAT from 15 to 17·5 per cent. on, among other things, children's sweets. But what did they do? They did nothing—one might almost say that they dithered. I am happy to renew the debate at this stage for the hon. Member for Wrexham, but I fancy that we shall have the better of the argument now as then.
  Mr. Sayeed: May I ask my hon. Friend to deal with two matters? First, the Labour party did not vote against the change in the rate of VAT and, secondly, whatever promises Labour Governments have made prior to elections, every one of them has increased the basic rate of income tax.
  Mr. Maude: On the first point, I confirm that my hon. Friend is right. The Labour party failed to oppose the measure to increase the standard rate of VAT. However, I must correct him on the second point, because there are two exceptions to his proposition. The Attlee Government of 1945–51 reduced income tax by 5 per cent. before increasing it again by 2½ per cent. thus making it 47½ per cent. The other exception involves the Ramsay MacDonald Government in 1924 who were in office for nine months and did not get round to increasing the rate. I am sure that they would have done so if they had had the chance, but, happily for the nation, they were routed out of office before they had the opportunity. However, my hon. Friend is right—in every other case Labour Governments have increased the standard rate of income tax.
  Research discloses that in their manifestos to the British public Labour Governments oddly enough made no mention of such proposals. They were silent about them and, indeed, the impression given by the then leaders of the Labour party was that there would be no general increases in the rate of income tax. Indeed, the statements made by former leaders of the Labour party bear an uncanny resemblance to those made by the present leader: "There will be no increase in the basic rate of income tax, honest, guv. Nothing like that—we've never done that before. Not the sort of thing we do." However, they have done it every time.
  We argue that under Labour's spending plans as they have been costed by us—and they have not been disputed by the Labour party—it is absolutely inevitable—[Interruption.] I issue a challenge to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). Let him
  240
  dispute our costings of his party's plans. Under Labour's spending plans, it is inevitable that any future Labour Government would increase the standard rate of income tax as previous Labour Governments have done.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I give the Financial Secretary a categorical assurance, as we have done consistently in the past few years, that the incoming Labour Government have no intention of raising the basic rate of income tax. While we are on the subject of the burden of taxation, will the Financial Secretary state what percentage of gross domestic product the tax burden represented in 1979 and what it will represent after the Bill is passed?
  Mr. Maude: I shall answer that straightforwardly. The burden of taxation increased in the two years after this Government took office in 1979, because we had to pay off the massive burden of debt which the previous Labour Government had stored up for future taxpayers. When we talk about the burden of taxation it is important to bear it in mind that we are not talking only about the burden on today's taxpayers. When Governments run up debts, that places a burden on future taxpayers, so it is a question of when taxpayers have to pick up the bill. Under Labour Governments it is the future generations which have to pick up an ever bigger tax burden in order to pay off the debts of those profligate and incontinent Labour Governments.
  Certainly, we increased the tax burden in our first two years in office in order to control the massive public debt placed on the country by the previous Labour Government. Since then, we have consistently and successfully reduced the tax burden.
  Mr. Smith: The Financial Secretary is incorrect—the figures appear to have escaped him. When the Government came into office the tax burden as a share of GDP was 34·5 per cent. It is now 37·5 per cent. Of course, it went up dramatically in the first few years under the present Government—it stayed high and went up again in 1989–90 as a direct result of the introduction of the poll tax. If he examines the figures, the Financial Secretary will see that it rose towards the end of the 1980s as well as at the start.
  Mr. Maude: By chance, I have the figures before me for greater accuracy and for the enlightenment of the House. It might be helpful if I read them.
  In 1978–79 the tax burden as a percentage of GDP was 34¼ per cent. It then increased, and I freely confess that. We have made no bones about that and I can justify it in any circumstances. It went up in 1981–82 to 40 per cent. and that was to pay off the debt left by the previous Labour Government, a crippling burden of debt for which the hon. Gentleman should apologise rather than seek to pick an argument. From that high point in 1981–82 of 40 per cent., the burden of taxation has fallen. It has not fallen every year, and the hon. Gentleman was right to point out that in 1986–87 and 1987–88 it went up from 38¼ per cent. to 38½ per cent. Again, between 1989–90 and 1990–91—as forecast—it went up from 37½ per cent. to 37¾ per cent. That increase may be what the hon. Gentleman is calling in aid for his proposition, but it is timid support.

  241
  The clear trend is from a high point of 40 per cent. levied to pay off the burden of debt left by the Labour Government to 37¾ per cent. last year. We intend to continue that trend.
  Mr. Wallace: For clarification, do those figures include local taxation or only national taxation? If they include local taxation, what impact does the poll tax have on them?
  Mr. Maude: They include total taxation, including local authority revenue, if that helps the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real effects of a Labour Government are as follows: the dead go unburied, the rubbish goes uncollected, the sick go unattended, and the International Monetary Fund ends up running our economy?
  Mr. Maude: Certainly. My hon. Friend is exactly right. If one wants to see what a Labour Government leads to, one should take a train trip to Liverpool. One then sees in microcosm on the streets of Liverpool memories of 1978–79, the winter of discontent. There was rule by the unions. The Labour party was absolutely in hock to the unions and did what it was told. There was obedience at every point. The British people will want to avoid that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—
  Mr. Maude: You anticipate my next move, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is to return to the Bill. It has put into effect my right hon. Friend's Budget, which was a Budget for business and a Budget which has been welcomed by business, which is valuable to business and which will set British business on the road to recovery, growth and prosperity in the 1990s in the same way that our Budgets in the early 1980s did for the rest of the 1980s. Having built a platform and a firm foundation of low inflation, we saw economic growth at levels that exceeded those of almost everywhere else in Europe. For the first time since the war, our rate of growth was faster than that of France and of Germany. That is what we shall see if we continue on this path in the 1990s.
  The Finance Bill and the Budget are essential parts of our proposals and foundations. When the British people have the chance to choose between these economic and taxation policies and the profligacy and incompetence of the Labour party, they will unhesitatingly choose us.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Financial Secretary has a pretty crummy line in political knock-about, although it is of a slightly higher calibre than that of his immediate predecessor. His immediate predecessor was pretty savagely treated after last year's Finance Bill by being demoted to the post of Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I forecast no such future for the present Financial Secretary or for the other junior members of the Treasury team.
  It is fair to say that during the passage of the Bill, when we discussed the details of the measures rather than some of the broader and more contentious political matters which lay behind them, Treasury Ministers responded to the issues of detail with unfailing courtesy and with as high a degree of accuracy as one could expect from Ministers. We appreciate that.
  242
  The Bill has the authentic hallmark of the Government who produced it. This is probably the last Finance Bill Third Reading in which I shall speak from the Opposition Benches, so it may be right to treat the House to a metaphor. It is as if the Finance Bill were a little furry animal trapped and staring fixedly into the headlights of an oncoming lorry made up of Britain's economic problems. Blinking into the headlights, the Bill completely fails to respond to the problems. The context is this.
  Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Nicholas Baker): It is an oxymoron.
  Mr. Brown: I do not know about the oxy. The hon. Gentleman, being a Government Whip, probably has more experience of dealing with the rest than I have.
  The economic context is that output is falling, the economy is contracting, investment is forecast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fall by 10 per cent. in 1991, and unemployment is rising, as it has done for the past 14 consecutive months. The Chancellor tells us that it is a price worth paying. He may believe that it is a price worth paying if someone else pays it. [Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh cheerfully at that, which is generous of them. Unemployment is the price that they will have to pay for the way in which the Government have managed the economy.
  We still have a trade deficit in spite of the recession. The previous Labour Government, to whom the Financial Secretary so derisively referred, managed to maintain, in spite of all the difficulties with oil pricing, a manufacturing surplus every year. Yet the Government have managed to turn that into a deficit and they look set to continue the deficit.
  We still have high interest rates which have led to record business failures and to 44,000 homes being repossessed last year. The recession is suppressing inflation, but the underlying pressures are still there and are stoked up by public utilities' privatisation and the consequent price rises. The tax burden still falls unfairly on those of ordinary means rather than on those most able to bear their fair share.
  As the juggernaut of economic problems steamrollers along the road, the little furry Finance Bill sits staring back at it.
  Surely the most striking point is the dislocation between the measures in the Bill and the problems facing the British economy.
  Mr. David Winnick: What help is given to those on ordinary incomes who have had a very modest decrease in direct taxation but who face the burden of ever-increasing price rises, certainly for essential services such as gas, water, electricity, fares and dental charges? Only last week someone who lives in my borough complained to me that, because he is on a modest income and cannot be exempted, he had to pay £140 for dental treatment. What help is being given to such people when they face tremendous increases which they cannot get out of?
  Mr. Brown: There is nothing in the Finance Bill for people in the position that my hon. Friend has outlined. If anything, the Bill makes matters marginaly worse for them because there is a 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT. In indirect taxation, the burden falls on every citizen, regardless of his income, who has to purchase taxed products. Not only has

  243
  the distribution of the tax system moved to place the burden on those least able to bear it, but the substantial increases in utility charges prior to privatisation have had a regressive effect. There is nothing in the Bill to help my hon. Friend's constituents.
  We are confronted by the highest number of business failures on record—66 per cent. up on the equivalent half year last year. Every hon. Member has constituents who are affected by that, and the matter was discussed in the House yesterday. The Financial Secretary boasted about clauses 23 to 25, which introduce a concession on corporation tax. It is a modest counter-cyclical measure, but it is not much use to businesses which are in trouble because of the Government's high interest rate policy and which will have little charge to corporation tax to worry about. Indeed, the owners of those businesses might wish that they had.
  As many Opposition Members have mentioned, there is rising unemployment. The Bill has nothing to say about that apart from clause 58, which says, "Let them build toll roads." If that is a public works programme to help to bring down unemployment, I can only say that it will not work.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Brown: On toll roads? I give way to the hon. Gentleman on that.
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman seemed to be talking about unemployment. He could help the House a little bit by telling us about the latest version of the Labour party's view on the effect of the minimum wage proposition on unemployment. Does he accept the universal view of learned economic commentators that it must inevitably cause higher unemployment to a greater or lessser extent?
  Mr. Brown: Clearly that point has nothing to do with Third Reading. It is tacky of the Government to suggest that to ensure a basic, decent standard of living—a rate of £3·40 an hour—is unjust and unreasonable. Our European partners can do it and the United States can do it, yet somehow we cannot. Instead of saying that he does not want his friends in the private sector to have to pay more money in wages, the Financial Secretary has the nerve to say to the House, "Oh, we are concerned about unemployment." The Conservative party is concerned about unemployment? Since when?
  Mr. Maude: I note that the hon. Gentleman does not dissent from my proposition that a minimum wage would inevitably lose jobs and cause higher unemployment. That is the verdict of every learned commentator. Is it now the view of the Labour party?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot find anything about the national minimum wage in the Bill. We ought not to discuss that. Let us not have another debate about it. Let us get back to the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Brown: I dissent strongly from the Financial Secretary's suggestion; the evidence from our European partners and from the United States of America is enough for me. But I shall not be drawn down that road—[Interruption.]—because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have
  244
  asked me not to be. I shall respect the Chair, although Ministers find it difficult to do the same when it is not convenient for them.
  Yesterday the Labour party forced a debate on banking supervision in the wake of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandal. The Bill has something to say on investor protection. Clause 46 makes a modest proposition, setting out what most people thought that the law already was on the tax treatment of moneys paid into an insurance company for an investor protection scheme. That is welcome, in its way, but the dislocation of scale between that measure and the Government's inactivity on BCCI reveals their almost pathological unwillingness to tackle any of the major problems facing our country.
  It looks as though the recession will not be shallow or short lived—although I suspect that one or two other things round this place may be shallow and short lived. In Paris the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "Consumer spending led us into this recession"—
  I take that to be the Chancellor's final verdict on the 1988 Budget, which, as the then Financial Secretary, he did so much to implement—
  "and I expect it to lead us out."
  As an encouragement to consumer spending, he then slapped an extra 2·5 per cent. on VAT.
  The Prime Minister, too, has focused on encouraging consumer spending. I understand that under his citizens charter there will be real and serious trouble for banks whose cash dispensers run out of banknotes over the weekend. Oh yes, that will get consumer spending going.
  Ironically, with the possible exception of the offshore trust reforms, the only measure of strategic significance in the Bill is the VAT increase. That was designed to get us out of the worst taxation fiasco in modern times.
  The Financial Secretary spoke of the number of taxes that the Government had abolished, but we hear much less from Ministers about the tax that they invented and created—the poll tax. If it had not been for the poll tax and the subsequent political problems of the Conservative party, there would have been no need for the 2·5 per cent. increase in the rate of VAT.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would clear up a point of genuine confusion for me. He mentioned the offshore trust regime introduced in the Bill. He may remember speaking on clause 77, concerning the offshore trust regime, when he said:
  "I repeat that we have no plans to increase capital gains tax."
  When I asked whether he intended to break the link between capital gains tax and income tax, he said:
  "I think that the implications of what I have said are clear. The hon. Gentleman has correctly followed the point to its logical conclusion." [Official Report, 7 May 1991; Vol. 190, c. 683–84.]
  On the other hand, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), in an interview published about two weeks ago in the Financial Times, said:
  "In principle we would like to align the rate of capital gains tax with income tax, but the whole issue of capital gains tax is complex and still under review."
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I did not say that.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy on capital gains tax and income tax? Does the Labour party have a policy?
  Mr. Brown: Yes, we have. I believe that the hon. Gentleman quoted what the reporter said during the interview rather than what my hon. Friend said. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that capital gains tax and income tax are not structured in the same way. Our specific proposals have been discussed in several debates, so I shall not go into the detail again. I can remember at least four Friday debates featuring the direct tax structures proposed by the Labour party, and I believe that the details are well understood, at least by every hon. Member attending this debate.
  We have made it clear that the changes that we intend to make will be effected at a very early stage of the lifetime of the Labour Government. That is incompatible with trying to make parallel changes in the capital gains tax structure. I should firmly oppose that.
  We have no specific proposals to increase capital gains tax. The hon. Gentleman has said before that an anomaly could be created, and of course he is correct. It would not be possible to bring the rates close together because of our proposed income tax banding structure. We could say that we would eradicate the anomaly over time or that we would live with it. I am giving the hon. Gentleman as honest an answer as I can: we shall live with the anomaly, knowing that in principle there may be an intellectual case against it. We shall have to live with it because of the different structures of the two taxes. My answer does not seem to delight the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what I heard the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) say from a sedentary position—that she did not say the words that appeared in the Financial Times? If she says that she was misquoted, of course I accept that. It would be good to have that at least on the record.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am delighted to do so.
  Mr. Brown: The exchange has taken place and everybody seems happy. The hon. Gentleman has served on as many Finance Committees as I have, and I acknowledge and greatly respect his specialist interest in such matters.
  I know that the taxation policies of the Labour party are fascinating to Conservative Members, because a number of them are paralleled in the Bill. I remember the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, roundly denouncing us for planning to freeze the married couple's allowance. Yet the Financial Secretary is presiding over a Bill that does precisely that. The then Chancellor—now the Prime Minister—also denounced us for planning to abolish the higher rate of mortgage interest relief. Yet the Government have gone on to do exactly that.
  It is a bit cheeky for the Conservative party to denounce us for our proposals and then, when they carry out those proposals, to say that they are justified and reasonable. I was much taken with the explanation that the Financial Secretary gave in Committee. He said that the difference was all about motivation. If the Labour party were doing those things, we would apparently be badly motivated, whereas when the Conservative party did the same things they were well motivated, so that made it all right. Perhaps it does; perhaps it does not. I must say to the Financial Secretary, in all kindness, that that was one of his more feeble arguments.
  246
  While we are talking about tax, we should probably draw a veil over the Government's pledge to reduce rates of direct taxation. Clause 21 takes up that point: it says that the rate of direct taxation will stay the same.
  The Financial Secretary was good enough to refer to the Opposition's approach to the Bill. The approaches of the two major parties when in opposition have been somewhat different. The Labour party has taken the view that we should have our political arguments on the Floor of the House and that, within the bounds of the normal to and fro of political exchange, we should apply a more detailed and workmanlike scrutiny to the Bill in Committee. In Committee especially, we take our responsibilities as the official Opposition seriously, for the reason that there is no other forum in which these matters can be scrutinised in detail. I must say that I am not entirely sure that we are right to structure our debates as we do. I am not sure that it is right that there should be no other forum for scrutinising these matters, but that is the way in which we conduct our affairs at the moment, and so be it.
  It is appropriate to thank the staff who worked for our Front-Bench team and those at the Labour party headquarters for all the help that they have given us in dealing with matters of detail and, in particular, to express the thanks of the Front-Bench team to Mr. Steve Tovey for his invaluable help. Our achievements are a credit to him, and any shortcomings are the fault of others.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: What achievements?
  Mr. Brown: The Whip asks, "What achievements?" That is good of him, as I am about to list them. There are a number of matters of detail on which we feel that the Government—
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Oh, really!
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the fact that I am discussing the contents of the Bill on Third Reading. I remind him that we are not supposed to be discussing anything else. If he is irritated by it, his best bet is to go and get a drink outside the Chamber.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Having listened to the hon. Gentleman for quite long enough, I shall probably take his advice. Quite honestly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Third Reading of a Finance Bill is hardly the time for the hon. Gentleman to be reading out a list of names and telling us of his approbation for all those who work in Transport house, or whatever the Labour party's headquarters is now called. That has nothing to do with the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong; it has a substantial amount to do with the Finance Bill. The Government, for their part, have all the resources of the civil service behind them in bringing their policies —their version of those matters—to fruition. The Opposition have no such resources. I note that my counterpart on the foreign affairs team can obtain a briefing from the Foreign Office on a specific matter. If I try to obtain a briefing from the Inland Revenue, I am told that I cannot have direct access to the Government's professional advisers at the Revenue—not even on a matter that is not politically contentious—and that any advice that I require must come from the Financial Secretary. We do not regard the Financial Secretary—nice chap though he is, in many ways—as a neutral source.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: The Whip seems to be criticising my remarks. I thought at first that he was going to suggest that the Financial Secretary was not a neutral source, but he seems to be taking issue with some other point that I made, and no doubt, on that, he is more knowledgeable than me.
  There has been a range of successes, and it is right that the Labour party should take some pride in them. Remember that we have no realistic chance of voting the Government down in the Finance Bill Committee because that Committee's composition reflects the composition of the House.
  Mr. Chris Smith: We nearly did.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend reminds me that, on one occasion, we almost did. Usually, however, our only method of securing concessions from the Government is by reasoned argument. I suppose that it is some small tribute to those in charge of the Government's affairs that that succeeds on occasion—in fact, on quite a few occasions. The proposal in respect of bad debt relief for VAT and the reduction of the period from two years to one is exactly what we pressed for.
  On offshore tax, my own stirring contributions to our debates on tax avoidance last year clearly shamed a rather recalcitrant Government into eventual action. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will take particular pleasure in the concessions made to members of the acting profession, both on agency fees and in respect of the concessions that followed this year. On the question of personal allowances, the concession of the Minister of State, Treasury, gained in response to what is now our new clause 30, is welcome, and we thank her for it.
  On employee share schemes, last year we tabled a new clause containing what we felt was the innovative idea that a new selective executive share option scheme should not be allowed unless there was an all-employee scheme in place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appears particularly to have liked that idea and this year the Government have introduced precisely such a proposal. On beneficial loans, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, among many others, last year raised the anomaly of a tax charge arising where employees had mortgages at market rates from their employer. The tax treatment of that issue, which created the anomaly, has been addressed in the Bill.
  On donations to charity, last year we said that a £5 million upper limit on gift aid payments was fatuous and that we should either have a realistic upper limit or none at all. This year, the limit has been abolished. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was grateful for the concession that he received yesterday in respect of developers' self-supply. We even managed to get some drafting amendments, to schedule 12(3), accepted. Usually, our amendments are rejected on the ground that they would make the Bill worse.
  Compare all that constructive and detailed—albeit perhaps not particularly exciting—stuff with the behaviour of the Conservative party when in the same position. I have been re-reading, as someone in my position should, a book by Lord Barnett called "Inside the Treasury" in which he discusses the way in which such matters were
  248
  dealt with when the Labour party was in government. Discussing the hours spent in the Finance Bill Committee, Lord Barnett has this to say, on pages 55 and 56:
  "During those long hours in committee, often from 4 pm to 8 am the following morning"—
  I should point out that the Conservative party could not have kept its Members there until 8 am the following day—
  "I managed to keep my temper in the face of intense provocation from Opposition backbenchers like Graham Page, Nigel Lawson, Peter Rees, Ian Gow and Nicholas Ridley. They would go on and on, coming up with what they assumed to be hilariously funny examples of anomalies, such as the Capital Transfer Tax consequences of me being knocked down by a bus. Judging by the laughter of other Conservative Members, they clearly found this kind of stuff very funny. I could only feel grateful that I had missed out on public school debating societies."
  That allows us to contrast nicely the two different ways of dealing with these matters—the responsible, sensible, workmanlike approach of the Labour party, and the approach adopted by the Conservative party.
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman makes a clear contrast, but does he not think that the real contrast to be drawn is between a Parliament in which the Government have a majority of 100 and a Parliament of the kind to which he is no doubt referring, in which the Government have a small majority or no majority at all? And how does he see next year's Finance Bill shaping up?
  Mr. Brown: I certainly hope to see next year's Finance Bill from the other side of the Chamber. As for the difference in the size of the parliamentary majority, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that the Opposition are labouring under a disadvantage because there are substantially more Conservatives in this place than there are of us. Nevertheless, I think that we have handled the cards in our hand very well, and our achievements are made all the more remarkable by the fact. I must also thank the Back Benchers who served with us on the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Tom Pendry: I hope that my hon. Friend is not making a virtue out of what he has just outlined. As someone who was a Government Whip when we had a majority of only one, may I say that if this Government could not keep their troops in Committee until 8 am, some of us would like to know why we did not try to keep the Committee sitting through the early hours.
  Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend's willingness to serve on next year's Finance Bill has been noted. The point that I was making is that we could have done that. We had a straight choice of tactics between filibustering in an ignorant and long-winded way—something that none of us would ever do—or, alternatively, having an informal day-to-day timetabling agreement with the Government to make measured and steady progress for which in return we would be able to subject each and every clause to detailed examination.
  Mr. Favell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to make a sensible comment.
  Mr. Favell: I will make a very sensible intervention. I am sorry that I was not a member of this year's Finance Bill Committee and was unable to listen to the hon.

  249
  Gentleman. However, is not the truth of the matter that the Opposition could not really oppose the Bill because it contains nothing but eminent good sense?
  Mr. Brown: Actually, the Bill contains a substantial number of our proposals. We opposed the Bill in a reasoned and workmanlike way. Our only debate is between the relative merits of filibustering so causing a guillotine to be introduced which results in no debate on the rest of the Bill and taking the responsibility to probe everything carefully, including the schedules. We chose the second approach. That was the right thing to do and it has paid off. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has not dissented from that. If he is still a Member next year, we will see whether he can serve on the Finance Bill Committee in opposition so that he can address the practicalities of the two different approaches. I am willing and able with my hon. Friends to have a go at handling whichever approach he decides to adopt.
  I have served on the Committee of four Finance Bills under two distinguished and very able shadow Chief Secretaries to the Treasury. I have learnt a lot from them and it has been a privilege to serve under them. It has also been my privilege to serve with three good comrades—if it is not unfashionable to say that nowadays in the Labour party. I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, South and Finsbury, for Wrexham and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) for their comradeship, support and their contributions to the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has done so much to help my colleagues with their decision making. She has made an invaluable contribution to the Bill. Contrary to legend, she is quite a tender-hearted character. I know that she was worried about that little furry creature to which I referred in my metaphor at the beginning of our deliberations on the Bill. I referred to that little furry creature and the Government's response to the problems of the British economy and said that the little creature was about to be run over by a great juggernaut. I have some cheering news for my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme: there is a bandwagon behind that juggernaut, and that bandwagon is ours.
  5.23 pm
  Sir Giles Shaw: I hesitate to intrude on the panegyric for fellow members of the Finance Bill Committee provided by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I am sorry that I was unable to serve on that Committee. It seems to have been a handsome combination. The dissenters did a good methodical job, and the Church of England—in the shape of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who won most of the points most of the time—did a reasonably pragmatic job.
  Serving on a Committee is extremely exciting. I first sat on a Committee in 1974, when I was on the Opposition Benches in the Committee considering the Prices Bill, which was master-minded by the then hon. Member for Hitchin who subsequently became Mrs. Shirley Williams. She tabled an amendment to clause 1 of that Bill, which dealt with foods liable to subsidy. She wanted to increase the rate of subsidy and thus raise public expenditure, something to which Labour Governments are very prone. Her amendment to clause 1 related to line 1 and read "after `butter,' insert `cheese'."
  250
  In opposition at the time, we were led by my now right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). At the first sitting of the Prices Bill Committee, my then hon. Friend wanted to know whether the cheese to be subsidised would be Gorganzola from Italy, Camembert from France or Gouda from Holland. It took a little while to refine what Shirley Williams wanted to do. In fact, it was two and a half days before she provided a solution and added after "butter" insert cheese of the hard pressed Cheddar type. That is how we used to proceed in Committee and I do not think that things have changed a great deal.
  I wish to refer now to the Third Reading of this Finance Bill and in particular to consider the provisions in relation to foreign earnings. They can be considered in two ways: first, in relation to individual earnings and, secondly, in respect of national earnings and benefits. With regard to national earnings, it is clear that the shipping industry plays a substantial role in the nation's earnings.
  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is aware that that point has been a matter of considerable interest on the fringes of the Finance Bill. He would agree that, despite the enormous decline in the tonnage of British shipping, which now is one tenth of the tonnage which existed in 1980, the industry's earnings are still substantial and amount to around £4 billion—and that is apart from the insurance-related services which benefit the City of London and the balance of payments and amount to at least another £1 billion.
  In the foreign earnings section, the Government sought to address certain aspects of the shipping issue. Clause 44 eases the tax burdens on those at sea with the merchant fleet or in other capacities. I thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the Government for making that significant concession. He will know that there is some anxiety in the industry that the provision may distort the pattern of employment between long-haul and short-haul vessels. However, the fact remains that the Government took a precise interest in the shipping industry by making that concession in clause 44.
  Many of us are concerned that an industry which is sufficiently important to be considered by the Government in that way, and to be granted a concession where the Government thought that was justified, is still a hugely important national industry with a substantial reservoir of public support. The decline of that industry with a consequential loss of trade and prestige is causing considerable alarm on two grounds: first, because a huge national asset has been wasted through lack of nurture and, secondly, because with regard to the defence requirements, that element of shipping which is so vital when there are difficulties will not be there if—I hope that it will always be if rather than when—it is ever needed.
  For that reason, my colleagues and I wanted to amend the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) moved an amendment in Committee, but it was negatived. That was bad luck and the issue was dropped—and correctly so—from our agenda today. However, the issue remains and it has already been given the importance which I suspect the Government are beginning to attach to it as a result of two developments.
  The first development was that a working party was set up by the Treasury when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, comprising five Departments of State. It examined the problem of where

  251
  taxation or relief can be applied and all other problems associated with the maintenance of the British shipping capacity. Those five Departments included the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Transport, as well as the Treasury, which was clearly given the lead.
  It was interesting that in yesterday's debate on new clause 9, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury referred twice to this issue. He dealt with it first in column 98 of Hansard, but more importantly in column 99 when he referred twice to ministerial consideration of the matter. Referring to flagging out, he said:
  "the report of a technical working party is being carefully studied. An important defence issue is being addressed by Ministers and in due course more can be said about it."
  In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, my right hon. and learned Friend then said:
  "The matter is being considered and a statement will be made when a proper conclusion is reached. I cannot say whether that will be before the House rises but I wanted hon. Members to know that the defence issue, which is unrelated to these fiscal matters, has the serious attention of Ministers."—[Official Report, 15 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 99.]
  The most important element of information that I culled from that rather slender saga was that the British shipping industry will be a sharp focus for Government attention.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I absolutely and entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Chief Secretary's remarks about ships being taken up from trade were not only interesting, but also important. We should like a statement from the Government on that matter, if not before we rise, soon after we return from the summer recess. Like the hon. Gentleman, I lay enormous stress on the importance of merchant shipping and merchant ship building and on the need to retain crews.
  Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention and his committed interest in shipping, which is a cross-party issue.
  Following my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary's comments yesterday evening, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary some questions. Will he now state unequivocally that the Government recognise that there is a problem in relation to the rapid decline in tonnage and in its availability for defence purposes? Does he recognise equally that, although tonnage is an issue, our seafarers, their training, trained capacity and availability are also an issue? He will recall the difficulty during the Falklands conflict when many of the foreign-trained crews sought to be relieved of their posts and to be replaced by British seafarers and seamen who were trained and available. Happily, that was resolved, but my hon. Friend must agree that it is not simply a question of tonnage and of the acceptability of certain types of ship for certain defence needs—it is equally a matter of having trained and available seafarers who can man those ships if they are ever taken out of trade and deployed by the Ministry of Defence.
  Is there now a genuine commitment to consider that issue? If so, that would be a major step forward. The solution itself does not matter so much—there are many
  252
  possible ways of dealing with this—but the fact that the issue is being seriously addressed is in itself a significant development.
  Mr. John McFall: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the Select Committee on Defence has also considered that point in relation to merchant shipping and that we have expressed our concern. In another place, Lord Fieldhouse, the Admiral of the Fleet, said in his maiden speech:
  "The number of British-manned ships, sailing under the British flag and available for defence purposes, is now at a crucial level and may already be too few. We ignore this situation at our peril."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 1991; Vol. 529, c. 1105.]
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should treat such comments with the seriousness that they deserve?
  Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. In 1988, the Select Committee on Defence stated:
  "The availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes is governed by three key factors—the number of UK flagged ships, their accessibility when they are needed and the availability of a pool of British seafarers to man them."
  It concluded:
  "There are grounds for concern on all three counts".
  That was the first point that I wanted to raise with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
  Secondly, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was referring yesterday to the interdepartmental committee that has been set up to study shipping, and if that committee is to issue a report, it is important that such a report should be produced quickly. Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is the group that is reporting? If he can confirm that—I suspect that he can—will he consider consulting the interests that are involved prior to determining the Government's final view or policy on this matter? As he knows, the General Council of British Shipping. has had several close contacts with his good self and his colleagues on this matter, but where Ministry of Defence interests are also involved, it is important that there should be discussion with the industries involved prior to the Government firming up the proposal that they will lay before the House.
  Thirdly, if my hon. Friend can confirm that those are the portents, I understand that the method by which the Government decide to act must be a matter for themselves. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the allowances issue. The corporation tax relief is spread right across the board and we must all welcome the moves in the general direction of reducing taxation on industries, whatever they may be.
  I seek no special tax element for the industry, but I do seek a refined and clear answer to the problem that has bedevilled both the industry and those who seek to work within it. Somehow or other, the haemorrhaging must stop. It is vital that there is a transfusion—possibly only a small one—to help to maintain the health and capacity of the industry to deliver its best both in time of peace and, sadly, in time of war.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: For years, there has been consensus in the House that something must be done to arrest the decline of the British merchant fleet. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) has made his points in

  253
  a debate which has shown that that consensus still lives. It is time for the Government to introduce measures to address a problem about which many of us feel strongly. Something must be done.
  The Opposition can agree with some of the measures in the Finance Bill. We can agree, for example, with the removal of higher rate mortgage interest relief. We can also agree with the Government's attempts to bring coherence into the tax position of non-resident trusts. That is a difficult area. We can also agree with the taxation of benefits in kind, which is another difficult area, as some of my hon. Friends and I can remember from when we were in government.
  My prime concern relates to clauses 23 to 25, which deal with corporation tax. Incidentally, however, before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker allowed the Financial Secretary to answer a few questions about economic and monetary union. Although I do not wish to pursue that now, I was grateful to the Financial Secretary for answering reasonably frankly. The Government are, however, deluding themselves if they think that they could keep control of fiscal and budgetary policy if we had a common currency and a European central bank with its bankers controlling monetary policy.
  The very idea that national Governments and national Parliaments could have control over budgetary policy is wishful thinking. I hope that the Financial Secretary is right in believing that the Government would retain control, but I just cannot see it. The draft treaty on economic and monetary union has an intellectual coherence about it. Powers over monetary matters go to a European central bank. Powers over fiscal matters go, not entirely but to a considerable extent, to the Commission. However, those are matters which we can debate on other occasions.
  I return to clauses 23 and 25. As I am a Back-Bench Member, I am not afraid to say that I would prefer a higher rate of corporation tax, with a greater range of allowances for plant and machinery and for manufacturing industry. That is the basis of my objection to clauses 23 and 25. In Committee on the Floor of the House we had a debate on an amendment on this matter. I was sorry to see that, after 12 years of Conservative Government, almost every Conservative Member who spoke still had little sympathy for manufacturing industry. Indeed, there was some hostility to the idea of giving manufacturing industry some assistance. The only exception was the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). He had to code his message somewhat because of the general dislike for manufacturing industry, but at least he showed his concern.
  Mr. Gill: This is not a party political point. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that often the greatest help that the House can give to industry is to resist the temptation to legislate as much as we do? Does he agree that a reduced flow of legislation would help British industry in many respects by enabling it to maintain a lower overhead, rather than increasing its overhead?
  Mr. Davies: I agree with that. I have looked at the statutes passed by the House since 1980, virtually since the Government came to power. They get longer and more numerous as time progresses. This Finance Bill is much longer than some of the Finance Bills that the Labour Government introduced. I suppose that one of the
  254
  penalties that we have had to pay in the past 12 years for a radical right-wing Government is considerably more legislation even than previous Labour and Conservative Governments introduced. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but my point is that I should prefer to see a higher rate of corporation tax and more allowances, yes for the shipping industry, but for manufacturing industry in general.
  We had a debate yesterday on a new clause moved by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) about allowances in general. Although the wording could not be aimed specifically at shipping, the new clause was aimed at the shipping industry. Again, little sympathy was shown. I do not think that there are many factories in the shopping malls and leafy groves of Putney, so the Chief Secretary showed little sympathy. He trotted out Inland Revenue fears that some North Korean shipowner would clean up on all the allowances and disappear to Lichtenstein or some other such place. That was an easy excuse to trot out from the Treasury Bench.
  The rot set in and the problems started when the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) decided to reduce corporation tax from 52 to 35 per cent. and to do away with almost all the allowances—although not the writing down allowances—in respect of investment, mainly in manufacturing industry. Such allowances were an attempt to provide assistance to industries which have to buy large capital assets. The reduction in the rate of corporation tax did nothing to help those companies, but it was a great bonanza to companies that do not need large capital assets. Banks do not need large capital assets, apart from their premises. The retail industry and the service and financial industries do not need to purchase large capital assets, so they do not need that assistance. The decision of the right hon. Member for Blaby was a bonanza to them.
  I should have preferred the benefits to be given to manufacturing industry. Perhaps as a by-product of that change, the right hon. Member for Blaby also increased the charge on capital gains. We have had a discussion in the Chamber about that matter already, and it was also discussed on Second Reading and in Committee, when the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) raised the point. I was surprised when the Government increased the tax on capital gains to 40 per cent. I never thought that I would see a Conservative Government increase capital gains tax to possibly the highest ever rate. I know that there are exemptions and that to some extent there is indexation. The tax on capital gains, as opposed to income gains dressed up as capital, is the highest that has ever been introduced in Britain. We now have a charge of 40 per cent. on capital gains and a top rate of tax on income gains, if I may describe it in that way, of 40 per cent.
  In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) implied that the Labour party was wrong to propose to keep the rate of tax on capital gains lower than the top rate on income gains when we get into government. However, there always used to be a rule that one did not tax the tree at the same rate as the fruit. If a Labour Government did that, I can imagine the pompous, pedantic speeches that would be made from the Conservative Opposition Benches, the equally pompous editorials in The Times, The Independent and The Guardian and the lectures that we would be given about trees and fruit and not inflicting taxation on the tree. Adam Smith must have said something about that, too.

  255
  Yet we have not heard a whimper from anyone that the tree is to be taxed to the same extent as the fruit. Perhaps the editors of The Independent, The Times and the Financial Times were too busy enjoying the fruit of 40 per cent. taxation on their income to worry about 40 per cent. taxation on the tree. I find it strange. I remember a royal commission years ago in Canada on the taxation of income and capital. I forget its exact title. It concluded in the 1960s with the elegant expression: "A buck is a buck is a buck." One taxes a dollar as a dollar. Whether that dollar is a tree dollar or a fruit dollar, it makes no difference. That report was sat upon. It was considered to be impractical and wrong.
  I find it strange that a capitalist party is prepared to tax capital at the same level as income. My right hon. and hon. Friends intend to increase the top rates of income tax when we get into government to 50 per cent., 57 per cent. or whatever it will be after the national insurance surcharge. So, following the pattern of the Government's legislation, why should not we increase capital gains tax to 57 per cent., too? The Government have conceded the argument that, subject to allowances, one taxes capital gains at the same rate as income, for which of course there are also allowances. That is an extraordinary, almost Leninist, proposition from the Conservative Government, who have operated over the years in a way which would have brought joy to the heart of Lenin.
  Mr. Peter Hain: Of Stalin.
  Mr. Davies: I did not like to say Stalin. I will confine it to Lenin.
  I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Blaby made the changes in corporation tax out of malice towards manufacturing industry. The changes are repeated in this Finance Bill, too. However, those changes accorded with the indifference or outright hostility to manufacturing industry which, as an Opposition Member, I have witnessed in the Tory Government. The right hon. Member for Blaby reduced corporation tax because he believed in a level playing field in terms of allowances. It is a perfectly respectable view that there should be no allowances. The cost of allowances and deductions was mentioned earlier. It is a respectable view that we have no allowances, no exemptions and we reduce the rates of tax. But that is a Utopian view because life is not like that. The Finance Acts and income tax codes do not operate in that way. Governments of all persuasions have used financial legislation for purposes of social engineering.
  Certainly the present Government have done that. They cannot argue for a level playing field because they have used one Finance Act after another to try to convert society—frankly, society cannot be converted by the use of Finance Bills, or taxation in general, although some politicians take the opposite view—to their own ideological beliefs.
  The Financial Secretary more or less admitted that no Government can eliminate all allowances and deductions. So the priority, in corporation tax terms, should be manufacturing industry, not because we believe in dark satanic mills and regard banks as terrible places. As I endeavoured to explain yesterday, the products of dark satanic mills will buy food, whereas the products of banks will not, at the end of the day, across the exchanges, buy
  256
  anything. That is the difference in terms of national interest between manufacturing industry and all the other parts of the economy.
  Unfortunately, the British establishment, whether the civil service establishment in Whitehall or the financial establishment in the City, does not care or want to know about manufacturing industry. To operate properly, manufacturing industry demands certain technical qualifications and knowledge. The British establishment does not want to acquire those skills to enable it to take an interest in and run manufacturing industry.
  History, politics, philosophy and economics, cultural studies and the rest are nicer and easier occupations to follow. One can make witty speeches at the Oxford or Cambridge Unions as a result of taking those subjects. It is more difficult, on the other hand, if one takes technical subjects, and the British establishment does not want to know.
  Allied to that is the fact that, as Napoleon said, the English—I should say British; I do not want to be accused of being racist—are a nation of shopkeepers. We are involved with buying and selling and cash flow, with money coming in and going out. That is the problem that Labour Members will have to face when we take the reins of government, because there will be pressures on us also not to give to manufacturing industry the priority that it needs.
  That priority might mean—I mention it as part of the whole picture—putting up the rates of corporation tax on banks, financial services and stockbrokers and giving, out of that extra revenue, the sort of allowances that should be given to manufacturing industry. We will not be able to run away from that. Not only will it have to happen, but the British public will want it to happen or we shall never bridge the gap in our trade with Europe and the rest of the world. Reform of the corporation tax system will have to occur again. The Conservatives cannot do it, because their heart is not in it. We shall have to do it when we take office.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: This is an excellent Finance Bill and I was honoured to be asked to serve on the Standing Committee which considered it. It was a particularly constructive and businesslike Committee this year and I am pleased that the Labour party Front Bench decided to play it in a constructive fashion. Even the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) was on his best behaviour this year and took a constructive part in our proceedings. As a result, we have a piece of legislation of which we can be proud.
  I shall deal with two points. The first is that, as the Financial Secretary said, it is a Finance Bill for business. That theme runs right through it and no other course could have been taken in the present economic situation. The reduction in corporation tax rates and changes in the administration of VAT all occur in that vein.
  Particularly important and welcome—because it brings tremendous relief to many businesses—has been the introduction of the three-year loss carry-back provisions. Loss carry-backs and carry-forwards are more than merely an emergency measure for business in a recession. They are a sensible measure to incorporate into our taxes legislation because they reflect the true cyclical nature of all business. Business should pay tax on its profits over the cycle. Cycles for different sectors are different and the business cycle is

  257
  not of the same duration or depth each time it comes round. It is reasonable that business should now have the possibility of averaging over a period, which certain professions—authors, for instance—have enjoyed for many years.
  It is a good measure and, like most good measures, one can only say of it in retrospect by way of criticism that it might have been introduced earlier. It is an imaginative move forward and I hope that it will be a permanent feature of our taxes Acts. As I pointed out in Committee, however, it is regrettable that the possibility of carrying back losses for three years has been confined by the terms of the Bill to incorporated businesses. Persons trading as principals, or unincorporated businesses in general, will not benefit from that excellent provision.
  I cannot see any reason, in equity or in economics, for discriminating against persons trading as principals and people running unincorporated businesses. The reverse should be the case, since if they are unincorporated, they are bearing the full risks of the business. The logical converse is that their customers, creditors, employers and stakeholders generally are better protected—therefore, society is better protected—by virtue of the greater risks that they carry. I hope that the Government will think further along that promising line and extend the concession to unincorporated businesses.
  In that sense, I put a parliamentary question recently to the Financial Secretary about the cost of extending the concession to all businesses. We have heard this afternoon that the cost for incorporated businesses will be about £250 million in a full year. I gather from the written answer that I received that the cost of extending it to all businesses would be about 10 per cent. of that figure, so there appears to be little reason on revenue grounds to resist such a sensible and desirable move.
  My second point is about fiscal harmonisation in the Community, to which the Financial Secretary referred and about which we had an intervention from the right hon. Gentleman who shares my surname, the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Compulsory fiscal harmonisation—agreement within the context of a new treaty or otherwise—to place legislative restraints on the spending programmes of individual member states seems neither necessary nor desirable. As it is not necessary, it should not— under the principle of subsidiarity, which I hope will also be included in any treaty—be desirable either.
  It is not necessary because the ability of any Government to spend (this has been true of all Governments at all times) is a function of two simple variables—the ability of that Government to tax and to borrow. If we go forward, as I trust we shall, to monetary union and a single currency, with a single market representing an integrated market in which there are no capital controls or limitations on the free movement of labour, the ability of Governments to tax in practice will be constrained within a reasonable margin. If one member state taxes individuals or businesses disproportionately, those individuals or businesses will migrate. People may not migrate for 5 per cent. but they will migrate for 20 per cent. One never knows exactly where the margin lies, but Governments must be wary about overstepping it.
  Therefore, in practice there will be constraint on individual member state's powers to tax, but if we have a single currency there will also be a natural constraint on individual member state's ability to borrow. By definition, they will no longer be in a position to monetise their
  258
  deficits—a game that so many member states of the European Community and other countries have been playing for far too long, to the detriment of the interests of their populations. If we have a single currency, they will have to borrow in a single currency that they do not control. The markets will be well aware of that and of the fact that those countries will have to pay back any borrowings in real value. If a Government overborrow and their ability to pay back in that real value becomes dubious, the price of their bonds or other instruments on the market will immediately be marked down, the yield will increase and the interest rate at which that Government can borrow in future will become correspondingly greater. Again, a natural constraint will choke off individual member state's possibilities to borrow unduly.
  Mr. Favell: As always, I have listened to my hon. Friend's argument with great interest. If he has his way with regard to a single currency, will the Budget process through which we have just gone still be necessary?
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not paid strict attention to my remarks. I said that, within a prospective monetary union and in the context of a single currency, it will be neither necessary nor desirable to impose any legislative or constitutional constraints on the ability of member states to conduct their budgets as they see fit. I said that it will not be necessary because there will be natural market constraints on Governments' ability to tax or borrow. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that if it is not necessary to impose constraints on Governments within the Community, it is undesirable that such constraints be imposed. That is the principle of subsidiarity, which is not merely a theological device that has evolved within the Community but should be a principle of the workings of any democracy. Governments should not intervene and liberty should not be constrained more than is necessary to conserve a society's minimum collective purposes.
  I think that my point has been effectively made and I am pleased to have had the opportunity, thanks to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), to emphasise certain aspects of it. European Community member states should agree, before we reach economic and monetary union, that it is desirable to enforce some fiscal discipline on ourselves. In practice, that would not change the fiscal stance of the British Government because we have set an exceedingly fine example in the past 12 years. We have run consistent fiscal surpluses throughout the boom. Naturally, through the automatic working of the stabilisers in a recession we find ourselves with a fiscal deficit. However, it is a modest one—not merely by international standards but by previous standards in this country under a Labour Government. If we preach the values of fiscal probity and rigour, it is essentially to ensure that other EC member states do not, through irresponsible fiscal policies, destabilise the process of bringing about more convergence. I foresee no constraint on us in that context.
  A red herring often pressed on us by our colleagues in the Community is the suggestion that a new treaty should provide for specific rules as to the fiscal policies to be adopted by member states. I hope that I have shown that that is neither necessary nor desirable. Indeed, I believe that it is exceedingly undesirable.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: The past two speeches have been thoughtful contributions to the debate, not least with regard to the detailed items relating to taxation. They underline the fact that the Finance Bill has two functions. The first relates to the Government's broad economic policy, which is often expressed through measures in the Finance Bill, and the second is the annual review of the different measures required to improve the taxation system, which is often not controversial but merely concerns matters of detail.
  Could not we order our procedure differently? The Opposition try to do as good a job as possible to examine the minutiae of the proposals. However, in cases such as the separate taxation of women it might benefit the House, and, one hopes, the country, if in the period leading up to the Budget—perhaps from October to the beginning of the new year—the Government were to introduce the proposals on the taxation measures that they hope to incorporate in the Budget. They could then be discussed in advance and wider consultation could be carried out. Thoughtful contributions, such as that put forward by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on the nature of corporation tax, could then be made more deliberatively. In that way we could try to improve the process of government without necessarily taking anything away from the cut and thrust and the general drift of the Government's economic policy.
  I regret that, although we are debating the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, neither the end of the recession nor even the first signs of an upturn in the economy seem any closer than they were when the Budget was delivered in March or when the Finance Bill received its Second Reading at the end of April. The Financial Secretary appeared on "TV-am" recently and suggested that the economy may show signs of an upturn in December. I accept that that is the second half of the year—[Interruption.] Perhaps the Financial Secretary will tell the House when he expects an upturn in the economy to start to show.
  Mr. Maude: I knew of nothing and have seen nothing that is at odds with our forecast at the time of the Budget that the upturn would start in the second half of the year. I was merely pointing out, principally for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who seemed unclear about it, that the second half of the year runs from July to December.
  Mr. Wallace: I am grateful for that clarification. I share the Financial Secretary's view that there seemed to be a lack of recognition from the Labour Front Bench about how long the second half of the year lasted. However, the Financial Secretary has not said any more about when the Government expect signs of the upturn to be obvious within the second half of the year.
  Dr. Marek: I urge the hon. Gentleman to be a little cautious about what the Financial Secretary said, because there will be confusion between what may be a slight recovery from the recession and what will no doubt be a pre-Christmas boom.
  Mr. Wallace: I am sure that Opposition Members will be quick to spot the difference and bring it to the attention of a wary electorate. I suspect that any boom may not be
  260
  a pre-Christmas boom but a pre-November boom, if we are to believe the reports in The Independent earlier this week.
  The great fear must be that the recession is so deep that even an upturn in the economy will not mitigate some of the damaging effects that have already been mentioned, including the number of companies that have gone into liquidation and the increasing unemployment rate. The unemployment figures for June will be announced later this week, and the great fear must be that the trend that we have seen during recent months will continue and unemployment will rise above 2·5 million. We have the fastest growing unemployment rate in Europe and unless measures are taken to curb that increase, there could be 3 million unemployed by the turn of the year.
  When considering those figures, one might look for a series of measures designed to curb, or at least tackle, the increase in unemployment, but the Finance Bill offers little scope for that. The Financial Secretary knows that he cannot intervene in my speech to ask about the minimum wage, because the Liberal Democrats share the Government's analysis that a statutory minimum wage would lead to job losses.
  There is consensus on both sides of the House, barring Ministers perhaps, that one of the most necessary responses to an increase in unemployment is the need to invest more in training. The Finance Bill contains clause 32 which, I do not dispute, gives some welcome relief for vocational training, but the estimated cost of £40 million is a drop in the ocean compared to what is required.
  Since the Budget, there has been some success in reducing the inflation rate, but it was disappointing that the June figure showed no change on the May figure. Indeed, the underlying rate of inflation—which was 6·9 per cent. in June—showed an increase in the underlying rate for May. Therefore, even judged by the Government's own yardstick of the underlying figure of inflation—which last year, when the present Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed to be the favoured figure—signs show the reverse of what the Government would wish for.
  Many businesses face problems because interest rates are still relatively high. That put particular pressures on small businesses, a large number of which, regrettably, will not be around to take advantage of lower interest rates, if and when they come.
  The Financial Secretary said that this was intended to be a Budget for business. We welcome some of the measures for small businesses, such as the improvements in bad debt relief on value added tax and the increase of the VAT threshold. I certainly accept that the Budget contains measures that are to be welcomed by the business community. However, when I asked the Financial Secretary how he justified the increased burden on the business community of the 10·9 per cent. increase in the uniform business rate, he sought to give the impression that a degree of inevitability was involved. He accepted that the inflation rate, at 10·9 per cent., was the highest by which the Government could increase the uniform business rate. He seemed to think that businesses were, in some respects, welcoming what the Government had done. While 10·9 per cent. might be better than the business community might have feared under some local authorities—that issue is open to widespread debate—representations made to me and I am sure to many hon. Members show that the 10·9 per cent increase in uniform business rate is not welcomed by the business community. That was

  261
  the highest level by which the Government could increase that rate. They knew that the increase was due to take place on 1 April. If they had had any confidence in their projection for the inflation rate, they should have known that the increase would be substantially in excess of the inflation rate in April, which it was. The uniform business rate increase was a burden on business and continues to be so. That must be set on the scales against such reliefs as the Finance Bill brings to the business community.
  We welcome the fact that the Government decided to restrict mortgage tax relief to the basic rate, which the Liberal Democrats had advocated for some time. That measure will remove a hardy annual from Finance Bill debates. We also welcome extending employee share schemes and profit-related pay, and national insurance contributions on company cars.
  The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is not present, so perhaps I can whisper my following suggestion quietly before he arrives, so that he is not tempted to make another speech. It is regrettable that the Government have sought, yet again, to introduce retrospective and double taxation in relation to building societies in clause 52.
  The principal political measure in the Budget was the increase of 2·5 per cent. in VAT to try to get the Government out of the difficulties that the poll tax had created. On Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that that was a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. He spoke as though fate had conspired to produce circumstances in which the Government were driven, against their will, to increase VAT by 2·5 per cent., with all the resultant consequences for the cost of living. However, the circumstances were not acts of fate, but the acts of the Government, who put the poll tax on the statute book. They recognised the immense difficulties that they found themselves in as a result, and had to take desperate measures to try to get themselves off that hook.
  The 2·5 per cent. increase will not be forgotten. I have since had my poll tax bill from Orkney Islands council—it is all of £2 as a result of the £140 rebate. However, it is easy to ignore the fact that we have a further £55 water charge, for which those least able to pay do not receive a rebate. There is less scope for local authorities to exercise their own discretion. As the convenor of Shetland Islands council said, "How the hell do you exercise political discretion on 93p for the poll tax?" One may well repeat that question.
  It has been reported recently that the £140 reduction in poll tax will not be passed on in respect of those people who do not pay the tax. That seems to be a further burden on those who pay the tax. I think that it was expected that if we had to pay the extra 2·5 per cent. VAT, there would be £140 for every poll tax payer. It seems that the Government are making things worse for those who honestly pay the poll tax, by not passing on the extra money. Will the Financial Secretary to the Treasury confirm that?
  Although the Finance Bill is good in parts and undertakes some of the measures that the Liberal Democrats have advocated for a number of years, it has two fundamental flaws. First, it imposes an additional VAT tax to try to get the Government off the hook of their own creation. I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be the first to admit that the Liberal Democrats had the guts to put their votes where their voices were and vote against the increase. Secondly, the Finance Bill fails miserably to address the fundamental
  262
  economic problems facing this country, where we have a recession with no light at the end of the tunnel and unemployment set to increase beyond 2·25 million. The Finance Bill offers no hope to those afflicted by the recession and unemployment.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: The Third Reading debate of the Finance Bill is always good natured. I am sure that the House is grateful to those who have worked hard and long to bring the Bill to our attention.
  The hallmarks of the Conservative Government since 1979 have been, among other factors, that we have had but one Budget in each of those years. That is of inestimable assistance to people who run businesses and have budgets to meet, and is a far cry from those days when there were two or more Budgets a year under a Labour Administration.
  The Government have sought to establish sound money, and risk unpopularity as a result. They have repaid debt and have a record of both abolishing and reducing taxes. All these things are entirely desirable and beneficial, and are in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Labour Administration and to what we know would happen if the Labour party were ever to form another Administration. A few moments ago, we heard the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) advocating an increase in corporation tax.
  In an intervention, I said that our tax regime means that we have no fewer than 88 reliefs and allowances against the six main Inland Revenue taxes, and that these cost the Exchequer £86·7 billion in 1990–91 while those six taxes raised £82·9 billion. In other words, they raised £4 billion less than the reliefs and allowances.
  In every society, one has spendthrifts, savers, speculators, the cautious, the rash, the honest, the dishonest. There is a great hazard in treating everybody alike because it is not only illogical but unrealistic. Having so many reliefs and allowances against our taxes distorts the natural and legitimate spending decisions that individuals make. We bribe taxpayers with their own money to make decisions that reflect the priorities of the politicians. We do not have a neutral tax regime.
  There are essentially four choices for disposal of after-tax income. An individual may choose to put his money into bricks and mortar, to buy a pension, to save or to spend. The incentives to invest in bricks and mortar are mortgage interest relief, capital gains tax relief, and the knowledge that bricks and mortar have an unparalleled track record of being a good investment, quite apart from the utilitarian nature of the investment. All these meant that such a disposal became a priority for many people, causing the economy to overheat.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that we should do away with mortgage tax relief?
  Mr. Gill: I am advocating that the Treasury should have a long hard look at all the reliefs and allowances so that we can get nearer to a neutral tax regime. That would mean that individuals making spending decisions would not be faced with incentives for one form of disposition of income as against another. Whether we choose to spend or save, to invest in stocks or shares or in bricks and mortar, there should be no tax advantage to influence our decision.

  263
  Pensions also have a tax advantage. That gives our financial institutions an enormous amount of power, and has been instrumental in the demise of the individual shareholder. Many hon. Members may care to speculate this week about the effect of that on various goings-on in the City. Getting rid of the individual shareholder has led to massive block voting power in the hands of institutions, with the result that some of the checks and balances that would previously have existed at shareholders' meetings no longer occur because there is not the raft of private shareholders that we previously had.
  Millions of people will today spend their day working for insurance companies or building societies. That brings me to my next topic—savings. Savings are not as popular as spending. Savings out of earnings are generally taxed twice and savers are shy about saving because of the effects of inflation. The decision to spend is also affected by inflation. We live in a materialistic age where people want to spend. That is not to deny the fact that the modern economy depends on consumption.
  Before the increase of VAT to 17·5 per cent. in the Budget, taxes on production—that is, broadly speaking, pay-as-you-earn, national insurance, business rates and corporation tax—accounted for 70 per cent. of the Inland Revenue's income. Taxes on consumption—bearing in mind that we live in an age that is trying to conserve natural resources and is conscious of the finite extent of those resources—brought in only 30 per cent. of revenue income. Therefore, I invite my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to look again at whether we have got right the balance between those taxes that impinge on production, which is so important to the economy, and those which impinge on consumption.
  We need fewer and lower taxes, but above all we need a neutral tax regime such as that which I have set out. We have to balance spending decisions between spending on consumables or saving, and to balance spending on consumption and on production. We must never forget that individual spending decisions are preferable to Government decisions, and that manufacturing industry, contrary to what many people are telling us today, is without a shadow of doubt the engine of our economy. It is important to our economy, because it creates wealth.
  I commend the Bill to the House and congratulate Ministers on introducing a Budget which did its best to reflect the needs of all sections of society. My plea is that we do all that we can in future Budgets to look after the wealth-creating sector and to make sure that spending decisions remain with the individual rather than drifting to the centre.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: Like the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), I was not a member of this cosy club. I am not sure that the Committee examining the Finance Bill should be as cosy as has been made out. I have heard talk about gentlemanly actions and about how civil and good natured people were. This Finance Bill has done devastating things to people and should be opposed vigorously. I am sure that it was in Committee, and I am sure that its proceedings were not as cosy as has been suggested by Conservative Members.
  264
  Hon. Members will not be surprised when I mention one shambles in the Finance Bill—which is strewn with shambolic actions by the Government—the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, which I referred to earlier. In the early hours of this morning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that he thought that that was the first time that the foundation had been discussed. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows only too well that that is not the case. I raised the subject in the Budget debate on 20 March, in the debate an Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 30 April, and in an Adjournment debate on 23 May.
  I am sure that many hon. Members have noticed that the Budget had two facets—one of panic and one of fear. That has continued throughout the proceedings on the Finance Bill. The way in which the Government have set about cobbling together proposals proves that Ministers have been struck down by another affliction—financial illiteracy.
  Watching a variety of Ministers make contradictory claims about the amount of money that will be provided by the foundation has been a little like watching a magician's card trick. Ministers have been intent on plucking figures out of the air, and have refused to tell even their own colleagues how the last figure was arrived at. Very often, the figures have been doubled by the next Minister who has spoken. That might be an acceptable way in which to treat Tory Members, but it is no way to treat the millions of sports men and women and the millions of people who are involved in the arts in Britain.
  The chief culprit for making suspect claims is our old friend the Minister for Sport. On 23 April at a press conference in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre he said that the foundation would generate £75 million per year. When I asked him to justify that, he said in a parliamentary written answer on 29 April that that sum would be produced from increased pools betting take-up. I am sure that the Financial Secretary viewed that claim with astonishment because, to be fair, the Treasury has always said that the foundation will produce £60 million. That claim was repeated by a Minister in the early hours of this morning. When I pointed out the Minister for Sport's claim to the Financial Secretary during the debate on the Finance Bill on 30 April he refuted my remarks and said that the Minister for Sport would be surprised. So surprised was he that he repeated the claim on 23 May. It is extraordinary that Ministers still cannot agree on a common figure for the resources that will be generated for the foundation by the Bill.
  However, if the Financial Secretary thinks that the Minister for Sport has made extraordinary claims, he should consider the figures given in The Guardian on 21 June by the Minister for the Arts. He said that the foundation will provide £1 million a week to sport and £500,000 a week to the arts. The Financial Secretary, with his recently acquired knowledge of financial statistics, might confirm that 52 times £1·5 million is not £60 million, nor £75 million, but £78 million. The Minister should advise his colleagues to read the figures contained in a parliamentary written answer to me on 12 July, at column 527, from the Minister of State, Treasury, who said that in order to provide funds to the foundation of £75 million, the pools betting turnover would need to increase from £766,000 to £1 billion—an increase of 30·5 per cent. in one year. The Minister's answer also shows that pools betting duty increased by only 28 per cent. during the past four

  265
  years and has never increased by more than 8·9 per cent. in any one year in the past decade, which all goes to show that Ministers do not have a clue what will be provided by the foundation.
  I do not have time to develop these points, because others wish to speak. Therefore, I do not wish to say more than that the foundation has been a shambles from the beginning. I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies he will come clean. At least he is listening to my remarks tonight; he usually gets them second hand from the Minister of State and, as I have said before, I do not think that he can read her handwriting. Is the figure £60 million, £75 million or £78 million? Who will the trustees be? Will the Minister for the Arts have an observer on the foundation? Yesterday I was told that he would not, but in the early hours of the morning I was told that he would. Throughout, the Government have been in a mess over the foundation and we all know why.
  The foundation was concocted a few days before the Budget in order to stop a national lottery coming on the scene and, as a result, the Government have run into trouble. Why do not the Government put up their hands and admit that they are in a mess and say that they will look again at the whole question of how coherently to fund sport and the arts in Britain? They should not be pushed along this road by a pressure group which has bounced them into the scheme. Privately they admit that they have been bounced into it. They should come clean and say so, so that we can have a meaningful debate about how to fund these important areas of our life.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: This is an excellent Finance Bill. I well understand why Mr. Speaker was unable to select the two amendments that I tabled to clause 30 dealing with mobile phones, a subject which was discussed at great length in Committee. We should remember that we tax simply to raise revenue and, as a reforming Conservative Government, to level playing fields for the raising of revenue.
  The tax on mobile phones is a tax too far and a rather unfortunate joke within the Budget speech which has backfired because it does not do what it was intended to do—raise revenue and maintain a level playing field. The £200 basic charge, which at the standard rate would be a £50 tax on an individual, or £80 at the higher rate—under a Labour Government it would be at least £100 at the higher rate—is a tax on enterprise which we should not be imposing. It could well reduce tax revenue, because I understand that there has been a reduction in the number of people ordering such phones and that many are now passing them back to their employers.
  Technically, the private use of any business phone is taxable, but practically that does not occur. Anyone who has a phone on his desk in an office uses it for a certain number of private calls. The Government say that a mobile phone is different because the user is out of the office and cannot be supervised so closely. That is nonsense because a single phone, dedicated to an individual, locked up in a person's car can be used only by that person. With a switchboard with multiple extensions one cannot work out who is using a particular phone. That nonsense is further exacerbated because in the clause,
  266
  which extends to two pages, the Government have decided to exclude the telepoint phone which allows calls to be made outside the office but not received.
  We are attempting to stifle enterprise. People who are willing to be available 24 hours a day seven days a week and do not want to spend a lot of time working out which are private calls and which are not will be taxed. Moreover, it is ridiculous that the person who is using the phone as a perk, making many free calls without being charged the tax, will be getting away with murder by having a small charge.
  Clause 30 will not raise any additional tax revenue. In practice, we will find that is does not do what it is supposed to do. The playing field is being tilted away from high technology, the mobile phone and all the developments of the next decade in mobile telephony, and that is a wrongheaded move. I hope that the Minister will look at that again.
  Finally, non-incorporated businesses should have a carry-back for tax. There is no justification for a corner newsagent not being able to reclaim his tax while W. H. Smith, if it has a run of bad years, can do so. Those are two blots on an excellent Bill and I hope that they will be taken on board in future Bills.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: This has been my first experience of the Finance Bill. Much to the amazement of some of my more experienced colleagues, I volunteered to serve on the Committee. I was struck by the Government's barefaced cheek in bringing forward a Bill of such staggering irrelevance and complacency given the general economic situation. It is a Bill of bits and bobs with no strategy. When it started off, the revenue heart of the Bill was the VAT increase—a panic measure. It was born not out of any desire to achieve an optimal level of VAT, but out of the desire to bail the Government out of the mess that they found themselves in on the poll tax. As a result, the poor have been hit the hardest and the noose has been further tightened around the necks of small businesses which have been suffering so badly during the past 10 years.
  Similarly, the tax changes that have been introduced could have addressed the poverty trap problem which continues to inflict great damage on many of my constituents. Some of them supplement their retirement pensions with tiny private pensions from their life's work down the mines. A pension increase is given to them with one hand, but tax is taken from them with the other. The Government could have addressed that anomaly, but they did not do so. The Budget is full of missed opportunities.
  Clause 27 sets the level at which tax relief can be claimed on mortgages. That welcome change is one which Labour has advocated for many years. But instead of switching that money to providing additional relief to hard-pressed first-time buyers—many of whom cannot afford to buy a home even in today's depressed property market—the Government directed it at making extra provision for higher rate tax payers. Therefore, those mortgage payers who would have lost out under the change in the level of relief saw it equalised under the tax change. They are the same group of people who have benefited dramatically over the years from the Government's tax cuts for the rich.

  267
  The Government also failed to address the crisis in training that they have perpetuated and intensified. Clause 32 of the Finance Bill will have little effect on west Wales, where the number of training weeks has been cut by 21 per cent., or by 43,200 places, over the past year.
  I refer to the many other business measures, such as the capital relief given to companies engaged in the construction of toll roads, without any thought to a clear strategy. In Committee, I asked the Financial Secretary how much money that measure will cost the Exchequer, but he did not know. There is a need in my constituency to construct the missing link in the A465, but the Government cannot entertain that scheme because they are giving a little tax relief here and there, without even knowing how much it will cost.
  The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) rightly referred to the gimmick tax on mobile phone usage. That petty measure will hit small businesses the hardest, but it will generate hardly any additional revenue, if any at all. In May, a month after the Chancellor's announcement, there was the first fall in the United Kingdom cellular phone sector, of 460 subscribers, after a six-year period of uninterrupted growth. That proposal is technologically illiterate and petty in tax terms.
  The Finance Bill presents a package of irrelevant measures while the economy continues to go down the plug hole. Welsh businesses are closing at the alarming rate of seven every working day. In the first half of 1991, a total of 880 businesses in Wales went under—an increase of 77·1 per cent. over last year.
  Today, Lord King of British Airways announced a further loss of 1,000 to 2,000 direct jobs as a consequence of British Airways being restricted to its core businesses. The Secretary of State for Transport has behaved with monumental incompetence, echoing again the Government's failure to address the real needs of industry and the economy. That is particularly true of the south Wales economy, which, despite the public relations noises made by the Secretary of State for Wales, has suffered one shock after another.
  The Bill's failure to address the central issues of our society and economy is evidenced by the continuing and relentless rise in unemployment, with the number of jobless in Wales reaching 100,000 for the first time in many years. Industry is at its wit's end. It views the Government with absolute contempt because of their failure to address the deep-seated problems of the British economy. The Bill reflects the Government's incompetence. While Government Ministers sit in their ivory towers devising tiny clauses for the Finance Bill, the economy is falling down around their ears.
  6.44 pm
  Dr. John Marek: It is nice to have an open-ended debate, but, although we can continue this Third Reading of the Finance Bill as long as we like, the Chairman of Ways and Means has put down private business for 7 o'clock, so I will do my best to make sure that the debate can finish by then.
  I particularly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who summed up the Opposition's attitude to the Bill, which tinkers with, but does nothing for, the economy, which only goes from bad
  268
  to worse. Telling points were made also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), in respect of capital investment, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), who spoke about funding of sports and the arts.
  I share the view expressed by some hon. Members that the Finance Bill should be attacked in Committee in a co-operative way, but also in a way that reveals to the public what is wrong with its provisions. Very often, those two objectives cannot be met. The Bill contains many technical clauses, but also several—such as that which increases value added tax from 15 to 17·5 per cent.—whose impact can immediately be understood by everyone. There may be an argument for reassessing the way in which the House considers future Finance Bills, so that the Opposition of the day could have their objections carefully considered by the Government and their advisers, while the technicalities were allowed to progress with cross-party co-operation. That would allow important decisions affecting the public to be fought in the traditional way, across the Floor of the House—and I would not dare to suggest from this Dispatch Box any improvements to that system.
  The Financial Secretary said that this is a Budget for business, and called in aid the lowering of corporation tax and the availability of VAT relief on bad debts after one year instead of two. There is not much for business in those two measures. They will help a little—one must not be churlish—but they are incapable of bringing much improvement to the economy and to industry as a whole.
  The Government's growth record is abysmal. From 1979 to 1991, Britain's economy grew by only 1·5 per cent., despite the benefit of £100 billion of North sea oil. The Government are fond of comparing their performance with that of past Labour Administrations. From 1974 to 1979, the economy grew by 2 per cent., and under the Labour Government of 1964 to 1970, Britain enjoyed an average growth rate of 2·8 per cent. The Government's record of growth and of helping industry is not good—and I am being very moderate in that choice of words. Between 1979 and 1991, the United Kingdom was sixth from the bottom of the growth league among the 24 OECD countries.
  From the time of the industrial revolution until 1982, we had a surplus in manufacturing trade. In 1982 we went into the red, and have remained in the red ever since. Manufacturing output has hardly grown since 1979, when the present Administration took office. Between then and 1991, it grew less than in any other OECD country.
  Although welcome, the limited alleviation of the problems of corporation tax and bad debts will do nothing to lift us from the abyss that we have had to endure under the present Government. They have taken us from one bad recession, in 1980–81, through an unsustainable consumer boom and into another bad recession in 1990–91. Those were the two worst recessions since the great recession of the 1930s. The Bill does not address the problems of our economy; it merely increases indirect taxation.
  The VAT increase—from 15 to 17·5 per cent.—was not introduced for any noble reason, such as a desire to make trains and buses run on time, to improve the roads or to reduce environmental pollution. As we heard from the Financial Secretary's own lips this afternoon, the Government simply wanted to reduce poll tax payments. The poll tax problem was entirely of the Government's making. They can provide no excuse: they brought the

  269
  problem on themselves by insisting on the original charges and, in an attempt to escape the consequences, they have now inflicted the VAT increase on everyone in the country.
  Under the present Administration, people have had to bear higher rates of taxation than I can remember. The Financial Secretary has conveniently forgotten that, under the last Labour Government, VAT was running at 8 per cent. It rose to 15 per cent. very soon after the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) took office in 1979, despite earlier denials that any such increase would take place.
  The Financial Secretary has also forgotten that national insurance contributions rose by some 2·5 per cent. at that time. It was news to him this afternoon—his civil servants showed him the relevant table—that taxation, as a proportion of gross domestic product, rose by quite a bit in 1979. Later, it fell, but it has since risen again. The Financial Secretary did not say that initially, but I give him credit for getting it right in the end. Having shot up in 1979, taxation, as a proportion of GDP, has remained 3 or 4 per cent. higher than it was under Labour in the 1970s.
  There is no prospect of a fall in that high percentage rate; certainly the Bill will do nothing to bring it down. The only solution available to the British people is to get rid of the Government at the next general election—and, as the opinion polls show, that is exactly what will happen when the Government finally muster enough nerve to go to the country and test their policies before the public. Meanwhile, they have produced a Finance Bill which merely tinkers with an economy that is in dire need of repair.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) ended his speech on a brave and defiant note, and I do not begrudge him that—he is entitled to his little show of defiance in the face of opinion polls which are crumbling before his very eyes. Nevertheless, I set little store by those polls, for there is only one poll that matters—the one in which the British people give their verdict, and I am prepared to abide by that verdict as I am confident that it will be in our favour.
  This has been a useful and, by and large, temperate and moderate debate. Our Finance Bill debates express very powerfully what the House of Commons is about. They illustrate its role in scrutinising public expenditure and legislating for the levying of taxation. We should take that role seriously, and I believe that we have done so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) mentioned the problems of the merchant shipping fleet, and suggested steps that the Government might take. As he probably knows, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary referred to those problems briefly in yesterday's debate. My hon. Friend requested me to state unequivocally that the decline in tonnage was a problem. He also said—and I cannot entirely accept this—that it did not much matter what the solution was. In my view, it does matter. We must not simply say, "Here is a problem—something must be done; this is something—let us do it." We must ensure that any solution that we produce is a real solution to a real problem.
  Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government take the matter very seriously. We fully recognise the contribution made by our merchant shipping fleet in times of conflict. We and our NATO partners keep the position
  270
  under regular review and—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary said yesterday—we are currently engaged in an up-to-date study of our shipping requirements and the options for meeting them. As my hon. Friend seemed to accept, this is a complex subject. It is far from simple either to divine those requirements or to decide how they can best be affordably met.
  We are confident that the taxation route is not the right one, and that has, I believe, been generally accepted by the House. I assure hon. Members, however, that we shall not hesitate to act—and, if necessary, to spend—if we consider that such action is justified by our defence requirements.
  Sir Giles Shaw: Will my hon. Friend consult the industry as the results of the working party's review become known?
  Mr. Maude: We have remained in close touch with the shipping industry, which has been at pains to keep in touch not only with us but with a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I make no complaint about that; it is right that we should understand the problems.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) talked about the sports and arts trust, and urged me to come clean. Let me reassure him, too. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary came clean yesterday at about 1.30 in the morning, and I think that when the hon. Gentleman studies Hansard he will find his points well met.
  This is a good Finance Bill and I have no difficulty in commending it wholeheartedly to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 219.

  Division Number 213]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Bright, Graham

  Aitken, Jonathan

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

  Allason, Rupert

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amess, David

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Amos, Alan

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Burns, Simon

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Butler, Chris

  Ashby, David

  Butterfill, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Atkins, Robert

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkinson, David

  Cartwright, John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cash, William

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baldry, Tony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Churchill, Mr

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Benyon, W.

  Colvin, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Conway, Derek

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bottomley, Peter

  Curry, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

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

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Day, Stephen

  Bowis, John

  Devlin, Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Dicks, Terry

  271

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dover, Den

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Evennett, David

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Knowles, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Farr, Sir John

  Latham, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lord, Michael

  Franks, Cecil

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Fry, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gale, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Madel, David

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gregory, Conal

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Ground, Patrick

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hannam, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Harris, David

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Mudd, David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hill, James

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

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

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Page, Richard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Paice, James

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Pawsey, James

  Irvine, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Irving, Sir Charles

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jack, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jackson, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Janman, Tim

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, Sir David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Raffan, Keith

  272

  Rathbone, Tim

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Redwood, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Thorne, Neil

  Riddick, Graham

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tracey, Richard

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tredinnick, David

  Rost, Peter

  Trippier, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walden, George

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Ward, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sims, Roger

  Watts, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Speller, Tony

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Whitney, Ray

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Squire, Robin

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Summerson, Hugo

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clelland, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Alton, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Anderson, Donald

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Corbett, Robin

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Ashton, Joe

  Cousins, Jim

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cox, Tom

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Crowther, Stan

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Bob

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bell, Stuart

  Darling, Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Benton, Joseph

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

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Blair, Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobson, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Keith

  Douglas, Dick

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Eadie, Alexander

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Edwards, Huw

  Buckley, George J.

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Fearn, Ronald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Carr, Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Flannery, Martin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Flynn, Paul

  Clay, Bob

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  273

  Foster, Derek

  Michael, Alun

  Foulkes, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Galloway, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Mullin, Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Murphy, Paul

  Gordon, Mildred

  Nellist, Dave

  Gould, Bryan

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Graham, Thomas

  O'Brien, William

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Grocott, Bruce

  Parry, Robert

  Hain, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Hardy, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Haynes, Frank

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Prescott, John

  Henderson, Doug

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

  Radice, Giles

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Randall, Stuart

  Home Robertson, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Richardson, Jo

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Robertson, George

  Howells, Geraint

  Rogers, Allan

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rooney, Terence

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Illsley, Eric

  Salmond, Alex

  Ingram, Adam

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Janner, Greville

  Sheerman, Barry

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Lambie, David

  Snape, Peter

  Lamond, James

  Soley, Clive

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Leighton, Ron

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Strang, Gavin

  Litherland, Robert

  Straw, Jack

  Livingstone, Ken

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  McAllion, John

  Wallace, James

  McCartney, Ian

  Walley, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McFall, John

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  McLeish, Henry

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Maclennan, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wilson, Brian

  Madden, Max

  Winnick, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Marek, Dr John

  Worthington, Tony

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Martlew, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maxton, John

  Mr. Thomas McAvoy and Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  Meacher, Michael

  Meale, Alan

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  British Railways (No. 3) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The works set out in the Bill are designed to add capacity and to improve the flexibility of the rail system in the years following the opening of the channel tunnel. They represent a small but important part of the rolling programme of investment being undertaken by British Rail.
  The year 1993 offers unprecedented opportunities: the single European market will be in operation and the channel tunnel will be ready to open. The development of the nation's infrastructure to maximise business potential is of vital importance. The final section of the M20 is now in place and it will link the tunnel with Britain's motorway network. British Rail is investing more than £1,500 million in new high-speed trains, in a new international station at Waterloo and in renewed infrastructure to meet the new needs. Many other changes are necessary, some large and some small. The works outlined in the Bill represent, for the most part, the latter type. Each item is in itself a modest measure but is vital to the infrastructure of the national rail system.
  In brief, the Bill would connect the proposed Ashford international station with the existing channel tunnel route and provide for three new freight loops in Kent; for a railway chord link in north London and for improvements to the layout at Bickley junction in south-east London. Together, those works represent an important element of the investment programme in the rail network designed to carry the predicted level of passenger and freight traffic in the years before the opening of the proposed high-speed rail link at the end of the century.
  However, it is worth noting that, although new powers are needed for the works proposed in the Bill, those works represent only a small part of the overall programme of works which the board has undertaken in contemplation of the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993, most of which are being carried out under existing powers.
  Works Nos. 1A and 1B of the Bill provide for the construction of a railway connection to the proposed international station at Ashford which is excellently located, providing easy access from Kent and Sussex to mainland Europe without a journey into London. The introduction of the Networker express for Kent coast services and the proposed electrification of the line between Ashford and Hastings will ensure continuing improvements to the strategic benefits which the station will provide.
  Mr. Roger Moate: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend, who is speaking on behalf of British Rail on this occasion, mention the introduction of the Networker express service. I agree that it is a matter of tremendous importance, but has he been informed of when British Rail might make even an application to the Minister for the investment authority to go ahead with the programme? I should be very interested to know.
  Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend raises an important point and I shall seek clarification if I have the opportunity to reply later. However, I expected that it was certainly to be within the next three or four years.

  275
  The proposals currently before the Secretary of State have received outline planning permission and have been commended by the Royal Fine Art Commission. Work No. 2 in the Bill, the West Hampstead chord, will provide a 650 m line connecting the midland main line with the west coast main line. That will allow the proposed King's Cross low-level station to have direct access to the west midlands and the north-west on its completion, with or without the new rail link from the tunnel into central London.
  Work No. 6 provides for an extra link between two existing railways at Bickley junction in the London borough of Bromley to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate international traffic and existing domestic train services. Works Nos. 3, 4 and 5 look to the construction of three loops in Kent at Headcorn, Borough Green and Otford. The purpose of the loops, which are approximately 900 m in length, is to allow slower moving freight trains to be bypassed by current Network SouthEast and proposed international passenger services. Their sites have been chosen to avoid points of conflict between passenger and freight timetables. It is vital that the loops are constructed if British Rail is to maximise the opportunity for moving freight by rail with no disadvantage to existing Network SouthEast customers.
  I am aware that the issue of how freight should be carried through Kent is of concern to many hon. Members from that beautiful county. The building of the channel tunnel and the single European market will lead initially to a growth in freight equivalent to about 400,000 lorry movements a year. British Rail proposes the introduction of up to 27 channel tunnel freight services a day each way. Those trains will be able to take the equivalent of up to 1,500 lorry loads each day off the already heavily congested roads of Kent.
  The growth of freight traffic raises the issue of noise. That main environmental concern is being addressed by British Rail. Quieter welded track, new train and wagon design and the use of new electric rather than diesel locomotives will make a major contribution to noise reduction for residents living close to the railway. Many people in the south-east are accustomed to diesel locomotives hauling slow and heavy traffic, whereas the new freight train, like the new international passenger train, will be a different breed. I am sure that the people of Kent will welcome the change.
  The House of Lords Select Committee on the British Railways (No. 3) Bill spoke of the need to address the issue of "major and relatively sudden" intensification of services on existing lines. The Bill will not in itself cause a major intensification of services, but follows naturally from the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 through which the House approved the principle of developing international freight and passenger rail services. British Rail is convinced that the net environmental impact of the channel tunnel rail freight business will be overwhelmingly positive. As I said, it will carry the equivalent of 400,000 lorry movements in Kent each year.
  Kent county council has argued that the increase in traffic due to the channel tunnel is a unique case, but that is not so. Examples from the recent past include the introduction of the hourly night service on the Gatwick express, the introduction of channel tunnel construction
  276
  material trains and coal traffic to the Aire valley power stations. British Rail has said that it is willing to discuss with Kent county council proposals for local measures of mitigation. Since the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill, the chairman of British Rail and the leader of Kent county council have been in touch and they are agreed on the need to come up with some workable solutions.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: My hon. Friend mentioned the activity of trains carrying freight for the channel tunnel construction. I bring to my hon. Friend's notice the fact that constituents are already greatly disturbed by that traffic in a way in which they were not disturbed before.
  Mr. Thorne: My hon. Friend raised the question of comparing those trains with the trains that are proposed to carry freight in the future. They will vary considerably. The point was not whether the noise that they make is disturbing. The question was whether such noise had existed before. Kent county council claims that the new network will be the first occasion on which such noise will occur. I was attempting to point out that that was not the case.
  I remind the House that the works in the Bill are limited in scope, but important. As the House of Lords Select Committee noted:
  "without the works in the Bill, British Rail would be compelled to find other means of operating services to the Channel Tunnel, although doubtless at some cost to operational efficiency."
  The Committee said that it was the responsibility of British Rail to maximise the potential benefit of the tunnel and the single European market for rail traffic and that it must seek to do so without prejudicing its many customers in Kent and elsewhere.
  With the permission of the House, I shall endeavour to answer further questions later. I have explained the purpose of the Bill and why I commend it to the House.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I want to speak both generally and particularly from a Scottish and northern point of view. I speak with some trepidation because I am aware that there may be more local concerns into which I have no intention of intruding. When I look at a measure that includes the creation of passing loops at Headcorn, Borough Green and Otford in Kent, I fear that I may step into a hornets' nest and that there may be matters of intense local concern.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Whatever the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions, many of us welcome enormously the fact that he is prepared to speak this evening. One of the great problems in addressing the works needed to cope with the channel tunnel is that far too little interest has been taken by hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that I speak for all hon. Members here when I say how much we welcome the hon. Gentleman's taking part in our debate.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to extend his point a little. What he says is regrettable, but true. People—and hon. Members—in other parts of the country may be waking up pretty late in the day to the fact that by neglecting the debate that has been taking place largely in the south-east of England—

  277
  and I am sure that there are perfectly legitimate concerns relating to the channel tunnel and especially to the provision of links—the rest of the country is in danger of losing the benefits of the channel tunnel. Unless matters can be sorted out in the south-east, those of us who depend on links far beyond the immediate source of the controversies will also lose the benefits of the tunnel.
  I make no apology for saying that my interest in the matter has been greatly stimulated by visiting France and by seeing what is going on on the other side of the tunnel. I have seen the construction project under way and the way in which the whole tunnel project is being approached as a great national undertaking, with the specific purpose of bringing maximum benefit to all parts of France, rather than simply concentrating the impact of the tunnel within the small corner of France which is directly related to it.
  I have also looked at the parallel scene on this side of the channel. At this late stage, no direct route has yet been designated between the tunnel and London—never mind further north. There is still no station in London which has been designated in the long term. We still do not have approval for King's Cross. With one solitary exception which I understand will be the subject of a public inquiry, we have no freight depots designated in Scotland for the channel tunnel. The months and years tick away, and none of the infrastructural preparations which we are entitled to expect to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel extend throughout the country are being brought to a conclusion.
  I remind the House that 75 per cent. of the freight that will pass through the tunnel will go north of London. This is not a parochial matter for the south-east, but is of far wider concern. I have a vested interest in supporting any small measure that can facilitate improvements.
  The Bill does not prejudice the choice of route for the high-speed rail link and should not get caught up in that controversy. No domestic properties would be purchased in association with the works and, therefore, it should not get caught up in that concern. I am sure that the Bill is a small measure. I have no wish to impinge on other people's local controversies. I apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave the Chamber shortly after I have made my remarks.
  This is a matter of wide concern. Let us get on with the project. The tunnel is potentially a wonderful project which should do much to link the whole of Britain with the whole of the continent, yet on this side of the channel we have got bogged down in local difficulties in the south-east. Let us get the routes built, the lines designated and the necessary infrastructure in place so that when the tunnel opens we have a realistic prospect of fast passenger trains and dedicated freight routes being ready to maximise the benefits for the whole country.
  7.30 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I am taking part in the debate not because proposed Work No. 4—the Borough Green passing loop—is in my constituency, but because there is a significant omission from the Bill. Compensation for people who will be directly affected by the works that are the subject of the Bill has been omitted.
  As the House is aware, I endeavoured during the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill to set out at some length the case, which is supported by a considerable number of us, for compensation to be paid in connection with railway works on designated lines to the
  278
  channel tunnel. The House will be relieved to know that I have no intention of reading out that entire speech verbatim—
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It was a very good speech.
  Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I believe that what I said then is just as highly pertinent and relevant now.
  There was a sequel to our debate on new clause 16 of the Planning and Compensation Bill on 19 June. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport wound up the debate, he mentioned eight specific steps suggested by the Government and by British Rail to deal with the problem of noise. In connection with the first step, my hon. Friend said:
  "First, the chairman of British Rail told me, after speaking with the chairman of Kent county council, that he is ready to discuss with that authority how British Rail can help in the further measures that it has proposed, to alleviate the prospective increased noise for the homes that will be most affected."—[Official Report, 19 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 348.]
  If I may say so, my hon. Friend's remarks were somewhat obscure, and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), thought that he might have been alluding to the possibility of British Rail offering compensation as part of the package of further measures to be discussed between itself and Kent county council.
  I then tabled the following specific question:
  "To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the further noise alleviation measures to which his hon. Friend the Minister of State referred on 19 June, Official Report, column 348; and whether or not they included compensation."
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State replied:
  "My reference was to measures mentioned in Kent county council's paper: 'International Rail Services Noise Protection', which suggests action that could be taken where railway noise increases and exceeds specific levels at certain times of day or night. The suggested action includes the provision of noise barriers or sound insulation for people's homes. It is these physical measures which British Rail will be discussing with the council."—[Official Report, 26 June 1991; Vol. 193, column 462.]
  I am therefore sorry to tell the House that, sadly, compensation, as opposed to discussion of the further physical works, is apparently not on the agenda for the discussions between the British Rail chairman and officials and Kent county council. That is regrettable.
  My first question is this: what responsibilities does British Rail accept towards those whose homes will seriously depreciate in value due to the noise from the railway works? The answer appears to be that where British Rail proposes to construct a new line, or a piece of new line, it accepts an obligation both to buy, through voluntary agreements, the worst affected houses, and to pay injurious affection compensation under the Land Compensation Act in respect of less seriously affected houses. However, where no new line will be constructed, although major railway works of another sort may take place, British Rail seems unwilling to contemplate compensation.
  I ask the House to consider the impact of that policy on compensation in connection with the proposals in the Bill —not least with regard to the passing loops at Borough Green in my constituency and elsewhere in other Kent constituencies. In respect of the section of line approaching the passing loop, no compensation will be

  279
  payable, but the moment the newly constructed passing loop splits off, compensation under the Land Compensation Act becomes payable. The moment the loop rejoins the existing line, compensation ceases to be payable. It is a lottery. The situation is grotesquely unfair. Compensation will not be payable on certain sections of line, although exactly the same noise disturbance, created by the same passenger and freight trains, will be suffered. A few hundred yards away, compensation will become payable, but it will be extinguished again as soon as the loop finishes.
  Mr. Wolfson: Is not the position made even more ludicrous by the fact, which was pointed out in debate in the other place, that the loop lines tend to run clear of housing, as they do in my constituency?
  Sir John Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The situation is ludicrous in relation to the works proposed in the Bill, but that anomaly is a small forerunner of the even more grotesque situation that may arise when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber tonight, announces his decision on the new high-speed line. If he announces that that line will enter London from the south-east, where new track is laid alongside the existing track, there will be full rights to compensation, whereas elsewhere in London, where the same trains, whether passenger or freight will run on existing track, no compensation will be payable. If the situation is ludicrous and anomalous now, in Kent, in connection with the Bill, such an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend would create a far worse position.
  What is the basis in law for British Rail's adoption of such a compensation policy? The answer is that there is no basis in law for the way in which British Rail chooses to interpret its obligations under the Land Compensation Act 1973.
  British Rail has decided that, in its view, train noise approximates to car and lorry noise and it is therefore choosing to adopt the highway provisions of the Land Compensation Act to determine compensation in this case. That is an arbitrary decision. As I explained in introducing new clause 16 to the Planning and Compensation Bill, it would be equally possible to argue—indeed, some of us would argue most strongly—that train noise approximates much more closely to aircraft noise than to car and lorry noise and the airport and aerodrome provisions of the Land Compensation Act should therefore apply. That would entitle those living along large sections of the line to compensation. British Rail, however, is entirely ignoring what is said in part I of the Land Compensation Act about airport and aerodrome compensation and, equally, the specific provisions included in part I for payment in respect of public works being carried out under statutory provisions, as the proposed works in this case would be, in relation to neither highways nor airports.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Can the right hon. Gentleman make it plain for our benefit that what he is saying is, in effect, that the extra train noise generated is to be compared with aircraft noise rather than with highway noise? Can he tell the House what impact that
  280
  comparison, if accepted by the Government, would have on the prospects of introducing any new rail services anywhere in the country?
  Sir John Stanley: The position with regard to the channel tunnel trains and the rail infrastructure for the channel trains is unique. In terms of its magnitude and intensity, the development is without parallel elsewhere in the country. If it were not, I venture to suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have been campaigning for many years for a change in the compensation law. I do not believe that it has ever previously been the case that the value of such a significant number of homes has been faced with destruction or large scale erosion as a result of railway works of the magnitude of those proposed in the Bill.
  I wish to refer to two points that were made in the report of the Select Committee in the other place. I am certainly not prepared to support the Bill tonight. I shall oppose it, because it is seriously flawed, and I wish to make that point on my constituents' behalf. But if the House decides to give the Bill its Second Reading, I certainly hope that the Select Committee appointed to examine it will consider the compensation issue in much greater depth and with much greater sophistication than appears to have been the case in the other place.
  I was disappointed to read in paragraph 25 of the special report of the Select Committee of the other place, which was printed on 8 October 1990:
  "To propose compensation would therefore be to establish a new principle of compensation for disturbance caused by intensification of use."
  It is simply not correct to dismiss the proposals in the Bill as a mere intensification of use. The Bill proposes massive new works—new works on a huge scale costing, according to the Minister's parliamentary answer, £700 million, even before the channel tunnel costs have been taken into account. The central question here is whether the proposed works are new works—new public works—which should trigger the entitlement to compensation. In my view, they most certainly should.
  It is also claimed that a new principle of compensation would be established if our suggestion were accepted. That, too, is quite wrong. As the Land Compensation Act makes clear in relation to airports and aerodromes, it is not necessary for a new runway—in this case, new track —to be created to trigger entitlement to compensation. In cases where major new works permit a major increase in the volume of traffic and therefore in the magnitude of disturbance, an entitlement to compensation can already be created under the Land Compensation Act. We are not, therefore, talking about a new matter of principle.
  The second sentence in the Select Committee's report with which I wish to take issue is the one which says that the proposals for compensation in these cases
  "would be better dealt with by general legislation."
  I accept immediately that they can perfectly well be dealt with by general legislation. It is significant that, on 19 June, during the Report stage of the Planning and Compensation Bill, no fewer than 180 Members from both sides of the House supported new clause 16, and proposed that the matter be dealt with by general legislation. The point that I wish to make tonight is that it does not have to be dealt with by general legislation—it can be dealt with administratively, in a non-statutory form. If hon. Members are interested in precedent, I point them to what is done by the Ministry of Defence in relation to the

  281
  build-up of aircraft noise disturbance from military airfields and, in particular, to the answer that I was given by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 8 May, at column 506 of Hansard, in which he confirmed that the Ministry of Defence operates a policy of voluntary acquisition of houses that are seriously affected by noise and a policy of paying injurious affection to less seriously affected householders. Both policies are operated on a non-statutory basis. It would therefore be entirely possible for British Rail to deal with the problem on a non-statutory basis.
  Sir David Steel: I do not wish to intrude on what is basically a Kent issue, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me that one of the reasons why some of us support the general principle of legislation is that our experience in the north-east and in Scotland is that undertakings from British Rail are not really worth the paper they are written on? Many of us gave way on the abandonment of the sleeper services to Newcastle and Edinburgh—my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who vowed to raise the matter in each and every British Rail debate, would not forgive me if I did not make this point—following undertakings to the effect that the services would be resumed on electrification. We were then given a whole lot of reasons why they could not be resumed, all of which were known at the time the original undertaking was given by BR. That is why some of us prefer to place our faith in legislation rather than in undertakings.
  Sir John Stanley: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the preferred course is general legislation. When we proposed that course on 19 June, our proposal attracted widespread support. Personally, I am saddened by the fact that the Government missed an open opportunity to deal with the issue in a flexible, fair way when the Planning and Compensation Bill came before the House. However, the Government chose to let that opportunity go by and we are left with no suitable public Bill before the House. It is therefore right to make the point that it is wholly precedented, in matters of precisely this kind, for the question to be dealt with by administrative means.
  I feel that I have no alternative but to oppose the Bill, which would place my constituents, and constituents elsewhere along the line, in a grossly unfair position. It is quite wrong, as a matter of principle, that people should have the value of their main asset destroyed, or largely destroyed, as a result of the public interest in improving our communications infrastructure. It is of the utmost importance that this serious injustice should be righted as quickly as possible.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: I confess that I am surprised to be speaking in this debate. The Bill completed its passage in another place at the turn of the year and we have been waiting ever since for it to appear in this House. It went into abeyance for some time, and curiously a carry-over motion in respect of the Bill appeared on the Order Paper a week ago. The motion was not passed and, hey presto, we find ourselves debating this Second Reading tonight.
  I must declare a particular and precise personal interest; works No. 6 are not only in my constituency, but are only a few hundred yards from my house and literally
  282
  within earshot, as I was reminded at midnight last night. Some work is already proceeding on the site. I am assured that it is simply preliminary work to the work for which parliamentary approval, as sought in the Bill, is required. However, it makes one wonder what noise levels will be involved in the construction work. We have had no information or assurances about that point.
  The issue is allied to, although separate from, the channel tunnel fast link. That link may or may not follow the particular route which is the subject of the Bill. Uncertainty about the route continues and we wait anxiously for more information. It was reported in The Daily Telegraph yesterday that we could not expect a statement about that until October. I was told today that there is a rumour that my hon. Friend the Minister is to make a statement on Thursday. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister can clear the air this evening, but that would obviously be helpful for all of us and our constituents. Wherever it is finally decided that the fast link shall run, between the completion of the construction of the tunnel and the use of the link, it is inevitable that the tunnel traffic will use the route that is the subject of this Bill, and that gives rise to my wider concerns.
  The implications must be very much heavier use of the existing lines. British Rail has issued estimates of increased traffic along the line. Although I do not intend to burden the House with statistics, it is interesting to note that at Bickley, adjacent to works No. 6, it is estimated that, while four freight trains would have passed that point in 1990 every 24 hours, we can expect 32 freight trains in 1995. That is close to the figure of 27 referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) as the increase in the number of freight trains. Of those 32 trains, 15 will run between 11 pm and 7 am. We all know how very much more noise trains make at night than in the morning and their effect when we are trying to get a little sleep. There is bound to be a noticeable increase in passenger traffic. There must be more noise, especially from freight trains.
  That point has not been denied. The Committee in another place stated that it accepted that
  "there will be a substantial increase in noise levels once the Channel Tunnel opens."
  What will be the effect of that noise? To answer that I call in aid a Department of Transport booklet entitled "Transport and the Environment", which states:
  "Noise is a pollutant. It can cause stress and annoyance. It can disturb communication and, more subjectively, cause distress and irritation".
  It is not difficult to visualise the effect on hundreds of properties in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt).
  What assurances have we had from British Rail about the effect of that increased freight traffic and increased noise? We have had no assurances of any value. It is incumbent on BR to provide forms of environmental protection to ensure that residents close to the line will not be adversely affected and, where that is not possible, to ensure that those people are adequately compensated.
  British Rail denies that it has any legal obligation to provide protection or compensation. I accept that that is correct as the law now stands. However, BR also seems to be denying a moral obligation, and I cannot accept that.

  283
  Amongst its literature about the channel tunnel fast link, British Rail issued a leaflet entitled, "Noise and the New Channel Tunnel Rail Link" which states:
  "If the required noise level cannot reasonably be achieved by alternative means, BR will pay for sound insulation to be installed in homes that are affected. In addition, compensation may also be paid under the Land Compensation Act 1973 to people whose homes lose their value as a consequence of the level of noise that will result from operating the line."
  However, that is in respect of the new link. If it applies to the new link, why should it not apply for the intensification on the existing lines which will carry the same traffic? To be fair, the Department of Transport has recognised and addressed that problem. In its booklet, "Transport and the Environment" to which I have referred, the Department states:
  "The prospect of a possible major new railway line between London and the Channel Tunnel and increasing public sensitivity to noise generally prompted the Government last year to appoint a Departmental Committee to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines which relate equitably to the standards already set by regulations for new highways."
  The Department then refers to the committee's report which was published at the end of February and then states:
  "The Committee's recommendations are intended to provide the basis for making noise insulation regulations for new railways."
  That is the nub of the matter. British Rail is prepared to take steps about new railways, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) explained, it seems quite unwilling to do so in respect of the intensification of use of existing lines.
  The statement issued on behalf of the Bill's promoters reads:
  "The Board have given assurances that, if Noise Insulation Regulations are made applicable to new railways in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Mitchell Committee, then, to the extent that these Regulations apply also to the alteration of existing railways, the Board will apply them in relation to the works proposed in the Bill in the same way as would have been required if the Regulations had been in force before the works were executed."
  That sounds all right in principle, but we should notice the saving clause
  "to the extent that those Regulations apply also to the alteration of existing railways".
  In other words, if British Rail is required by law to pay compensation, it will. I am glad to hear that but, by implication, if it is not so required, presumably it will not pay it.
  I sought to argue in the debate on 19 June—I will not cover the same ground again—that, although physically we are talking about existing lines, to the extent that the channel tunnel will link existing lines to the entire continental rail network, that line is, to all intents and purposes, a new line and should be treated as such. As a result, therefore, we must contend with the environmental protection and planning issues to which I have referred. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, the Minister argued on 19 June that he could not accept the new clause that my right hon. Friend so ably moved because it had far wider implications. I have to accept that that may well be the case, and that that Bill had
  284
  national implications. However, British Rail has promoted this Bill specifically to enable it to carry out the works that are detailed in the Bill.
  Ideally, undertakings should be written into the Bill to deal with noise protection and, where that is not possible, there should be compensation. If we cannot have that written on the face of the Bill, we want cast-iron assurances about exactly what British Rail proposes to do in the circumstances that have been described. Those undertakings should include not only the payment of compensation, but the purchase of property. We are not talking only about a noise problem—although the noise can be such as to make it virtually impossible to live in property close to the line; vibration can also present a real problem, especially with the long heavy freight trains that we expect to use the line in the numbers that I have suggested.
  The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South should not be under any illusions about the strength of feeling on this matter in the London borough of Bromley and in my constituency. My hon Friend the Minister was good enough to visit the borough and has seen for himself how close many properties are to the railway, so I am sure that he understands the effect of the intensified use that we are discussing.
  The threat of that intensified use has not simply devalued properties along the line; some are unsaleable. It has now reached the stage where some estate agents will not take such properties on their books. I have files of letters from constituents who are anxious to move away on retirement but who are unable to do so, and many more from people who prefer to stay in their own homes and who knew, when they bought the properties, that there was a railway at the bottom of the garden and who expected to have trains running along it, but who did not know—they could not have visualised—the enormous increase in traffic that will be the inevitable result of the line being used for channel tunnel traffic.
  Neither I nor my constituents are being unreasonable or obstructive. Obviously, on parochial grounds, we can hardly be expected to welcome the extra traffic which the tunnel will generate coming through our district, but we accept that that is inevitable. For its part, British Rail must accept that it has obligations to us. If it is prepared to do that, in the form of firm commitments and not just pious phrases, I would not wish to impede the Bill's progress, but if those assurances are not forthcoming, I shall seek to oppose the Bill's Second Reading, and I hope that the rest of the House will join me in that.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I had better get the non-controversial part of the Bill out of the way first, before commenting on some of the speeches that have been made. The Bill is not solely and exclusively about Kent, Network SouthEast and the various routes to Dover; it also provides for the building of a chord at West Hampstead, thus linking international services with destinations on the west coast mainline about which I feel strongly, representing—as you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—a constituency close to Birmingham.
  Those of us who have supported the channel tunnel project throughout our parliamentary careers have always been concerned to ensure that it benefits the whole of the United Kingdom. The provision of such a chord, linking

  285
  the east and west coast mainlines, is an essential part of the future success of the United Kingdom's passenger railway including, of course, that in Scotland.
  I am a little surprised at the controversy that the Bill has already engendered. I understand the views of hon. Members representingKent and elsewhere about the likely disruption to the lives of their constituents once the Government have announced the preferred route for the new high-speed link. I join those hon. Members in pressing the Minister to put us all out of our misery as quickly as possible by letting us know the preferred option preferably before the recess—I, too, have read the conflicting press articles of the past week—so that those along the route will know their fate and those elsewhere can feel suitably relieved as soon as possible.
  That might be the last time in my speech that I receive so many affirmative nods from Conservative Members, because the rest of this Bill, which is causing so much controversy, only sets out the need for a number of spur lines and loops to increase the capacity of international and commuter trains on the existing busy routes to Dover. The principle of routing trains to London via Tonbridge and Maidstone was established in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
  As far as I understand the speeches that have been made tonight and the reasons for the blocking motion which has led to this debate, hon. Members representing Kent constituencies feel that their constituents should be compensated by monetary or other means for the additional traffic that will use the existing route after 1993 when the channel tunnel opens. It is somewhat surprising to hear them say that. Some of them have given the impression that, regardless of the opening of the channel tunnel in 1993, nothing—no railway—must be allowed to disturb the tranquillity of what they call the garden of England. I have always taken the view that that is a short-sighted attitude. If there is no new rail link and if there are no new improvements to the existing rail links, I have a feeling that the number of additional heavy goods vehicle movements that will result from the opening of the tunnel will cause more disruption to the tranquillity in the garden of England than any of the spur or loop lines that we are discussing.
  Mr. Rowe: I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be totally fair-minded. There are those of us who accept the need for a purpose-built line between the channel tunnel and the rest of the country, but who feel that the people of Kent—and much of the rest of the country—would be better served by a route that passes only a few habitations rather than by a combination of routes affecting literally thousands of homes.
  Mr. Snape: So say all of us. However, that is not what the Bill is all about. We do not have such a route at present, because there is a considerable amount of controversy about exactly where it should run. The Bill is about the improvement of the existing rail route. Without such an improvement the constituents of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and of other hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies will find their passage by both road and rail to and from London considerably inconvenienced. Perhaps it is just my innate pessimism, but I have a feeling that, regardless of the provisions of the Bill, inconvenience is coming.
  286
  To concentrate solely on the Bill, it appears to be the view of hon. Members who have spoken so far—or the view was inherent in their speeches—that there is something unique about channel tunnel trains using the existing rail network, so special and specific compensation should be paid to people in Kent who, in the view of some Conservative Members, will be adversely affected by the passage of those trains.
  I have made the point previously—although it did not arouse great popularity among the people to whom I made it—that it is an odd philosophy to buy a house near a railway line and then complain about the noise of trains. I made the point during the Select Committee which took evidence on the Channel Tunnel Bill. People said, "Ah, but when we bought our houses there were not many trains. As the channel tunnel will mean extra trains, surely we are entitled to some compensation. Whether it should be paid by British Rail or the Government, we leave to you." Again, I find that philosophy somewhat hard to understand.
  I am often accused in these debates of being such a rail buff that I am blinded to the realities of life for people who do not share my support for the railway industry. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) indicates from a sedentary position some agreement with that. People are entitled to their opinion. I do not have any great affection for the railway industry, believe it or not, Madam Deputy Speaker. It did not pay my father or me one iota of what we were both worth. However, that is a purely personal view. I am prepared to accept that there might be some dissension in the ranks of the Conservative party about that opinion.
  It struck me as surprising that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that his constituents found that their properties were unsaleable because of fears about the extra rail traffic that would be generated by the channel tunnel. If people who live alongside the existing railway line cannot sell their properties, I venture to suggest that the reason might be the depth of the current recession as much as the proposal to run extra trains on the line. I have often made the point, and I do so again, that I have never discovered a domestic property of which the value was reduced by its proximity to a comprehensive railway service to and from the capital city. If any Conservative Member can produce an example, I am willing to be surprised. It looks as if that surprise is heading my way.
  Mr. Wolfson: I beg the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that blight has arisen which stems from fear of the unknown. It is real and significant blight. In the town of Swanley, houses close to the railway line have dropped in value by much more than comparable houses in other parts of the town as a result of anxieties about freight trains and the noise that will be produced, especially at night. It is real blight.
  Mr. Snape: I have exchanged opinions with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on many occasions over the years. I accept the point that he makes on behalf of his constituents. I hope that it will not sound too callous about the anxieties of his constituents if I say that it is for hon. Members to reassure their constituents about the reality of the position. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned freight trains. There is nothing unusual about freight trains on railway lines—except under this

  287
  Government, because much of the freight that was previously carried by rail now goes on heavy goods vehicles which are much more obtrusive than any railway line in terms of the environment and pollution. I hope that together we can examine that in a moment.
  Let me deal with the extra passenger trains, which I gather are also regarded as a problem. I remind hon. Members for Kent constituencies that increases and decreases in the number of trains on the main line from the Kent coast are nothing unusual. Let us confine ourselves to more modern times—say the past 50 years. The Kent coast electrification scheme about 30 years ago resulted in a large increase in passenger trains. Compensation was neither considered nor paid for the intensification of the railway service. I remind the House that the trains that were introduced following electrification were electrical multiple units running on the old-fashioned jointed rail tracks which were considerably noisier than the modern electrical multiple units travelling on continuous welded rails.
  To turn to freight, I remind the hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for Chislehurst that during the 1960s there was a great deal more freight than there is now on the line to which the Bill refers and about which Conservative Members raise the anxieties of their constituents. I have looked back at freight flows by rail in the 1960s. They included coal from the Kent pits, oil for ships and for Richborough power station, and cars from Lenham. Soft fruit and manufactured goods were carried to a much greater extent by the train-ferry system than, alas, they are today. In addition, general goods were moved to local stations throughout Kent. There was the noise of shunting at yards at stations such as Faversham, Ashford and Tonbridge, to name but three, all of which are now empty of freight traffic.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned the length of modern freight trains. Again I remind him, without seeking to score any points, that the freight trains of the 1960s were loose-coupled, unbraked small wagon trains which clanked and banged their way along in a much more noisy way than present-day freight trains. In the 1960s and earlier, for obvious reasons, many of those trains ran through the night because the intensive commuter passenger service, then as now, took up a good proportion of the train paths during the hours of daylight.
  The other freight trains that ran in the 1960s but do not run today carried paper products and coal from Maidstone to New Hythe and coal, especially from the east midlands, to Southfleet cement works. Without exception, that traffic now travels by road. None of it uses the railway lines of Kent.
  Before the war—to end these reminiscences, which I have gleaned from other than personal sources—there were no fewer than 40 freight transfer trips a day from Brent or Firm Park to Hither Green through Peckham and Lewisham, none of which uses the railway tracks today. So it is not true to say that the freight which will be engendered by this project is something new for Kent.
  Does the hon. Member for Faversham wish to intervene? If so, he should do so rather than simply pull strange faces which do not do anything for the tone of the debate or to excite me.
  Mr. Moate: I proposed to reserve my comments until later, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know why I was reacting. I was hoping he would appreciate that we have moved on a lot in the last 50 years or more, when clanking freight trains were part of the way of life. We expect a higher standard these days to help to prevent noise pollution. Perhaps he will come up to date and appreciate some of the problems facing people living along railway lines which can expect intensification of use.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said, or I did not explain myself well enough, or he was too busy pulling faces to listen to what I said. One reason why freight was lost by the railways and moved on to lorries —which, despite 30 or 40 years of progress, are no less obtrusive in the 1990s, despite the higher standards which the hon. Gentleman and I desire—was precisely because of those old-fashioned methods of freight carrying which were common in the United Kingdom, not just 40 or 50 years ago but until the mid-1970s.
  The clanking and clanging of the unbraked freight train did not disappear from British Rail until comparatively recently. Some Conservative Members appear to be objecting to the very modernisation that the hon. Member for Faversham urges. We are talking now about modern freight trains with air brakes running on continuous welded rails and, under this measure, passing through newly constructed loops of up to 900 m in length. I cannot imagine any other country objecting to such progress, but it obviously makes the hon. Member for Faversham tuck his head under the bedclothes in terror at the thought of such trains running past his bedroom window. I hope that other, less easily frightened Conservative Members will use the opportunity to reassure their constituents about the so-called horrors to come, because the rest of us in the United Kingdom have an interest in the outcome of the debate.
  The Government's pledge is that the new project will benefit as much of the population of the country as possible. Without the provision of passing loops and extra works, many of a minor nature, many of the bottlenecks in the south-east will make the passage of such freight trains more difficult for the rest of the country.
  It is likely that if these works do not go ahead, the rest of us will suffer the same increase in heavy goods vehicles that some Conservative Members who represent Kent constituencies appear to look at with a more relaxed attitude than do the rest of us. I put it no higher than that. I think that I see the hon. Member for Faversham indicating dissent at those remarks. The freight must go by road or rail. If the improvements to the railway line inherent in the Bill are not carried out, it is not fanciful to suppose that it will go by road. Nor is it fanciful to say that that will be enormously more disturbing to the environment of the hon. Gentleman's constituents than any proposals in the Bill.
  About 75 per cent. of international freight coming into the United Kingdom after 1993 will be going to destinations beyond London, most on direct services. It is, in our view, essential that that freight is not delayed in the south-east to the disadvantage of the west midlands, the north of England and Scotland.
  I ask Conservative Members in a non-party way to reflect on the effect on transport patterns in this country of their wishes being acceded to as regards the payment of compensation resulting from intensification on existing

  289
  railway lines. The competition between road and rail, so beloved of the hon. Member for Faversham and others, would be distorted in an even more anti-rail form in future were their pleas to be accepted by the Government.
  The cost of compensation under the provisions of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, and particularly section 42, would have to be borne by the customer if the Government insisted, as did the Government of the day, that no public money should be spent on the project. Presumably the demands that are now being made would have to be met from the depleted resources of British Rail, so making it even less likely that rail freight could be competitive in its non-stop battle against road freight. Road hauliers face no demands similar to those being made on British Rail.
  If the pledge of the Secretary of State—so far not backed up by any evidence or extra cash—to encourage freight traffic to transfer from road to rail is to mean anything, the Government must ensure that no additional burden is placed on any sectors of British Rail, particularly on rail freight.
  Sir John Stanley: My constituents and those in south-east England and London will be noting carefully that the Labour party is opposed to compensation being given to those whose homes have been destroyed in value by channel tunnel traffic. That will be noted in many marginal constituencies in London and the south-east. Will the Labour party's opposition to compensation for the intensification of use of the railways be combined with the removal of compensation for the intensification of noise disturbance from airports, which currently carries compensation?
  Mr. Snape: We are terribly impressed by those deep political points which, typically, came from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). If he wishes to spend the time of debates such as this making cheap political points, he will no doubt do so. But that will not earn him any greater respect than did his previous activities in the House. If we are talking about the proposed new rail link, there are circumstances in which compensation should be payable. We are talking about high-speed trains but not about a new rail link. We are discussing the intensification of service on an existing railway.
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman, before he goes round Kent distorting the reality of the situation—and he must be desperate to have made those points in his intervention—that my hon. Friends and I would not allow such a concession to apply only in Kent. We hope that channel tunnel freight trains will pass through our constituencies, too, that channel tunnel freight terminals will be built in other parts of the United Kingdom. Will we be entitled to the same compensation, or shall we tell our constituents that the only people whom the Conservative party care about are those who live in the affluent suburbs of Tonbridge, or wherever the right hon. Gentleman temporarily represents?
  Proposals for other railway projects will apply not only to London and the south but to other parts of the country. For example, proposals have been made to open existing freight railway lines to passenger trains from Nottingham, through Mansfield to Worksop, and through Leicester to Burton. If the principle of intensification is to be accepted,
  290
  British Rail may show an even greater reluctance to reopen railway lines in the rest of the United Kingdom and the enormous additional cost will fall on the public purse.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling may try to explain away his support for the channel tunnel to his constituents. His position is close to that of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). He particularly supports section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which specifically precludes public support for the protection and provision that, belatedly and in the run up to a general election, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to establish during the passage of this Bill. I am not too bothered about the right hon. Gentleman, because, like most other hon. Members, I do not take him particularly seriously anyway.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: How very rude.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Lady has just arrived and cannot wait to get her name on the record. She has not heard any of the debate so far. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling should explain the discrepancies in his support for a Bill which led to a situation about which he now complains to his constituents and to people in the south.
  I shall continue to argue that the railway alternative for moving freight is infinitely preferable, whether it is in the west midlands or in the more leafy suburbs of Kent. I hope that the Minister for Public Transport will make it plain that, if the pleas of Conservative Members are to be accepted, Opposition Members will expect such provision to extend throughout the country and to be funded directly from the Treasury rather than from the already over-stretched budget of British Rail.
  8.35 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The Government consented to the deposit of this Bill by British Rail. We support it and urge the House to give it a Second Reading so that the Committee can consider it in greater detail. It concerns the construction of the facilities necessary to carry freight and passengers through the channel tunnel and is therefore important for the whole country.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) raised the important issue of the treatment of road and rail freight. It is not my job to answer the points raised in the debate—that is for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who would wish me to deal with some of the points that are not pertinent to the Bill. How the burden is placed on the road or rail operator is important for the schemes mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley).
  As for rail freight, the Government believe that any rail operator—in this case, British Rail—should be responsible for undertaking any measures deemed necessary. In our debate on 19 June, I said that British Rail was already in contact with Kent county council to plan the works that both parties deem necessary. It is for British Rail to undertake those works. I agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that one must, in all fairness and equity, look at comparable situations throughout the country. It is not possible to isolate one particular problem

  291
  and the Government acknowledge that there is a problem in this case. I dissociate myself to some extent from the hon. Gentleman's remarks—
  Mr. Snape: The Minister had better.
  Mr. Freeman: —well, the serious remarks that he made pertaining to the issues that we are debating.
  The Government accept that there is a real problem relating to noise caused at night by freight trains on those lines. That is not to say that there are not additional problems in other parts of the country. Several hon. Members have written to me about the problems on rail lines in constituencies which are not in Kent. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends are in no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I take the issue seriously and acknowledge that a problem exists, although we may disagree about how to approach the problem.
  As for road freight, through the regime of taxation, vehicle excise duty and fuel duty, our heavy goods vehicles bear one of the heaviest burdens in Europe. They contribute approximately four to five times the value of Government funds for the maintenance and further construction of our road and motorway system. Our hauliers pay a much higher proportion than those in many other European countries. Any financial burden that may be placed on road hauliers in the future in relation to noise mitigation measures is already amply covered by taxation. In their role as the highway authority for trunk roads, or through the revenue support grant to local authorities for their work on highways, the Government amply cover the expenditure.
  In a brief intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) raised a point that is outwith the Bill and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South will want me to deal with it. It concerns class 471s. I sought to deal with that issue in the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill which was debated recently. Although further work is needed on the detail of the investment submission, as I made clear in the debate, British Rail and the Government recognise the importance of replacing and improving the existing rolling stock for the Kent coastal services. It is a matter of investment priorities. It is important that British Rail completes the Kent link services first—a massive investment programme of more than £500 million—before turning to the 471s. In the course of this year's public expenditure survey, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will consider the relative importance of further assistance to British Rail to enable it to continue its investment programme. Although it is for British Rail to determine its investment priorities, we understand the importance of that project.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling raised several issues. He repeated the arguments deployed on 19 June and alluded to passing loops, the parallels with aircraft noise, and the fact that, in his judgment and in the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), the opening of the channel tunnel, the associated works and the new freight services constitute a major new work. The Government are aware of those arguments. The fact that my right hon. Friend outlined an alternative way to deal administratively
  292
  with the issue is helpful. His definition of "administrative treatment" may be slightly different from that of the Government, but if by that he means a non-statutory approach, I hope that as time passes he and his constituents, and some of my other hon. Friends, will feel a little more assured about what British Rail is accomplishing with regard to noise mitigation. I am certain that those measures will not entirely satisfy some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but that is the approach that British Rail and the Government are adopting at present. With the advice and representations of the local authorities involved, the rail operator is deciding what to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst raised similar issues. The Government in no way seek to exclude the London boroughs, including Bromley, from the wider issues of noise mitigation. Reference was made to Kent county council because it has made specific representations. I know that I speak for British Rail when I say that conversations with Kent county council in no way exclude similar conversations with other appropriate local authorities.
  In my speech on 19 June, I said that the Government are considering the Batho report, which the House will have already studied and which deals with a range of matters associated with excessive noise, including those relating to aircraft, the intensification of use of railway lines, roads and other nuisances. The Government will make a statement on that in due course. I cannot envisage when, but the announcement will represent the Government's comprehensive approach to noise problems.
  As for press speculation on the timing of an announcement about the rail link, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst does not believe what he reads in the newspapers, and he should not be led to believe that there is any significance in any particular newspaper article. It is an important subject, and as soon as the Government have considered the issues, we shall come straight to the House to make a statement, but I cannot forecast whether that will be before or after the recess. Any suggestion that the announcement will be made when the House returns in October as a statement of Government policy is not true.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) will doubtless seek to speak later and I shall read with care what he says. He raised the important issue about the fear of the unknown. British Rail and the Government should take whatever action they can to mitigate that fear. In the debate on 19 June I announced that I intend to take an initiative, although it can probably be attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who originally put the thought in my mind. British Rail and the Government—I accept the key responsibility—will talk to representatives of the professional advisers from building societies, banks and firms of solicitors who can advise people whose properties are affected by the line. We shall seek to ensure that they are not alarmist and do not exaggerate the problems created either by the intensification of use of existing lines or by a new rail link when it is built. I intend to speak to leading representatives of some professional organisations shortly to see what can be done to ensure that we do not exacerbate a problem that we acknowledge exists.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have no illusions about the strength of feeling on the

  293
  subject. Although we support the Bill and believe that it should be given a Second Reading today, I assure the House that we shall continue to give the problems of noise as they exist throughout the country our full attention. We do not seek simply to ring-fence the problems of some of my hon. Friends in Kent, nor would they wish us to do so. I accept the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East on that score, as I have made plain on a number of occasions. We shall continue to give the matter our careful, close and continuing attention.
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful for that assurance. Will the Minister comment on the likely attitude of his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to any such concession, whether applied in Kent or anywhere else? Would such a concession make railway expansion in the United Kingdom more or less likely?
  Mr. Freeman: I have always said that I accept the argument advanced by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), that in any announcement and consideration of a new high-speed rail link, there must be—
  Mr. Snape: That is what I am talking about.
  Mr. Freeman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer in my own way.
  Any announcement of a new rail link involves a massive increase in rail capacity and it is most important that there should be no doubt in the minds of those affected as to where they stand in relation to noise mitigation and compensation. I hope that the House will be persuaded by my arguments tonight.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for making a number of assertions, not least on a day when some of his ministerial colleagues have shown discourtesy to the House by holding a press conference rather than making a statement to the House. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister is contemplating that, when the decision is taken, a statement will be made to the House and not outside this place. I also welcome my hon. Friend's well-demonstrated, clear interest in compensation and noise protection matters. I shall return to the specific assurance that he gave about building societies because I wish to enlarge on that point.
  We are discussing a simple matter. Wherever a form of public—or, in the case of roads, private—transport operates there is an agreed level of noise beyond which the Government believes that it is not right to subject citizens. That standard applies to transport, whether vehicles on roads, aircraft or railways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made an important point when he said that rail noise was more akin to aircraft noise than to the almost continuous roar of motorways or other roads.
  The recent report of the Mitchell committee, which was set up to recommend to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport a national noise insulation standard, raised another important issue. It said that
  "the traffic on a railway can be intensified by minor construction such as passing loops and re-signalling or traffic can be re-scheduled into previously lightly loaded times. This
  294
  can lead to situations where intensification could not have been foreseen and is so great that it completely changes the nature of the line."
  That is important—there comes a point when the intensification of use effectively means that we have a new line. What is more, at a time when we are linking our railway system to that on mainland Europe, it is interesting that some of our mainland European friends, such as the Netherlands, have taken that very point and reclassified some lines that have been subjected to intensified use as, in effect, new lines.
  It is also important that the present expectation, and in some cases experience, of the noise on existing lines well surpasses the level which the Mitchell committee recommended as a tolerable noise level. Therefore, there is a powerful case for insisting on British Rail providing protection to the houses alongside some parts of those lines. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will make that commitment rather than simply saying, as he appeared to say in his opening remarks, that if he looks hard enough he can find precedents to allow British Rail to escape that obligation.
  Mr. Gerald Bowden: Many people have a passenger line at the bottom of their garden which they have accepted as part of their way of life, but when this becomes a freight line overnight, with trains half a mile long rumbling through the night, the character of the line is changed. Is this not a new line, by any judgment?
  Mr. Rowe: That is my view. It would be better if the trains rumbled through the night without cease, because a curious phenomenon of human hearing is that it adapts to continuous noise very much more easily than to sporadic noise. When I worked at Edinburgh university, it was in a purpose-built modern building of the kind with which we are all so familiar. One could hear everything in the room next door. One of the cheapest ways to overcome that problem was to have pumped into the room what was called white noise—a kind of toneless muzak—which would quickly become unnoticed but which would allow one to carry on one's business without being overheard from the room next door.
  The European Commission has at last taken seriously the business of co-ordinating the railways of Europe. This will mean that there will be pressure to harmonise protection for citizens alongside railways in a way that will prove helpful to our constituents. I hope that both British Rail and my hon. Friend the Minister will keep abreast of what is going on in Europe.
  I was disappointed by one statement in what was otherwise an admirable production from the Department of Transport about environmental protection. It said that freight is not "time sensitive". I think that that means that freight as conducted in the past by British Rail has never been time-sensitive because it has nearly always been late. I believe that there will be a massive intensification of the use of freight lines. Contrary to what British Rail believes, there is a great market for freight that is time-sensitive and that delivers even perishable goods to urban centres in the middle of the night, as is necessary. However, if we have such a system, people must be protected.
  Of all the miseries that come to the surgeries and through the postbags of hon. Members, probably some of the most intense, and certainly the most common, involve those whose lives have been destroyed by blight. This is a massive problem. British Rail has, on the whole, handled

  295
  the problem of individual sufferers from blight with as much sensitivity as it is easy for it to use. However, it has not shown itself capable of taking account of people whose misery has suddenly intensified. For example, somebody may have been widowed in the past month, or someone's marriage may have broken up. There is a constant need for British Rail to go on buying up the properties of people whose lives have been destroyed. I should like to see rather more generosity in that.
  In any part of the country, properties are moving into blight, but a similar number of properties are moving out of blight. As blight is mainly a fear of what is to come, and often when it has come it proves to be much less frightening than people thought it was, there is scope for examining whether it would be possible to set up a national agency. This could be a purchaser of last resort for people who have made every effort to dispose of their property and who, as in the example used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)—I share his experience—live in properties that estate agents will not even take on their books.
  People in this position can have all their capital tied up in this one asset. They cannot move. If they are promoted, they lose the promotion because they cannot take the job. If a spouse has died, the widow or widower cannot get rid of the property. For 101 different reasons, people's lives can be in ruins. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government, the private sector and the voluntary sector, working together, to devise an agency as a purchaser of last resort. Once it had been set up, it would finance its continuing operation. I accept that houses would have to be bought at a discount and that there should not be a distress payment. The price paid should be between the going rate and a distress payment. The agency would then be able to sell the property at a profit once whatever was causing the blight had been overcome. If that were done on a large enough scale—a nationwide scale—it would not be out of the question to alleviate what is, for virtually every hon. Member, probably the largest single source of human distress.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) and my hon. Friend the Minister for introducing into our debate on the Bill the Networker express programme. It is particularly relevant, when considering the immediate future of our railways in the south-east, to know precisely what will happen to that programme. In some respects, we are talking about new rail lines. The Networker express service rolling stock is much more than rolling stock. It is almost a new railway line. It is of tremendous importance, because it will increase capacity on the Kent line by 50 per cent. Few other measures could be carried through at a relatively small capital expenditure—I use the word advisedly—and have such a dramatic effect on rail services.
  It is a little galling that we are all encouraged to exhort the Government to approve a programme, but when we do so we are told that a formal submission has not been made. I welcome the comforting words that the Minister offered
  296
  us, but what we want is formal approval this autumn, so that we know that that important programme can be put in hand as soon as possible.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's helpful response to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). In contrast, the hon. Gentleman's irrational and irascible approach to the matter has done a great disservice to British Rail and to the Bill. If he calls himself a friend of the railways, I can only say with friends like that, who needs enemies? The hon. Gentleman has completely missed the point.
  Mr. Snape: Not as badly as the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Moate: There are some moments when one has to agree with the hon. Gentleman although they are seldom.
  The hon. Gentleman has completely missed an important development. There he was, believing that he was defending railway investment by arguing against compensation for those suffering from intensification of noise when already major and helpful concessions have been made. He has completely missed the point and his diatribe made him sound very callous. Many of our constituents will be surprised to find him saying that people living alongside a railway line knew what they were likely to get and so should put up with intensification of noise. That was the message he was delivering. However, British Rail has already taken steps in the right direction, which he should know about but clearly he does not.
  Mr. Snape: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also tell his constituents that if this minor Bill is not approved—I understand that some of his hon. Friends intend to vote against it tonight—in 1993 they will experience the misery that heavy goods vehicles on Kent roads will cause. I think that we are talking about some 1,500 heavy goods vehicles which will not be on Kent roads as a result of the freight trains about which he complains. Those heavy goods vehicles will have a far more damaging effect and so far I have yet to hear the hon. Gentleman or anyone else talk about the intensification of noise that some of the more rural roads will have to suffer when the channel tunnel opens.
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman seems to be assuming that we are against the Bill, but he is wrong. Many of us enthusiastically welcome British Rail's investment in preparation for 1993 to have a first-class high-speed rail link ready for the opening of the channel tunnel. If the hon. Gentleman were to listen for a while instead of reacting so violently, he would learn something. The readiness with which the hon. Gentleman attacks is quite alarming. Most of the time he is attacking British Rail and the Government's record, which is infinitely better than the record of the Labour Government whom he supported.
  We should emphasise that the Bill makes it possible to have in place a first-class railway system ready for the opening of the channel tunnel. It always surprises me that Ministers and British Rail seem to hide their light under a bushel when it comes to the building of the new railway. Because of the arguments about the new high-speed link, which was never going to be in place before the turn of the century anyway, we have failed to proclaim the fact that when the tunnel opens it will be possible to catch a

  297
  non-stop train from Waterloo through to Paris or Brussels, a three-hour service probably manned by a British Rail or a French driver.
  The majority of the British public have become so used to the knocking campaign against everything British that they have come to the view that there will not be a rail service ready for the opening of the tunnel. But there will be and it will be a good service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, it is coming as a result of £1·5 billion of new investment to make sure that the service is ready. Why are not we proclaiming the fact that Britain is not lagging behind? We will have a good, attractive rail service in place ready for the opening of the channel tunnel, and the Bill provides for that.
  If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a while instead of reacting so violently, as he seems to do more and more these days, he would understand that many of us support the Bill. But with such legislation, we are entitled to tell British Rail that we want to ensure that the terms are right for all those of our constituents who are likely to be affected.
  Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would help a lot if we had a station?
  Mr. Moate: I am tempted to become involved in the much bigger argument. We are all aware of the need to make progress on the international station, but that is not my subject at the moment. We are fully aware of the need to make progress and we can all see the benefit of that.
  Those who take the rather old-fashioned view that there should not be any form of compensation or help as a result of intensification of noise should consider what is happening. Some of us received a letter this morning from Kent county council—I will not read it all—which says:
  "a project team which will include Kent county council officers is in the process of being established by BR's Railfreight Distribution to look at the issue of noise protection for existing lines on the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Despite this, it still remains unclear at this stage whether there is any prospect of BR paying compensation to those affected, or funding noise protection measures."
  Doubt remains, but British Rail, working with the Kent county council, has taken the initiative in finding ways of ameliorating the problem for those living near existing lines, and we should welcome that major step. If everyone took the negative attitude shown by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East we would not have progressed that far.
  I should like to go further. Why cannot we ask British Rail to give an undertaking to examine ways of compensating—not necessarily under the statutory regime, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) sensibly put it, as a matter of administration—those who suffer the serious dislocation, disruption or damage caused by noise intensification? I suspect that the number affected would not be large and that British Rail could handle the problem. If it gave such an undertaking, that would be a major advance in not only securing the passage of the Bill —important though that is—but in railway development generally.
  If we have secured, as I believe is the case, an important concession in Kent in respect of the amelioration of noise on existing routes through, perhaps, Faversham, Sittingbourne and other parts of my constituency—we hope that it will not happen, but freight trains might travel through those places at night, on lines that do not
  298
  currently carry them—the same concession must apply to south London, which will almost certainly suffer noise intensification as well, in which case not only my right hon. and hon. Friends but many Labour Members will be clamouring for help for their constituents.
  I do not believe that such a scheme would impose an enormous burden on rail development. Much of it will be concerned with noise insulation measures, the cost of which need not be exorbitant. I say to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East—who I know cares passionately about railway development—that the best way to achieve broad acceptance of railway development in the rest of the 1990s and into the next century is to accept the logic of giving protection to those people who live alongside existing routes—by offering them help, particularly with noise insulation, grants, or even compensation if their property is severely damaged.
  Mr. Snape: I put to the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the Minister, without receiving much of a response: would the countrywide provision of noise insulation or compensation make the Treasury warmer than it is at present towards future development, or would that have the reverse effect?
  Mr. Moate: If one reverses the sense of the hon. Gentleman's question, it implies that he would be prepared to go ahead with railway development even where he realised that it would cause severe environmental damage —and that is something that few constituents would accept. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that we must get it right. If the modest price of intensification of usage of existing lines is noise insulation grants, we must face up to it. However, I do not accept that that would impose a great burden on British Rail or private investors. Any major development—whether it involves railways, roads, or the construction of new buildings—is subject to the polluter pays principle, whether noise or any other kind of pollution is involved. It is universally accepted that environmental protection should be built in, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, alone almost, should fight that concept.
  Mr. Snape: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House of any cases in which, in respect of road intensification, compensation has been paid, or is to be paid, to people living alongside roads that have seen a dramatic increase in traffic in recent years?
  Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman is reawakening memories of earlier debates about noise compensation. Many of us are not unhappy about the possibility that the concession already made by British Rail will lead to a re-examination of the principles that apply elsewhere. I am not saying that the Treasury will like that; in areas where traffic has intensified, however, many people feel that it is only fair for the Government to offer help with noise insulation.
  Mr. Rowe: I believe that, because an absolute standard has been set in relation to the amount of noise that people are expected to put up with, protection is being provided in some areas where intensification has taken place.
  Mr. Moate: It is all a question of degree.
  We are not talking about a theoretical exercise. British Rail has been very helpful, and has gone some way towards meeting the point. My hon. Friend the Minister is

  299
  trying to resolve the problem: the Government, unlike the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, are taking it seriously.
  I believe that British Rail should consider providing compensation when serious damage is done to existing properties. In doing so, it would secure considerable public support. The cost would not be excessive, and the future path of railway development would be eased. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can give us any encouragement on that score, I for one will not oppose the Bill.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am doubtful about the message that we have received from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Again, we are encountering a divided policy. In the debate on new clause 16 of the Planning and Compensation Bill, many Opposition Members—not just Labour Members—firmly supported the provision of compensation.
  Mr. Snape: What my hon. Friends supported was the principle of compensation. We all accept that the noise that will be generated by a new high-speed rail link constitutes a unique phenomenon, and is likely to cause a good deal more dislocation than any noise caused by the existing links. We are not talking about the intensification of traffic on existing railway lines.
  Mr. Wolfson: The hon. Gentleman is clearly very badly briefed; he has not done his homework. The new clause and debate to which I referred specifically concerned the very line that we are discussing now.
  I support the intentions of the Bill, but like many of my constituents I consider it incomplete. I therefore cannot support the Bill itself. As the promoters have said, it will allow British Rail to carry out major works on the line that runs from Ashford to London, via Maidstone and Otford. The works are part of an investment programme costing more than £1 billion, on which British Rail has embarked to meet the huge surge in demand for rail travel that is expected to follow the opening of the channel tunnel.
  I should make it clear—especially to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, who tried to suggest that those of us who were concerned about protection and compensation were sticking our heads in the sand, and were not interested in progress—that in my view it is high time that Britain took rapid steps to provide not just an adequate but a top-grade infrastructure for British routes to and from the channel tunnel, both road and rail. We have many lessons to learn from the French who are already ahead of us in building their rail links, junctions and stations ready for the opening of the tunnel and the years that follow. There are major benefits to be gained from providing an adequate rail freight service which can compete effectively with lorry traffic.
  I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) about the estimate of the impact of the growth in trade after 1992. Part of the impact will be to increase by 100,000 every year the lorry movements on the roads of Kent and the south-east. In comparison, in the first years of operation after the opening of the channel tunnel, rail freight services will offer—depending on the vigour with which the services are
  300
  sold—the equivalent of 400,000 trunk lorry movements a year over the same roads, so I accept that there are clear benefits to be gained from moving freight by rail. That gain will limit the growth of heavy lorry traffic. It will be an environmental and energy-saving gain and something that most of us will applaud. It is also a clear gain for Britain as a whole. Therefore, it seems even more of a pity that the individuals whose homes will be severely blighted or made unsaleable—and when their value is already depressed by the fact that they live close to a quiet and little-used railway—will overnight, on the day that the tunnel opens, find themselves alongside a main European railway line. Those people have, as yet, no recourse to compensation or to noise and vibration protection measures.
  We are not asking for anything unrealistic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out, we are asking for reasonable measures which could ease the passage of the Bill and future railway development all over Britain. We have had to fight for every concession on this. When British Rail first published its alternative routes for the channel tunnel—the high speed line—it had no concept of providing any sort of noise protection or compensation. It based its approach on the law for existing lines and that has been a public relations disaster. It is utterly inexcusable and a total contrast to the way in which Eurotunnel—a private company—has operated at Folkestone from the beginning, producing good compensation plans, which have been kept live over about 10 years, for dealing with people whose homes have been damaged in any way, whether financially or environmentally, by development there. So there are lessons to be learnt and we need to learn them fast.
  Because we have had to fight every inch, it may sometimes seem to other hon. Members that Kent Members become unnecessarily worked up about the issue, but I believe that we are justified in doing so. We value the interest taken in the matter by those from other areas of the country. I could not be more strongly in support of the need to ensure that the national transport infrastructure is ready and in position to service the channel tunnel properly so that the benefits are spread all over Britain. If that is not so, there is no point in having the tunnel.
  So far, there has been a sharp contrast between this country and others, and I am critical of the Government in that respect. The French have used the development of the high-speed rail link as a generator of economic development and have funded it accordingly. The line to Brittany was one-third paid for by Government money —separately from SNCF's two-thirds contribution—in order to achieve economic development. Some parts of this country—and certainly parts of the south-east—are not looking for dynamic economic growth because they are already over-heated, or were until recently. However, other parts of the country badly need such growth and that is where rail development will play a major part, as it should.
  I refer to the passage of the Bill in another place and stress that when it reaches its Committee stage in this place I hope that it will be more fully examined and greater note taken of various issues. I hope that firm recommendations will be made to deal with the problems of those who are disadvantaged by the intensification of use of existing lines. While asking for a more in-depth consideration to be taken in this place than was carried out in another place,

  301
  it is interesting to note that, during the Third Reading debate in another place, all those who spoke referred to the concerns that had been raised in Committee and on Second Reading about the intensification of use, its environmental effects and its negative effect on people's houses. They asked that those effects should be taken into account by the Government and by British Rail during the further stages of the Bill, so it is wholly reasonable that precisely that issue should be emphasised now.
  Some progress has been made and the Government have responded. I will summarise some of the steps in that progress. The Minister for Public Transport has made it clear—he confirmed it again today—that he and the Secretary of State accept that intensification of use of existing railway lines will pose a problem when the channel tunnel opens and that he would consider that problem carefully. I am grateful to him for confirming that again today.
  The House of Lords Select Committee on the British Railways (No. 3) Bill concluded that, just as the Mitchell committee had been established to examine noise from new railway lines, a similar study should be undertaken into noise arising from intensification of use. The Committee's conclusion makes it clear that this is an issue of real import.
  The recommendation of the Department of the Environment's noise review working party in 1990 was that
  "consideration should be given to extending the regulations about the insulation of residential property against railway noise so as to include householders affected by the significant intensification of use of a railway line which could not reasonably have been foreseen."
  Surely there is common agreement that for people who bought houses along many points of this line the intensification that they now face could not reasonably have been foreseen.
  I refer to the Mitchell committee's recent report which has already been mentioned. Its conclusion was
  "to recommend to the Secretary of State for Transport a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines."
  We are asking for that insulation standard to be extended to intensification of use.
  In this debate, as in the debate on the Compensation and Planning Bill, it is arguable whether we are talking about intensification of use on existing lines or whether the capital investment put into the lines plus the opening of the channel tunnel—the biggest ever infrastructure project in Europe—constitutes a new line with new traffic, operating in a wholly different way from anything that has happened before.
  I ask for a narrower point than my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to accept. I ask that the channel tunnel routes between London and Folkestone should be accepted as unique in terms of the volume of and increase in night-time traffic by rail. That is a major difference compared with routes in other parts of the country. I also ask that British Rail should be asked to confirm the lack of an equivalent level of night-time traffic elsewhere and should be asked whether similar increases are expected elsewhere in the next five years. That is a key measure of whether the situation in Kent and south-east London is unique.
  Kent county council has put in an immense amount of work over the past three to four years on achieving sensible noise standards. I suggest that the Kent authority's noise standards should form the basis of any
  302
  noise scheme unless we get subsequent national noise regulation standards which would obviously be better than the local ones.
  British Rail should produce a noise action scheme which would concentrate first on protection by barriers and by insulation. Many examples of that exist on the continent, so we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We can use experience from abroad, evaluate the costs and know that such methods work. The noise action scheme should also include provision for compensation by monetary payments for the loss in value to which so many speakers have referred.
  The Secretary of State should go further and require British Rail to implement an agreed scheme for a specifically defined area. If he did that, it would do much to restore confidence among people in Kent and south-east London, and it would help them to accept the fact that the benefits of an effective rail freight scheme are real and can help environmentally, as well as provide the right and proper method by which to move as much freight as possible on the railway lines between the channel tunnel and the rest of the country.
  I am not against the intentions of the Bill, but I am dissatisfied with the fact that it still does not provide my constituents and those of all the other Kent and south-east London Members—other areas of the country could also be affected at a later state—with reasonable protection and compensation.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that we have had an extremely useful debate on an important matter. The debate has been extremely constructive in that everyone has welcomed the need for providing a rail link to the coast. The major source of disagreement has been the question of compensation, and I shall deal with that in a few moments. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked a question about the Networker which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) was especially concerned about compensation, and the fact that there was virtually a new line, even if it might run on old rails—or, rather, run where the old rails used to be. He said that that circumstance should give rise to a special form of compensation.
  We have to take two factors into account. We must accept that this is a national problem, and is not limited simply to railway lines. Roads, too, can be affected, and we run into serious difficulty in determining exactly where to draw the line. I do not say that that cannot be done, but national legislation is not now in place because of that difficulty.
  Perhaps what my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said about Kent county council's work on standards could represent a foundation upon which something could be worked out. It is a difficult problem, and we must make it clear that we cannot consider compensation in isolation; we must deal with all forms of transport, not just one.
  Sir John Stanley: National legislation is in place for civil airports and military airfields, where public works leading to intensification of use trigger entitlements to compensation. The problem is that British Rail has chosen —arbitrarily, I suggest—to align railways with roads

  303
  rather than with airports. The provisions exist; they are on the statute book and are administered by the Ministry of Defence.
  Mr. Thorne: British Rail is going to considerable lengths to discuss the matter at a high level with Kent county council. We accept that the county council has done a considerable amount of work in the past few years.
  There is no doubt that there are statutory provisions that apply to new railway lines, but we are talking specifically about lines being used more intensively. We must await the outcome of the discussions between British Rail and Kent county council to see whether there is a basis on which to work. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to treat one section of the community differently from others. Real problems arise on the road network, and it would be wrong if people affected by them were not taken care of in the same way.
  The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) was concerned about sleepers. I know that he and one or two of his colleagues have had problems travelling on the sleeper to and from their constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman felt that British Rail had broken an undertaking, but I do not believe that it has. British Rail gave an undertaking to consider the matter after the electrification of the line to see whether the service could be made viable. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not dream of suggesting that British Rail should lay on a sleeper service especially for Members of Parliament. That would be entirely wrong. The service has to be financially viable, and I believe that British Rail has considered the matter.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, raised the question of blight, with special reference to the value of property being seriously affected. I know that that can happen; it has happened in my own constituency. Conversely, where blight is lifted, the opposite can happen. I knew of a number of houses that were blighted because a flyover was to be built over a roundabout. When it was decided to re-route the road, the value of the properties affected increased by 50 per cent. overnight. So I know that it happens, but, nevertheless, we must ensure that we can cater for all those who lose and not just for one group, particularly when the funding is then thrown upon the users of the route. It would not be fair to pick some people out for special treatment. We must be consistent, and that is why this is a national matter which will clearly have to be resolved in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was anxious to have a cast-iron assurance regarding compensation and blight purchase. I am afraid that I cannot give him any cast-iron assurances, but I can assure him that every possible attempt will be made to arrive at an amicable agreement on this point between Kent county council—and, for that matter, the London boroughs, should they so wish—and British Rail.
  The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) welcomed the Bill, and I was pleased to receive support from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that the Bill is essential to northern England and Scotland. That is absolutely true. We must accept that certain inconvenience
  304
  will be caused, and that is why we must go to great lengths to try to ensure that those who are inconvenienced by the extra use are not unduly out of pocket as a result.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replied to many of the questions that were raised, and I do not want to repeat what he said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) also referred to the question of intensification, and felt that if, as a result of the Bill, our rail system were connected to the European system, a new line would be involved. That is an interesting point, but it must also apply to roads, and we must try to identify exactly how what is proposed can be made separate and special. My hon. Friend also referred to the question of the blight, and I am grateful to him for acknowledging British Rail's sensitivity in trying to deal with the matter. My hon. Friend's suggestion of setting up an agency as the purchaser of last resort was noted by my hon. Friend the Minister, and it is to be hoped that we shall hear a little more about that in due course. Nevertheless, blight is a great worry to those trapped in such circumstances.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend was trying to be helpful in saying that efforts would be made to reach agreement between the local authorities concerned and British Rail with regard to compensation or forms of noise protection —I am not sure which. Earlier, however, he said that he felt that the matter had to be dealt with on a national basis. There is a problem in reconciling those two propositions. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can encourage me to think that British Rail is ready to make an undertaking to extend the scope of the committee with Kent county council to include compensation—or is that too optimistic?
  Mr. Thorne: I think that my hon.. Friend is being a little too optimistic, as he suggests. The matter will certainly be discussed in Committee, and any undertakings that are sought can be more properly directed in that way. I was referring to two separate issues—on the one hand, the Bill and the way in which British Rail is trying to reach agreement on compensation or sound-proofing—it is one thing or the other—and, on the other, belief that, ultimately, we must find a national yardstick by which we can determine whether compensation should be paid. If we do not have a national yardstick, there will tend to be enormous variations and much criticism from different parts of the country about the fact that they have been dealt with in different ways.
  There has been a great deal of agreement about the Bill. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading tonight, and that it will make progress in Committee.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 10.

  Division No. 214]

  [9.39 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alton, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ashby, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Blair, Tony

  Atkins, Robert

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Brazier, Julian

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Bright, Graham

  Beggs, Roy

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

  305

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Burt, Alistair

  Hayes, Jerry

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Carr, Michael

  Haynes, Frank

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Cash, William

  Hill, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Home Robertson, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Howells, Geraint

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irvine, Michael

  Cox, Tom

  Jack, Michael

  Cryer, Bob

  Jackson, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Janman, Tim

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Greville

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knapman, Roger

  Fearn, Ronald

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Flynn, Paul

  Knowles, Michael

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lamond, James

  Forman, Nigel

  Latham, Michael

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Freeman, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  French, Douglas

  Lightbown, David

  Fry, Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Lord, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Loyden, Eddie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gordon, Mildred

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Gorst, John

  Maclean, David

  Graham, Thomas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Malins, Humfrey

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Ground, Patrick

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hague, William

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

  Maxton, John

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Meale, Alan

  Harris, David

  Michael, Alun

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Iain

  306

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stern, Michael

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Stevens, Lewis

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  O'Brien, William

  Summerson, Hugo

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Paice, James

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Parry, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trimble, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Prescott, John

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Raffan, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Redmond, Martin

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Riddick, Graham

  Wallace, James

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rooney, Terence

  Watts, John

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Short, Clare

  Wood, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wray, Jimmy

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Yeo, Tim

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. Gary Waller.

  Speed, Keith

  NOES

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Sims, Roger

  Dixon, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Mark Wolfson and Sir John Stanley.

  Rowe, Andrew

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments in lieu of a Lords Amendment and a Lords Amendment in lieu of one of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
  `.—(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if—

  (a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law; and

  (b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order.

  (2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account—

  (a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it; and

  (b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below.

  (3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner—

  (a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part"); and

  (b) the Board has directed his release under this section,

  it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence.
  (4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless—

  (a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and

  (b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

  (5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board any time—

  (a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and

  (b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and

  (c) where he is also serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term, after he has served one-half of that sentence;

  and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence.
  (6) In determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act").
  (7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.
  (8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment; but—

  (a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and

  (b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

  with the following amendment:
  The Lords agree to the Amendments after Clause 22 proposed by the Commons in lieu of the Amendment made by the Lords to insert a new Clause (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment), namely:
  Insert the following new clause—Duty to release discretionary life prisoners—
  No. 1, in line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert
  ("(1) This Part applies to a person sentenced to—

  (a) life imprisonment, whether or not for an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law; or

  (b) during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or

  (c) custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act;

  where the Court by which he was sentenced ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the Order.")
  9.51 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, and the Government motions to disagree thereto; Lords amendment No. 7; and Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18, and the Government motions to disagree thereto.
  Mrs. Rumbold: The House will recall that when it first considered the Lords amendments to the Bill on 25 June, the Government tabled amendments on discretionary life sentence procedures in substitution for amendments which had been proposed by the Lords. These amendments were accepted by the House. While the other place has also accepted these amendments, it has sought to amend them further, in the ways shown on the amendment paper.
  The main question raised in these Lords amendments is whether the new procedures that we have proposed for the review of discretionary life sentences should also extend to prisoners who receive the mandatory life sentence—that is, those who are convicted of murder. The House will recall that the new procedures for discretionary life sentences have been proposed in order to respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne.
  Under the new procedures, when the judge passes a discretionary life sentence, he will announce in open court the period of time for which the prisoner should remain in custody to punish the offence. After that period has expired, the grounds for the prisoner's continued detention will be solely that the offender continues to pose a danger to the public. He will be entitled to have his case reviewed periodically by the Parole Board, acting under the special procedure, and the Home Secretary will be required to release the prisoner if the Parole Board decides that he is no longer a danger to the public.
  Mandatory life sentence cases, however, raise quite different issues and the Government do not agree that it is appropriate to extend a similar procedure to these cases. In a discretionary case, the decision on release is based purely on whether the offender continues to be a risk to the public. The presumption is that once the period that is appropriate to punishment has passed, the prisoner should be released if it is safe to do so.
  The nature of the mandatory sentence is different. The element of risk is not the decisive factor in handing down a life sentence. According to the judicial process, the offender has committed a crime of such gravity that he forfeits his liberty to the state for the rest of his days. If necessary, he can be detained for life without the necessity for a subsequent judicial intervention. The presumption is,
  310
  therefore, that the offender should remain in custody until and unless the Home Secretary concludes that the public interest would be better served by the prisoner's release than by his continued detention. In exercising his continued discretion in that respect, the Home Secretary must take account not just of the question of risk, but of how society as a whole would view the prisoner's release at that juncture. The Home Secretary takes account of the judicial recommendation, but the final decision is his.
  It is within that framework that it has been possible for Ministers to adopt and apply policies to ensure that those who murder police officers will serve at least 20 years in prison.
  Mr. David Trimble: May we have an assurance that it is still the policy of the Government that people who murder police officers shall serve at least 20 years in prison? If so, why is it that the average period served in prison by a person involved in the murder of police officers in Northern Ireland released within the last five years has been not 20 years but 13 and one third years? Does the Minister believe that it has been appropriate for only that amount of time to be served in prison in a situation where the danger is greater and where the need for detention is also greater than in the circumstances with which she has been dealing?
  Mrs. Rumbold: As I said, in cases where police officers have been murdered, it is very much the Government's belief that the Home Secretary should have accountability and should be able to ensure that such people spend at least 20 years in prison. To transfer that responsibility to the Parole Board or to some other body would represent a fundamental departure from the principle that major decisions of public policy and the public interest should be taken by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament.
  We do not agree that the ECHR judgment in the Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne case contains any implication that our procedures on mandatory cases should be changed. If anything, that judgment suggests the contrary, because it is based on the argument that if risk is the only factor in a prisoner's continued detention, that continued detention is lawful only for so long as the prisoner continues to be a risk, as determined by a court-like body.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: My right hon. Friend said that Ministers were accountable to Parliament for the decision about how long a life sentence should be served. Where does the Home Secretary announce his decision and how is that transparently made available to the House for debate?
  Mrs. Rumbold: This is not a case where the Home Secretary announces his decision at a given time. When the judiciary passes sentence in court, that sentence is passed as a life sentence or as life imprisonment, which means that anyone who commits murder will for the rest of his or her days be subject to the judgment of the court that it is a life sentence. When that person comes out, or if they do not come out, is for the Home Secretary to decide when he takes into account, not just the usual elements, but the public interest element, and that element is the most important part of a rounded and larger decision.
  Mr. Wells: How do we know that?
  Mrs. Rumbold: It is not a question of how one knows that. It is a matter which Parliament has decided. That decision is that the Home Secretary shall be accountable, and if my hon. Friend permits me to develop the point further he may understand precisely the reasoning behind it.
  As I said, it is not the same for mandatory sentences. I am reinforced in that view by the decision of the European Court on Human Rights in the case of Bamber, a mandatory life sentence prisoner. Like Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne, Bamber claimed that the lawfulness of his continued detention needed to be considered by a court-like body, but the commission decided that in that mandatory case the lawfulness of detention was incorporated at the outset in the original trial. We believe, therefore, that the court would accept that different considerations apply in mandatory cases and that such different considerations should be reflected in a different set of procedures.
  Were Parliament ever to consider another method, it would require the most serious study of how it would be otherwise discharged. Parliament would have to be satisfied that its influence in these matters was not lost because the Home Secretary was no longer accountable to it for the decisions involved. That might involve far-reaching changes in the way in which sentencing for murder was conducted, perhaps including statutory guidelines on the length of time that those convicted for different kinds of murder should serve. Such an exercise would, of course—
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments relating to the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments in lieu of a Lords Amendment and a Lords Amendment in lieu of one of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, again considered.
  Mrs. Rumbold: Such an exercise would, of course, be fraught with great difficulty. The Government are therefore firmly of the view that no substantive change in the arrangements for mandatory life sentences for prisoners should be made at present; nor could that be contemplated in the future without a great deal of further thought being given to its implications.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that it is an offence to those of us who are fully committed to and fully support capital punishment for murder to have to accept inconsistency in the United Kingdom? The murder of a policeman or member of the security forces in Great Britain seems to be treated in a different manner from the murder of a policeman or member of the security forces in Northern Ireland. When will the Government ensure that there is consistency of treatment of those guilty of such murders?
  Mrs. Rumbold: During my time in Parliament we have had a number of votes on exactly those matters and, on each occasion, Parliament has voted not to reinstate capital punishment. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that those debates are taken seriously and hon. Members consider, as a matter of conscience, where they
  312
  stand on that issue. It is a matter for Parliament, and Parliament has decided, which is exactly the right way for us to conduct ourselves in this country.
  Of the other Lords amendments, No. 2 would require the judge to state a term in every discretionary life sentence case, after which the prisoner would be entitled to be released if the Parole Board concluded that he was no longer a risk. The amendment does not, however, take account of the possibility that a discretionary life sentence might be imposed not because the offender is judged to be a danger to the public, but solely because the offence that the offender has committed is so serious as to justify a life sentence on that account. In other words, this would be a discretionary life sentence passed in accordance with clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill, rather than clause 2(2)(b).
  A discretionary life sentence based purely on the seriousness of the offence would of course be very rare. The vast majority of discretionary life sentences are passed because there is an element of mental instability which means that the prisoner will be a risk to the public for a period which cannot be predicted in advance. But occasionally discretionary life sentences are passed not because the offender is perceived to be a risk to the public, but because of the nature of the offence which he has committed. In such cases, it would be inappropriate and illogical to require the court to state a term within the sentence which was appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. In those circumstances, the whole of the life sentence is there to punish the offence, not just part of it.
  I should emphasise once again that it will, of course, be entirely at the discretion of the judge whether to pass a discretionary life sentence of this nature. I am sure that it would be most exceptional, but I do not consider that it would be appropriate to limit the judge's discretion in this matter in the way that the Lords amendment does.
  Amendment No. 3 would permit the Parole Board to direct that the licence of a discretionary life sentence prisoner should be lifted after a certain period. That would mean that the offender involved was no longer subject to any form of supervision, and could not be recalled to prison if he showed signs of reverting to his former ways. It seems that the amendment makes nonsense of the whole concept of a life sentence. If a life sentence is passed, surely that must mean that the offender is subject to some restriction for the rest of his life, whether he is in custody or out on licence.
  The offenders whom we are talking about in this context will have been given life sentences because there has been judged to be an element of mental instability in their behaviour. It seems to me to be quite wrong to get into the position where no action could be taken if, for example, someone had received a life sentence for sexual assaults on young children, then showed signs—even some years after his release on licence—of wanting to put himself in a position to commit similar offences again.
  So long as the licence remains in force, steps can be taken, through tighter supervision, the attaching of new conditions of the licence or, ultimately, the offender's recall to prison, to ensure that potential victims are not exposed to danger from him. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be quite wrong to deny the public the protection that is conferred by the existence of the licence for the remainder of the offender's life.
  Finally, I refer briefly to Lords amendment No. 7, which would remove the power that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would have to keep a discretionary life

  313
  sentence prisoner in custody for up to six months after his release had been ordered by the Parole Board, if he considered it to be in the public interest to do so. That very limited power was sought to cater for the exceptional circumstance where the prisoner's release at a particular moment might, for example, exacerbate a public order situation or complicate the handling of some sensitive terrorist incident.
  We believe that such a limited residual power for my right hon. Friend would be in accordance with the recent ECHR judgment, which referred to the possibility of the Executive's being able to detain the prisoner further on grounds of what it termed "expediency". However, having reflected on the views expressed on this matter in another place, my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that the kind of situation which this power is intended to cover could be handled without recourse to the exercise of that kind of reserve power. The Government are not, therefore inviting the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 7.
  The remaining Lords amendments are consequential on the ones to which I have referred.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: The Minister of State made a brilliant job of a very bad brief. The principal Lords amendments provide that, in all cases where a life sentence is imposed, the trial judge shall fix in open court the minimum period that a life sentence prisoner should serve, rather than make a private recommendation to the Home Secretary, as happens at present.
  We have debated that subject at length. I was astounded that, even when the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) intervened in the speech of the Minister of State to ask about accountability, the Minister's response was unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be trying to get her to say something more fully about the disparity between the judiciary and the Executive. When most of us learnt about the British constitution at school we thought that there was a healthy separation between the judiciary and the Executive, and that when the Executive nakedly interferes with the judiciary it can only be at the cost of justice.
  The Lords amendments also provide that the Parole Board, operating under a special review procedure, shall take decisions on the release of life sentence prisoners and their recall on release, and not merely make a recommendation to the Home Secretary.
  The Lords amendments are more detailed than that and I shall go through them briefly, one by one. Lords amendment No. 1 extends the Government's proposals to. prisoners serving mandatory life sentences. Lords amendment No. 2 removes the power of the courts to determine that the new release procedures for discretionary lifers should not apply to the case before them. Lords amendment No. 7 removes the power of the Home Secretary to defer release for up to six months.
  We are delighted that the Government have seen the light on one of those amendments. I suppose that that is a 25 per cent. success rate. If the Lords keep up the process of attrition, even more enlightenment may come to the Government. However, I suspect that that may be our last small victory.
  Lords amendment No. 3 gives the Parole Board the option, in discretionary life sentence cases, of ending the licence after a period of time, rather than its having to remain in force until the offender's death.
  314
  I do not intend to make any arguments about the case that we have won, so I shall concentrate on the three remaining amendments. We take extremely seriously Lords amendment No. 1, which extends the provisions for mandatory life sentences. The insight displayed in the House of Lords was a textbook example for this House. The clarity and perception of that insight were remarkable, as one would expect of Members of the other place, who often have more experience in matters judicial.
  In accepting the need to change the operation of discretionary life sentences, the Government are attempting to comply—reluctantly, as we all know—with the decision taken last October by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. While the European Court's findings in that case were restricted to discretionary sentences, the procedures for those serving mandatory life sentences for murder are just as objectionable.
  Whenever a convicted murderer is sentenced to life imprisonment, a simple but astounding process is set in train. Until I got involved in this Bill, I did not realise what happened and I feel that many hon. Members still do not realise that. The trial judge informs the Home Secretary, via the Lord Chief Justice, who adds his own views, of the minimum period of imprisonment that he considers necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Taking those views into account, a Home Office Minister—not the Home Secretary—lays down the minimum level of time that the prisoner will actually serve, otherwise known as the tariff. When that minimum time has lapsed, the decision on when to release the offender is based on an assessment of his or her risk to the public. That decision is made by the Home Secretary following a recommendation by the Parole Board.
  Figures on the operation of the procedure, prepared by the Home Office for the House of Lords Select Committee, show that in most cases Home Office Ministers required prisoners to serve longer minimum periods than their trial judges considered appropriate. Between 1 April and 30 September 1988, minimum periods were set for 106 persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. In 63 of those cases, Home Office Ministers laid down longer minimum periods than the trial judge had recommended. In 34 cases, Ministers accepted the trial judges' recommendations, and in nine cases they set lower minimum periods.
  More recently published figures show that, of the 274 mandatory life sentences considered in 1990, Ministers set a longer period than that recommended by the trial judge in 90 cases and a shorter period in 43 cases. We believe that it is wrong in principle for Ministers to lengthen sentences by executive influence and decree. Unlike the judge, the Minister makes his decision without having heard the evidence in court; in effect, it is a sentencing decision taken behind closed doors and against which the prisoner cannot appeal.
  We feel that it is contrary to justice for the Executive to interfere in the judicial process in that way. Some Conservative Members demand longer sentences—often without thinking through the arguments—but I ask them to consider the problem. We are not arguing for longer or shorter sentences. We are arguing on the principle that it is wrong for the Executive to become involved.
  Members on one side of the House or the other might be extremely angry with one Home Secretary for consistently reducing the length of sentence or consider

  315
  that another was a good Home Secretary because he consistently increased the length of sentences. The problem arises because the Minister involves himself or herself in the judicial process in an arbitrary manner—arbitrary because how can a member of the Executive make such a decision without any experience of the court trial, without having heard the evidence, and without having been able to make a fair appraisal of what went on?
  10.15 pm
  Similarly, decisions for or against the eventual release of life sentence prisoners and on their recall from licence can result in further lengthy periods of imprisonment. Such decisions are also taken by executive process whereby the Parole Board makes recommendations to Ministers.
  The Lords amendments, which the Opposition believe are pure, good, common sense, would ensure that decisions on the release and the recall of prisoners serving life sentence were made by a process which, unlike the current system, would satisfy the requirements of natural justice.
  It is difficult to see any logic in retaining the Home Secretary's veto over the release of prisoners convicted of, say, domestic murder in circumstances of extreme stress while relinquishing it in cases where a long sentence had been imposed for a calculated series of rapes or following a manslaughter verdict on an unpredictable and unstable mentally disordered killer. Where is the logic in that?
  The Government have argued that Members of Parliament have been willing to support the continued abolition of capital punishment only because of the assurance that the Home Secretary will retain control over the release of prisoners convicted of murder. Opposition Members consider that a highly dubious argument. The case for the reform of the life sentences on the lines proposed by the Lords Select Committee has widespread support from many people and groups within the criminal justice system who are also opposed to the abolition of capital punishment as well as from those who support it. If life sentence procedures were changed, most Members of Parliament would vote on capital punishment in precisely the way that they do at the moment.
  Although the case of Thynne applied only to discretionary life sentences, it is widely felt that when the case of mandatory life sentences comes before the European Court of Human Rights it will apply the same principle that is established for discretionary life sentences. We understand that such a case will come before the European Court shortly. Once again, the British Government will be found lacking.
  Lords amendment No. 2 involves removing the power of the court to determine that the release procedure should not apply to the case before it. In its wisdom, the other place saw that under the Government's proposals the trial judge had the power to determine that the new release proposals would not take effect in relation to the case before him by not specifying a term after which release can be considered by the Parole Board.
  In another place, it was suggested that that power was needed for the exceptional case where the crime was so serious that the trial judge felt that the offence warranted life imprisonment irrespective of the risk to the public. However, in the Bill that power is very wide. I hope that the Minister will take this point. In effect, the court is given
  316
  the power to opt out of the new release procedures and the circumstances in which it should exercise that power should have been clearly defined in statute.
  I am not trying to have my cake and eat it too—that is the other side of the argument that I was putting earlier. It is bad when the Executive interferes with the judicial process. It is also bad when the legislature does not make its legislation clear enough to the judiciary. We want the Bill to make it clear to. the judiciary that only in exceptional cases will the judge have that power. As it stands, we believe that it will be taken as a wide power, in which case the legislation would not achieve its intended objective.
  I shall not need to deliver that part of my speech dealing with amendment No. 2, in view of the Government's change of mind, but I will delay the House a little longer to comment on Lords amendment No. 3 which in the case of discretionary life sentences gives the Parole Board the option of ending the licence after a period of time.
  The Thynne judgment made it clear that when it comes to a discretionary life prisoner, a court or the Parole Board must have the power to bring the licence to an end. That argument was well made by hon. Members on both sides of the House in our debate on 25 June. The debate during the long progress of the Bill has not been party political. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have agreed or disagreed with one another—it has been that kind of Bill. The argument for providing such a power is accepted not only by Members on both sides of this House but by the majority of their Lordships.
  In the debate on 25 June, the Minister of State said that the Government would make statutory regulations specifying that the Parole Board should follow a judicial process in such cases. Can she say when we shall have sight of those regulations? It seems odd that we are reaching the end of the Bill's passage through the House without knowing the content of the regulations that are to flow from it. It is impossible to judge whether or not they are acceptable without having sight of them. We hope that they will be available when the Bill returns to another place.
  We feel strongly about the central, constitutional arguments that we have made concerning the nature of the relationship between the judiciary and the Executive, and between the legislature and the judiciary. We have taken a consistent line on both. We are unhappy with the Government's reaction to their Lordships' amendments on that matter of principle, and that is why we shall eventually divide the House on the amendments.
  Mr. John Greenway: I sense that the mood of the House is not to delay our consideration of the Lords amendments.
  When moving the amendments before us, Lord Nathan argued that, although the European Court judgment related only to discretionary life sentences, in time that court would reach a similar judgment in respect of mandatory sentences. I do not believe that that is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn.
  In the Thynne case, the European Court drew a distinction between mandatory and discretionary life sentences in respect of a mandatory sentence for murder involving a premeditated killing. Thynne was not in that category. That is entirely in keeping with our criminal law, which distinguishes between murder, which involves the intentional killing of another, and manslaughter, where

  317
  the intention is less clear. The premeditated nature of murder singles it out from all other crimes, and provides the justification for a mandatory life sentence, which reflects the heinous nature of the offence alone, without any assessment of the future risk to the public.
  Their Lordships argued that some murders are less serious than sadistic or brutal crimes that stop short of murder. Even if that proposition is entirely valid, I cannot see how that can justify the watering down of the mandatory life sentence that the Lords amendments would bring about. In my judgment, the converse is true, and justifies the discretionary life sentence. It also justifies the provision for the trial judge to announce in open court a term within a discretionary life sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence, and for the prisoner to continue to be detained if he would pose a risk to the public on his release.
  Alternatively—my right hon. Friend touched on this —a judge, when passing a discretionary sentence, might choose to reflect the seriousness of the offence by not setting a term. The law should do what the Bill did before it went to the other place, and provide the opportunity for a discretionary sentence to be placed on a par with a mandatory sentence in response to the seriousness of the crime in question. Their Lordships seemed to be suggesting the opposite. The original wording reflected more accurately public anxiety about the rise in violent crime, and public opinion about the most appropriate sentence for murder.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No, I will not. I want to be brief, and we have now discussed this matter on four occasions.
  Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about mandatory sentences, that must be outside the terms of the Lords amendment. The Lords failed to reach a conclusion on mandatory sentences; we are now discussing discretionary sentences.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order. I remind the House, however, that we are now dealing with a group of Lords amendments.
  Mr. Greenway: The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), whose opinions I normally respect, has shown appalling ignorance of the issues, which are of considerable importance to the British people.
  Now is not the time to rehearse again arguments about whether sentences have a deterrent effect. Let me say, however, that the increase in the number of murders and in the use of firearms in crime—and the total disregard for human life displayed by the criminal fraternity—demand that, at the very least, we adopt a cautious approach to changes in sentencing. The other place has now accepted that this is no time to abandon the mandatory life sentence. Nor is it the time to extend the Bill's new procedures in regard to discretionary sentences to mandatory sentences. It is on that point that the House must disagree with the Lords.
  Mr. Trimble: I, too, will try to be brief—if only because I was in the House until 3.30 this morning, and have no wish to repeat the experience.
  318
  The Government are drawing a distinction between mandatory life sentences and what they call discretionary life sentences. They are establishing a procedure for discretionary sentences that they believe will be sufficiently judicial to satisfy the requirements of the European convention, while retaining the existing system for mandatory sentences—that is, leaving matters entirely to their own discretion, which will be exercised in the manner described by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The Lords would have extended to mandatory life sentences the quasi-judicial procedure that the Government propose to confine to discretionary life sentences.
  I support the view taken in the other place. I do not approve of leaving the matter to the Government's discretion. That would be bad, partly for the constitutional reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield —reasons of principle. It is also bad because it can lead to policy changes that produce alarming results.
  10.30 pm
  We have had confirmed this evening the Government's present policy for part of the United Kingdom, which is that people who murder police officers should serve 20 years. That may have been the Government's policy for another part of the United Kingdom during the first few years of the previous decade. Between 1981 and 1984, no person sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of members of the security forces was released on licence in Northern Ireland. For some reason, which we can explore at another time, there was a change of policy in 1985. From 1985 to 26 June 1991, 51 persons convicted of murder of members of the security forces—policemen, prison officers, regular soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment—were released, and not one of them had served 20 years. The longest sentence served was 17 years and that was served by only one person. The shortest sentence served was seven years and that was served by three people. The average length of sentences is interesting. I mentioned one such average to the Minister during an intervention, but I did not receive a reply. I hope that the right hon. Lady will reply during the wind-up.
  For persons released between 1985 and 1991, the average term served by those sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment was 13·55 years. For persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the average period served was 13⅓ years. In the same period, for those sentenced to life imprisonment for murder of members of the Regular Army, the average sentence served was 12 years. That demonstrates the exercise of Government policy.
  We have been told about the Government's policy for this part of the United Kingdom and I have demonstrated what a change of Government policy produced elsewhere. It is objectionable that we have a system that can accommodate such changes of policy and that such changes can occur surreptitiously, without the necessary public debate. For that reason, together with the reasons of general principle adduced by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, it is objectionable for such decisions to be made by the Executive. There should be a form of judicial procedure—one could argue about its exact nature—that is more open and more accountable and not subject to the whims of changing policy. That would be much more desirable.

  319
  I should have liked an opportunity to expand on this. At an earlier stage of the Bill I should have liked to deal with the concept of mandatory life sentences, which I think is objectionable. It would have been better if the Government had accepted the earlier Lords amendments to dispense with mandatory life sentences. Unfortunately, due to having to attend somewhat abortive discussions some distance away from this building, I was unable to participate in such a debate. We want to register our support for the Lords amendments and the hope that, at some time in the near future, we will see Government and ministerial discretion over periods served in prison replaced by a more open, logical and accountable system that more closely reflects the gravity of the offences.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not blame the House of Lords, but these amendments are an attempt to get by the back door what they have conceded should not be given by the front door—the abolition of the mandatory life sentence and the introduction of an element of discretion by someone other than the Home Secretary. That cannot possibly be acceptable to the House, and we should reject it if there are no better arguments.
  Only one argument has been suggested. It has been said that this will result in an appeal to the European Court and the inevitable rejection of what we are deciding today. I doubt very much whether that confident assertion made by Opposition spokesmen here and by the movers of the amendments in another place would be upheld. In the case of Thynne in the European Court of Human Rights, a clear distinction was drawn between the mandatory and the discretionary life sentence. The court said:
  "the principles underlying such sentences [i.e. discretionary sentences], unlike mandatory life sentences, have developed in the sense that they are composed of a punitive element and subsequently of a security element designed to confer on the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner's release."
  It could not be clearer that making that distinction is what the court is doing. Therefore, I believe that the confident assertion made by the Opposition and their Lordships is invalid and should not weigh with us. Accordingly, there is no reason for us to accept the Lords amendments on this matter.
  The amendment dealing with the removal of the court's right to make a decision about life sentences is puzzling, because it is contrary to the argument advanced by their Lordships and advanced relentlessly by the Opposition during our previous debate on the subject—that the judiciary should have the final say. Now they do not want the judiciary to have the final decision in the matter and are therefore standing on their collective head. That shows the total insubstantiality of the Lords amendments, and the Government are right to reject them.
  Lord Natham said that accepting the amendments would enable the matter to be considered in this place. We have considered them, and we should reject them.
  Mr. Bermingham: What I have—
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) has not started speaking yet, so how can the hon. Gentleman intervene?
  Mr. Bermingham: I was, as ever, being courteous to my hon. Friend.
  320
  What I have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) amazes me. He has not a little knowledge of the courts and of how the judiciary thinks. He must have heard—as I have over the years—what the judiciary thinks about mandatory sentences: it does not like them. It does not like the idea that it can send a recommendation to the Home Secretary in respect of a murder case that the sentence should be six, eight or 10 years only to find that a junior Minister at the Home Office who has absolutely no knowledge of the case—
  Mr. Sheerman: He might be a geography lecturer.
  Mr. Bermingham: As my hon. Friend says, he might be a geography lecturer or a part-time car mechanic, but even if Mr. Justice So-and-So believes that the sentence should be 10 years, he can say that it should be 18 years.
  I am a tired old lawyer who must declare an interest as a barrister. I notice that the once-striker-out of judges' comments—the Minister of State, or goodness knows what he is called nowadays since he has been promoted —once crossed a line through—and I declare yet another interest—a sentence passed on some constituents of mine. He increased the sentence passed by the judge but knew nothing about the case. That worries me, and when the hon. and learned Member for Burton says so glibly, "Never mind the European Court or anything else", we must remember that we are talking about people.
  I remember a comment made by the common serjeant, the senior judge at the central criminal court. It was made to a jury not so long ago. It was something like, "Members of the jury, you have found the man guilty. I will write a letter to the Home Secretary recommending the sentence. What I say will in all probability be ignored." That is a tragedy. As the common serjeant rightly said—and I was there when it was said—"What I know about this case, what members of the Bar who were present in the court know about this case and what police officers know about this case will never be known by the civil servants will advise the Minister in years to come. Those civil servants will know nothing about the case." That is secret justice, and it is anathema.
  When the judiciary said in the House of Lords that mandatory sentences were wrong, they were right. The Government, for reasons which must be known to their heart and which are political because they seek to strive in the face of adversity to win an election, think that the idea of being punitive is in their political interests. They destroy justice.
  As a practising lawyer, I say that there are those of us who believe that justice should be above political thinking. We say gently, "Wait a moment. We are talking about real human beings and about the sentencing of people who should serve a sentence for the crime that they have committed. We are talking about the courts of tomorrow."
  I look at my own Front-Bench colleagues and I say to them as gently as I say to the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are the Opposition."] I say to the Opposition of tomorrow that, when the Lords made a series of decisions, they were talking from experience. If we fly in the face of experience in the interests of expediency, the real sufferers are human beings—the people outside.
  I ask the House, please, to accept the Lords amendments. They do not go far enough, but at least they will go some way down the road to reaching justice. Justice

  321
  is precious and we must not sacrifice it on the altar of political expediency for any part. I ask the Government to listen to the other place because it has something to say.
  Dr. John G. Blackburn: My intervention will certainly be short, but I pray that it may be saturated with intelligence. I say that because I oppose the Lords amendment. I had the opportunity of speaking on the Bill on Second Reading and I made clear my views on the subject. I have also had the opportunity as a constituency Member, like all other Members, of mourning the terrible deaths that have been caused in my constituency by murder.
  One thing has been forgotten in this short debate. If I do nothing else, I want to speak about the sanctitity of human life. Every contribution this evening has concerned justice—which I applaud, and of which I am a disciple —towards those who are guilty of the offence. However, I take the view that it is about time that we discussed in the House the sanctity of human life and the question of protecting human life.
  I hold the view that the Lords amendments do nothing that will in any way enhance the sanctity of human life, and I oppose them. I oppose them for another reason, which I hope the House will find acceptable.
  We have spoken about the judiciary and the Executive. I want to speak about the practical experience of murder and of people being brought to justice before the courts. What mandate do I have to speak on that? Probably like no other hon. Member, I had the task of serving as a police officer on five murder inquiries. In addition, I have had the opportunity—and I found no pleasure in it—of arresting somebody for the capital offence of murder. I hold the view that this House should consider the sanctity of human life and that, saturated with common sense and justice, we should oppose the Lords amendments.
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Sheerman: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but having served for so many months on the Bill I thought that a last word—or at least, a penultimate word—might be appropriate.
  We have made the argument clearly. We agree with all four of the Lords amendments, and we are glad to see that the Government have accepted one of them. We have done so not because we believe, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) believes, that this is a way of getting our own way by the back door, but because, as usual, the House of Lords has confronted the issues of principle head on and brought them back to us. It is the Lords' job in our constitution to do that, and I applaud the way in which they have done it.
  Having said that, we propose to divide the House because we believe that it is wrong for the Executive to interfere with the judiciary in this way.
  Mrs. Rumbold: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I shall be brief.
  I am grateful to the House for the views that we have heard. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne decisions in the European Court of Human Rights did not confirm anything other than that
  322
  we were talking about discretionary cases. Quite clearly, the decision on discretionary life sentences is a matter for the Parole Board to consider from the point of view of risk only, whereas in relation to mandatory life sentences, which are life sentences for murder, the court gives a whole life sentence, the discretion lies with the Home Secretary and the decision is to be considered on much wider issues than simply those of risk.
  In answer to the query raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield about the rules for setting up the Parole Board, I should explain that those rules will be drawn up in consultation with the board and will fully meet the ECHR requirements.
  I will pass the comments made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman is clearly worried about certain disparities between the two countries.
  I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment, but to accept Lords amendment No. 7.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 52.

  Division No. 215]

  [10.48 pm

  AYES

  Ashby, David

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Atkins, Robert

  Harris, David

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hayes, Jerry

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hill, James

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bright, Graham

  Hordern, Sir Peter

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

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  Irvine, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Jackson, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Janman, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Jessel, Toby

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cran, James

  Kilfedder, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwtna

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dover, Den

  Knowles, Michael

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Latham, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Favell, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lightbown, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lord, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Freeman, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Ground, Patrick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hague, William

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

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

  Nicholls, Patrick

  323

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Summerson, Hugo

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Page, Richard

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Paice, James

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thorne, Neil

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Trippier, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trotter, Neville

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Raffan, Keith

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Watts, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speller, Tony

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald

  Howells, Geraint

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Illsley, Eric

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Carr, Michael

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cox, Tom

  Loyden, Eddie

  Cryer, Bob

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McCartney, Ian

  Darling, Alistair

  McMaster, Gordon

  Dixon, Don

  McWilliam, John

  Fearn, Ronald

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Flynn, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Michael, Alun

  Foster, Derek

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Fraser, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Nellist, Dave

  Gordon, Mildred

  Parry, Robert

  Graham, Thomas

  Pike, Peter L.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Redmond, Martin

  324

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster)

  Salmond, Alex

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wray, jimmy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Haynes

  Trimble, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 18 disagreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 18 to the Bill: Mr. Carrington, Mrs. Golding, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. John Patten and Mr. Barry Sheerman; Three to the be the quorum.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and 8 to 18 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PETITION

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service
  11.1 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: This petition of 740 signatures was collected within two hours last Saturday morning in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme and shows the opposition to the Staffordshire ambulance service becoming a trust. It says:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of people living in Staffordshire sheweth
  That there is great concern over the proposals to make the Staffordshire ambulance service a self-governing trust.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House take steps to prevent the Staffordshire ambulance service from becoming a trust after the holding of public meetings at which our discontent can be heard.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  I beg to ask leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Holcombe Moor, Bury
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
11.2 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important matter for my constituents.
In many ways, the history of the Holcombe moor application is the history of my own time in Parliament and, indeed, of a major part of my life. To explain the background to the debate, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the Army has a long connection with the north-west and with my constituency. Bury is proud of its connection with the Lancashire Fusiliers, which were stationed there for many years, and Bury parish church is still the garrison church of the regiment. When I was at school, I was in the cadet force attached to the regiment. Eventually, the regiment became part of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in a previous amalgamation. The Minister will appreciate, however, that I do not intend to discuss Army amalgamations this evening.
As a schoolboy, I also walked on an area of land known as Holcombe moor. I am fond of the area and know it extremely well. The village of Hawkshaw, which is close to Holcombe, has also had a long connection with the Army. From the early part of this century, the Army had a range in the Hawkshaw area and the relationship between the villages and people of the area and the Army in that training area grew up over a long period.
When I was elected in 1983, certain disputes were becoming clear. The nature of the area was changing. People's leisure habits were changing. There was more walking in the area and disputes and confrontations began to arise between the Army and residents. They were always disagreeable because, while the Army wanted a good relationship with the residents and the residents wanted a good relationship with the Army, for one reason or another a problem arose, there were difficulties on each side and matters became tense and unpleasant. Attempts were made on both sides to improve the atmosphere. I recall at a public meeting in the area trying to improve matters, and I believe that the Army and others sought to make the best of the relationship.
Matters came to a head with two planning applications in 1986. Early that year the Army made an application for an area of land, known as Simon's Sundial cottage, to add to its training area at Hawkshaw. That provoked local concern and I took a position against that application for about 14 acres. Towards the end of the year, the Army applied to extend its training area in the Holcombe moor area by about 916 acres, a substantial acreage, and sought to extend its dry training area by that amount.
After the initial announcement about that towards the end of 1986, extensive work was done during 1987 in preparation for the inquiry. A Minister came to view the area, the Army made its proposals, invited the public to comment on them and tried to interest people in what it intended to do, and various residents groups were set up to counter the proposals.
The inquiry began in March 1988, adjourned shortly afterwards and resumed later in the year. The inquiry was extensive and I pay tribute to those who put much work into it. Various local interest groups were represented. For example, the Redisher residents association, through the
326
work of Mr. Roy Walsh and Mrs. Christine Bolton, did extensive work. Those who have been involved in planning inquiries will be aware of the imbalance of resources available to those who protest, particularly against a Government Department. They did a great deal of work and mobilised much support in the area.
That support was not universal. Groups such as the Hawkshaw village trust, which had maintained a long and pleasant relationship with the Army, supported the Army's application. It was also supported by Army cadet units in the area, which made a plea for more training land. A variety of interested individuals and parties made representations by letter, and environmental groups, including the National Trust, were involved. On balance, however, there can be no doubt that the number of objections that I received outweighed the number in support.
By the end of the inquiry I felt it right to explain further my position on the matter, which I had first made clear in October 1986, when I gave qualified support to the Army's position. By the time of the inquiry, in October 1988, I was able to make my position even clearer. I did so, and I stick to it—I was in support of the application made by the Army for the 916 acres, though I retained my opposition to the smaller application for about 14 acres at Simon's Sundial cottage. The two applications were taken together.
The reasons for my support are not hard to fathom and I made them clear in a submission. I recognise the difficulty of the modern Army in obtaining its training areas, particularly for urban-based territorial forces. We raise many soldiers in the Manchester area and I spoke earlier of our long and proud connection with the Lancashire Fusilliers and other regiments in the area. I am conscious of the obligation that society owes to the Army, obligations which have become more clear and stark since 1988, particularly with the Gulf war, in which soldiers from my part of the world were involved and in which one of my constituents died. There is no doubt that there is strong support for the Army, and I felt that on balance the Army could live with the people in the area.
The use that the Army was requesting of the area did not seem too extensive—the Army was not seeking exclusive use and there would be dry training and not live firing. For a variety of reasons, provided that certain reservations were accepted by the Army in its use of the land, I felt that the application was reasonable. I therefore opposed a number of my constituents, but supported others who supported the Army.
The conduct of the protesters was extremely good. They worked hard and presented a good case. Much work having been done, the inquiry sat for some time and we all sat back and waited for the inspector's decision. We started to sit back and wait in October 1988 and, frankly, we are now sick of waiting for an explanation. It has been too long and the silence has become deafening. It is about time that we had a decision. At first, we accepted and understood—whatever side of the argument we took—that it would take time before a decision would be made. No one was surprised that no announcement on the issue was made in 1989, because it was a significant year when great changes were made to the armed forces because of the momentous changes in eastern Europe, for which this country had held firm. However, concern began to be expressed shortly after that, particularly because at the end of 1989 the Army had to exercise an option on the purchase of land in the Holcombe moor area. Although no

327
decision had been made on the inquiry, the Army had to move and quite properly did so in order to exercise the option to take the land. Naturally, that raised constituents' concerns that some form of deal was being done behind the scenes and I was asked to inquire about it.
I wrote to the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in another place and received an explanation of why the option had been taken up. At the same time, I pressed the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), for an explanation of why the inquiry was taking so long. He replied to me in a letter dated 22 March 1990:
"I can understand local anxieties about the outcome of the proposal which is taking longer than usual to conclude. It is, however, being taken forward as quickly as possible and I shall let you know the decision as soon as I am in a position to do so."
In April 1990, I was required to write to the then Under-Secretary once again. By then, my constituents were pressing me firmly. My letter said:
"The continuing delay in announcing the result of the Inquiry is adding to speculation and difficulties in the area.
I am telling my constituents that I am 'appalled' at the length of time it is taking to resolve the matter, and I thought I had better put you in the picture."
On 24 May 1990, the then Under-Secretary wrote to thank me for my letter and said:
"I am afraid that there is nothing I can add to my letter of 22 March. I am sorry that consideration of this proposal is taking longer than usual, but it is being taken forward as quickly as possible. I shall let you know the decision as soon as I am in a position to do so."
On 13 June 1990, Christine Bolton, one of the Redisher residents, wrote to me saying:
"We find it impossible to comprehend this delay. Surely the issues involved in the matter of the land use must have been resolved months ago, and we can only assume that the delay is due to political reasons. If you are not in a position to discover what is going on there is no hope for us!"
She continued:
"You may be aware that 'World in Action' dealt with the issue of M.O.D. land in a programme this Monday. We were included in the programme, and it was interesting to see what is happening elsewhere."
I raise that matter with some concern because, if the media were taking such an interest, clearly the position of the Army and the Government was being put in a poor light. Therefore, in the Defence Estimates debate on 19 June 1990 I raised the issue once again. I said:
"we are still awaiting the result of the inquiry even though the last hearing was more than 18 months ago. Such a delay is intolerable. The arguments at the inquiry were difficult enough, and my constituents know that, providing certain conditions were met, I supported the Army's application for extra land."
I said that I appreciated that the responsibility was not that of the then Defence Ministers, but I said:
"I hope that some notice is taken of the lengthy and involved process necessary to deal with the acquisition and use of training land" [Official Report, 19 June 1990; Vol. 174, column 874.]—
because the delay was becoming even more intolerable.
During the summer recess last year, the matter went quiet, but by November and December Mrs. Bolton was again writing to me expressing concern at the changes in the nature of the forces. She said that some thought was being given about whether Holcombe moor training camp would be expanded to take one of the battalions returning from Germany. Again, I sought to check with the Ministry
328
of Defence. The suggestion was given no time by the Minister for the Armed Forces, but it illustrated how, with no decision having been taken, speculation damaging to the Government was arising once again, and I was most concerned.
I met Christine Bolton again at Easter time this year. She referred to another television programme, in which it had been suggested that the decision would be taken not by the Department of the Environment but by the Cabinet. On 22 April, I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), to ask what was going on and when an answer would be given. I told him that I was writing repeatedly to Ministers and receiving no answers.
Another friend of mine, a solicitor called Colin Dawson—an excellent solicitor with a fearsome manner whom I would not like to face in court—has done a good job on behalf of residents who are involved in these matters. Colin began chasing me and asking me to get the Secretary of State to visit the area and explain why the decision was not being taken. I started to feel that I was under intolerable pressure, but I understood that it was being properly imposed by residents.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment kindly responded to me on 15 May and 3 July. On 15 May, he wrote:
"I too am disturbed at the exceptional length of time that this has been before the Department and I am urgently considering what can be done to bring it to a conclusion."
On 3 July, he wrote:
"I can assure you that I am vigorously pursuing the matter."
To come to the present, two questions of mine have been answered today—one by the Department of the Environment and one by the Ministry of Defence. Both answers are rather revealing, both relate to costs, and both were prompted by Mr. Dawson. In my question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I asked if my right hon. Friend would quantify the cost to his Department of the public inquiry. The answer is that the costs to the Department of employing the inspector
"to conduct the inquiry and to write his report were about £10,000."
Fair enough. I thank my right hon. Friend for the answer. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence if he would quantify the costs to his Department of the inquiry into the extension of a dry training area on Holcombe moor, Bury in 1988. The response of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was as follows:
"No. It is not our normal policy to provide such costs."
Why ever not? What is the point of not providing the costs in this instance? Why should there be no costing? Can the Ministry not undertake the exercise? What is the purpose of concealing the costs of the application? Surely no element of secrecy is involved. Does the Ministry of Defence not know the costs? It seems intolerable that such a straightforward question, which can be answered by the Department of the Environment, cannot be answered by the Ministry of Defence.
A series of questions have been raised by the delay that I have described. First, who is in control of the process? Is it the Ministry of Defence or is it the Department of the Environment? Who have been dragging their feet? If responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence, it should recognise that there is concern about the delay. All the hard work that has been done locally to improve

329
relationships between the Army and residents, which I strongly support, is being put at risk by the delays that are taking place in London.
If the delay is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, I remind it of the criticism that it experienced in relation to the decision at Stainmore. A dry training area application was made by the Army, the inspector turned it down, but the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), overturned the decision and allowed the application. That caused great concern. Democratic processes were apparently not being adhered to, and an atmosphere of suspicion and concern was created. In the case that I have presented to the House today, there is in addition the delay to which I have referred.
The Government are much concerned with a citizens' charter and other such matters. Given a delay from October 1988 to date for a decision to be made on the matter which I have introduced, I do not know how much compensation might be suggested under the charter.
I bow to no one in my support of the Army. I am proud of my local relationship with it, which I have emphasised today. No one is unaware of my support for the Army and for its application in the case that I have outlined, but I am bitterly disappointed at what has ensued. The essence of the relationship between the public and the armed forces is consent and understanding. That requires the Army, which must have the ability to undertake its work, to offer explanations and to abide by decisions that are arrived at democratically. It also requires the Department of the Environment and the Government, with the enormous advantage that they have in these matters—certainly over opponents to planning proposals—to deal with a matter as quickly as is reasonably practical in providing an answer.
In this case, either the Department of the Environment or the Ministry of Defence has lamentably failed. My constituents, who include the Army and all their supporters, whatever their points of view—some agree and some disagree with my position—deserve rather better than they have had so far. I hope that the Minister can provide some enlightenment, and some answers to the questions that I have raised.
11.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on his success in obtaining the opportunity to raise the matter of the Army's proposals for extending its training facilities at Holcombe moor. My hon. Friend's appearance at the public inquiry and the evidence that he gave there testify to his concern, which he emphasised in his remarks this evening, that a fair balance should be struck between the Army's needs and the public's rights and interests over this important area of open land.
My hon. Friend made a powerful and eloquent speech, beginning with some fascinating personal reminiscences, and throughout it he was at pains to stress his support for the legitimate training needs of the Army. His approach to the issue has been typical of the way in which he has championed the interests of his constituents over the years. I hope that he will be here for many years in the future, continuing to serve their interests.
330
The inquiry was, as my hon. Friend said, held in 1988, and the inspector's report has been with my Department for two and a half years. My hon. Friend rightly considers that this is an excessive delay, and he has drawn attention to the great and understandable anxiety of his constituents to see the matter resolved. Not only do I understand that concern, but I think that my hon. Friend has been extremely patient in this matter. I agree that we must bring it to a conclusion as soon as it can be done.
My officials have now written to the local authorities concerned and to all those who appeared and gave evidence at the inquiry. The letter sets out the present position in the matter and encloses a copy of the inspector's report. I regret that it also makes it clear that, for the moment, we are not in a position to finalise the decision. That is because we now have before us evidence that was not discussed at the inquiry. In fairness to everybody, an opportunity must now be given for representations about it to be made.
My hon. Friend raised a point about the costs incurred by different Departments at the inquiry, and I shall draw this to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Mr. Burt: The Minister has said that certain matters not before the inquiry have now been raised by the Ministry of Defence. Is that normal practice? What would give rise to a new inquiry and the consideration of new evidence?
Mr. Yeo: I hope to explain the new evidence that was not discussed at the inquiry, and the reason why I have had to write to those people who appeared at the inquiry. I shall develop the point, and then if my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the information I shall give way again.
Before I describe the evidence in more detail, I should say that development by the Crown generally does not require planning permission. Government Departments have, however, agreed to follow an informal procedure, which is set out in Department of the Environment circular 18/84, which closely follows the procedures for planning applications. Departments notify local authorities of their proposals and if, after any necessary negotiations, an unresolved disagreement remains, the matter may be referred to the Department of the Environment for determination. This may be given on the basis of written representations, or in an informal hearing. If the matter is controversial or of wide interest, as in this case, a non-statutory public inquiry may be held.
The inspector's report recommended that the Army should be allowed to use both areas of land, that is to say, the main area of 916 acres at Holcombe moor, and the 10 acres around Simon's Sundial cottage. It is clear from his conclusions that he recognised that there was a very difficult balance to be struck between satisfying the nation's defence needs and the public's rights and interests in this land—a balance which my hon. Friend also recognises the difficulty of. He said that if the Army succeeded in its application, it would have to be tolerant of the problems of others. In his view, it would be unusual to allow the Ministry of Defence to own urban common land and to do so would be granting them a special privilege. The matter was a very sensitive one and many responsible groups of people had given evidence of the difficulties which the Army's proposal would give them in their

331
businesses and leisure time. Nevertheless, the inspector considered that the Army's need for the land outweighed the annoyance that its use would cause from time to time.
The inspector's conclusions closely mirrored the views expressed at the inquiry by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. He also spoke of the apparently irreconcilable conflict between the Army's needs and the requirements of conservation, but felt that in the case of the moor the Army's needs should prevail. My hon. Friend's balanced approach required the exercise of good judgment and, in the light of the opposition of some of his constituents, some political courage.
The inspector welcomed the extensive undertakings and assurances which defence representatives had given to the inquiry about how they would conduct their operations if their proposals succeeded. He also asked that careful consideration should be given to a number of suggestions for measures to reduce the impact of training on the amenity of nearby property and to provide safeguards for its users and wildlife.
The letter which has been sent to the parties today explains that, if final clearance is given for the Army training, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would propose to include conditions covering all the matters referred to by the inspector.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disagrees with the inspector in one important respect, and that is with regard to the smaller proposal, the 10 acres around Simon's Sundial cottage, on which my right hon. Friend shares my hon. Friend's opinion that it should not be used for training.
This brings me to the matter of new evidence which I mentioned earlier. The inspector's report records evidence given by the Ministry of Defence about how often it expected to use the new areas for training if its proposals are allowed to go ahead. He found as a fact that the use was expected to be, by day, three weekdays a month and three weekends a month, and, at night, three nights a week and one weekend a month. The inspector did not suggest that a restriciton to that amount should be imposed on the Army's use of the land, but it is clear from his conclusions that it was a factor which the inspector had in mind in reaching his recommendation that training should be permitted.
In view of the very delicate balance which has to be struck in this case between the Army's need for training facilities and the public rights and interests in this land, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State felt it right that he should go further than the inspector and that he should impose a limit on the Army's use in the terms of the inspector's finding of fact which I have just quoted.
We now understand, however, that the evidence recorded by the inspector on this matter does not reflect the Army's needs. These are now said to be a daytime use of up to three weekends a month and 100 weekdays a year, with night time use of up to one night of the available weekends, and 50 weekday nights a year. That is different from the evidence considered by the inspector. It is a greater use than was stated at the time of the inquiry. Therefore, we consider that, in the interests of natural justice, we must inform all interested parties of it. The letter that we have now sent does that and offers the parties an opportunity to make representations on the new evidence in the 21-day period expiring on 6 August.
332
I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully consider all further representations which may be made on the matter during the period, including, of course, any representations that my hon. Friend wishes to make. He will not expect me to say anything more about this new evidence, on which I must keep an open mind until I have considered all the representations which may be made during the limited 21-day period.
Mr. Burt: This is a revelation to me and I am extremely obliged to my hon. Friend for this information. It is all new to me. It is a considerable advance on anything that we have had before. It is as near to a decision as makes no difference. My hon. Friend referred earlier to my patience, but it is not my patience that is concerned; it is the patience of my constituents and all their feelings. Although I have only just heard the inspector's report, he seems to have found an admirable balance between need, which I strongly support, as I strongly support his action in passing this matter back to people, and insisting, or appearing to insist, that at this stage great notice is taken of the Secretary of State's recommendations so that the Army sticks to what it originally asked for rather than go further. However, although the case has already taken a great deal of time and we do not want any further unnecessary delay, a 21-day period for representations may be rather tight for some of the parties concerned. Is my hon. Friend the Minister prepared to consider representations to extend, within reason, the time available for that process?
Mr. Yeo: The period allowed is meant to reflect the concern that my hon. Friend properly expressed about the protracted period that the matter has remained unresolved. However, I will certainly reflect on his remarks. If my hon. Friend finds that the parties concerned consider that 21 days is too short a period in which to make their representations, I will consider whether it is possible to extend it.
We are anxious to ensure that those involved have sufficient time to consider properly the additional evidence. As I said, I have to keep a completely open mind until I hear what representations may come from people holding differing views. However, we will not let the matter drag on for longer than necessary, as far as is consistent with a proper examination of all the representations, for reasons with which my hon. Friend is more than familiar.
It is most regrettable that it has taken so long for that clarification of the Army's requirements to emerge, but whatever weight may properly be attached to it in the final decision, it must be taken into account, and it was necessary for my Department to await that additional information before it could proceed towards a decision. Now that information has arrived, it has been communicated to the parties concerned without delay.
I fully understand the anxiety and uncertainty that lack of a decision must have caused all those with an interest in the land—whether they be common right holders, walkers or riders, or public authorities wanting to plan for future conservation and informal recreation. I know that they will be disappointed that even now a final decision is not possible, but I hope that the issue of our letter today, and the inspector's report, will remove some of the uncertainties and pave the way to a decision in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, following the meeting of European Community Finance Ministers on 24 June, it remains his intention to continue the existing VAT zero rating of printed matter.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Economic and Finance Council has agreed that, for a transitional period to December 1996, member states that currently apply zero rates of VAT will be able to retain them provided they are in accordance with current Community law. United Kingdom zero rates are therefore safeguarded.

  While this agreement is without prejudice to what happens after the transitional period, the Government have always stressed the importance of the existing United Kingdom zero rates and will continue to oppose any proposals which would not allow for the permanent retention of our ability to apply them.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the public expenditure in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Mellor
  Data on identifiable general Government expenditure in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the years 1985–86 to 1989–90 are given in table 2.7 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm. 1520.

  Resources (Allocation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis it is determined what amount of new money should be allocated to Wales when new money is made available for Government expenditure in England; and if he will make a statement on the policy for allocation of such resources which has been followed by the Government over the past five years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provision for central Government expenditure in Wales falls into two main categories: programmes within the so-called Welsh block and those outside it. Provision for programmes outside the block —agriculture, fisheries and food, industry and employment—is a matter for negotiation in the public expenditure survey in the normal way. Provision for programmes within the block is largely determined by the application of a formula to the increments accruing to comparable programmes in England. Decisions about the allocation of resources within the overall total are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the tax raised by the transitional regulations on building societies appears in each of the financial years in the published Inland Revenue statistics.

  Mr. Maples
  The following amounts were included in published Inland Revenue statistics. They do not reflect credit allowed under regulation 12.

  £ million

  1986–87

  79

  1987–88

  21

  1988–89

  1

  1989–90

  13

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will calculate for a building society starting business on 1 May 1982, paying or crediting interest in the period between 1 January and 5 April, up to April 1986, the total period of business, the total period on which interest would be taxed if clause 50 is enacted and the excess period of taxation.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: I am not aware of any building society starting business on 1 May 1982.

  Inland Revenue (Nottingham Headquarters)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the revised cost estimates of the new Nottingham headquarters building for the Inland Revenue; and what are the anticipated annual savings to the Treasury.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The project to build a new Inland Revenue centre in Nottingham is currently being reappraised. Until a decision on the future of the project has been taken, revised cost estimates are not available.

  Training
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the circumstances whereby payments made in respect of training supplied by a person who is not under direct contract with a training and enterprise council or local enterprise company are subject to value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: I have no current plans to do so. Vocational training supplied by persons not contracted to training and enterprise councils or local enterprise companies is exempt if it is provided otherwise than for profit; otherwise it is chargeable with the standard rate of VAT. This has been the tax treatment of vocational training for many years.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Occupational Health Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service (1) how many staff were in post on the date that the Occupational Health Service was established as an executive agency; and how many staff are in post now;
  103
  (2) if he will list those new facilities for staff including nurseries and health care schemes, which have been introduced in the Occupational Health Service since its establishment as an executive agency;

  (3) what group bonus schemes are in operation in the Occupational Health Service; and if he will state the cash amount per person awarded in the last year for which figures are available, and the conditions attached to its award;

  (4) if he will list the new forms of alternative working patterns introduced into the Occupational Health Service since its establishment as an executive agency; and a break-down by grade of the numbers of staff taking up each new working pattern;

  (5) what appointments from the private sector have been made to the Occupational Health Service at grade 7 or above since its establishment as an agency; and if he will list the post, grade and maximum salary payable including any performance-related element.

  Mr. Renton
  I am advised that the chief executive of the OHS has replied to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will state the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of the Occupational Health Service, including any performance-related element, and the length of time of the chief executive's contract.

  Mr. Renton
  The chief executive of the Occupational Health Service is on the standard civil service grade 3 pay range and is eligible for the performance-related element appropriate to that grade. His contract is for three years.

  Civil Service (Morale)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what further initiatives he is planning to raise morale in the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  Our aim is to have an efficient, effective and well-motivated civil service. Managers in departments and agencies continually work to achieve this.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants, at what grades and identified by United Kingdom departments, are(a) currently and (b) in each of the last three years on secondment to European Community institutions.

  Mr. Renton
  In April 1991, the latest comprehensive figures, 91 civil servants were on secondment. At 1 April 1990, the number was 52. Information on the two previous years is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The grades of the secondees were:

  Grade

  Number

  April 1991

  April 1990

  5

  10

  4

  6

  6

  3

  7

  40

  19

  SEO

  9

  9

  HEO/HEO(D)

  14

  9

  EO

  3

  —

  Other (specialists etc)

  9

  8

  104

  The secondees came from the following departments

  Department

  Number

  April 1991

  April 1990

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  9

  7

  Cabinet Office

  3

  2

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1

  —

  HM Customs and Excise

  14

  11

  Ministry of Defence

  1

  —

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  1

  —

  Department of Education and Science

  1

  —

  Department of Employment

  10

  3

  Department of Environment

  6

  2

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  3

  2

  Department of Health

  1

  —

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  —

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  8

  2

  Overseas Development Administration

  2

  1

  Scottish Office

  4

  3

  Department of Social Security

  1

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  18

  14

  Department of Transport

  4

  3

  HM Treasury

  1

  —

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  1

  —

  Welsh Office

  1

  1

WALES

  A470
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outstanding objections exist to the present line of the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed, Merthyr Tydfil.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have not yet published the draft orders that will invite objections to the proposals.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the outstanding statutory procedures and preparation required before the construction of the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed can begin.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Line, side roads and compulsory purchase orders have to be drafted and published in the local press and London Gazette. Any objections received are considered and invariably on schemes of this size, a public inquiry held. Following receipt of the inspector's report, the orders may be made, at which stage, tenders for the construction works may be invited.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will outline the current timetable for the completion of procedures and preparation for the construction of the A470 Pentrebach to Cefn Coed, Merthyr Tydfil.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  As indicated in the February 1991 supplement to "Roads in Wales", construction is scheduled to begin before April 1994, subject to completion of the statutory procedures and the availability of finance. We anticipate that draft orders will be published later this year.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria his Department specifies that community dental officers should employ to decide as to whom in the general dental service patients should be referred.
  105
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Criteria and arrangements for referrals by the community dental service are a matter for local determination.

  Engineering Courses
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students are enrolled on Business and Technical Education Council engineering courses for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1989–90 there were 23 students at Merthyr college and 78 students at Ystrad Mynach college following Business and Technical Education Council engineering courses.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current waiting lists for admissions in each of the main specialties in West Glamorgan and Neath hospitals respectively; and what are the comparable figures in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on the numbers of patients waiting for in-patient admissions in five specialities, general surgery, including urology, ear, nose and throat, traumatic and orthopaedic surgery, ophthalmology, and gynaecology, at Neath general hospital and West Glamorgan as a whole is published in the "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin" series. Neither of the other two hospitals in Neath, Cymla and Tonna, treat patients in these specialties. The bulletins are published twice a year giving figures as at March and September and copies are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the current waiting lists for patients to have their final consultation with consultants in each of the main specialties in West Glamorgan and Neath hospitals respectively; and what are the comparable figures in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  This information is not available centrally.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Poverty
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department assesses which developing countries are using their resources most effectively to tackle poverty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The relevant criteria are whether there is economic growth in which poor people are sharing and which is creating income and livelihoods for them; whether policies and institutions are conducive to private sector and individual development and to employment and self-employment for the poor. Recipient Government priorities, as demonstrated by the pattern and effectiveness of public expenditure, are also important. Expenditure on basic social and economic services should enable sustainable progress to be made in providing a wide spread of the population with access to basic schooling, health and family planning services, safe water and access roads.

  Good Government
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he intends to assess, when implementing his policies on good governance, whether developing countries have excessive military expenditure.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government will assess the level of military expenditure in individual developing countries in the context of their domestic and regional situations and taking account of their public expenditure and wider economic policies.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department monitors the performance of countries on the criteria set out for good government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government refer to a range of information on individual country policies and performance including reports from British diplomatic posts, reports by non-governmental organisations and assessments by international and regional organisations.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have received more support from Her Majesty's Government because they have improved their performance on good government criteria.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Countries that are receiving increased support include some of the world's poorest countries in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere, which are implementing reform programmes relating to economic policy and the organisation of government. We also intend to increase support to some of the emerging democracies of Latin America.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telephone Message Services
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions have been proceeded with by British Telecommunications, OFTEL or ICSTIS against operators of premium rate overtly sexual telephone message services.

  Mr. Redwood
  ICSTIS—the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services—has taken effective action by closing down more than 350 premium rate telephone services so far this year because of their offensive nature. There have been no prosecutions against providers of such services so far.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many reports and complaints of the unfit conduct of directors were submitted to the Insolvency Service in 1990; in how many cases legal proceedings were undertaken; and how many disqualification orders against directors were made in 1990.

  Mr. Redwood
  During 1990 the Insolvency Service received 4,062 reports alleging aspects of unfit conduct by
  107
  directors of insolvent companies. Proceedings were commenced in 488 cases, disqualification orders were made against 286 persons and at 31 December 1990 a total of 527 cases were waiting to be heard by the courts.

  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in how many court cases the Insolvency Service has been successful.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 20 June, Official Report, columns 283–84. I would point out however that the figure of 672 given in the second line of the second paragraph of that answer was wrongly printed and should have been 627.

  In addition to the criminal matters detailed in that answer the Insolvency Service had, at 30 June 1991, obtained 1,009 disqualification orders against individual directors of failed companies.

  Retail Grocers
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 177, what examination the Director General of Fair Trading has made in respect of companies in the retail grocery sector of (a) gross and net margins relative to overall retail margins in the United Kingdom and to retail grocery sector margins in other EC countries, (b) prices paid to suppliers, and (c) return on capital employed and on net assets, relative to the figures for the overall retail sector in the United Kingdom and for the retail grocery sector in other EC countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  In keeping the retail grocery sector under review the director general has regard to all the factors set out by the right hon. Member. He last examined the position earlier this year. As I said in my answer of 4 July, he has no evidence at present of abuse that would justify a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was learned from his Department's inquiry into Barlow Clowes about the use made by Barlow Clowes of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and about the properties of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International's role in that case.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The Companies Act inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs and membership of James Ferguson Holdings plc and the affairs of Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited have not yet submitted their report.

  Accounting Practices
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has drawn to the attention of the Accountancy Standards Board the treatment of merger and acquisition costs in company accounts and the opportunities for comparison between company performance in this matter to be made by investors.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: No. The treatments of the costs in acquisitions and mergers are covered by two exposure drafts issued by the Accounting
  108
  Standards Committee in 1990. In due course, the Accounting Standards Board will be considering the exposure drafts and the comments received in formulating its own proposals. If the hon. Member has any observations to make, I suggest that he provides them to the board.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Director General of Fair Trading has completed his report on the application of bodies to become qualifying and supervisory bodies under part 1 of schedule 14 to the Companies Act 1989.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) on 18 April, (Official Report, column 222). I expect to receive shortly the director general's reports on the amendments which the applicants have made to their rules and guidance.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation to require auditors to declare in company reports to shareholders whether they also offer tax advice to the company.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: None.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it has been the practice of his Department to refer criticisms of auditors in his inspectors' reports to the Auditing Practices Committee and its successors.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: No. The Auditing Practices Committee had no regulatory functions in respect of auditors whose conduct was criticised by inspectors, nor does its successor body the new Auditing Practices Board.

PRIME MINISTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that the forthcoming White Paper on the citizens charter addresses the resource implications for advice agencies.

  The Prime Minister
  The White Paper on the citizens charter will be published later this summer, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the Government already provide considerable funding for advice agencies.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 July.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is hosting the economic summit.

ENERGY

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the turnover, in the last year before privatisation, of each of the electricity distribution companies.
  109
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is a matter for the companies. However, this information is contained in the companies' annual reports and accounts for the year ending 31 March 1990, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what record he has of or what representations he received from the electricity supply and distribution industries, before their privatisation, about their inability to recruit the most suitable applicants for posts in top and middle management or skilled scientific and professional grades, owing to inadequate or non-competitive salaries.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the run-up to privatisation I received representations that, in order to recruit the most suitable applicants, certain appointments of PLC designate directors were necessary at salaries above the then existing scales in the industry, and a number of appointments were so made. The salary entitlements of executive directors were set out in the prospectuses.

  North Sea
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will make a statement about North sea developments.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have today agreed to make a royalty refund under certain circumstances to the Columba—Ninian B and D terraces—licensees, making the first use of my discretionary powers under section 41(3) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipeline Act 1975 to facilitate North sea development.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gabon
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the annual cost of maintaining a post in Gabon; and what is the estimated net savings of closing it.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The total cost of maintaining a post in Libreville, Gabon was approximately £420,000. Estimated annual net savings of closing the post are £330,000.

  Flags (10 July)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the flags, and the countries they represent, which were flying on 10 July on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office building, Whitehall, in order from the left hand side of the Whitehall elevation.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The flags displayed on the FCO building in Whitehall on 10 July were national flags and the union flag. In order from the left hand side of the Whitehall elevations they were:

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Commercial vehicles

  Private vehicles

  1980

  —

  4

  —

  4

  —

  5

  1981

  —

  1

  6

  7

  3

  9

  1982

  1

  1

  5

  7

  1

  13

  1983

  —

  2

  9

  11

  1

  19

  1984

  —

  3

  9

  12

  6

  19

  110
  Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, United Kingdom, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, United Kingdom, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya.

TRANSPORT

  Taxis (Rear Seat Belts)
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the European countries which require rear seat belts to be worn in taxis where these are fitted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information is not available about seat belt wearing requirements in all European countries. Six of the twelve European Community countries require rear seat belts to be used, but no details are available of specific requirements for vehicles used as taxis.

  Cross-channel Ferries
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints he has received in the last six months of cross-channel ferries leaving port with their stern doors open.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Only one complaint referring to cross-channel ferries leaving port with their stern doors open has been received in the past six months. That complaint referred to observations made prior to March 1987.

  Motor Coaches
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will establish a system of monitoring the timetable of long distance motor coaches and their actual times of departure and arrival.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Long-distance coach services were deregulated by the Transport Act 1980 and their times of arrival and departure are a matter for the operators concerned.

  A167
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of(a) accidents, (b) fatalities and (c) injuries and the factors for the accidents, if known, on the A167 between the Cock o' the North roundabout and the Sniperley roundabout for each year since 1980; and the number of commercial and private vehicles involved.

  Mr. Chope
  The accident figures for the period 1980 to 1990 are listed in the table. It should be noted that traffic using this section of road has increased by over 30 per cent. during the period. The information requested about the factors leading to each individual accident can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  111

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Commercial vehicles

  Private vehicles

  1985

  —

  2

  7

  9

  6

  15

  1986

  —

  4

  10

  14

  4

  24

  1987

  —

  1

  4

  5

  2

  9

  1988

  —

  5

  12

  17

  5

  26

  1989

  —

  1

  12

  13

  1

  27

  1990

  —

  1

  19

  20

  4

  36

  TOTAL

  1

  25

  93

  119

  33

  202

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many traffic accidents for the last 12 months for which figures are available were tyre related; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department does not have comprehensive information on traffic accidents in relation to tyre defects. However, during the year 1988–89 the vehicle inspectorate investigated some 1,600 accidents. Tyre defects were considered to have contributed towards less than 1 per cent. of these accidents.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his evaluation of the effect on traffic speeds, volume, road safety, pollution and small businesses, of the priority route scheme on the Archway road, Holloway road and Upper street since January; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 3 June 1991,Official Report, column 116.

  Dock Workers (Redundancy)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the original estimate of contributions towards payments to former registered dock workers made redundant under the terms of the Dock Work Act 1989; what has been the total cost to date of such contributions; what is the current estimate of the final total cost; in how many cases payments of 100 per cent. have been made consequent upon a liquidation and at what cost; and what recoveries have been made from liquidators.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill which became the Dock Work Act 1989 estimated that the dockworkers' compensation scheme might cost £25 million over three years. It also made clear that no precise forecast could be given. To date, the actual cost to the Government has been £128 million. The final cost is not expected to exceed £141 million. In 18 cases, where employers were in liquidation or receivership, the Department has met the full cost of compensation at a total cost of £33 million, of which nearly £0·5 million has so far been recovered.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what change in the number of Government-sponsored places there has been for retail, computer, office skills and information technology training in 1990–91 and 1991–92 in east London.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provision of training in east London is a matter for East London training and enterprise council. I understand that the number of training places available in these occupational areas is about the same in 1991–92 as the previous year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what sums of money have been contributed from the European social fund towards employment training for the years 1989, 1990 and 1991; and what percentage contribution to the total costs of ET this represents for each year.

  Mr. Forth
  European social fund contributions towards ET were as follows:

  £ million

  1989

  81·7

  1990

  144·5

  1991

  161·48

  Employment training expenditure is determined by financial year and a direct comparison is therefore not possible. The most recent figures are as follows:

  £ million

  1989–90

  1,097

  1990–91

  1,066

  11991–92

  915

  1 Estimated

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what the average unit cost is for employment training per trainee/week.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is estimated that the overall gross Exchequer unit cost for employment training in Great Britain in 1991–92, including trainee allowances, will be some £119 per trainee per week.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what average unit cost is assumed for the additional employment training places which were announced on 19 June.

  Mr. Jackson
  Changes to training and enterprise council and local enterprise company business plans,
  113
  including payments per trainee week and per output, as a result of the additional £35 million made available for employment training on 19 June are currently the subject of renegotiation.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what consideration has been given to uprating employment training allowances in line with increases in the retail prices index; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The training allowance paid to non-employed employment training—ET—trainees is equivalent to their previous entitlement to benefit plus a training premium of £10. The benefit element of the ET trainee allowance is increased each year in line with increases in social security benefits which are linked to the retail prices and Rossi indices.

  Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies are also responsible for other trainee allowances, such as travel, lodging and child care.

  Since its beginning in September 1988, more than 1 million people have been trained on ET. The Government are satisfied that the allowances paid to trainees offer sufficient incentive for individuals to take up training.

  Genetic Modification Sites
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of sites licensed under the procedures of the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification; what is the distribution of these sites by region; and what is the number of visits carried out each year by the Health and Safety Executive to these sites.

  Mr. Forth
  There are currently 372 active centres that have notified the Health and Safety Executive of their intention to undertake work on genetic modification. The distribution of these centres by HSE regions is as follows:

  Number

  Midlands

  48

  Wales and South West

  24

  North East

  36

  North West

  25

  Scotland

  51

  Home Counties

  72

  London and South West

  116

  During the calendar year 1990 inspectors from HSE's technology division visited 100 of these centres to carry out site inspections. The number of centres visited in calendar years 1989 and 1988 were 77 and 89 respectively.

  Pop Concerts
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the guidance of the Health and Safety Executive on pop concerts and similar events to be available.

  Mr Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 7 February,Official Report, column 238. Regrettably, there have been some delays in the preparation of this guidance, but it is now hoped that a draft will be available for consultation in the early autumn this year.

  Crown Suppliers (Remploy Factories)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the value of orders placed by the Crown Suppliers with Remploy factories in each of the past three years of the Crown Suppliers' existence; and what currently is the annual value of orders placed by Government Departments and agencies, previously purchased through the Crown Suppliers, with Remploy factories.

  Mr. Jackson
  The value of orders placed by Crown Suppliers with Remploy factories in each of the last three years of Crown Suppliers' existence was

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  7·4

  1989–90

  6·6

  1990–91

  3·6

  No figures are available either centrally or in Remploy itself on the annual value of orders placed by Government Departments and agencies with Remploy factories, which would previously have been purchased through the Crown Suppliers.

  Employment Contracts (Jurisdiction)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to introduce the regulations to transfer jurisdiction from courts to industrial tribunals over claims by dismissed employees in respect of alleged breaches by their employers of their contracts of employment.

  Mr. Forth
  Further consideration will be given to this matter when the House of Lords has given its decision in a case which is expected to clarify existing industrial tribunal jurisdiction under the Wages Act 1986.

  Construction Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what change in the number of places for construction industry training on employment training in east London has taken place in 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provison of ET in east London is a matter for East London training and enterprise council.

  Holloway Job Club
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the Employment Service guarantees the funding of the Holloway job club.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the Employment Service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he received the statement on youth training schemes by the British Printing Industry Federation; what assessment he has made on its implications for training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.
  115
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Employment, has received no formal notification of future withdrawal from YT from the British Printing Industry Federation, the BPIF. I am however aware of the British Printing Industry Federation's letter to the Financial Times of 8 July in which it expressed its intention to cease operating as a YT managing agent in 1992. Responsibility for contracting for youth training in England and Wales rests with the training and enterprise councils, which have the authority and resources to apply local solutions to local needs. The implications for TECs if BPIF withdraws from YT would be a matter for individual TECs to address in the light of local demand for training in printing occupations.

  Chest Diseases
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research projects have been undertaken or funded by the Health and Safety Executive since 1975 in relation to emphysema, chronic obstructive airways disease, asthma and chronic bronchitis and in particular to the incidence of each disease amongst(a) coal miners and ex-coal miners and (b) foundry workers and ex-foundry workers.

  Mr. Forth
  The majority of research into emphysema, chronic obstructive airways disease, asthma and chronic bronchitis in coal miners, ex-coal miners, foundry workers and ex-foundry workers in the United Kingdom has been sponsored by the relevant industry in collaboration with the European Coal and Steel Community which is now conducting its fifth programme of medical research into occupational ill health. The HSE is consulted about the contents of this research and is closely following the programme's progress. On this basis the HSE has not directly funded any separate research projects.

  However, the HSE has recently undertaken a review of research on chronic non-malignant respiratory disease in ferrous metal manufacturing and production workers and has also commissioned a wider ranging review of the health effects of airborne substances in the ferrous foundry industry. The results are expected to be available early next year.

  Full details of HSE's research are listed in their "Programme of research and related services" which is published annually. Copies are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to regionalise the management and development of the vocational training programmes which are supported by the European social fund; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The training and enterprise councils—and the local enterprise companies in Scotland—already have responsibility for the delivery of vocational training programmes such as employment training and youth training and they carry out this task so as to take full account of local circumstances and needs.

  Employment Action
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether travel costs for individuals who participate in employment action will be reimbursed.
  116
  Mr. Jackson
  Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies will have the discretion to offer travel costs to participants on employment action. The arrangements will be similar to those that apply for employment training.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Contributory Benefits
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used to identify the relevant tax years for the purposes of processing a claim for any contributory benefit.

  Mr. Hanley
  For unemployment, sickness and invalidity benefit, the relevant tax years are the last two complete tax years before the start of the benefit year. The benefit year which starts on the first Sunday in January is determined by the first day of a period of interruption of employment.

  For retirement pension, the relevant tax years are those in the working life from the year in which age 16 is reached to the tax year ending immediately before pension age which is 65 in the case of a man and 60 in the case of a woman.

  For widows' benefit, the relevant tax years are those in the working life of the late husband which run from the year in which he reached age 16 to the tax year ending immediately before he died or reached age 65 whichever is the earlier.

  RU486
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines he has issued to medical practitioners on the use of RU486 in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 8 July 1991]: None. The product licence recently granted in respect of the drug known as RU486 does not extend to Northern Ireland, and therefore it will not be available in the Province.

  Police Authority
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the names of new members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland were the subject of consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland in accordance with the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 12 July 1991]: It is policy not to disclose whether any views have been put forward under article 6 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the composition of public bodies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Foreign Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many foreign national prisoners who have been granted home leave have returned to prison after home leave in the last five years;

  (2) how many foreign national prisoners have (a) requested, (b) been granted and (c) been refused home leave in each of the last five years.
  117
  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not readily available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who makes the decision on home leave for foreign national prisoners.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  As in the case of other applications for home leave, it is for the governor to decide, on the recommendation of the home leave board, whether the request can be approved.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to increase resources available for electoral registration in October.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Central Government support for local authority expenditure on electoral registration is provided through the revenue support grant system. There is no provision for increasing that level of support in the current financial year.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy on the future role of retained firefighters; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has to ensure that retained firefighters play a part in the overall provision of fire and rescue services.

  Mr. John Patten
  We are committed to the continuation of the retained fire service in England and Wales. Retained firefighters perform a vital and extremely cost-effective role in the provision of fire cover, particularly in the more rural areas. We have encouraged fire authorities to make arrangements for whole-time firefighters to undertake retained duties in their spare time if they so wish. This will help to ensure that the retained fire service continues to play an important part in the provision of fire cover in England and Wales.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to ensure that all prisoners are able to exercise their entitlement to a fortnightly visit.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This is being monitored by area managers—who have to seek my right hon. Friend's approval for any temporary reduction in the visiting allowance—as part of their line management responsibilities.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons which do not allow prisoners more than one visit a month.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Convicted prisoners are normally able to receive at least two visits every four weeks, and sometimes more, at all establishments except Swansea.

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response he has made to the letter from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North concerning the request of Mr. Gabrielle Purendea, currently held in Exeter prison, for political asylum.
  118
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I shall be writing to the hon. Member shortly.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why rest days are now counted for the purpose of assessing whether a prison officer has suffered more than 365 days of absence through illness over a period of four years; and whether the counting of rest days in this way is applied retrospectively to the period before the introduction of fresh start.

  Mr. Rumbold
  The rules governing sick absence and pay for civil servants, including prison officers, are detailed in the civil service pay and conditions of service code. Under these rules, the first six months of sick absence—182 days —during any period of 12 months are on full pay thereafter pay drops to half rate. This is subject to a maximum of 12 months—365 days—sick absence in any period of four years or less.

  During a period of sick absence, all days, including Saturdays, Sundays, public and privilege holidays and rest days, count. However if they occur at the beginning or end, they are not included or reckoned.

  These rules were not altered in any way by the introduction of fresh start pay and working arrangements in 1987.

  Woolf Report
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the timetable for full implementation of each of the measures announced in his statement on 25 February following publication of the Woolf report on prison disturbances.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend's response to the Woolf report, in the form of a White Paper on the future direction of the prison service in England and Wales, will review the progress of all the measures referred to in his statement of 25 February. The extension of arrangements for financially assisted visits was introduced on 1 April; opportunities for home leve were increased from 7 May; the abolition of routine censorship in all except dispersal prisons came into force on 16 May; the increase in the level of visits for convicted prisoners took effect from 17 June; and the programme for installing cardphones in all establishments which do not already have them is scheduled to be completed in May 1992.

  Car Thefts
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to recommend stronger penalties for those who steal cars and then use the vehicle recklessly.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans at present to increase the maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment for taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. When those who have taken a car are convicted of reckless driving, they are liable to up to two years' imprisonment, or five years, if they have caused a death.

  Homosexuals (Isle of Man)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) by what date he expects homosexual activity to be decriminalised in the Isle of Man;
  119
  (2) what consultations have taken place with the Isle of Man Government over the wording of the Sexual Offences Bill currently before Tynwald; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the consequences of the action of the Manx Parliament in amending the Sexual Offences Bill to remove clauses decriminalising homosexual activity on the Isle of Man.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Isle of Man Government sent the Home Office drafts of its Sexual Offences Bill, including clauses providing for the decriminalisation of homosexual activity between consenting adults in private, as part of the usual consultative procedures. The Bill remains subject to possible amendment in Tynwald, where consideration is expected to resume after the island's general election in November.

  If the island were demonstrably to refuse or to fail to amend its law satisfactorily, Her Majesty's Government would have no alternative but to introduce the requisite legislation in Parliament at the earliest suitable opportunity.

  Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement concerning the case of Mr. Karamjit Singh Chahal.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 25 June at columns 405–6.

  Shop Squatting
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the growth of illegal shop squatting and the speed of repossession procedure; and what response he is making.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about squatting in vacant shops and problems with the speed of repossession. The effectiveness of the remedies available under the civil law is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, but I understand that accelerated procedures are available to deal with squatters.

  We are currently reviewing the criminal law as it affects the unlawful occupation of premises, including shops, and my right hon. Friend will announce the outcome of this review in due course.

  Child Sex Offences
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were convicted of child sex offences in the last year for which figures are available; and, of these, how many were allowed bail prior to trial, how many pleaded guilty and how many pleaded not guilty.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on the number of persons convicted of child sex crime in England and Wales is given in the table. It is only possible from the information held centrally to identify sex offences where the victim is know to be aged under 16. Reliable information is not available centrally on the numbers given bail prior to trial or how they pleaded.
  120

  Number of persons convicted of child sex offences. 1989 England and Wales

  Offence

  Convictions

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  183

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  26

  Indecent assault on a male aged under 16 years

  406

  Indecent assault on a female aged under 16 years

  1,657

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 13 years

  96

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 16 years

  262

  Incest with a girl under 13 years

  100

  Inciting girl under 16 years to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  5

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 years

  3

  Person responsible for girl aged under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution, etc

  1

  Abduction of unmarried girl aged under 16 years

  13

  Gross indecency with children

  219

  Mr. Paul Vickers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he proposes to reply to recent correspondence from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central about the sentence of Mr. Paul Vickers;

  (2) when he expects to conclude his review of the further medical evidence on Paul Vickers's sentence submitted by Mr. Vickers solicitors in October 1990;

  (3) whether he has concluded his inquiries into the review of the sentence of Paul Vickers referred to in the answer given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 1 November 1988, Official Report, column 576.

  Mr. John Patten
  Dr. Vickers' solicitors made representations on his behalf in August 1988 suggesting that his conviction was unsafe. I wrote to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on 6 August 1990 informing him that these representations did not provide sufficient ground to justify my right hon. Friend intervening in Dr. Vickers' case. The further representations made by Dr. Vickers' solicitors in October 1990 are under consideration and my right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision on Dr. Vickers' case shortly. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as a decision has been reached.

  Medical Advisers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the scale rate of fees for pathologists and other medical advisers called in to advise his Department in the years 1988–89 to 1990–91, and currently; what sums have been expended by his Department on this in these years; what internal audit procedures there are to ensure timeliness and value for money in the tendering of such advice; and whether any such audit procedures were put into action in these years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Regional Public Services
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regions the police service in England and Wales is divided into; what area is covered by each region; and if he will publish a map showing the relevant areas.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are eight regions, divided along force boundaries. A map is being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regions the fire service inspectorate in England and Wales is divided into; what area is covered by each region; and if he will publish a map showing the relevant areas.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Brigade inspections in England and Wales are carried out by four regionally-based territorial inspectors. Details of the inspection areas covered by each region are given in the table. I have placed a map showing these areas in the Library.

  London Area

  Bedfordshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Essex

  Hertfordshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  London (coordinator)

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Suffolk

  Wiltshire

  Northern Area

  Cleveland

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Durham

  Greater Manchester

  Lancashire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Tyne and Wear

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Southern Area

  Avon

  Berkshire

  Cornwall

  Devon

  Dorset

  Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Humberside

  Kent

  Oxfordshire

  Somerset

  Surrey

  East Sussex

  West Sussex

  122

  Isle of Wight

  Isles of Scilly

  Western Area

  Cheshire

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Mid Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Hereford and Worcester

  Merseyside

  Powys

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  Regional Public Services
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regions the civil defence service in England and Wales is divided into; what area is covered by each region; and if he will publish a map showing the relevant areas.

  Mr. John Patten
  For many civil defence purposes England and Wales are divided into nine regions. These cover, broadly, north-east England, the east midlands, East Anglia, London, south-east England, south-west England, Wales, the west midlands and north-west England. I am placing a map in the Library.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many regions the prison service in England and Wales is divided into; what area is covered by each region; and if he will publish a map showing the relevant areas.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The regional tier of the prison service of England and Wales disappeared as part of the reorganisation of management structures which took place on 25 September 1990. The service is now divided into 15 geographical areas each including seven to nine prison establishments. A copy of a map depicting these areas has been placed in the Library.

  Category A Prisoners
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review security arrangements under which category A inmates are held in prisons.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I have asked Mr. G. H. Lakes CB MC, former deputy director general of the prison service and Mr. R. Hadfield QPM, Chief Constable of the West Midlands, to conduct a security audit of arrangements for holding and managing category A prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons and to report to me as soon as possible.

ENVIRONMENT

  Pentachlorophenol Contamination
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure the reduction of pentachlorophenol concentrations in rivers in the constituency of Rossendale and Darwen.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Environmental quality objectives have been set for all inland waters in relation to discharges of
  123
  dangerous substances, including pentachlorophenol and its compounds. So far as is practicable, those objectives must be achieved at all times.

  Applications and reviews relating to consents for trade effluent discharges containing PCP to sewers have to be referred to me for my determination. On the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, conditions are being set requiring the use of the best technical means available to minimise as soon as practicable the adverse effects of such discharges.

  Letting Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how the level of letting in public and private rented sectors is estimated; and if he will provide a breakdown of the constituent components of the total flow of lets on a yearly basis from 1980 to 1990;

  (2) how many estimated private dwelling lets there were in each year from 1980 (a) in England and (b) in Great Britain.

  Mr. Yeo
  Total lettings of local authority dwellings, including transfers by existing tenants, are reported each year by local authorities in their housing investment programme returns.

  Since 1986–87 housing associations have reported lettings annually to the Housing Corporation. For earlier years they can be estimated from the Labour Force Survey.

  Lettings by other private landlords are also estimated from the Labour Force Survey.

  Estimates of the number of lettings in England are given in the table:

  thousands

  Local authorities

  Housing associations1 2

  Other private1

  1980–81

  3440

  65

  380

  1981–82

  415

  4‥

  4‥

  1982–83

  439

  70

  420

  1983–84

  429

  60

  470

  1984–85

  429

  65

  430

  1985–86

  437

  80

  410

  1986–87

  430

  77

  480

  1987–88

  426

  70

  520

  1988–89

  410

  72

  480

  1989–90

  390

  76

  540

  1 Source of housing associations estimates (for years prior to 1986–87) and other private lettings (all years) is the Labour Force Survey. LFS is a sample survey, and so some of the year-to-year fluctuations in numbers may be the result of sample variability. The LFS will tend to understate the number of lettings by private landlords because what is recorded is whether the household had been at the address for under 12 months; the estimate does not allow for any multiple moves in the previous 12 months.

  2 Housing association lettings from 1986–87 onwards are based on returns to the Housing Corporation. Internal transfers by tenants have only been reported from 1989–90 and figures for 1986–87 to 1988–89 include estimates of these lettings.

  3 For 1980–81 includes estimate of non-secure and mobility lettings which were not included on local authority returns.

  4 ‥ Not available.

  For information about Scotland and Wales I refer the hon. member to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the assets sold or used to reduce the closure costs of Crown Suppliers contract furnishing.

  Mr. Yeo
  The following assets were sold during the closure of Crown Suppliers Contract Furnishing.

  Freehold Property—Wellington House

  Surplus Computer Equipment—Microcomputers, Terminals and Printers

  Stores Equipment—Fork Lift Trucks

  Contract Furnishing Stocks

  Miscellaneous Office Furniture and Equipment

  Two Antique Clocks

  Intellectual Property rights—IKON range

  The published costs of closure include only the differences between amounts realised and the book value of the assets.

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the London Docklands development corporation is taking to ensure employment of local people at Canary Wharf.

  Mr. Portillo
  LDDC, in conjunction with the London borough of Tower Hamlets and London East TEC, is developing a programme of customised training to develop the skills of local people to match identified employment opportunities. Schemes like the Tower Hamlets construction training centre are specifically aimed at helping local people to gain employment in construction schemes in London docklands.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each of the last 10 years the number of complaints he has received on the Property Services Agency from(a) hon Members, (b) members of the public and (c) registered companies.

  Mr. Yeo
  Such statistics are not available centrally and could not be brought together without disproportionate costs. PSA Services investigates any complaint received and, where appropriate, takes action to improve the quality of services it offers.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for an auditor's report to be prepared for him on the payment practices of the accounts department of Property Services Agency Services, Heol Pentre, Felen, Morriston, Swansea.

  Mr. Yeo
  No. The payment systems of all PSA offices are subject to regular cyclical audits by both the Comptroller and Auditor General and by the Department's own internal audit division. Reports of internal audits are available to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to reduce delays before the Property Services Agency Swansea office sends the invoices from creditors to the Property Services Agency accounts office at Hastings.

  Mr. Yeo
  From the autumn of 1991, it is planned for the payment of all PSA Building Management creditors in
  125
  South Wales to be made by the Manchester office. This represents the implementation of the new decentralised bill payment and accounting system to improve the bill payment service offered.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the Property Services Agency pays interest to any creditor when payment has been delayed beyond 28 days from the receipt of an invoice for work completed.

  Mr. Yeo
  There is no general entitlement in law to interest on the late payment of contract debts, and it is not the normal practice of the Government to pay interest in respect of such debts unless the circumstances of a particular case give rise to a legal entitlement.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the number of civil actions for damages initiated against the Property Services Agency for non-payment and delays in meeting its liabilities to clients.

  Mr. Yeo
  Records are not maintained centrally of any civil actions against PSA Services for the non-payment of bills and delays in meeting its liabilities to clients. I am not, however, aware of there being any current ones.

  Housing Departments
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will introduce legislation to permit local authority housing departments to operate as independent charitable trusts;

  (2) how many representations he has received in favour of local authority housing departments being permitted to opt for charitable trust status.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities may already transfer their housing stock to any stable organisation that is independent of the local authority, and able to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the needs of existing and future tenants. Fifteen authorities have so far transferred their stock to registered housing associations and one authority to an industrial and provident society. No applications have so far been made for transfer to independent charitable trusts.

  Poplar Baths Training Centre
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the London Docklands development corporation has spent on Poplar Baths training centre.

  Mr. Portillo
  LDDC has contributed £1·2 million towards the cost of the Tower Hamlets construction training centre.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the employment aims of the London Docklands development corporation; and what changes there have been in those aims since 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  LDDC's education, enterprise and employment programme aims to support and encourage the development of existing and new business and facilitate 126
  ready access to a skilled work force; and in collaboration with education and training providers, TECs and the LEAs, to improve education, training and employment opportunities for people living in or near the UDA and assist them to enter the employment market.

  Since 1988, the number of permanent jobs in the UDA has increased from around 40,000 to 53,000 with more jobs in construction. LDDC has contributed £7·6 million to the provision of training over the period April 1988 to March 1991, supporting an estimated 15,000 training places.

  Local Government (Access to Information) Act
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources have been committed by the Government since 1 April 1986 to promote the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

  Mr. Portillo
  The circular issued by my Department in 1986 (DoE Circular 6(86)) drew to the attention of local authorities the provisions of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

  Since then, it has been for local authorities to decide what resources they need to allocate to ensure that they fulfil the duties placed on them by the Act.

  Irish Peatlands
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Conservation of Irish peatlands to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Trippier
  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 9 December to 13 December.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the council tax is proposed to he a tax for the purpose of section 28 of the Data Protection Act; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The interpretation of the Data Protection Act 1984 on this point will be a matter for the Data Protection Registrar, and ultimately for the courts, in the light of the legislation establishing the council tax.

  Concrete Batching Plant
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to announce the results of the public inquiry into the proposal to construct a concrete batching plant at Monnery road, London N19; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is hoped to issue a decision very shortly.

  Holcombe Moor Training Area
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will quantify the costs of the public inquiry into the application by the Ministry of Defence for an extension of its dry training area on Holcombe moor, Bury, in 1988.
  127
  Mr. Yeo
  The Department's costs of employing the inspector to conduct the inquiry and to write his report were about £10,000.

  Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be writing to those people who objected to the applications for time-limited discharge consents for sewage treatment works.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department has now written to those who made objections to the applications made by the then water authorities, setting out the decisions taken, and explaining the reasons for those decisions. I have placed a copy of the letters in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales intends to write shortly to those who objected to applications made by the then Welsh Water Authority.

  Detailed information about the individual consents granted is already available on the public registers held in the National Rivers Authority's regional offices. Summary information concerning all the applications submitted was contained in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution 1989–90 annual report published last year. Around 15 per cent. of the applications submitted were rejected, or were withdrawn by the applicants, and many were granted only subject to tighter conditions than the water authorities had sought.

  Time-limited consents were granted in connection with the water industry's current £1·2 billion improvement programme. The latest figures available from the National Rivers Authority demonstrate that significant improvements have been made in the operational performance of sewage treatment works throughout England and Wales. In 1990, the proportion of works complying with their current consents was 92 per cent. Time-limited consents are superseded by long-term performance measures as the improvements work through. The proportion of works which already meet these long-term measures has risen from 77 per cent. in 1986, and 83 per cent. in 1988 to some 88 per cent. in 1990.

  The National Rivers Authority is continuing to monitor the performance of sewage treatment works and has the necessary enforcement powers to take action against works that fail to meet fully the requirements of their consents. The Director General of Water Services is also monitoring the progress being made by the companies towards the timely completion of their improvement programmes so that customers' interests are fully protected.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Emvironment 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 4 July,Official Report, column 182.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: My Department and the Department of Energy have not yet selected any companies to carry out the work in respect of the home energy efficiency campaign. An announcement will be made soon. My Department has not yet selected a company for the duty of care campaign.
  128
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the commencement dates and duration of each of the publicity campaigns given in his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 182.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: My right hon. Friend and I propose to launch the home energy campaign this autumn. It will continue until 1994. The duty of care campaign will commence in November 1991 and continue until the end of the current financial year.

  London Custody Service
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those public buildings currently guarded by the London custody service(a) on a 24-hour basis and (b) during silent hours, indicating the numbers employed at each.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: On security grounds, I am unable to release details of the buildings served by the London Custody Service or the number of guards at each location. However, I can advise that the London Custody Service currently services 17 buildings on a 24-hour basis using 137 guards and 90 buildings on a silent hours basis using 455 guards. The staff figures exclude reserves and inspectors.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the sums received in respect of the London custody service together with the total expenditure for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The following figures are derived from the London custody service's memorandum trading accounts for the past five years.

  Year

  Expenditure

  Receipts

  (£)

  (£)

  1986–87

  10,582,135

  10,854,012

  1987–88

  11,092,774

  11,105,993

  1988–89

  11,451,805

  11,532,647

  1989–90

  12,015,201

  12,256,055

  1990–91

  12,959,623

  13,135,296

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are currently employed by the London custody service; and on what terms and conditions.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The London custody service operates on a repayment basis underpinned by a memorandum trading account. All clients are billed for the service they receive and charges are calculated to recover full costs.

  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what basis other Government Departments and public bodies are charged for the services of the London custody service.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: As at 10 July 1991, the London custody service employed 11 non-industrial staff and 720 industrial staff. All employees are civil servants.

  Beccles Maltings
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete determination for listed building consent to demolition of the Beccles Maltings, reference E1/73535/4/2/4.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 15 July 1991]: The application for listed building consent to demolish the Maltings at Beccles has been referred by the Department to English Heritage for advice on whether the application should be called in for the Secretary of State to decide or left for decision by the local planning authority. There has been some delay in dealing with the case while English Heritage has obtained a structural engineers' report on the building and sought the views of the national amenity societies on the proposed demolition.

  This information is now with English Heritage and the Secretary of State expects to receive a recommendation on call-in shortly. I will write to the hon. Member when the recommendation is received.

  Departmental Failures
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the failures of his Department in the past 12 months.

  £ million

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–89 outturn

  1989–90 outturn

  1990–91 estimated outturn

  Government Expenditure (all housing benefits):

  England

  3,053

  3,399

  3,762

  4,094

  4,288

  4,066

  4,299

  3,734

  Great Britain

  3,600

  4,001

  4,459

  4,869

  5,150

  4,936

  5,046

  4,430

  Local Authority Expenditure:

  England rent rebate (council tenants)

  1,659

  1,789

  1,902

  1,979

  2,028

  2,168

  2,301

  2,590

  rent allowance

  483

  614

  784

  877

  892

  912

  1,094

  1,417

  rate rebates

  1,044

  1,159

  1,251

  1,389

  1,425

  1,157

  1,212

  0

  Great Britain

  rent rebate (council tenants)

  1,980

  2,145

  2,296

  2,420

  2,506

  2,714

  2,882

  3,192

  rent allowance

  536

  687

  881

  998

  1,030

  1,051

  1,258

  1,610

  rate rebates

  1,218

  1,354

  1,479

  1,635

  1,701

  1,373

  1,263

  0

SCOTLAND

  Youth Training
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) applications and (b) available places for youth training there have been in Strathclyde this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information sought is not collected centrally. It is unlikely to be available from any source in the form requested, partly because there is no standard application process and partly because provision is calculated on the basis of the number of trainee weeks available rather than the number of places.
  130
  Mr. Heseltine
  I have failed to persuade the Labour party to put the interests of citizens and consumers above the interest of trade unions and producers.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the total amount of housing benefit in each financial year paid by local authorities in(a) England and (b) Great Britain to council tenants since the scheme began;

  (2) what is total Government expenditure on housing benefit on a financial year basis in (a) England and (b) Great Britain;

  (3) what is the total amount of housing benefit reimbursed (a) to local authorities and (b) private tenants in each financial year in (i) England and (ii) Great Britain in respect of rent rebates granted to council tenants since the beginning of the scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table sets out housing benefit expenditure for central and local government from 1983–84 to 1990–91:

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure of the national health service in Scotland, identified by health board, on employing agency nurses in each of the last five years in(a) cash and (b) constant prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Charities
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the statutory requirements covering the preparation and presentation of accounts by charities in Scotland; and what information he has on the charities which have failed to meet these requirements in the last two years, five years and 10 years respectively.
  131
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Section 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning the preparation and presentation of accounts by charities which are recognised bodies under the provisions of that Act and which are not companies. Section 4 has not yet come into force.

  There is no prior statutory requirement for Scottish charities to keep accounts.

  Braille Examination Papers
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what arrangements his Department is making to ensure that blind and partially sighted students have adequate access to the standard grade and higher examination process; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what arrangements are being made by his Department to ensure that examination papers for higher grade examinations are available in Braille.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It is already the practice of the Scottish Examination Board to modify its stipulated arrangements for candidates who, because of visual impairment, are unable to satisfy the normal requirements. The facilities provided can include the services of a reader and/or scribe and the availability of examination papers in Braille.

  Flood Warnings
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to introduce a statutory requirement for river purification boards to provide advance flood warnings covering both river and coastal areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  River purification boards and islands councils already have powers under the Agriculture Act 1970, as amended by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982, to provide and operate flood warning systems in their areas after consulting the chief constables and local authorities in whose areas it is proposed to exercise these powers. This procedure ensures that decisions about flood warning systems are taken by those best able to consider local needs and I have no plans to alter the statutory basis of these arrangements.

  Mental Illness Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by health board,(a) the sums spent on capital projects in psychiatric hospitals in Scotland, and (b) the revenue expenditure on mental illness services in Scotland, for the last three years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money is being made available to new schemes to be funded under the specific grant for mental illness for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement about the future of the scheme.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Government's spending plans provide for an increase to £5 million in the provision of the mental illness specific grant scheme in 1992–93. This will, along with all Government spending plans, be reviewed in the course of this year.
  132
  The scheme is set to run for an initial three years and extension of the scheme will be subject to review at the end of that period.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide the latest available figures on the level of registered supported accommodation for people affected by mental illness by health board area and per 100,000 population.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information is not held in the form requested.

  Craigtoun Hospital St. Andrews
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future use of Craigtoun hospital, St. Andrews.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 July 1991]: Fife health board has forwarded a proposal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to close Craigtoun hospital, St. Andrew's which is currently being considered. As with all hospital closures, the board's proposals will be considered on their merits and views of the public and other interested parties taken into account in reaching a decision.

  Working with St. Andrew's GPs a study is currently under way at St. Andrew's memorial hospital to determine the most appropriate use of beds. The outcome of this study will be known in September when we will be in a position to consider further the proposals to close Craigtoun hospital.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Resettlement Agency; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded;

  (2) what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Contributions Agency; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded;

  (3) what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of the Benefits Agency; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded;

  (4) what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of Information Technology Services Agency; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The chief executive of each of the Department's executive agencies will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pension Age
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received from the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women regarding equalisation of the state pension age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received two letters.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those organisations and individuals which have made representations on equalisation of the state pension age since 1 January.
  133
  Miss Widdecombe
  Since 1 January 1991 we have received representations from the following organisations:

  Age Concern

  Asda Stores Ltd.

  Association of British Insurers

  British Aerospace

  British Hardware Federation

  BP

  Campaign for Equal State Pension Age

  Comet Group PLC

  CBI

  Co-operative Union Ltd.

  Dolland and Aitchison Group PLC

  Electrical Engineering Federation

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  European Federation for Retirement Provision

  Help the Aged

  ICI

  Joint Working Group

  Life Insurance Council

  Marks and Spencer PLC

  Mars Confectionary

  National Association of Pension Funds

  Nat West Bank

  Noble Lowndes and Partners

  Occupational Pensions Board

  The Retail Consortium

  Royal Insurance

  J. Sainsbury

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Spar (UK) Ltd.

  Specialeyes PLC

  TUC

  United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women

  R. Watson and Sons

  In addition, 150 letters have been received from hon. Members and 124 from members of the public.

  Water Bills
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefits are now available to those in receipt of invalid care allowance and disability benefits in respect of assistance with water bills.

  Mr. Scott
  There is no specific social security benefit available to help people pay their water charges. However, income support is an income-related benefit for people not in full-time work whose income is below a certain level. It is intended to cover all normal day-to-day living expenses and beneficiaries are expected to budget for their water charges in the same way as any other commitment.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will add reactive dyes to the list of substances which are held to be asthma causing in respect of claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit:, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be laying regulations shortly which will extend the coverage for occupational asthma under the industrial injuries scheme. Nine further named agents, including reactive dyes, will be added to the prescribed list of sensitising agents encountered at work.

  Independent Living Fund
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under the proposals for the future of the independent living fund, how the present arrangement 134
  whereby direct payments are made to severely disabled people to make their own personal assistance arrangements will continue after 1993.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the announcement I made during consideration of Lords amendments to the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance Bill, on 21 May at col 794. We are still considering the form the successor body may take.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what review he has undertaken of the different residency rules for severe disablement allowance compared to attendance allowance, mobility allowance or disability living allowance; what plans he has to unify the residency qualifications; what other plans he has to review the severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review residency rules for severe disablement allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We recognise that there has been some criticism of the residence qualifying condition for severe disablement allowance, which is more stringent than those which apply to other non-contributory benefits for sick and disabled people. The general issue of the acceptable length of residency conditions is being considered by the European Court of Justice. We believe that it would be sensible to be informed by their view before reaching any conclusions on the test for claimants generally.

  In the meantime, regulations were laid before the House on 4 July which will help members of the armed forces and their families with the residence condition. We believe that this approach is wholly justified in advance of any more general consideration of the test. We have no current plans to conduct a wider review of severe disablement allowance.

  Occupational Diseases
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being taken to review the list of prescribed diseases and the occupations for which they are prescribed, as defined by the Social Security Act 1975 and subsequent amendments, to harmonise with the European Schedule of Occupational Diseases (Annex I) and with the Additional List (Annex II), in relation to European Commission recommendation of 22 May 1990 (90/326/EEC) for the adoption of a European schedule of occupational diseases.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) on 10 June at columns 396–97.

  Benefit Provision
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) of 26 July 1990,Official Report, columns 494–95, when he now expects to be able to publish the results of the research into the way in which benefit provision for 16 and 17-year-olds is working.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to the reply, 30 April, column 161]: I have today placed a copy of the report on 16 and

  135
  17-year-old applicants for severe hardship payments in the Library. The research focuses on the very small proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds, 0·4 per cent., who are not in full-time education, work, or youth training and who claim income support under the severe hardship provision.

  The research was commissioned in July 1990 by the DSS to gather more data on young people who claim under the severe hardship provision, their understanding of and attitudes towards the benefit system and their experience of training and the labour market.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is also publishing today a report "Finding Youth Training Places for 16 and 17 Year Old Applicants for Severe Hardship Payment".

  Almost two thirds of those interviewed during the MORI research said that they found youth training useful. The report also shows that severe hardship payments are, as intended, going to those young people seeking YT places who are most at risk: and in particular that the system provides a safety net both for those who have to live independently and to those at risk of homelessness or the break-up of the family.

  The research coupled with the Department's own monitoring has been taken into account in putting in hand further improvements in the arrangements for dealing with claims from young people, which build on those already announced in November 1989 and March 1990. Accordingly the Government are implementing the following measures:

  (1) The service to 16 and 17-year-olds in Benefits Agency offices is being improved by:

  Making a specific assistant manager in each district personally responsible for service to 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Further staff training to reinforce the importance of 16 and 17-year-olds being handled positively and sympathetically both at reception and in the course of their personal interview.

  Ensuring that interviews with young people are conducted in private, wherever possible.

  Introducing priority handling for claims and strengthened procedural guidance.

  A review of the leaflets and other information available to 16 and 17-year-olds.

  (2) Measures have already been taken to improve the procedures for arranging YT placements, including the introduction of guarantee liaison arrangements in each TEC, with contractual obligations on TECs to investigate individual cases. All those in receipt of severe hardship payments for more than eight weeks are now automatically referred to the TEC under the liaison arrangements. This procedure is to be further strengthened by referring at an earlier stage those young people whose personal circumstances make it particularly important to find a place quickly: care leavers, rough sleepers, pregnant girls.

  (3) The Employment Service will improve the guidance to unemployment benefit offices on handling claims for income support.

  The Children Act 1989, which comes into force with effect from October 1991, makes clear the duty on local authorities to prepare children for the time when they leave their care and simplifies the existing powers and duties of local authorities to care for children formerly in their care. These provisions recognise the importance of helping children to become established in the community.

  However, concern has been expressed about some children leaving care who claim income support under the severe hardship provisions: this creates an uncertainty which can cause difficulty in making positive plans for the future. Accordingly we intend to introduce legislation to give eligibility for income support to all those 16 and
  136
  17-year-olds who live independently on leaving care while continuing in full-time non-advanced education. And we further intend to make income support available for a period of up to eight weeks to all 16 and 17-year-olds leaving care who have to live independently and who are registered for work and YT.

  Those 16 and 17-year-olds who have been sleeping rough in London will already have benefited from and will continue to benefit from the bed spaces being made available by the Department of the Environment under its rough sleepers initiative. Of these, 180 hostel bed spaces are specifically earmarked for young people.

  These measures, taken with the improvements already made, will ensure the effective operation of the safety net that the severe hardship provision provides to those most at risk while seeking a YT place without detracting from the positive options of education, work or training which are pursued by the vast majority of young people in this age group.

HEALTH

  Plastic Surgery
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if, when he next meets the chairman of the North West regional health authority, he proposes to discuss the provision of plastic surgery in the north-west region.

  Mr. Dorrell
  When I meet the chairman of North Western regional health authority this evening I shall congratulate him on his region's record in undertaking record numbers of treatments in plastic surgery and on the decision to appoint additional medical consultant and teaching staff.

  Operations (Waiting Lists)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients awaiting operations in the Wessex regional health authority area wait for longer than one year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  At September 1990, the latest date for which information is available on numbers awaiting operations, 23 per cent. of patients waiting for an operation in the Wessex region waited over a year.

  Bexley Health Authority
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to pay an official visit to Bexley health authority to look at health provision.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to visit Bexley health authority at present.

  Diabetics
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will consider introducing national health service prescription of injection pen needles for diabetics requiring insulin treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am considering whether injection pen systems including needles for diabetics requiring insulin treatment should be available on prescription. The pricing and cost implications of various systems are under examination.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to obtain information on the salary increases of the national health service trust general managers together with a job description; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no plans to collect this information. However, annual accounts will include details of the salary of the highest paid board member. This would normally be the chief executive.

  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to monitor the development of NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are appointing local monitoring officers in five regions to assist the existing finance team of the NHS management executive in ensuring that NHS trusts meet their financial duties.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have applied for trust status at the latest available date.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In England, 107 hospitals and other units have applied for NHS trust status for April 1992.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications have now been submitted for self-governing status for hospitals and other NHS units.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To date, 107 hospitals and other units have applied to become NHS trusts in April 1992.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require regional health authorities to give a favourable response to requests from hon. Members and others for public debate on proposals for the establishment of particular NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Each national health service trust application is the subject of consultation under the terms of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It is up to regional health authorities to decide whether public debates would be appropriate.

  Deprivation Formulae
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what approval formulae was used by health authorities to take account of relative levels of local deprivation; how these are tabulated into sums of money; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our guidance invites regional health authorities to consider allowing for social deprivation when they fund their districts. A number of them do so, using several approaches. Details of the monetary effect of allowing for social deprivation are not held centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about progress in implementing initiatives to reduce waiting lists.
  138
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The waiting list initiative is progressing well. The number of patients waiting over one and two years is continuing to fall and we intend to secure further major reductions in the year ahead.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the chairman of the BMA to discuss general practice fund holding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We regularly meet representatives of the medical profession, including the BMA. My hon. Friend will welcome the announcement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to make recently of the agreement with the General Medical Services Committee to set up a joint working group on NHS review issues including the evaluation of GP fundholding.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish for community health councils rights of access to information on, and for monitoring of, the manner in which Exchequer money allocated to fundholding general practitioners for the purpose of purchasing services is used, similar to those afforded community health councils in relation to expenditure by district health authorities as purchasing authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  District health authorities retain overall purchasing responsibility for all patients, including those on the lists of fundholding GPs. This provides the mechanism for the community health council to raise any concerns or questions it may have.

  Organ Donor Scheme
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current results of the organ donor scheme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The best measure of the effectiveness of the organ donor scheme is the number of transplants performed. According to information provided by the United Kingdom transplant support service the number of transplants, including corneas, performed in the United Kingdom in 1990 was 4,938. This represents an 11 per cent. increase over 1989.

  Further expansion of the transplant programme, to which this Government are committed, depends entirely on the availability of donor organs. We warmly welcome the "Transplants in Mind" initiative being taken this year by voluntary organisations, with the support of the Department of Health, to raise public awareness. It is very important that everyone is aware both of the success of organ transplantation and of the need to make a positive decision, involving the family, about becoming a donor.

  NHS Reforms
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the BMA to discuss health service reforms.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I met the BMA earlier this week. We have not set a date for our next meeting.

  Preventive Medicine
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to encourage family doctors to focus on preventive medicine.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 18 June at column 134.

  In-patients
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost per bed of keeping and treating an in-patient in West Hertfordshire hospital for the last three years for which figures are available and what is the average for the North West Thames region;

  (2) what is the cost per head of keeping and treating an in-patient in Watford General hospital for the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since 1987–88 the financial returns submitted by health authorities have focused on the cost of treating patients by specialty on a district basis. The overall cost of in-patient care by hospital is therefore not held.

  NHS Drugs
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated figure for savings on the national health service drugs bill in 1989 attributed to more economical prescribing by general practitioners following the introduction of prescribing analyses and costs data.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  From 1979 to 1988 the net ingredient cost of drugs—the cost before any discounts and pharmacy costs and fees—prescribed by GPs increased by an average of 13 per cent. each year. In 1989 this increase was reduced to 8 per cent., representing an estimated saving of around £80 million relative to the previous trend. The introduction of PACT has been a major factor. Encouragement to cost-effective prescribing will be maintained by the indicative prescribing scheme.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated percentage increase in cost to the national health service drugs budget of the European Commission's proposed regulation on patent term restoration for medicinal products; and how any such increase would be affected by the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The precise cost would depend on the number and sales value of products benefiting in the future from extended protection. An estimate based on historical data, in a study commissioned by the industry, suggests the net effect could rise to around 1 per cent. of the drugs bill. The industry accepts that the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme could be used to mitigate the effect. However, as an indirect profitability control, on its present basis, it would be unlikely to produce an exact offset.

  Postgraduate Medical Education
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the combined effect of article 1(3) and article 9(1) of the draft European Community directive on the advertising of medicines upon the funding of post-graduate medical education by the pharmaceutical industry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 18 June at column 141.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will exclude better food from the extra services for which national health service patients may be charged; if he will ensure that all food served to all patients is of(a) good quality, (b) varied and (c) suitable for their medical condition; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health service managers are responsible for offering good quality, varied meals which meet the nutritional requirements of patients. As part of their income generation initiative health authorities are encouraged to offer additional services to patients. The provision of an à la carte menu offering a wider choice and luxury food items for a charge is a good example of this.

  Fertility Treatment
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of a course of fertility treatment for a woman to become pregnant.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Prescribing Costs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines on who has the responsibility to meet prescribing costs once a national health service patient has been discharged from an(a) national health service directly-managed unit to a fund-holding general practitioner practice, (b) national health service directly-managed unit to a non-fund-holding general practitioner practice, (c) self-governing trust to a fund-holding general practitioner practice and (d) self-governing trust to a non-fund-holding general practitioner practice.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The general principle is that the doctor who has clinical responsibility has prescribing responsibility.

  Protocols may also be made between consultants and general practitioners to care for particular categories of patients on a shared-care basis.

  Cervical and Breast Cancer
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policies have been introduced to reduce the death rates amongst women from cervical and breast cancer since 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on 21 February at columns 241–42.

  NHS Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the current financial year, how much funding has been made available to the national health service to(a) meet the real cost of inflation, (b) meet the specific costs of medical inflation, (c) target towards reducing inequalities in public health and health care provision, (d) allow for positive health measures through health promotion and education and (e) allow community care proposals to be fully implemented.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Expenditure on the NHS in England for all purposes this year is expected to amount to some £26·6 billion. This represented a real-terms increase of nearly 5 per cent. over spending last year, and of 51 per cent. over spending in 1978–79. We do not identify sums separately for the purposes listed.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines to all district health authorities acute mental health services to provide a service for people with mental health problems, similar to the service currently provided by accident and emergency departments for people with medical problems.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is for district authorities to assess the psychiatric needs of their populations and to provide, in the light of available resources, a range of mental health services to meet those needs, including emergency services in whatever form is deemed to be most suitable to the locality.

  Artificial Limbs
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average life of an artificial limb before it requires complete replacement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Five years.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many artificial legs are supplied annually by the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Approximately 16,600 per annum.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of St ate for Health which companies supply artificial legs to the national health service and what proportion of this market each company holds.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The names of the companies and the proportion of the market each holds is as follows:—

  Per cent.

  Chas A Blatchford & Sons Ltd

  28

  F H Cossins & Son (Leeds) Ltd

  2

  Dorset Orthopaedic Co Ltd

  2

  John Drew (Midlands) Ltd

  4

  LIC Care Ltd

  9

  Oxford Prosthetics Ltd

  4

  Prostech Ltd

  3

  Prosthetics UK Ltd

  2

  Rehabilitation Services Ltd

  5

  Hugh Steeper Ltd

  12

  James Stubbs & Sons Ltd

  3

  Technology World Incorporated (UK) Ltd

  12

  Vessa Limited

  14

  142
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost to the national health service, on an annual basis, of the provision and service of artificial legs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost to the National Health Service of the provision and service of artificial legs in 1989–90 was £31·401 million and in 1990–91 it was £33·236 million.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to provide funding for community health councils which would allow a standardised level of service across England and Wales(a) related to the population served taking into account the distribution of areas of high dependency and (b) containing a standardised element for the training of community health council staff and members.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Regional health authorities, as establishing authorities, are responsible for the funding of community health councils. CHCs essentially provide a local service, and RHAs are therefore best placed to make funding decisions taking account of local needs. We see no reason, and have no plans, to change this policy.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will abolish the upper age limit of 70 years for appointment to community health councils.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is no regulation limiting the age of a community health council member. Guidance issued to health authorities advises that appointing bodies should not appoint people over 70 unless there is a special reason, but it has no statutory force.

  Menopause
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, further to his answer of 2 July,Official Report, column 117, what provision is made under the national health service for treatment of severe menopausal symptoms.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities are responsible for assessing local health care needs and ensuring a comprehensive range of services for local people, including menopause services. Treatment of menopausal symptoms in any individual remains a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned.

  Family Planning
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in real terms since 1979 on spending on family planning facilities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Estimated total expenditure on NHS family planning services in England was £94·6 million in 1988–89, the latest year for which figures are available. This represents an increase in real terms of 33 per cent. since 1979.

  Private Ambulance Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation (i) enabling the setting up of a registration and/or regulatory body to lay down and enforce standards governing(a) staffing, (b) training, (c)

  143
  vehicles and (d) equipment of all private ambulance services and (ii) requiring that these standards should be no lower than those applying to health authority ambulance services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no plans to introduce such legislation.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish, in respect of his Department's circular HC(90)24, details of the way in which the specific grant is being utilised nationally; what steps have been taken to ensure that it is not being used to support or replace the appointment of staff or the provision of services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The social services inspectorate issued a document in November 1990 "Mental Illness Specific Grant Monitoring Arrangements" setting out fully the way the inspectorate intends to undertake the monitoring, and the information and action required from each social services authority.

  The social services inspectorate will produce a report of its findings of the use of the grant, including the social care services which have been developed for people with mental illness including those with dementia, in relation to national objectives as outlined in "Caring for People" and to the care programme arrangements as referred to in HC(90)23. Copies of both the report and the circular are available in the Library.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) national health service trusts, (b) district health authorities and (c) regional health authorities which have (i) commenced or (ii) are about to commence negotiations with community health councils leading to the adoption by regional and district health authorities and trusts of codes of practice on public consultation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not held centrally. NHS trusts are not required to consult directly with community health councils, but have been encouraged to establish informal relations with them. Guidance has been issued to health authorities on the principles of consultation. It is for the regional health authorities and district health authorities themselves to ensure that these principles are adhered to.

  Drugs Research
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the terms of reference of the research being carried out by Professor Conrad Harris and funded by the Department in relation to his indicative prescribing scheme; where this research is being undertaken; what account is taken by the project of the generics of the drugs; how many representatives of drug companies are working as part of this research team; and how much of the funding of the project comes from drug manufacturers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The remit of the research is to analyse patterns of prescribing in general practice and to develop indicators to provide the NHS with information about the normal range of prescribing for certain types of 144
  drugs. The research is being undertaken at the department of general practice at Leeds university. No representatives of drug companies are working as part of the research team. The project is wholly Government funded. Generic prescribing is one of the factors which the team may address during its research.

  Women NHS Employees
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in the number of women employed by the national health service as (1) consultants and (2) general practitioners since 1979; and what proportion of the totals women now form.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest available information on the number and proportion of female consultants and general practitioners in England is given in the table. Medical staffing in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  1979

  1989

  Hospital consultants (medical and dental) numbers

  1135·4

  2027·7

  Female consultants as proportion of the whole percentage

  10·3

  14·4

  General medical practitioners (GMPs) numbers

  3,865

  6,886

  Female GMPs as a proportion of the whole percentage

  16·8

  24·8

  Health Authorities (Elections)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will bring forward proposals for the direct election of regional and district health authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no such plans. Regional and district health authorities are responsible for ensuring that the health needs of the local population are assessed and met at local level. The direct election of members of these authorities would not materially aid that process.

  Births
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the estimated national percentage of women whose deliveries were conducted by(a) a hospital doctor, (b) a general practitioner, (c) a midwife and (d) other, for each year between 1985 and 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information along the lines requested was collected for the first time in 1988–89 and the latest available figures are for 1989–90.

  The estimates given in the table are derived from incomplete data and, particularly in the case of 1988–89, should be regarded as approximate.

  Person conducting delivery—percentages

  England

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Hospital Doctor

  22

  24

  General Practitioner

  10

  10

  Midwife

  72

  72

  Other

  1

  2

  Not Known

  4

  2

  1 Less than 0·5 per cent.

  Source SMI2: Hospital Episode Statistics

  Cervical Smear Tests
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for every month since March 1990 the district health authorities not reaching the one month target for cervical cancer test turnround time; and if he will state the time taken in each of those authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available in the form requested. At June 1991, 31 district health authorities reported that they were not meeting the one-month target for processing cervical smear tests. These were as follows:

  Regional Health Authority

  District Health Authority

  Number of weeks

  Northern

  S. W. Durham

  6·0

  Yorkshire

  Bradford

  6·0

  Trent

  South Derbyshire

  6·5

  East Anglian

  Cambridge

  6·0

  North East Thames

  Mid Essex

  7·0

  Waltham Forest

  9·0

  Basildon and Thurrock

  5·0

  South East Thames

  Brighton

  8·0

  Tunbridge Wells

  6·0

  Bromley

  8·0

  Wessex

  Bath

  8·5

  North Western

  Stockport

  13·0

  Tameside

  7·0

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 1990 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Veterinary Products Committee, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the Committee on the Review of Medicines and the Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials.

  We are glad to pay tribute to the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them warmly for the time and effort which they contribute to the public interest in this most important field.

  Leukaemia
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in following up the advice on chemicals of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment contained in recent reports on leukaemia incidence in young people resident in west Cumbria and other areas.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department of Health referred both the recommendation and the advice to the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COM).

  Its study into the chemicals used at Dounreay and Sellafield is nearing completion and I will arrange publication of the results in due course. A summary of its advice on whether there is evidence that potential exposure to chemicals may result in malignancies in the first generation offspring follows.
  146
  The results from a limited number of laboratory animal studies suggest that paternal exposure to certain mutagenic chemicals and radiation can result in malignancies in their first generation offspring. Although the limited data available from humans exposed to cytotoxic agents used therapeutically have not indicated any such effect, the committee nevertheless felt it prudent to assume that a chemical that has been shown to be mutagenic in germ cells in laboratory animals has the potential to induce malignancies in the first generation offspring.
  Regarding the excess leukaemias at Sellafield COM considered possible mechanisms that could be involved if the effects were indeed a consequence of the mutagenic effects of a chemical. It was difficult to explain the observed incidence by any known mutational mechanism, but the committee felt that there was a need for a better understanding of the mechanistic basis of tumour induction following paternal exposure. They advised that further work was needed, involving both radiation and chemicals, in particular urethane.

  The Government are grateful to COM for this advice and will implement its recommendations.

  A copy of the full text of the Committee's statement has been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Household Cavalry (Hunts)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers and men of the Household Cavalry and of what rank and trade were involved in the transportation of horses to the(a) Quorn hunt, (b) Belvoir hunt and (c) Cottesmore hunt in January, February and March.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A lance-corporal, who is a trained horse box driver, and a trooper, who accompanies the horses to ensure their welfare and safety, were involved in transporting horses to the three hunts during the periods mentioned.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many duty hours members of the Household Cavalry were involved in foxhunting, including transportation to and from fox hunts, in October 1990, November 1990, December 1990, January 1991, February 1991 and March 1991.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence horses have been injured while hunting in the last five years; and if he will provide details of the regiments, the hunt and the injury.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Minor injuries to horses are not uncommon in any form of arduous training, including hunting, but are not separately recorded. There is no record of serious injury to Ministry of Defence horses attributable to hunting.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the costs incurred by the Household Cavalry in hunting with the(a) Quorn, (b) Belvoir and (c) Cottesmore hunts in 1990 and 1991; and how many riders and horses were involved.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No additional costs to public funds were incurred as a result of members of the Household Cavalry taking part in these hunts. Forty-three riders and 25 horses were involved during the season.
  147
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Ministry of Defence equipment armed forces personnel are permitted to use in off-duty hours to participate in hunting; and if he will provide details of the hire charges.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel from non-mounted units using Army horses off-duty are required to pay £10 per hour for the hire of the horse. They would normally provide their own equipment.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for veterinary fees following an injury to a Ministry of Defence horse used for hunting by armed forces personnel in off-duty hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Personnel from non-mounted regiments riding Army horses off-duty are required to pay a full cost hire charge and to take out comprehensive insurance to cover the cost of damages to the unit, the horse and any third parties. The hire charge covers the costs of veterinary services.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which mounted regiments of the armed forces are permitted to take part in(a) fox hunting, (b) deer hunting and (c) hare hunting in duty hours;

  (2) whether any military personnel have any involvement in deer hunting during duty hours;

  (3) if he has any plans to restrict armed forces personnel's participation in hunting in duty hours.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Hunting in duty hours is permitted in mounted regiments only at the Commanding Officer's discretion, when it is not to the detriment of any military task. Personnel in non-mounted regiments are not normally permitted to hunt in duty hours. No further restrictions are planned.

  Army horses and personnel do not participate in deer hunting in duty hours.

  Military and Naval Hospitals
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary Of State for Defence if there have been any recent changes in the entitlement of retired services personnel to receive medical treatment in military and naval hospitals.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of new contracts approved for military exports in 1990; and what was the value of actual deliveries of military equipment which passed through the United Kingdom Customs for approved export in 1990.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  New contracts approved for military export in 1990 were worth approaching £3,000 million. For the value of deliveries passing through Customs, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1991, Volume 2, table 2·7, which was published last week.

  W88 Warhead
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the concerns expressed by the Defence Committee and the Drell report about weaknesses in the United States W88 warhead designed for the Trident D5.
  148
  Mr. Alan Clark
  We intend to publish a formal response to the Defence Committee's report on the Trident programme in due course.

  Weapons Transportation
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now ensure that the missile and warhead are at all times transported separately.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the UK Trident II missile and its associated warheads, which will normally be handled and transported separately. We plan to transport operational missiles only within the Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport. No final decisions have been taken, or are yet needed, on whether the missile and warhead should be handled together within the depot.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now state what notification is given to local police and fire authorities prior to the transport of nuclear warheads or missiles through the centre of a city.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The local police force is always informed when a nuclear weapons convoy passes through their area of responsibility.

  Holcombe Moor Inquiry
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will quantify the cost to his Department of the inquiry into the extension of a dry training area on Holcombe moor, Bury, in 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. it is not our normal policy to provide such costs.

  Butterflies (Porton Down)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to protect rare species of butterfly on Porton Down by his Department in areas under the jurisdication of his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive of the CBDE, Dr. G. S. Pearson, to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Royal Navy (Support Infrastructure)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on developing plans for the rationalisation of the Royal Navy's support infrastructure.

  Mr. Tom King
  The Government have been examining all aspects of the armed forces' support, in order to achieve the most efficient support infrastructure and to make savings in line with the front-line force level reductions confirmed in the Statement on the Defence Estimates "Britain's Defence for the 90s". The closure of the RN leadership school, HMS Royal Arthur, the RN diesel repair depot at Blackbrook Farm, and the accommodation and administrative headquarters, HMS St. Vincent, at Furse house, London, have already been announced,Official Report, 16 January 1991, column 500.
  149
  Following a thorough review of basing arrangements, I have decided that when the new force structure is in place ships of the Royal Navy will continue to be based at each of the naval bases at Portsmouth, Devonport, Rosyth and Faslane. Although Portland is not a base port but an operating base, I see a continuing need for a naval presence there also. We will now proceed to rationalise the support activities in each of these naval base areas, and changes will also be made to the current arrangements for basing ships at Rosyth.

  The Rosyth-based squadron of four type 42 destroyers —HMS York, Glasgow, Liverpool and Edinburgh—will be redeployed to Portsmouth, which will become their base port. This will allow the support activity for type 42s to be concentrated in Portsmouth with consequent economies. This move to Portsmouth will take place progressively from mid-1993 to late-1994. In addition, the four ships of the Northern Ireland squadron will move to Faslane in 1993. Rosyth remains the base port for the 1st, 3rd and 4th minecounter measure squadrons together with the fishery protection squadron. As a result of these changes, about 1,100 service personnel will relocate to Portsmouth and 100 to Faslane. Some 900 civilian posts will also be affected with a number moving to other establishments, but also with some inevitable redundancies. Employment at Rosyth will then number around 8,500 including employees at the dockyard. Current plans to conduct major refits of submarines, including Vanguard class SSBNs, and surface vessels, at Rosyth remain unchanged. The substantial investment currently being made in the dockyard in new refit facilities for Trident submarines will itself provide a further significant number of jobs.

  A range of other measures designed to rationalise support facilities elsewhere in the naval shore infrastructure have also been decided. These include the closure of the royal naval air station HMS Daedalus at Lee-on-Solent and the relocation of the air engineering school and other units to other establishments in the Portsmouth area; the closure of the royal naval stores depots at Lathalmond in Scotland and Copenacre in Wiltshire, although some offices will remain in Copenacre, the closure of the royal naval armaments depot at Trecwn in Wales and the partial closure of the armament depot at Ernesettle, Plymouth; closure of the oil fuel depot at Invergordon and withdrawal of Royal Navy facilities at the Finnart oil fuel depot; and the sale of the Gunwharf site at HMS Nelson, Portsmouth. Some 1,900 civilian posts will be affected with some inevitable redundancies, but it is hoped about a third will be relocated to other establishment. These closures will take place progressively over the next five years.

  These measures carry forward the policy already announced of making reductions in the support area proportional to those in the front line. They are an essential part of ensuring the best use of defence resources and providing a structure appropriate to the needs of our Navy in the 90s and beyond.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Herbs and Spices
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made any evaluation of the masterspice process for the reduction of microbial contamination in herbs and spices as an alternative to irradiation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Evaluation of food processing methods generally is a matter for the industry. My responsibility is to be satisfied as to the safety and wholesomeness of foods treated by novel processes, as is the case with food irradiation.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the results of his review into the safety of sheep dips.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 12 June at column 602 to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North, (Mr. Speller).

  Angling
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will take steps to ensure the retention of regional licences for angling under the new licensing arrangements being sought by the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Curry
  The National Rivers Authority is currently consulting all interests about its proposals for a national angling licence structure for salmon and freshwater fish in England and Wales. This consultation process ends on 31 August, after which the NRA will develop its final proposals, advertise them and submit its proposed licence duties for the consideration of my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales. Clearly, it would be quite wrong for Ministers to give any undertaking of the kind sought about regional licences and indeed it would be a breach of the procedures set out in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (as amended).

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those persons representing fishing interests on the National Rivers Authority regional committee; and what is the basis on which selection of nominees is made.

  Mr. Curry
  Appointment by the National Rivers Authority to the regional fisheries advisory committees are made on the basis of informal nominations. Members are drawn from among angling and commercial fisheries interests, fish farming interests, sea fisheries committees, aquarian owners' associations, conservation interests, and academic/professional bodies. Normally, there will be no more than 15 members in total.

  A full list of the current chairmen and members of each of the regional fisheries advisory committees appears in the table.
  151

  Regional Fisheries Advisory Committees

  Region and member's name

  Suggested by

  Interest

  Anglian

  Mr. P. Tombleson, OBE

  NRA

  Chairman

  Mr. S. Alden

  Eastern Area

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. S. Amos

  Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr. K. Ball

  Central Area

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. L. Cass

  Northern Area

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. C. Clare

  Central Area

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. M. Foster

  —

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. C. Groome

  NRA

  RRAC

  Mr. M. Labern

  NCC

  Conservation

  Mr. D. Lloyd

  National Anglers Council

  Angling

  Mr. J. Martin

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. P. Peachey-Edwards

  Eastern Area

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. C. Rollinson

  Northern Area

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. A. Wheeler

  IFM

  Fisheries

  Northumbria

  Mr. P. Tennant

  NRA

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Browne-Swinburne

  NRA

  RRAC

  Dr. T. Crisp

  —

  Academic

  Mr. J. Evans-Freke

  —

  Riparian Owners

  Mr. J. Fry, JP

  —

  Angling

  Dr. S. Haile

  —

  Academic

  Mr. D. Hall

  —

  Angling

  Mr. D. Heselton

  —

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. K. Hewitson

  —

  Angling

  Mr. R. Kirton-Darling

  —

  Riparian Owners

  Dr. M. Owen

  —

  Conservation

  Mr. E. Pratt

  —

  Riparian Owners

  Mr. E. Thomas

  —

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. C. Warwick

  —

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. E. Wrangham

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. K. Young

  —

  Commercial Fishing

  North West

  Mr. T. Barnes, OBE

  NRA

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Bailey

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

  Commercial Fishing

  Dr. R. Broughton

  Ribble Fisheries Association

  Other Industry

  Mr. A. Brown

  —

  Other Industry

  Mr. F. Bunting

  —

  Other Industry

  Mr. J. Croft

  —

  Other Industry

  Mr. E. Ecroyd

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Game Angling

  Mr. J. Fell

  —

  Other Industry

  Mr. C. Holland

  Mersey Basin Campaign

  Conservation

  Mr. B. Irving

  —

  Academic

  Mr. K. Lambert

  North West Federation of Sport and Recreation

  Sport/Recreation

  Mr. E. Le Cren

  IFM

  Academic

  Mr. J. Lovell

  Association of Sea Fisheries Committees

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr. P. Neal

  —

  Other Industry

  Mr. W. Wannop, OBE

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. R. Weston

  NRA

  RRAC

  Severn Trent

  Mr. F. Jennings

  NRA

  Chairman

  Dr. P. Bottomley

  National Federation of Anglers

  Academic

  Mr. W. Casey

  Severn Fisheries Conservation Council

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. G. Chambers

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Game Angling

  Mr. T. Clowes

  CLA

  Riparian Owners

  Mr. B. Crawford

  National Association of Specialist Anglers

  Angling

  Mr. K. Fisher

  British Waterways

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. W. Hardy

  Severn Estuary Fishermen's Association

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. C. Hawthorne

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. H. Howarth

  Trent Consultative

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. A. Jones

  Trent Consultative

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. D. Morgan

  Severn Consultative

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. D. Orton

  Angling Foundation

  Angling

  Dr. A. Richards

  Trent Consultative

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. R. Sparrow

  National Farmers Union

  Fish Farming

  Mr. A. Stephens

  National Federation of Anglers

  Angling

  Dr. H. Tebbutt

  NRA

  RRAC

  Mr. R. Williams

  Severn Consultative

  Area Fisheries

  152 153

  Region and member's name

  Suggested by

  Interest

  Southern

  Mr. A. Humbert

  NRA

  Chairman

  Mr. B. Aldrich

  Hampshire Water Keepers Association

  Special

  Mr. D. Brunwin

  Kent Anglers

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. A. Costen

  Southern Counties Federation Angling Clubs

  Angling

  Dr. J. Cotton

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Coarse Angling

  Mr. M. Drummond

  NRA

  RRAC

  Mr. I. Gay

  NFU

  Fish Farming

  Dr. B. Lindsay

  Sussex Anglers

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. C. Neame

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. J. Parkman

  —

  Other Industry

  Mr. J. Potter

  Isle of Wight and Hampshire Anglers

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. F. Reader

  National Federation of Anglers

  Angling

  Mr. B. Stott

  IFM

  Fisheries

  Major J. Thomas

  Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  South West

  Mrs. A. Voss-Bark

  NRA

  Chairman

  Lt. Col. G. Badham

  —

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. A. Baker

  Netsmen

  Commercial Fishing

  Lord Clinton

  South West Riparian Owners Association

  Riparian Owners

  Mr. S. Day

  Devon Sea Fisheries Committee

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr. P. Edwards

  NRA

  RRAC

  Miss J. Edwards

  Devon Wildlife Trust

  Conservation

  Professor C. Kennedy

  Exeter University

  Academic

  Mr G. Manning

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr H. Maund

  South West Riparian Owners Association

  Fish Farming

  Mr. M. Mountjoy

  North Devon Commercial Fishermen's Association

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. T. Mutton

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Game Angling

  Mr R. Retallick

  —

  Coarse Angling

  Mr. J. Stevens

  Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr. M. Weaver

  West Country Tourist Board

  Sport/Recreation

  Mr. B. Wilson

  Liskeard and District Anglers

  Area Fisheries

  Thames

  Mr H. Parry

  NRA

  Chairman

  Dr. J. Alabaster

  —

  Academic

  Mr. M. Davies, OBE

  NRA

  RFDC

  Professor J. George

  —

  Conservation

  Mr M. Gregory. OBE, LLB

  CLA

  Riparian Owners

  Mr A. Hodges

  Thames Consultative

  Fisheries

  Dr. D. Jamieson

  Thames Water Utilities Limited

  Water Industry

  Mr. B. Knights

  —

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. D. Komrower

  NFU

  Fish Farming

  Mr. G. Lee

  Thames Consultative

  Angling

  Mr. T. Mansbridge

  Thames Consultative

  Fisheries

  Mr A. Meddle

  Kent and Essex Sea Fisheries Committee

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr D. Wales

  Thames Consultative

  Fisheries

  Mr. A. Williams

  Thames Consultative

  Fisheries

  Mrs. J. Wykes

  NRA

  RRAC

  Welsh

  Lord Moran

  NRA

  Chairman

  Mr. I. Edwards-Jones

  Wye Salmon Fishery Owners' Association

  Riparian Owners

  Dr. J. Fish

  North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr. W. Hardy

  National Federation Fishermen's Organisations

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. M. Johnston

  —

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. M. Matthews

  —

  Fisheries

  Mr. J. Mayers

  Welsh Federation of Coarse Anglers

  Coarse Angling

  Mr. M. McLaggan

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. I. Milichamp

  IFM

  Fisheries

  Mr. M. Morgan

  Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association

  Game Angling

  Colonel P. Ormrod

  —

  Riparian Owners

  Sir I. Raikes

  United Usk Fishermen's Association

  Riparian Owners

  Mr. A. Rees

  —

  Area Fisheries

  Mr. J. Rhydderch

  South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee

  Sea Fisheries Committee

  Mr. G. Roberts

  —

  Area Fisheries

  Dr. W. Roscoe Howells

  NRA

  RRAC

  Mrs. J. Spence

  NFU

  Fish Farming

  Mr. W. Williams

  —

  Fisheries

  154 155

  Region and member's name

  Suggested by

  Interest

  Wessex

  Mr. C. Rothwell

  NRA

  Chairman

  Mr. R. Baker

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. R. Corbett

  —

  Game Angling

  Mr. D. Gifford

  —

  Game Angling

  Mr. K. Hall

  —

  Coarse Angling

  Major A. Hill

  —

  Fish Farming

  Mr. P. Lacey

  NRA

  RRAC

  Mr. K. Lacey

  —

  Coarse Angling

  Dr. M. Ladle

  Institute of Freshwater Ecology

  Conservation

  Mr. J. Mathrick

  —

  Coarse Angling

  Mr. J. Parker

  —

  Coarse Angling

  Major D. Rasch

  —

  Game Angling

  Mr. M. Stoodley

  —

  Coarse Angling

  Colonel C. Tarver, MBE

  Trout Fishermen

  Game Angling

  Mr. G. Topp

  —

  Coarse Angling

  Yorkshire

  Mr. J. Fawcett

  NRA

  Chairman

  Mr. J. Austerfield

  IFM

  Academic

  Mr. T. Collier

  NRA

  RFDC

  Mr. A. Dalby

  Ouse Consultative

  Angling

  Mr. A. Evans

  Don Consultative

  Angling

  Mr. P. Hayton

  Aire/Calder Consultative

  Angling

  Mr. W. Jackson

  Esk/Derwent Consultative

  Angling

  Mr. H. Mackrill

  CLA

  Riparian Owners

  Mr. J. Mitchell

  East Riding FCA

  Angling

  Mr. A. Noble

  National Federation of Anglers

  Angling

  Mr. M. O'Donnell

  NFU

  Fish Farming

  Dr. R. Ormond

  —

  Conservation

  Mr. M. Stewart

  Salmon and Trout Association

  Angling

  Mr. G. Traves

  National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations

  Commercial Fishing

  Mr. J. Whitworth

  NRA

  RRAC

  Notes:

  NRA—National Rivers Authority.

  NCC—Nature Conservancy Council.

  IFM—Institute of Fisheries Management.

  RRAC—Regional Rivers Advisory Committee.

  RFDC—Regional Flood Defence Committee.

  CLA—Country Land Owners Association.

  NFU—National Farmers Union.

  Land Settlement Association
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, by county, the number of small holdings and orchards and the amount of land

  Sold

  Unsold

  Smallholdings

  Land including Orchards (Hectares)

  Smallholdings

  Land (Hectares)

  Bedfordshire

  94

  278

  8

  18

  Cambridgeshire

  80

  392

  2

  4

  Essex

  60

  159

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  51

  137

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  26

  51

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  47

  152

  1

  5

  West Sussex

  120

  234

  —

  —

  Humberside

  38

  118

  —

  —

  Total

  516

  1,521

  11

  27

  I am pleased that more than 90 per cent. of tenants have been able to purchase their holdings.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons(a) his Ministry was unable to sell the land of the Land Settlement Association, and (b) land had to be given to the association's tenants and ex-tenants.
  156
  operated by the Land Settlement Association, which (a) has been sold since 1982 and (b) has yet to be sold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The details requested are as follows:

  Mr. Gummer
  Eleven holdings are still in Ministry ownership because the tenants declined the opportunity to purchase them. No holdings or land have been given to association tenants or ex-tenants.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, by county, the number of smallholdings and orchards and the area involved in
  157
  hectares, that were operated by the Land Settlement Association prior to the termination of the arrangements with his Ministry in 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The details requested are as follows:

  Small holdings

  Land including orchards (Hectares)

  Bedfordshire

  102

  296

  Cambridgeshire

  82

  396

  Essex

  60

  159

  Gloucestershire

  51

  137

  Lincolnshire

  26

  51

  Suffolk

  48

  157

  West Sussex

  120

  234

  Humberside

  38

  118

  Total

  527

  1,548

  Most of the holdings and land have now been sold to the tenants.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Ministry has received for each year since 1982 for the sale of land operated by the Land Settlement Association; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The details requested are as follows:

  £

  1982–83

  Nil

  1983–84

  2,007,890

  1984–85

  11,250,088

  1985–86

  5,084,205

  1986–87

  1,704,469

  1987–88

  325,966

  1988–89

  209,226

  1989–90

  209,545

  1990–91

  590,000

  TOTAL

  21,381,389

  I consider that fair prices were obtained for all the holdings and land sold. Tenants who purchased their holdings and land paid the tenanted value for the property.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Management
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have applied for local management for schools status in England and Wales and in the South West Hertfordshire education division; and what are their relevant percentages of the total schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  Seventy-eight per cent. of secondary and 30 per cent. of primary schools in England already have delegated budgets; none of these is in Hertfordshire. All secondary and those primary schools with a pupil population of 200 or more must have delegated budgets on or before 1 April 1993; primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils must have delegated budgets by 1 April 1994.

  Schools which are dissatisfied with the timing of delegation proposed by their local education authorities may apply to the Secretary of State for accelerated delegation, to take effect from as early as 1 April 1992. We have had a number of informal inquiries from schools but no formal applications to date.

  Educational Psychology
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if hospital psychologists will be allowed to offer their services to schools in the educational psychology discipline under local management for schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  It will be open to anyone to offer their services to schools under LMS. Where budgets for support services such as educational psychology have been delegated, it will be for schools to ensure that the services they purchase fully meet their requirements and offer value for money.

  Private Golf Clubs
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the categories of Government funding for which private golf clubs are eligible.

  Mr. Atkins
  Government funding for golf is channeled through the Sports Council. Golf clubs with open memberships are eligible for Sports Council regional grants, usually capital grants, towards facilities or a grant towards promotional development of the sport, but their activities must be deemed a priority in terms of the Sports Council's regional targets. Private golf clubs with closed memberships are not eligible for Sports Council funding.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to ascertain whether private golf clubs in receipt of Government grants deny membership to women.

  Mr. Atkins
  Sports Council grant conditions stipulate open membership: no one will be denied access to use a facility on grounds of race, creed, colour, sex, occupation, religious or political persuasion. Any golf club applying for funding would have its constitution scrutinised before any grant was made in order to ensure it met these conditions.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list each Government grant to private golf clubs for the past five years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Royal Lifesaving Society
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the 100th anniversary of the Royal Lifesaving Society to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have considered, and approved in principle, an application for an exhibition relating to the 100th anniversary of the Royal Lifesaving Society to be mounted in the Upper Waiting Hall under the sponsorship of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). This approval in principle was given in a letter from my office on 24 June.

  Conservation Biology
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that research in the field of conservation biology is included within the terms of reference of an appropriate research council.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Research into nature conservation is included in the charter of the Natural Environment Research Council. Nature conservation embraces conservation biology.

  South-West London College
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has received from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council concerning the next academic year's arrangements for the staff and students of South-West London college; and what other contacts he has made with the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council concerning the future of the college's staff and students.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received the results of the consultations with students at the college about their future study carried out by an independent assessor, and which the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council published on 11 July. The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council are currently discussing with college staff the location of their future employment. It will be for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to take account of the views of staff and students in preparing further advice on the transfer of the college's property, rights and liabilities to other institutions.

  "Education and Training"
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a breakdown of the responses received to the White Paper "Education and Training", Cm. 1536, giving(a) the total number of responses and (b) the number received from (i) governing bodies of colleges, (ii) local education authorities, (iii) bodies representative of business and commerce, (iv) bodies representative of teaching staff and (v) others, with the proportion of responses in favour, and against, the proposals for a central funding council.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department has so far received more than 1,500 letters commenting on the recent White Paper on education and training. Responses are still coming in. I invited comments on the proposals to enable 160
  me to arrive at better informed decisions in due course. I do not believe that the responses will lend themselves to analysis in the way that the hon. Member requests.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will deposit in the Library copies of all responses received to the White Paper "Education and Training", Cm. 1536.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department has received over 1,500 responses to the White Paper, "Education and Training for the 21st Century". Responses are still coming in. I did not invite those responses on the basis that they would be public documents. I do not believe that the process of consultation will be helped if they were now turned into public documents.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment has been made of the implications for non-vocational adult education, of the proposals in the White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century".

  Mr. Eggar
  The proposals in the White Paper will increase educational opportunities for adults. The further education funding councils will have a duty to secure adequate provision of education leading not only to vocational qualifications, but to GCSEs, AS and A levels, access to other further education or higher education, acquisition of basic skills, English for speakers of other languages and education for adults with special educational needs. Local education authorities will retain the duty to secure adequate provision of other kinds of further education. Our proposals will make it easier for secondary schools to admit adults to their classes or to put on courses for adults on their own initiatives.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the number of children participating in the assisted places scheme in each school;

  (2) if he will list the schools now participating in the assisted places scheme;

  (3) what are the fees at each school that is part of the assisted places scheme;

  (4) if he will list the number of pupils who receive a grant through the assisted places scheme in each participating school;

  (5) if he will list the number of pupils in each school participating in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Fallon
  I have today placed copies of the table in the Library.

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

Baroness Perry of Southwark
Mrs. Pauline Perry, having been created Baroness Perry of Southwark, of Charlbury in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Young and the Baroness Trumpington.

Azerbaijan and Armenia: Human Rights
2.47 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any response to their representations to the Government of the Soviet Union regarding the reported violations of human rights in Armenia and in particular the results of the promised personal inquiry by Marshal Yazov into the alleged active support by the Soviet army of i he Azerbaijani OMON militia in committing atrocities.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Soviet authorities have assured us that they are committed to a political solution to the dispute. We have no information about a promised personal inquiry by Marshal Yazov.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Has he or his department not read the report of the delegation headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox? It was quite clearly stated to the delegation that Soviet forces were being used in support of the local OMON militia and the marshal promised a personal inquiry into these matters.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords, we have seen tile report prepared by my noble friend Lady Cox. She is back in that part of the world at the moment. It has been discussed with her by the Foreign Office and I have answered a Question in this House put by her on the subject.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, did the Minister's department not see in the report that Marshal Yazov had said that he would conduct a personal inquiry? Has the department read the report?
The Earl of Caithness: Most certainly, my Lords, but we have no official confirmation that Marshal Yazov is to conduct that inquiry.
Lori Richard: My Lords, are the Government aware that the issue has caused a great deal of anxiety in all parts of the House and in many parts of the country? As President Gorbachev happens to be in the country at the moment, can the Government say
98
whether this type of issue is one which might sneak itself into the talks between the president and the other leaders?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a most serious matter, as the House has registered on more than one occasion. Alas, Mr. Gorbachev is not in the country at the moment but he is due this evening. Many things will be discussed with him. The visit is a good occasion to bring to the fore again the whole question of human rights in the Soviet Union.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to acknowledge that the Government are occasionally right.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government make it perfectly clear when Mr. Gorbachev arrives here this evening, extending his begging bowl to the Western nations, that he will be told to go away with it empty unless he can show why, by the use of his military forces, he is brutalising his own people? He is no better than Saddam Hussein and should be sent away empty-handed.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there are many matters to discuss with Mr. Gorbachev when he comes here. This will be a good opportunity to raise the whole question of human rights.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, on a more irenic note, do the Government agree that the concept of autono-mous regions recognised by other states may be useful and helpful in unravelling complex situations such as that in the Caucasus and in other parts of Europe?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is a most complicated situation in the Caucasus, as the noble Lord said. It is best solved by a political, not a military, solution and by the people in the area.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to rise yet again on this issue. Will the Minister take the opportunity to dissociate himself and the Government from the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and the tone in which they were made, as well as the comparison which on this side of the House at least we found offensive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, what the noble Earl says is entirely up to him. He has free privilege to raise matters of that kind. I gave the reply on behalf of the Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that reply will disappoint many, not only on this side of the House but, I hope, on his side as well? This is a time for building new bridges or rebuilding old ones with the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries. It is not a time to insult them. They need all the assistance we can give them. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will reconsider his reply and go a little further towards meeting the request of my noble friend on the Front Bench.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord has taken careful note —as I know he will have done—of the way in which I phrased my reply to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, will the noble Earl recognise that within the past two days 48 Armenians have been slaughtered with the approval of the Soviet army? Does that make noble Lords on my right feel happy?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, once again I reaffirm on behalf of the Government that we deplore the situation in that part of the world and hope that it will be resolved by political, not military means.

Housing in Rural Areas
2.54 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the need, identified by the Rural Development Commission, to provide 80,000 affordable houses in rural areas over the next four years; and what progress has been made to date.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, housing need is not easy to quantify. Much depends on how it is defined and what assumptions are made about house prices, interest rates and incomes. Nevertheless, we believe this estimate to be overstated and we shall shortly commission research which will help us to produce our own estimate. We have made good progress with a variety of measures designed to improve the provision of affordable housing in rural areas.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not a fact that there have been at least three studies of the matter by different bodies? Is it not now high time that far greater resources were made available to solve the problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may mention some of the actions which the Government are taking which involve considerable expenditure of resources. These are: special housing corporation rural programmes for small villages below 1,000 population, with the provision of 2,250 houses by 1993–94; special capital allocations to rural local authorities of another £50 million; support for rural housing trusts to set up small rural-based housing associations; planning concessions allowing low cost rural housing on sites where commercial housing would not be permitted under the exceptions policy; and subsidised shared ownership schemes in rural areas no longer required to allow staircasing up to the full 100 per cent. We are about to commission research which will properly tell us whether resource and provision match needs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that despite her long list of measures being taken, anyone who lives in the countryside knows that there is a great shortage of affordable
100
housing? The reason is that houses which were affordable are being bought by richer people who wish to live in the country. Therefore, local people cannot afford them. The situation is quite serious. Will the Minister consider, for example, allowing councils to retain houses for retirement, instead of making them subject to sale on request?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not part of the Government's policy to inhibit the right to buy housing. However, we have put an enormous number of measures in place. We are not complacent about the issue. The reason that research has been commissioned is that we believe that there is a gap between provision and need. These measures, only some of which I have mentioned, are being put in place to make sure that housing is more affordable for young people in rural areas.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend said that research would be commissioned. Will she make inquiries into the demand and need for specially designed accommodation for the physically disabled? They do not just live in towns, some live in the country.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. It is very much the responsibility of the local authority not only to identify housing for people to rent or buy but also to make sure that the housing is appropriate to the needs of the people occupying it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister said that the Government thought that the number of houses quoted was in excess of the real need. Is she aware that the people at the sharp end dealing with the problem—the local authorities out in the country—know that the need exists now? The measures taken by the Government may be desirable and the figures possibly an overestimate of the need. However, that need is there now and the delay through the Government waiting for this report can only exacerbate a serious situation. Action is required immediately, not in the future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I admitted that we believe that there is a gap between the provision and the need. I also catalogued the number of measures in place now which are being implemented by housing associations, local authorities and government intervention. I believe that the measures are working. Part of the research will determine the effectiveness of the policies. However, there is no neglect of the situation and certainly no complacency.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that the research will be published?
Baroness Blatch; My Lords, there is no difficulty about that whatever. It will be published.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, as a member of the Rural Development Commission, I assure my noble friend that the estimate of 80,000 houses is the lowest of the various estimates to which the development commission had access. Have the Government

101
considered the possibility of using some of the housing available through closure of the air bases, many deep in rural areas? Perhaps it could be arranged that at least some could be sold by the American or British governments to housing associations for use as low cost social housing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend again makes an important point. The air bases to which he refers may become surplus and their future remains under consideration by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment. We are aware of the implications of housing there and the impact of closures in rural areas. I am afraid that it would be precipitate of me to determine the outcome of the negotiations.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, while we welcome any government research into rural housing, I am sure that the Minister is aware that Action for Communities in Rural England, the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils—the previous speaker referred to this point—the Rural Development Commission and the Institute of Housing have all said that between 80,000 and 100,000 houses are needed in rural areas. It seems likely that the government research will confirm that position. If that is The case, will the Minister agree at the very least to raise the basic credit approval—that is, the permission to borrow—of local authorities, because in the past 10 years the completions of affordable housing by local authorities and housing associations have fallen to a quarter of the level of 10 years ago?
Bareness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot predict the outcome of the research. I am afraid that, like many of her noble friends, the noble Baroness is absolutely convinced that the only providers of local housing are local authorities. I have said on a number of occasions that local authorities constitute one element of the providers of housing. There has been a positive switch to housing associations in this regard. The survey that the noble Baroness referred to—ACRE and the RDC hold the same view on this survey as it was the RDC that commissioned ACRE to carry out the survey—was a small one and it was conducted in a highly unscientific manner. In some cases people were merely asked whether they would be interested in occupying subsidised houses in rural areas if that housing were available. If the answer was yes, those people became a statistic in the survey. Research must be conducted in a much more scientific manner.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the Minister will listen a little more carefully in future to the comments of my noble friend Lady Hollis. My noble friend made it quite clear that her statistics referred not just to local authority housing but to provision by housing associations. Is it not the case that despite the minor measures that the Minister has predictably announced, over the past three or four years government activity has been devoted to reducing both security of tenure and security of affordable rents? That affects rural housing at least to the same extent as it affects urban housing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness was referring to allocations made by local authorities and how they had decreased over time. I was simply saying that local authorities were one part of the provision. There has not been a decrease of one-quarter in the total housing provision over the period of time the noble Baroness referred to. Research will of course either confirm or deny the information that ACRE has already supplied.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend consider using the accommodation that has been made surplus by the closure of air force bases for service personnel who are leaving the forces, as those people often have to enter bed and breakfast accommodation when they have to leave their married quarters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the reply I gave to my noble friend Lord Marlesford. It is a matter between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the gap between the need for affordable housing and its provision has progressively increased ever since this Government entered office? Does she not agree that her reference to local authorities having these housing responsibilities is entirely dishonest because the Government—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that her reference to local authorities having these housing responsibilities is entirely wrong because the Government have deliberately restricted financially the powers of local authorities to replace the housing that has been sold off privately?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope I have never been dishonest at the Dispatch Box. On any occasion where I may have misled the House I have always written to the noble Lord concerned or I have apologised before the House. I have no intention of being dishonest. I totally refute any criticism that the Government are being dishonest in these matters. There has been a positive switch to housing associations. The latter have been hugely successful in this regard. Housing association provision combined with the right-to-buy policy and the special part that local authorities play in making provision for housing have meant that real attempts are being made to address the problems of rural housing. I believe the research we have commissioned will add to that bank of information to enable provision to be matched to need.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the research continues, will the Government urgently consult with the Rural Development Commission and the Housing Corporation so that at the end of the day effective progress may be achieved?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my department is always in constant dialogue with the organisations the noble Lord mentioned.

Universities: British and Overseas Students
3.5 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether British universities are under any legal obligation to accept British students.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, their charters and statutes rightly leave universities free to determine their own recruitment policies. However, substantial public funding is provided in the clear expectation that places continue to be made available for the increasing demand from well qualified UK applicants.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I am aware of the point she has made. But if she has studied the press release of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals issued on 15th May she will be aware that universities believe that they are undertaking these services at a loss either of profit or of quality. Does the Minister accept that it is a good business principle to give up loss-making activities and concentrate on profitable ones? If universities should reach that conclusion, will the Government undertake to act according to their free market convictions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I could answer in greater detail if I agreed with the premise in the noble Earl's remarks. Since this Government came to power the number of UK students in higher education has increased faster than the number of students from abroad. The number of full-time equivalent UK students has risen from 545,000 to 795,000; that is an increase of 46 per cent. The number of overseas students has increased to 71,000; that is an increase of only 16 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Baroness does not accept the premise of my remarks. However, is she aware that I was referring to beliefs held in the universities? In commercial matters one must act on one's own judgment and not that of someone else.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as regards universities alone, UK student numbers increased by 16.5 per cent. between 1979 and 1989 compared with a 32 per cent. rise in the numbers of students from abroad. However, there was an increase of 46,000 university places awarded to home students during that period. That figure was substantially larger than the increase in the number of places awarded to students from abroad. The latter were awarded only 13,000 additional places.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that universities are under considerable pressure to recruit overseas students paying full cost fees? That means giving priority to those from outside the European Community over those within the European Community. That policy is a result of the consistent underfunding of British universities that has occurred over some years.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness is wrong. The greatest increase in the number of overseas students is attributable to the European Community. They of course do not pay full cost fees. The proportion of full-time overseas university students who pay full fees has remained constant over the years 1979 to 1989. In 1979 the figure was 11.7 per cent. compared with 11.8 per cent. in 1989. There was a small dip when a change in policy occurred.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness can clarify one matter in case anyone has been misled. Will she confirm that universities are private institutions which have their own charters and that therefore they can admit whoever they like, irrespective of what the Government may say? The universities determine their own entries.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. As I said in my original Answer, universities have their own charters and statutes, but the funding that the Government provide for universities is given in the expectation that they will ensure that UK students are properly provided for.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what has been said is perfectly correct in that universities have been forced to take in as many overseas students as they can get because of their position over funding? Will she also make it clear to the House that universities have done an exceptionally good job overseas? They have run extremely efficient recruitment programmes. Does the Minister accept that the students from abroad who come to this country do a great deal of good for our country as well as for our universities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord's final point. Universities have done an exceptionally good job in this area. Overseas students add a great deal to the life of our universities. However, I positively disagree with the noble Lord when he alleges that universities are forced to take in overseas students. Over the 10-year period that has been mentioned, the percentage of full fee paying overseas students admitted to British universities has hardly changed. It has changed by only 0.1 of a per cent. There has been no element of compulsion. Universities have their own charters and statutes and are entirely free to determine their intakes.

Food and Drink Trade Gap
3.9 p.m.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to reduce the British trade gap in food and drink.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government recognise that there is considerable scope for producers and manufacturers to improve their performance. To help them the Government have made great efforts to improve the

105
economic climate for business in the UK. They have set up and supported Food from Britain and provide support for exporters through the DTI/FCO overseas trade services. My honourable friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has also been conducting a review of the further action which might be taken to tackle the food and drink trade gap.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In view of the fact that imports from northern EC countries exceed our exports by two and a half times, will the Government do what they can to further promote the better producer organisations and better marketing? Can the noble Baroness give, as an example, the export and import figures for Cheddar cheese?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while I would not want to underestimate the importance which the Government attach to the food trade gap it has to be kept i z perspective. Over the past 10 years imports of food, feed and drink from all countries increased by 94 per cent. The value of our exports increased by 120 per cent. Regarding imports of cheese, including Cheddar, 202,000 tonnes of cheese were imported into the UK during 1990, 91 per cent. from the EC. Indeed, 91,000 tonnes was Cheddar imported mainly from the Republic of Ireland and Germany and also from third countries under bilateral cheese agreements.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, why do we have to suffer tasteless French apples and pears when our own fruit is so good? It is very difficult to obtain British fruit. Surely we do not have to suffer this because we are in the Common Market.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the short answer is that it is a free market and retailers buy what the public want.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the food trade gap is a major political and economic issue? Will she look at the example of our main competitor in this area, France, where a £1 billion trade deficit over five years has now been turned into a £6 billion food trade surplus?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should add to what I said earlier in reply to the noble Baroness. The apples which the French produce ripen at a different time from the apples which we produce. That is one of the reasons some of our indigenous foods are not available at the same time as similar products from other countries.
Turning to the French, in assessing the relative success of France in improving its balance of trade in food, it has to be borne in mind that agricultural output in that country is over twice that of the United Kingdom. The French are also concerned about their trade performance. The Centre for French Foreign Trade reported that for the first three months of 1991 exports of products of the agri-food sector fell by 7 per cent. and imports rose by 3 per cent. For the United Kingdom in the same period exports of food, feed and drink rose by 5 per cent. and imports fell by 8 per cent.
Lord Jay: My Lords, would not the best way of narrowing the trade gap be to reduce our food import prices by supporting the proposals of the EC farm commissioner for drastic reform of the common agricultural policy? Is it not regrettable that our Minister of Agriculture is apparently opposing those reforms?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thoroughly resent any criticism of my right honourable friend the Minister. He does a swell job fighting for this country wherever he goes.
Turning to the MacSharry proposals, the full implications of the latest MacSharry proposals have yet to be established. To some extent reduction of support should help to give encouragement for goods to be placed on the market or exported rather than put into intervention. However, the proposals could also lead to a fall in production, especially of milk, and that is likely to worsen the trade gap. The overall consequences cannot yet be predicted but the Government and my right honourable friend will resist any discrimination against the UK.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that part of the trade gap may be attributable to the CAP under which, for example, in the case of dairy products we are limited by quota to 86 per cent. of our domestic consumption?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is important to ensure that our finite supplies of milk are used to produce high added-value products. Current milk marketing arrangements still result in too much milk being used for intervention products. The dairy industry is considering a move to more open and flexible arrangements which will enable it to compete more effectively in home and export markets. In 1989 the UK was 88 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat and 104 per cent. self-sufficient in non-fat solids.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to research into the problem by her honourable friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. Can she say when the result of that research is likely to be made available? In the research which is being undertaken into the net visible trade deficit of £4.4 billion with the European Community in food and drink in 1990, has the growth of British retailers' own brands been taken into account? The own brands now account for 50 per cent. of the market in this country and have no or limited appeal overseas. Can the noble Baroness say whether that particular problem is being looked at by her Ministry?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my colleague has only just submitted his report. When his recommendations have been considered an announcement will be made.
Did the noble Lord refer to weeds? To what did he refer?
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I referred to the growing problem with respect to exports of the development of own brands by retailers in this country, particularly the five retailers who dominate the food market.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the retailers are motivated by the desire to cut costs through shorter supply lines and to trace food back to source to aid compliance with the new Food Safety Act. I should like to add that I am delighted that Safeway is now selling nothing but British bacon on its delicatessen counters. Safeway tells me that that is worth £27 million a year to the British bacon industry. I fail to see why noble Lords find that amusing.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have now spent 31 minutes on Questions.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment the Second Reading of the Rights of Access to Neighbouring Land Bill will be taken.

Business of the House
3.18 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am moving this Business of the House Motion by agreement between the usual channels to allow the House to deal with four Bills before the Summer Recess. The Finance Bill will be taken in the House on this coming Friday, 19th July. The Armed Forces Bill and the British Railways Board (Finance) Bill will then be taken in the House on Wednesday, 24th July—both, with the agreement of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, before his Motion on the Income Support (General) Regulations. Finally, we shall take the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill on Thursday, 25th July.
Your Lordships will recognise that it is not unusual for the Government to propose the suspension of these two standing orders at this stage in the Session in order to allow the completion of business. However, 1 stress that it is by agreement through the usual channels that these Bills are being taken in this way. The suspension of the standing orders does not mean that the Government would feel free to take other Bills without the agreement of the usual channels.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the Summer Recess so far as is necessary to give Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business; and that Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be suspended for the same period. —(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I have a point of both legal and constitutional importance to raise on this Motion because it would appear that, if it were accepted without comment, it would jeopardise your Lordships' legal rights in relation to the Finance Bill. Under the terms of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913, as amended, your Lordships are entitled to ask that the Finance Bill should come to
108
your Lordships' House no later than 5th July. It is today already 16th July and we have not yet seen the Finance Bill.
Your Lordships' rights arise in the following way. It was for many years assumed by the House of Commons—I refer to it as the House of Commons because we are talking about historical events—that it could impose taxation by mere resolution. Unfortunately, a Mr. Bowles disagreed with it and, in the case of Bowles v. The Bank of England, Mr. Justice Parker decided that Mr. Bowles was right and that the House of Commons had no pretended power of imposition of taxation and that taxation could be imposed only by Act of Parliament.
The House of Commons has never taken kindly to the judiciary, however eminent and learned, telling it how to conduct its business and it immediately promoted a Bill which became the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1913. That Act to some degree overruled the judgment in the Bowles case, but it did so on certain clearly stated conditions. One of those conditions was that Royal Assent should be given to the Finance Act not later than 5th August, but, because such a decision would seriously have infringed the rights of your Lordships' House properly to consider that measure, the Act also provided that your Lordships should be given a month to complete the stages of the Bill. It is for that reason that the Bill should come to your Lordships' House before 5th July.
Years ago it was regarded as a matter of honour for the Bill to be sent to your Lordships by that date. I can testify to that from personal knowledge and experience. In more recent years, however, the date has not been adhered to. Your Lordships have always taken an understanding view of that situation as they have felt that it has been due not to any malign intention on the part of another place, but merely to the inability of the business managers in another place to manage their affairs with the efficiency that we rightly expect from the business managers in your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cockfield: Nevertheless, my Lords, in the last year or so there has grown up an unfortunate tendency in another place to treat many of the amendments and arguments put forward by your Lordships on matters of considerable importance with a certain amount of, I might almost say, disrespect. Your Lordships will remember a number of occasions on which that has occurred. I would not for a moment suggest that noble Lords should create the kind of major financial crisis that would ensue if they stuck to their clear legal rights as enacted in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. Nevertheless, it is somewhat ironic that, after the treatment that your Lordships have at times received from another place, it should now seek our indulgence to accommodate its deficiencies in the management of its own business. I say this simply because I am afraid that, if no one made any protest about it, it would not be long before people came out with some bogus constitutional argument that noble Lords were not entitled to stand by their clear legal rights.

109
Perhaps I may add one further word. If the Bill is not certified by the Speaker as a money Bill, the Government's position would be even worse because, legally, your Lordships would then be bound only by the Parliament Act and not by the much more stringer t conditions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. I feel, therefore, that it is essential that we should place on record that we believe that our legal rights remain unimpaired in this matter and that we waive our rights simply to accommodate the wishes and requirements of another place.
I also wish to raise the question, because the Leader of the House himself has raised it, about the proposed debate on the Finance Bill taking place on a Friday —a date which is highly inconvenient to many of your Lordships and particularly inconvenient, if I may say so on a personal note, for myself, not that I would expect he Leader of the House to take that into consideration, although my arrangements long foredate any of his. He sought to justify the decision to hold the debate on a Friday on the basis of the argument that it had been agreed through the usual channe13. That astounds me.
Anyone who had sat in your Lordships' Chamber over the past few weeks and had listened to the sound and fury that had erupted from the Benches opposite during Question Time whenever the state of the economic affairs of the nation were mentioned would have thought that the Opposition would be the first people to insist on the Finance Bill being properly debated in prime time. Nevertheless, in their wisdom they have taken the view that the Finance Bill, which is the centrepiece of the Government's economic strategy, need not be debated except on a Friday in the hope that no one in particular will be here and particularly no one who understands the questions involved.
However, having made my point, I wish to leave the matter there, but we should have on the record what are my views and possibly the views of others of your Lordships about the way these matters have been handled
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Cockfield has said about the rights of this House which are being eroded and which will be further eroded if those changes are allowed to take effect without protest, but I rise mainly on the question of taking the Finance Bill on Friday.
The opportunity to debate the Finance Bill, which is the right of this House, has in the past almost always taken that shape of a full dress debate on the economy and on the Government's handling thereof. Your Lordships are well aware of the fact that, for such a debate, Friday is the least suitable day of the week. I understand that, for some mysterious reason of their own, the usual channels have accepted that, but, so far as I know, there has not been general consultation with your Lordships about it. It seems to me the greatest pity that this House, which contains people who know at least as much about public finance as they do in another place, and, perhaps I may venture to say, even a little more, should be denied the opportunity of a full and proper one-day debate, if it has to b that.
110
Despite the fact that my noble friend the Leader of the House may feel bound to the Opposition, with whom he appears to have made an agreement, I ask him whether, even at this stage, he will have discussions with the Opposition to release him from that commitment and try to give this House a full day's debate on the Finance Bill during the following week. If he does not do so, that will again be an erosion of the apparent rights of this House to bring to bear its expertise on the national finances in full debate, in full and proper circumstances and with plenty of time in hand. If so, I am afraid that as Leader of the House the noble Lord is to some extent letting down the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who for a long time up to a couple of years ago had the opportunity to deal in detail with the Finance Bill and take part in the economic debates on it, I very much endorse the observations made to the House by the noble Lords, Lord Cockfield and Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
The business of the House is a matter for the Government and in particular the Leader of the House. I trust that he will not exercise undue pressure upon the Opposition who, so far as possible, have to facilitate the business of the House. I hope that in future he will make quite sure that the debate on the Finance Bill—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said, provides the opportunity for a discussion in this House of the economic state of the nation and its economic affairs—takes place on a day other than Friday. To do anything other than that would not be in the best interests of the Government, the Opposition or the Back Benches on any side of the House.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, when he comes to reply perhaps the noble Lord will bear in mind that since the 5th July rule was proclaimed there are two reasons why there is even less excuse than was hitherto the case for the other place to mismanage their business and send the Bill to this House late. First, it is now habitual for the Budget to be in mid-March rather than in mid-April, which was previously the habit. Secondly, when the Finance Bill is dealt with in the other place, a large part of its business is sent upstairs to committee rather than have the whole of it taken on the Floor of the House, as was the case until just over 20 years ago. Therefore we are entitled to expect more consideration from the other place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Finance Bill has not yet left the other place and therefore any date is speculative? Secondly, is he aware that although no one who understands these matters will be speaking on the subject on Friday, I shall speak on it.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, let me say at the outset that I have some sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Cockfield had to say about this matter. One would wish to see business managed in a way which gives this House the maximum opportunity for proper consideration of measures; and by that I mean

111
all measures, including Finance Bills. It is perhaps unfortunate that certain practices have grown up over the years, but I certainly would not like your Lordships to imagine that somehow or other I have departed from precedent and am inflicting on noble Lords habits that are foreign to them.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Cockfield, I have to remind him that it was my noble friend who moved the Second Reading and the remaining stages of the Finance Bill on Friday, 24th July 1981. So it would not be correct to say that it has been unusual to deal with Finance Bills on a Friday. Indeed, very many important Bills have been dealt with on Fridays, particularly at this time of the year.
I should also remind noble Lords that it is by no means unusual for Finance Bills to come to this House so late in July. Indeed, it would traduce this Government to suggest that somehow or other we have decided on a practice that is inconvenient to this House.
To deal with the matter briefly, the Finance Bill came to this House in 1973 on 24th July; in 1974 it came on 30th July; in 1975 it arrived on 31st July; in 1976 it was 27th July; in 1977 it was 28th July; in 1978 it was 31st July. In 1979 the Government did very well and got it here by 24th July but by the next year it was back to 31st July. I hardly need go on. It is not correct therefore to say that suddenly in recent years the House has been put to great inconvenience as a result of Finance Bills arriving late in July. Like it or not, that has become the practice. But that does not mean that my noble friend is wrong to suggest that we should get across the message that it is not convenient to this House for that habit to continue.
I take very much to heart the points made by my noble friends Lord Cockfield and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as well as what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington, and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. In fact, I wrote yesterday to my noble friend Lord Cockfield, and that letter answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The position is as my noble friend said; namely, that it is hoped that the consideration of the Finance Bill will be completed in another place today, Tuesday 16th July. In my letter I went on to say that we were obliged to pass the Bill by the Summer Recess and, that being so, the best arrangement that I could make, taking into account other pressures on the Order Paper, was to ensure that a full Friday was available for the Second Reading debate on the Bill in this House. I should point out that important government Bills have increasingly had their Second Readings taken in the House of Lords on a Friday.
It was against that background that it was decided through the usual channels to take the course that we have adopted. I am grateful to all those concerned for having come to the arrangement which, rightly or wrongly, has become something of a customary arrangement, as I indicated. Perhaps we should put the arrangements into reverse and I shall bear very much in mind what my noble friend said.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to speak. The noble Lord the Leader of
112
the House did not reply to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to the effect that after consultation through the usual channels we should make a change to one day next week. That should certainly be looked at in consultation with the usual channels.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, not from my experience in this House, because here I am a mere novice, but from my experience as a business manager in the other place, I know that negotiations of this kind are all part of a gigantic mosaic. If one little piece is taken out of its place, one has to look at how all the other Bills will fit in. When it is the wish of this House and the wish of the other place to rise must also be borne in mind.
Therefore, it was somewhat disingenuous of me to say, after the painstaking negotiations which have taken place, that we should now try to unstitch the whole deal and think in terms of a different day for the Finance Bill. An agreement has been reached, and we ought to stick to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Woodgrange Park Cemetery and Crematorium Bill [H.L.]
Folkestone Harbour Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is the first of the normal carry-over Motions for Private Bills to come before your Lordships toward the end of the Session. I beg to move.
Moved, That the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on Thursday 17th October next and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 3 p.m. on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill in the next Session be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session;
That—

(i) any petition which has been presented against such Bill in the present Session (if not withdrawn) stand referred to any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

(ii) no petitioners be heard before any Select Committee on the Bill in the next Session unless their petition has been presented within the time stipulated for the deposit of petitions in the present Session or deposited pursuant to Private Business Standing Order 109 (b);

(iii) Private Business Standing Order 110 have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 109" were omitted.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons requesting their agreement.

Forestry Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

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

Export and Investment Guarantees Bill
3.41 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Scheme of transfer]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State shall ensure that political risk insurance, on terms and conditions comparable to that prevailing before the transfer, shall continue to be provided to UK exporters by the Export Credits Guarantees Department").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendment No. 51ZA too. I gather that in the course of our discussions we shall return to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate spoke last week.
Amendment No. 51 directly addresses the question of political risk reinsurance. The problem that has arisen throughout the Bill—it is, I believe, the major
114
Problem—is how the future privatised Insurance Services Group of ECGD will reinsure itself. We are all convinced that without adequate reinsurance ISG cannot survive properly. It certainly could not survive and give the service to exporters that it does at present within the context of ECGD.
Amendment No. 51 addresses the problem of political risk in the rather narrow sense because that was the issue which troubled another place in its discussions and which most troubled noble Lords at Second Reading. However, since I tabled my amendment the Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, also moved an amendment at an earlier stage in Committee which went rather wider than Amendment No. 51.
I fully accept that if, as the noble and learned Lord claims, the Government accept the spirit of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, my amendment being much narrower than his would naturally fall. Nevertheless by moving the amendment I am giving the Committee an opportunity, which we sought last week, again to discuss insurance and reinsurance.
Amendment No. 51ZA goes a little further than Amendment No. 51. It seeks to ensure that when the Secretary of State disposes of his interest in the privatised ISG, he will make a statement to Parliament,
"on the financial viability including reinsurance arrangements available, and the business plan of the purchaser".
It is simply a mechanism to try to ensure that the reinsurance plans are open and known to Parliament before the Secretary of State disposes of any securities in the privatised ISG.
I come back to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 in the name of the noble and learned Lord. The Committee will recall that when he spoke to those amendments on 9th July we had a short discussion. The Committee was happy to accept my suggestion that we should reserve the substantive analysis of the amendments until I moved my amendment today; we would then have had a week in which to consider whether the government amendments, which are slightly complex in their drafting, satisfied the Committee or whether we wanted something further.
At col. 1355 of the Official Report on 9th July, the noble and learned Lord said:
"Against the background of these assurances the Committee will not be surprised that I am able to say that the Government accept in principle the intent of my noble friends' new clause".
That was the expression used by the noble and learned Lord in respect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He later stated:
"The purpose of these amendments is to build an obligation into the Bill for the Secretary of State to determine whether there is a national interest case for him to use, by means of reinsurance, the powers in Clause I to provide assistance to encourage exports … I wish to point out that the amendment applies to all types of ECGD reinsurance and that there is no time limit".
As I understand those expressions used by the noble and learned Lord, the Government are prepared to see ECGD act as reinsurer of last resort on all classes of risk, not just political risk. He said:
"The amendment applies to all types of ECGD reinsurance".
In explanation the noble and learned Lord somewhat qualified what he had originally said about Amendment No. 52. He explained to us, quite rightly, that up to that point the Government had considered two types of assistance for market reinsurance. The first was what was described in another place and in this Chamber on Second Reading as the national interest: there would be certain political risks that were simply not acceptable to the market and the Government would ensure that ECGD stood behind those without qualification and without time limit.
Furthermore, he said that there was a second arrangement known as a top-up arrangement whereby for a period of three years the Government would ensure that ECGD became a member of the reinsurance syndicate that was going to reinsure ISG both for political risk and for commercial risk. For the moment I leave aside the anxiety that the three-year period has very little significance. A top-up facility might provide supportive capacity in value terms but it cannot do so in terms of the period. The commercial insurance market simply cannot go beyond three years on any one risk. Therefore the Government under the top-up scheme would be liable to find themselves topping up something that did not exist.
However, I believe on any reading of what the noble and learned Lord said—and I have quoted it —that the top-up scheme is no longer relevant. By saying that ECGD is and will be a reinsurer of last resort on all classes of ECGD risk, that implies to me that the top-up scheme is no longer required. According to my understanding of the noble and learned Lord's comments there will be a perpetual top-up scheme from ECGD.
I was confused by the noble and learned Lord's response to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Prior, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Jay. My noble friend put the matter most succinctly by asking:
"does the three-year limit disappear altogether from the Bill?" —[Official Report, 9/7/91; col. 1357.]
The noble and learned Lord said no, that was not the case. That reply threw me into confusion. If the government amendments are designed to reinsure all types of ECGD risk and there is no time limit, that must mean that the Government will stand as a reinsurer of last resort. They will be the last name on the slip—to use a technical expression—in the reinsurance treaty. If no one else is in the treaty, ECGD appears there on behalf of the Government. That must be the situation; I cannot see that it could be otherwise.
I shall wait to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say, but if that is so there are two consequences. The first is that the Government have conceded the case of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. We on this side of the Committee would welcome that, if my understanding of the noble and learned Lord's
116
comments is correct. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the conditions under which ISG is to be privatised have radically changed. When the bidding was originally opened it was clear that a number of UK insurance companies were interested. However, they dropped out of the bidding because they were worried—and they said so openly—about the political risk problem. If the Government have now sealed off that problem, it appears to me that the bidding must be reopened.
To support that case I shall quote from a letter that I received from the Secretary of State dated 1st July. I have placed a copy in the Library. He stated:
"If the Bill were to be amended in a way which substantially changed the nature of the business to he privatised, and/or its value, it would then of course be open to us to reconsider the sale arrangements and if appropriate arrange for a new Invitation to Tender to be issued".
In my reply I thanked the Secretary of State for his courtesy in letting me know the situation. I expressed my view, which I believe will be generally supported, that if the bid is amended in the way in which I hope, the value of the business will change materially and a new invitation to tender must then be issued. If I am right in my interpretation of the noble and learned Lord's amendments, that is the situation in which we now find ourselves. It may be of interest to the Committee to note that I have placed a copy of that correspondence in the Library and sent a copy to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee of another place.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will he able to clarify the slight confusion that remained after the end of our debate last Tuesday. It is in the spirit of trying to clear up that confusion, and not necessarily putting my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the face of the Bill, that I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: I support Amendment No. 51 on two grounds. First, it is quite clear and puts forward the straightforward proposition that:
"the Secretary of State shall ensure that political risk insurance, on terms and conditions comparable to that prevailing before the transfer, shall continue to be provided to UK exporters by the Export Credits Guarantee Department".
There can be no doubt about the meaning of the amendment. Secondly, it addresses a matter about which grave anxiety has been expressed; that is, the transfer of these responsibilities to the private sector. It is the view of' those who lead in the insurance business that political risk is not a matter that can be catered for by the private sector. I have in front of me an article written by one of the leading personalities in the European insurance business. Dr. Hans Kaufmann is the managing director of Swiss Re, one of the biggest companies in the business. At the end of the article he states:
"the political risk in the sector of private export credit insurance is not insurable and in any case not reinsurable".
It is clear that in the past the Export Credits Guarantee Department provided a service which no other sector could provide. The proposition is that it should continue to do so. Our anxiety is that, subject to what may be said later, the proposition put forward by the noble and learned Lord in the amendments

117
which are grouped with Amendment No. 51 is unclear in the light of the debate that we had in Committee last Tuesday.
Therefore, it is important for the benefit of the export industry in this country that we should know precisely where the Government stand on the issue. Are they prepared in one way or another to carry on political risk insurance or are they not? The wording is up to the Government; it depends how they interpret the proposal and how they explain it to us. Of the two main amendments that have been grouped together today I much prefer that with which I have associated myself which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I prefer it because it is clear and addresses the problem precisely. It covers the point about which we are all anxious, and I am surprised that the Government are not prepared to accept it. However, if they prefer their own amendment, a great deal of elucidation will be required on the part of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In speaking to the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Williams, effectively restricted himself to an analysis of what I said on a previous occasion. He indicated clearly his anxieties about the Government's position in respect of their two amendments. In supporting Amendment No. 51 the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, went further and argued more fully in its favour. In reply I shall deal first with Amendment No. 51.
I have no doubt that in tabling the amendment the noble. Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Ezra, shared a common objective with my noble friends Lord Trefgarne, Lord Prior and Lord Weir. That objective was reflected in Amendment No. 14 which was considered during the first day in Committee. When considering that amendment I invited the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 tabled in my name. I did so because, while I was prepared to accept what I believed to be the noble Lords' objective in proposing their new clause, it posed a number of legal and technical difficulties which my amendment sought to overcome. To a certain extent the same attitude applies to my approach to Amendment No. 51. However, it presents some additional problems which are greater and cannot be characterised simply as being legal and technical. Nevertheless, I hope that, having described the problems and explained more fully my Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, the noble Lords will be persuaded to withdraw their amendments and to support mine. I am mindful of the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, during our debate on Amendment No. 14—he was not here to draft amendments which could be written straight into the statute but was anxious to ensure that our shared objective was properly met within the statute.
I believe that this amendment fails to achieve what I understand to be its purpose because it is drawn too widely. By tackling all political risk insurance, rather than being provided under the intended reinsurance arrangements, the Secretary of State could probably satisfy the letter of the clause simply by making available under Clause 1 direct political risk insurance of the kind which ECGD will provide after
118
privatisation in respect of project exports. It creates no specific obligation in relation to post-privatisation reinsurance arrangements. I understand that the noble Lord is anxious that such arrangements should be made.
While I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to observe the spirit as well as the letter of the statute, I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that it should be drafted in a way which most accurately and effectively imposes such an obligation.
Also, in my view the amendment is unacceptable because it seeks to freeze the terms and conditions of cover as those prevailing immediately before privatisation. That cannot be right. I have made that point before but I believe there is a general recognition —and I am not conscious that anyone has departed from it—that the Secretary of State and ECGD must retain freedom to vary terms, conditions, prices and availability of cover in accordance with their perception of changes in the quality of risk. For example, if a development such as the recent Gulf crisis should occur, the Secretary of State and ECGD must be free to respond by altering the terms on which they are prepared to make cover available on the countries most immediately affected.
4 p.m.
Lord Ezra: Would not that have applied at any time? The amendment uses the word "comparable". We do not suggest that anything should be hard and fast but that account should be taken of the developing situation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My anxiety is that the position would be frozen. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he says; namely, that he accepts that flexibility must be given to the Secretary of State and to ECGD. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, indicates his agreement with that proposition. The Secretary of State and ECGD must be free to react to changes in the economic performance of overseas countries.
In proposing that this amendment, like Amendment No. 14, should be withdrawn in favour of Amendments Nos. 52 and 53, it may be helpful if I say more about those amendments and respond to some of the points made in the course of the debate on our first Committee day. I hope also to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in the course of today's debate.
Anxiety was expressed about the effect of my proposed amendments on the so-called top-up reinsurance facilities. On reflection I accept that I should have elaborated further in response to my noble friend Lord Prior when I sought to answer his anxieties.
I should explain that my amendments create a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to determine at appropriate intervals whether there is a national interest case for him to provide reinsurance to primary insurers. That obligation applies to all types of insurance. That was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, from what I said on the amendments last week and I repeat it. That obligation applies to all

119
types of insurance. Thus, the use of the phrase "expedient in the national interest"—and this may be where the confusion arose—does not restrict the obligation to the type of business which is to be handled under what we have been calling in a shorthand way the national interest reinsurance facility. It will apply to all classes of insurance and will, therefore, embrace the type of insurance to be reinsured by ECGD under the top-up arrangements. That is the statutory position.
The policy position remains as I told the Committee last week. The top-up reinsurance facility, as the Secretary of State has indicated, will be available for up to three years. Our confident expectation is that it will not be required beyond that period or indeed, as the way things are going at present, it will not be required for the fullness of that three-year period. However, if those confident expectations of the Secretary of State are misplaced —and that seems to be the ground for worry here—and the private market has failed to take over ECGD's top-up share of the new company's global reinsurance, my amendments create an obligation on the part of the Secretary of State to decide whether a national interest case exists for him to continue the facility.
He does not reach that judgment or decision wholly in isolation because the second amendment requires that he must consult the advisory council before reaching his decision. If he concludes that there is such a national interest case, the powers exist under Clause 1 to provide the reinsurance. In other words, none of those powers is time limited.
Another anxiety was that the amendment referred to "reinsuring persons providing insurance". I should explain that the intention is to impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to determine whether he should reinsure other insurers. Obviously we have in mind the privatised insurance services but the amendment does not restrict the obligation to insurance provided by that company alone. The Secretary of State already has the power to provide direct insurance in the national interest to exporters and banks under Clause 1 as I explained.
A further point was that the amendments say nothing about "reasonable terms". Amendment No. 14 used that expression in the context of requiring the Secretary of State to make reinsurance available, when he considered it to be in the national interest to do so, and in circumstances where such reinsurance was not otherwise available or not available on reasonable terms.
I do not believe it essential for such a concept to be included in the statute. When the Secretary of State is determining whether there is a national interest case for him to provide reinsurance, I am sure that one consideration will have to be whether the terms on which reinsurance is available from elsewhere—if it is available at all—are so onerous that they would place UK exporters at a significant competitive disadvantage. I do not see how the national interest can be judged without such an assessment being made, but I see no need for that to be specifically included in the Bill. Indeed, since there is no legal definition of
120
reasonableness in those circumstances, its inclusion would be ineffective because in the final analysis the Secretary of State must exercise his judgment about what is or is not reasonable.
I have been asked a number of further questions. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that ECGD always stood in the background as reinsurer of last resort for all classes of risk. The answer is that that is so, where the Secretary of State considers it in the national interest to do so. In such circumstances it would be reinsurance which could cover both commercial and political risks.
I hope that I have fully explained the situation as regards the top-up reinsurance. There is already a policy commitment which continues beyond that period, as I have said on a number of occasions.
Finally, the noble Lord was anxious that the terms and conditions of sale may have been so significantly changed by the Government that the matter should go out to tender in order to allow fresh opportunities for others. The terms on which reinsurance is likely to be available to the preferred purchaser have not changed throughout the sale process. The terms and conditions of the privatisation, and of the tenders submitted to the Secretary of State, reflect that position.
This is undoubtedly the most important amendment and it has attracted a great deal of interest on all sides of the Committee. Having had the opportunity to expand on the points which appear to me to give rise to concern, I hope that I have been able to answer those points. Also I hope that it is appreciated that the top-up reinsurance could be covered beyond three years if it was deemed to be in the national interest by the Secretary of State.
Lord Jay: I must confess that I am still a little puzzled by the Minister's explanation. That may be my fault. We agree that if the government amendments contain the appropriate proposals, the Government are far more capable of drafting them correctly than anyone else in the Chamber. But the Committee wants to know whether, under the Minister's proposals, through the ECGD the Government will have powers to provide political risk insurance in all cases and without any time limit.
I thought that that was what the Minister said. If so, I do not understand why the shadow of the three-year time limit must remain in the Bill. The Minister appeared to be saying that after three years the Secretary of State will stop and think and may then decide to do one thing or another. Why is that time limit necessary? An efficient department is capable of thinking all the time, and if it was necessary to vary arrangements later, it would be free to do so. The industry and exporters, the most important elements in all this, would know that the situation is clear and that in the future as in the past there will be in the last resort government cover for political risks that cannot be covered by commercial insurance. Can the Minister say without qualification whether that is so? If it is so, perhaps he will explain the need for this three-year stopping point.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I can pick up the language used by the noble Lord when he said, "stop

121
and think". I am saying that the Secretary of State indicated that in the first three years he will not stop and think because he has already committed himself to ensuring that such top-up cover will be provided when necessary. From the moment the Bill goes through there will be a continuing obligation upon him to,
"from time to time determine, in relation to such classes of risk determined by him as might be insured by him under section 1 of this Act, whether it is expedient in the national interest for him to exercise his powers under that section".
That is all I am indicating by reference to the three-year undertaking given by the Minister of State in another place. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by that explanation. There is nothing sinister in it. I do not want to seem to be retreating from any commitment given by the Minister of State.
Lard Trefgarne: I speak for myself in this matter. My noble friends Lord Prior and Lord Weir, and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, who added their names to my amendment, will speak for themselves if they see fit. From my point of view, my noble and learned friend has gone as far as he could reasonably have been expected to go, and I am grateful for that.
If my noble and learned friend's amendments are accepted, as I hope they will be, the Bill will be greatly improved and will broadly cover the anxieties I expressed to your Lordships both at Second Reading and at the first Committee stage. My sentiment in that regard is reinforced by the second amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend regarding the need for the Secretary of State to consult the relevant advisory committee. I have no doubt that that committee, consisting as it does of important, competent and distinguished people in the exporting world, will not hesitate to give my right honourable friend—if he is still the Secretary of State when the time comes—the most cogent advice that it thinks necessary.
I am greatly obliged to my noble and learned friend for the amendments he has tabled. I shall support them I am not in favour of Amendment No. 51 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which suffers from some important defects. I recognise that the noble Lord's heart was in the right place when he tabled his amendments. I am sorry that they were not as erective as they might have been. I prefer the solution of my noble and learned friend and hope that the Committee do likewise.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Prior: I rather like the Opposition amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made only one mistake. The amendment to which he spoke is written in plain English. We have all come to understand that nothing written in plain English is ever acceptable to parliamentary draftsmen. Therefore, to that extent, it is unacceptable. On the other hand, I am told that the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend, which I find extremely difficult to understand, meets all the objections contained in the amendment tabled by my noble friend and others. It is therefore acceptable.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for tabling his amendment. It meets both the political risk
122
and top-up problems which were two areas of anxiety. The words spoken by my noble and learned friend this afternoon give us the satisfaction that we require. I am grateful to him and I shall support his amendment.
I add only one other comment. As a fairly recent Member of your Lordships' House, I believe that this debate again justifies the work that this Chamber performs. A sensible amendment was proposed. The Government accepted that there was a case to answer. The matter is of great importance to exporters, manufacturing industry and business generally in this country. If we did not have a second Chamber that would not have been possible. Once again the House of Lords has done its job very well.
Lord Ezra: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, concludes, perhaps I may ask for a little further elucidation. With regard to the top-up, which is firm for three years, is my understanding correct that, subject to the Secretary of State thinking it in the national interest, it could be continued for an indefinite period beyond? I hope that is a correct interpretation.
Secondly, with regard to the political risk reinsurance, presumably that would be available subject to the Secretary of State considering it to be in the national interest after suitable consultation, but that it is widened to include commercial risk as well. In that respect it goes somewhat further than the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and myself. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether that is a correct interpretation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is an admirable and succinct summary of the amendments that I tabled.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I could press the noble and learned Lord following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. If it is the case, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the Secretary of State does not have to stop and think for three years, is the implication that the top-up insurance is automatic without regard to national interest or anything? Is that what the Minister said? In that case, it would seem to be odd for there to be a distinction between the three-year period, which to my mind means nothing, and the subsequent period where the national interest in some curious manner is taken into account in the Secretary of State's decision.
Furthermore, perhaps I could press the Minister regarding the words "reasonable" and "expedient". We must assume—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will encourage me in this assumption —that those words were used by the parliamentary draftsman to make the amendment acceptable in parliamentary language. We are saying that the Secretary of State will encourage exporters; he will stand behind reinsurance of any risk that the market will not reinsure but that he must have some kind of let-out, with which I agree, and that is the reason it is drafted in that way. Essentially it means that the ECGD will be the reinsurer of last resort at all times unless the Secretary of State can make a grave exception. Am I right in that assumption?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Secretary of State does not need to stop and think during the three-year period. He has given the undertaking that if necessary top-up cover will be provided. I sought to add words of explanation and not, I hope, words of confusion that in fact the arrangements that have been made thus far to provide reinsurance within the private markets, have been very successful. While he has given that commitment, the expectation is that he will not have to deliver on it because it will all have been provided for in the private market.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does that include the political risk element of the insurance treaty?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, and that is what I am talking about. The noble Lord is seeking to confuse me. I made it clear from Second Reading onwards that in dealing with these matters there is the political risk in countries where there is no prospect whatever of reinsurance. However, in the area of the top-up, it is anticipated that if it is not entirely covered the risk will be almost entirely covered. The noble Lord is looking anxious.
Lord Williams of Elvel: As I understand it, what used to be called the "national interest reinsurance" is for countries where political risk cover is simply not available at any price. But within the main reinsurance treaty to which the top-up applies, there is an element of political risk which can be covered normally by the market, assuming that the market has the capacity to do so. But there is still a political risk element. I was asking the noble and learned Lord to assure me that the top-up and the subsequent arrangement applied to the major reinsurance treaty.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That is correct. Somewhere we found ourselves at cross purposes. I believe that the final question I was asked related to the phraseology in the original Amendment No. 14 and that something should be said about reasonable terms. I ask the noble Lord to look to my words when I answered immediately during the debate. I made it clear that I would certainly envisage that situation in circumstances where the Secretary of State had to decide whether it is expedient and in the national interest to ensure that such reinsurance is available. Clearly he does not just have to have regard to whether such cover is available. It is a necessary part of the assessment that he looks to see the terms on which such reinsurance cover might be obtained.
As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne rightly points out, where such a matter was under consideration, I have no doubt whatever that the advisory council—which he rightly says is made up of some very distinguished people in the field of exports—would be making it very clear to the Secretary of State whether the terms available in the market were reasonable or not.
Lord Trefgarne: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend. Perhaps I may ask him one other point. I hope that his words about my right honourable friend not having to stop and think for at least three years will not come back to haunt him. Be that as it
124
may, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to a letter which he had received from my right honourable friend concerning my right honourable friend's willingness to re-open the lists as regards the bidding. We know now that the Report stage of the Bill cannot be held until the overspill Session of this Parliament. A number of us have expressed some concern about the thinness of the list—I put it in no other terms. It would be nice if more British firms expressed a firmer interest. It may be that, as a result of the amendments which my noble and learned friend has tabled and to which I hope the Committee will agree, other British firms will then become interested. Therefore, can my noble and learned friend say whether my right honourable friend is now willing to re-open the lists, and if not, why not?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I indicated at the outset, the terms on which reinsurance is likely to be available to the preferred purchaser have not changed throughout the sale process. The terms and conditions of the privatisation and of the tenders submitted to the Secretary of State reflect that position. My noble friend is correct in that the remaining stages of the Bill cannot be considered until the spill-over period of this Session. I cannot indicate to him that I envisage that the process will be re-opened. As he appreciates, we are not at the stage of a concluded contract. The Secretary of State has indicated that he has a preferred purchaser.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Like the noble Lord, Lord Prior, I too prefer the wording of Amendment No. 51 which seems to be entirely straightforward. I am delighted that the Government have reacted to the very considerable concern expressed at Second Reading by speakers in all parts of the House. In my experience I cannot recall a debate on a major government Bill where there was no support of any kind for particular legislation apart from that given by the Minister. It is a tribute to the Chamber, and its ability to influence legislation to some extent, that the new Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are available.
As regards the discussions with industry—particularly with the heavy engineering side which is engaged in the export business and which is finding it extremely difficult —there is universal welcome for the amendment proposed by the Government. I certainly support it. I was not quite sure of the reply, but that is entirely my fault. I confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, concerning the fact that this amendment is a very important one. It might change the attractiveness of the privatisation to some of the people who looked at it in the first instance and who decided that they could not take it on their books. The consequence was that the number of bidders fell to two, both of them being foreign.
As this is such a fundamental amendment affecting the risks in export credit insurance, I am not sure whether the Minister will now look again at giving British companies and others the opportunity of bidding for what is an entirely different product from that which was offered in the first instance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord who has striven to explain as carefully as he can the government amendments. I am sure that he recognises that they are rather complicated in their drafting. I believe that we can now be quite clear that the Government have done what they said they were going to do, and that is to accept the spirit of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and to put it into proper parliamentary language.
I still have some residual difficulties as regards Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. The noble and learned Lord quite rightly said that the Report stage will take place during the spill-over Session. At that time I may seek to persuade your Lordships that the amendments can be tightened up. At this stage I do not intend to oppose Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 when they are moved.
However, I make clear to the noble and learned Lord. if I have not done so before, that I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that these amendments change fundamentally the value of the business that is going to be sold. But without any guarantee on political risk reinsurance or continued top-up reinsurance after a three-year period, the business had a value significantly less than the value of the business at the moment. I urge the Government in their Own interests to reconsider the decision not to go out to tender again. I believe that if they do not accept our advice they will find themselves in very considerable difficulty. However, I can do no more than warn the Government of that problem and, like the "stop and think" expression, it will come back to haunt them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51A:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("Such a certificate shall be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and no scheme shall be made until written approval of the certificate has been issued by that body".).
The noble Lord said: This is one of a number of amendments designed to inject greater transparency into these issues than perhaps otherwise would be the case. The intention behind this particular amendment is to permit a proper audit to be undertaken and published before the sale of ISG takes place to a private buyer. Through the National Audit Office the public will become aware of the profit involved in the sale and of precisely what is to be sold or has been sold. The point is that the public will determine whether, out of the privatisation measure, value for money is obtained. Another important point to which we shill be adverting later in a number of amendments —and which my noble friend will also be pursuing on clause stand part—is the whole question of sweeteners. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to this point. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): The invitation to tender already provides considerable detail on the scope of the property, rights and liabilities involved in the sale. This will be further developed in detailed negotiations with NCM. As part of the transfer process the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may issue a certificate to clarify the scope of the business to be sold. This would be issued to complement the contractual arrangements, following discussion with NCM and its advisers and in light of the advice of the Government's professional advisers, who include accountants and solicitors. Scrutiny by the National Audit Office would not be appropriate since it would effectively make it part of the executive process and would potentially prejudice its subsequent position as auditors. The National Audit Office would be free to examine the certificate, and the basis on which it had been prepared, at a later date.
In any event, and in accordance with normal practice, the Comptroller and Auditor-General has already advised ECGD that the NAO plans to examine the privatisation of insurance services and to conduct a value-for-money study on the privatisation. I hope with that assurance and that brief explanation the noble Lord will accept this amendment is, if not redundant, unnecessary.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have listened to what the noble Lord has said. I shall consider his words very carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51B:
Page 5, line 27, after ("scheme") insert ("hut no day shall be specified unless that day has been agreed following consultation with the relevant trade and exporting organisations and the accredited representatives of the employees' trades unions".).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that ISG is not transferred into the private sector until exporters and ISG's trade union members are confident that their needs will be met by the privatised company.
One of the difficulties about Clause 8 as it stands is that the powers which are accorded to the Secretary of State are extremely wide and in some respects rather vague. When it comes to interpretation—possibly by the courts—that gives rise to some difficulty. Yet despite that fact, the Secretary of State could introduce these undefined provisions without reference to Parliament, or to trade and exporting organisations, or their staff and their trade unions. Subsection (5) states:
"A scheme under this section may contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient".
What would be deemed to be expedient? What does that mean in law? How does the Minister envisage its interpretation? We on these Benches are seeking to make the point that the wider and more vague these provisions are, the more important it is that a

127
consultation procedure should be built into the Bill along the lines that we are suggesting. Quite apart from whether the Secretary of State should be under a duty to consult, consultation in itself can be positively advantageous. Ministers in this and another place have asserted that the consultation procedures have been satisfactory. However, that is not the view of the people who are entitled to be consulted. Therefore, we say that consultation is a critically important element in running an enterprise successfully quite apart from the obligations that we seek to impose.
Listening has not always been a faculty perceived to be important by this Government. However, they need to be able to listen to customers and employees in order to ensure that they maximise good will and efficiency and indeed help to avoid errors. We are dealing with a staff that is singularly experienced in this field; it is certainly able to proffer useful advice —advice that in some respects it might be folly to ignore. Nobody has ever disputed the fact that they are an extremely loyal and hard working staff. Yet they are deeply worried that although the Government say they are proposing to effect the transfer of staff to the government company on a voluntary basis, there is a distinct possibility—even a probability—that insufficient numbers of staff would he prepared to volunteer. The Government accordingly may have to resort to coercion. Therefore, a commitment to meaningful consultation might help to dissipate those very real anxieties. I simply cannot understand why it should not be conceded to be on the face of the Bill.
On 5th March the Minister of State argued in Committee in another place (at col. 191 of the Official Report) that Clause 8, and subsection (5) in particular, were merely technical issues. I am not prepared to accept that that is the case. The onus is on the Minister to divulge to the House what are the issues to be considered here and in particular under subsection (5).
Having regard to all those circumstances, we think it appropriate that a provision of the kind we envisage should be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In our view it would not be appropriate or necessary to have a further round of consultation before setting the day for the scheme to come into effect. I should explain that the scheme provides the structure for implementing the sale and privatisation. It will not specify those detailed aspects of the process of which consultation involving the trade unions might be appropriate.
Since the outset of discussions leading to the proposal for privatisation, ECGD has been careful to involve and consult interested parties including the staff, their trades unions and relevant exporting associations.
Before the decision to privatise was taken, both Mr. Kemp (during his review) and the inter-departmental working group of officials set up to study the options in the Kemp Report invited and received comments from all interested parties, including the trades unions.
Major exporters and exporting organisations submitted their views to the Select Committee when it
128
examined the future of ECGD, and numerous written representations have been taken into account. The trades unions also submitted evidence to the Select Committee through the Council of Civil Service Unions.
Since the intention to privatise Insurance Services was announced on 18th December 1989, the trades unions have been kept informed of developments and have had numerous occasions for making their views known to ECGD's management at meetings of the departmental Whitley Committee and its subcommittees, including a special sub-committee relating to privatisation issues. That committee meets monthly.
They have also had meetings from time to time with management and with the chairmen of various sub-committees dealing with particular aspects of the privatisation. Topics covered include personnel records and preliminary staff projections for the new company as well as the proposed organisation of ECGD post-privatisation. Also, as I think the noble Lord will appreciate, the ECGD trade unions will continue to be fully consulted, as required by the TUPE provisions. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment. He addressed specific remarks to possible redundancies. As I understand the matter, there are amendments down for discussion later in Committee. So, if he does not mind, I shall not address myself to them at this stage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have listened with care to what the noble and learned Lord said and, if the position as regards consultations was quite as roseate as he has suggested, one would have thought that anxieties would not have been raised with us and other Members of your Lordships' House about the way in which the consultations have been undertaken. The conclusion I have been advised to draw is that they have been less than satisfactory: otherwise we would not have come forward with these propositions. I do not think any words that have been uttered by the noble and learned Lord this afternoon will have assuaged those anxieties.
He is quite right: we shall be coming to questions of redundancy at a later stage. However, they are germane to this particular point because nothing could be more appropriate in dealing with the anxieties that have been expressed, which go to the very heart of people's problems about whether they are going to be redundant or not together with the basis of their employment in the future. These matters have not been in any sense satisfied by the scope of the discussions that have taken place. They have been kept informed, yes, but there is a world of difference between people being kept informed and having opportunities to present views in writing and having the opportunity to engage in wholehearted discussions and consultations with the people who are making the decisions. We do not think this has actually taken place.
We are dealing here—I do not think the Minister has ever suggested otherwise—with very loyal and hardworking staff. I would ask the Minister to look again at the procedures which have taken place to see

129
whether they might be improved so that the anxieties to which I have alluded may be allayed. I will not press the matter to a vote but I would ask the Minister to reply to that point before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I should be grateful if the noble Lord would consider what I have said in responding to him immediately. What is of concern, it seems to me, is to understand what this scheme is. Obviously there will continue to be consultations, but the idea that it is the preparation of the scheme that is the crucial step for consultation seems to me, if I may say so to the noble Lord, to be misplaced. However, I hope he will be reassured that there will be continuing consultation both before and after the scheme's preparation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I will confer with those who have Invited my noble friends and me to put down this amendment, and I will see what is their reaction to what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51C:
Page 5, line 27, after ("scheme") insert ("but no day shall he specified until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament, for approval by both Houses of Parliament, a report on the proposed operation of that scheme including the name of any transferee and the arrangements proposed by that transferee for the future operation of any property, rights and liabilities transferred to him.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The amendment provides for parliamentary accountability for the sale of ISG to a private buyer. It will ensure that parliamentary scrutiny of the accepted bid and the future business plan for the privatised ISG will take place. It may also have the effect of creating greater transparency as regards any possibility of "sweeteners" being offered to induce the buyers to complete the purchase. There have been a number of occasions in the past when the Government have been in the business of offering bags of saccharine and "Sweet 'n Low" to all sorts of people. It is right that there should be maximum transparency as regards such issues, and that has not always been the order of the day. It should not be a matter that is left simply to probing by the Opposition or by sections of the media to ascertain whether in fact sweeteners have been used. We are saying that here is another possible opportunity for introducing greater transparency. The amendment would facilitate that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The areas identified in the proposed amendment have naturally been of key concern to the Secretary of State in his assessment of responses to the invitation to tender. In selecting the preferred purchaser, the Secretary of State has been satisfied that NCM, which is one of the largest private credit insurers in the world, is committed to the business as well as to its development into other areas such is domestic credit insurance, to the benefit of United Kingdom companies.
130
The Secretary of State has also taken into account the financial robustness of the proposals and it is significant that NCM is prepared to buy ISG and to operate it as a business in the private sector broadly on the basis proposed in the invitation to tender. The establishment of adequate reinsurance arrangements will of course be a matter of primary concern both to the Government and to the purchaser.
It is intended that further information about NCM and its plans for the business, together with details of the proposed terms and conditions of employment, will be provided to ECGD staff. As with the previous similar information, copies of this further written information will be made available to Parliament, through copies being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The noble Lord seems particularly concerned that there might be provided by Government what he described in a colloquial way as "sweeteners". I have to say to the noble Lord there is no question of that. The sale price and the sale process have been fully commercial, and value for money will be achieved. I should also say to the noble Lord that in any event the National Audit Office has already indicated that it will be conducting its audit during 1992–93, so, if that is his primary concern, I hope he will accept my assurance on the point. However, if that is not enough for him he will at least know that the matter will be examined by the NAO in due course.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for indicating that further information is to be provided for staff and for others also by NCM, if indeed NCM is to be permitted to proceed alone. Perhaps the Minister can indicate when it is intended that information should be available, both externally and within this Chamber.
So far as sweeteners are concerned, I know of no situation where the Government have voluntarily conceded that sweeteners are going to be permitted or made available, so I do not find the information given by the noble and learned Lord in that regard in any sense satisfactory. I accept it from him, of course, but then he is not the Minister primarily concerned. Perhaps the Minister will indicate his answers to the specific points that I have just raised.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I regret that I do not think I can give him any specific date for the provision of this information. Had we been able to proceed with this Bill as I had wanted, it might have received the Royal Assent before your Lordships rose for the Summer Recess and I think I would have been able to have given him a more precise and definite answer. However, he will appreciate that the Secretary of State has indicated his preferred purchaser and in those circumstances discussion and negotiation continue. I hope the noble Lord will take it from me that, although I cannot give him a precise time or date, my original assurance stands and, when it is available and appropriate, the information I have indicated will be made available. It will not only be made available to ECGD staff but will also be placed in the Libraries.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I shall simply conclude on the following note. When the noble and learned Lord refers to NCM being committed to the benefit of United Kingdom companies, and so on, one has to say that UK companies remain deeply worried. They are deeply worried that NCM appears to be the favoured company so far as concerns the Government. The noble and learned Lord will know that from the various reports which have appeared in the press.
As regards exporters, my understanding is that they have not been consulted or approached in any way. I should have thought that it would have been timely for some discussions to have taken place up to the present time. However, I have taken note of the Minister's remarks. I shall further consider the matter with my noble friend in due course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51D:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("(5A) A scheme under this section shall contain a provision that the government shall retain control of the Insurance Services Group for a period of not less than three years and during that period no private capital shall be introduced.").
The noble Lord said: When the Kemp Review made its recommendations that ECGD's insurance service business should be turned into a government-owned company with a minimum lifespan of three years, it did so for three reasons. Those three reasons were essentially as follows. First, that a three-year period would permit the company to establish a market identity and a trading record, in preparation for the eventual introduction of private capital. Secondly, it would also have the advantage of retaining some flexibility for the Government in the event of any new European Community legislation in the area of export credits emerging. Thirdly, it would reduce the amount of capital the Government would have to inject into the privatised company because the government company's profits during its three years of existence could be used as start up capital for the private company.
Existing European Community legislation on official export credit insurance—and by the word "official" I mean state backed—does not prohibit the ECGD from providing insurance for United Kingdom exporters which are exporting to other European Community markets. If new legislation were to be introduced to prohibit such insurance, or if the restrictions under Article 92 of the treaty were to be interpreted in relation to official export credit insurance in a way that has not been envisaged up until now, then official export credit insurers like ECGD would have—as is the case with existing single market legislation—sufficient time in which to adjust to the necessary extent. They would probably have two or three years in which to do so. I made that point on Second Reading. I do not know whether those words are imprinted on the noble and learned Lord's mind. I see that he is nodding his head in assent. I am stupefied that he has done so. However, I am glad that they made their mark.
Bearing the results of that situation in mind, I believe that it is unnecessary at this particular juncture to push ahead with full privatisation of ISG so far as concerns European Community legislation. If it were to be changed to a government-owned company, the Government could continue to provide full, but not as direct as present, backing for United Kingdom exporters while retaining flexibility to effect a full privatisation if—and I emphasise the word "if—any new EC legislation in this particular area were to arise.
The question of increased competition for ISG's services to United Kingdom exporters from other EC export credit insurers is somewhat different. As from 1st July 1990—that being the date when the second non-life insurance directive came into force—European Community insurers have been able to provide insurance for exporters in one member state in the Community without needing to have a representative or branch office in that member state.
On the other hand, it is true that some state-backed credit insurers, notably Coface in France, have had offices in the United Kingdom for many years without causing any impact on ECGD. But the directive has certainly forced the pace of change. It has meant that ISG could face greater competition for its services. However, that has not yet happened. Nonetheless, it is a factor that must be taken into account because its future viability could be threatened and it would be unable to counter the situation. That is because the Act under which the ECGD operates relates only to United Kingdom exporters. The Government are very unlikely, in any event, to agree to a change of the Act to allow the ECGD to insure exports from other European Community countries and so compete on an equal basis with other credit insurers within the Community. Although such other Community business would probably be profitable, the insurance provided for it by the Government would be regarded as an additional contingent liability.
It must be the case that a government-owned company could provide such a service. Indeed, as it is currently constituted, ISG could provide export credit insurance for other European Community exporters just as easily as a privatised ISG. Such insurance could be provided under a separate account operated on a strictly commercial basis. We believe that this is a relevant amendment. We hope that it meets with the Government's approval. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord was surprised that I recollected what he said on Second Reading about the possibility of some future legal challenge within the European Community. I do indeed recollect what he said. However, where we part company is that I continue to argue that there appears to us to be a problem of a possible future legal challenge to official credit insurance support for exports to the EC and OECD countries. It is possible that a government-owned company which differed from a private sector insurer, only to the extent that its capital was provided by government, would be proof against such challenge. Nevertheless, there has been an element of doubt about this which certainly does not arise in the event of privatisation.

133
I should like to make clear to the noble Lord the fact that that is not the primary reason for undertaking this approach to privatisation. We are concerned to provide a permanent solution to meet the real problems which currently face the organisation. The most serious of these is the need for the Insurance Services Group to remain competitive as the pressures arising from the creation of the single market increase. Failure here would be serious for both the organisation and its important customers; namely, the British exporters.
For it to compete fully, we would have to create a company which was free both to conduct domestic credit insurance in the United Kingdom and to provide credit insurance of other countries' exports. The first of these is an area which is fully commercial and the private sector is perfectly able to give industry the service it needs. It may be an acceptable approach to the noble Lord, but it will come as no surprise to him if I say that it would seem to me to be extremely difficult to justify creating a new public sector player in this field with the consequence that we were rolling forward the frontiers of the state rather than causing them to retreat.
I accept that there was a recommendation in the Kemp Report that such a government company status should be provided for and that it should be regarded as a stepping stone towards an eventual privatisation. Mr. Kemp saw the need for insurance services to operate as a government-owned company for at least three years in order that it could acquire reinsurance backing and a track record for profitable trading so that it could then be sold. But since he wrote that report discussions with the reinsurance market and advice from the Government's financial advisers have shown such a delay to be unnecessary and early privatisation to be a real possibility.
There is a further argument which I invite the noble Lord to contemplate very carefully indeed. He referred to the quality and calibre of the staff employed by ECGD. I wholeheartedly accept all that he had to say about that. But if we are to embark on the process of privatisation, an interim government company stage might prove to be particularly unsettling for the insurance services staff and customers. Under the one-step privatisation, the staff will have the opportunity to assess the new owner and the employment terms he is offering. They will then be able to express their preference for joining the new company or remaining in the Civil Service. Under the two-stage process, they would not know at the time of expressing their preference—in this instance, between the government company and the Civil Service—who their eventual employer would be. Such uncertainty might well mean that they would be less willing voluntarily to choose to join the new company than would be the case under the one-step route. I understand the apprehension that the staff may feel about a major change which lies before them, but I am confident that the way in which the process will be managed will provide the reassurance they need. That would be less easy to achieve under a two-stage approach and is a further reason for avoiding it.
134
To sum up, the Government do not accept that a case exists for establishing a government company in preference to a private sector solution. More importantly, as a permanent arrangement, it fails adequately to meet the real challenges and creates problems of its own; and as a temporary expedient it is simply unnecessary. We now have a preferred purchaser. In concluding his remarks on a previous amendment the noble Lord indicated that there had been some criticism of NCM. I would say that was not a wholly universal response. If he looked to see who commented on it he would find that a number of individuals indicated support for the Secretary of State's choice of a preferred purchaser. The deputy chairman of the British Exports Association said that the choice was excellent.
5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall put the question back to the noble and learned Lord. Is he suggesting that the choice is universally popular? He knows that the criticism has far outweighed—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I certainly do not accept that that is the position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the choice lay between two bidders, one Dutch and the other Italian?
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am perfectly prepared for the noble and learned Lord to answer that question.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not used to this system. I thought that I had intervened during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has now intervened in my intervention. That is at least unconventional and I am surprised that it is permitted.
An objective assessment was made of the Secretary of State's choice. I invite the noble Lord to look at what public comments have been made. A number of individuals have commented, including the one to whom I referred who regarded the choice as excellent. Whether there were 100 or two such comments is neither here nor there. The individual to whom I referred said that the choice was excellent. I stand by that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are in Committee and we are allowed to speak whenever we feel it appropriate. Members of the Committee can say at any stage what they feel they have to say. NCM is a perfectly respectable organisation. There is no doubt about that. However, in the end, the bidding came down to two companies, one Italian and the other Dutch. I come back to what I said in regard to an earlier amendment. With the amendments that the Government are about to move, the bidding should be reopened as the whole nature of the transaction has changed. That is the point which my noble friend was trying to make.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am sorry that the noble Lord should feel that his noble friend cannot answer the points that I am making as we deal with this amendment. From my previous experience, the noble

135
Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is more than able to hold his own. I have indicated that the objective assessment of the preferred purchaser was excellent. It is not just that it is a well known company. The decision was considered to be an excellent one. In the debate on an earlier amendment the noble Lord indicated that there had been no support for that. I wanted to set the record straight. The British Exports Association, which is actively involved in exporting from this country, described the Secretary of State's choice as excellent.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, I did not say that at all. I said that the Minister was seeking to suggest that the choice was universally popular. I am saying that substantial criticisms were launched. The Minister knows that only too well. Criticisms have been made in this Chamber. Those do not in any sense impugn the probity of NCM. One does not have to do that. We believe that the way in which the process has developed is less than satisfactory. That is why my noble friend has suggested that the process should perhaps be reopened. I fully support him in that.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the problem of an official legal challenge. I really do think that he has not begun to answer the points that were made previously and indeed today about the imminent effect of that. He will know only too well that the process undertaken by the Commission in relation to such matters in terms of changing the law will take a considerable period of time. There would be a substantial running-in period before any new law could take effect. The challenge in the courts is materialising but the fact remains that even then the judgment of the European Court of Justice would have to be carefully considered by the Commission. There is therefore no case for asserting that there is an imminent requirement for change. That is what the Minister sought to suggest on that point.
The Minister then went on to another point because he was defeated on that point. He referred to the merits.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We shall progress a little more speedily and expeditiously if the noble Lord takes on board my points. I made it quite clear in seeking to answer his point that, whether I am right or wrong in the matter, that has never been put forward as the primary reason for privatisation. I appreciate that the noble Lord does not think that the primary reason I indicated for trying to bring the arrangements up to date is a particularly good one. Be that as it may, it is only fair and correct as regards the Government's position that he orders the priorities in the way that I have made it clear to the Committee they stand.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. I have read the Committee and Report stage proceedings in another place. I have seen Ministers' responses. They have never gone quite so far as the noble and learned Lord has just gone. He says that he may be right or he may be wrong. I think he is wrong, but I concede at once
136
that the main point behind the Government's proposal is a political one. It is not based upon the legal propositions that have hitherto been defended.
The Minister suggests that somehow in the period since Kemp reported the recommendation for a government-owned company with a minimum lifespan of three years has become redundant. I see absolutely no evidence for that suggestion. Then he comes to the point that the staff would find the establishment of a government-owned company extremely unsettling. They would be full of apprehension about the consequences. We have gone to some trouble to undertake consultations within the limited possibilities that are open to us. I readily agree that we cannot consult everyone; we do not have the facilities. However, within the constraints there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the staff have formed that degree of apprehension or have that feeling at all. Had proper consultations been carried out, perhaps the Government would have learnt more of the view of the staff.
We believe that the Government have not answered these points. However, I shall consider with care what the Minister said, and meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis: moved Amendment No. 51E:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("(5A) A scheme under this section shall make provision to ensure that any transferee as specified in subsection (7) below shall operate to encourage, directly or indirectly, supplies by persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of goods or services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51E in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams. I keep almost referring to him as "learned"; indeed he is learned in the colloquial sense. It would be for the convenience of the Committee if we also considered Amendment No. 51Z.
Under the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978, a statutory duty is imposed on the ECGD to encourage United Kingdom trade by the provision of insurance and insurance-related export support facilities for exporters from this country. A privatised insurance services company would have a somewhat different motivation. Its paramount concern would be to maximise profit for its shareholders. I am not in any sense joining issue over profit-making being desirable in the private sector—of course it is. But there are other important considerations in this area of policy. There is a risk that the private company would reject export business which it considers to be somewhat too risky. On the other hand, or in conjunction with that, it may increase premium charges to exporters for engaging in such business.
The difficulty about that is that short-term export credit insurance would conceivably not be available for a number of overseas markets. It is equally conceivable that export premium costs could become prohibitive, with the result that exporters, particularly the smaller ones, may be in a position where they felt themselves unable to undertake export orders.

137
However, their overseas competitors would be able to do so because satisfactory support had been made available to them through their governments. Frankly, it is a case of the level playing field gone mad. The 'Government are busy levelling the playing field well in advance of everyone else. I do not believe that it will be to the advantage of our exporters, particularly the smaller ones.
In moving the amendment, I ask the Government whether they take the view that the United Kingdom's economic recovery can safely be left to private institutions which are not committed to encouraging exports. Another question I ask is whether any statements or pledges given to the Government by the purchaser in respect, for example, of the future development of the insurance services business are in any way legally binding on the purchaser.
Those are important considerations, but even more important is the matter of the smaller exporter, to which I have already referred. It would be a serious state of affairs if the conjecture—because it can only be cc njecture—were to be translated into reality. It would be a blow to our export trade and to many businesses. The Minister too can only engage in conjecture because there is no hard evidence at this point. Thus it would be much more prudent of the Government to move more cautiously than they have opted to do so far.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before my noble and learned friend replies, I wish to intervene, if only to break the silence from this side of the Committee. I have not been deafened by the applause in the ranks of British industry for the Bill. I am still puzzled by the question to which I do not believe my noble and learned friend gave an answer just now. Can he tell us today that his right honourable friend is wholly satisfied with the range of choice of purchaser available to him, or is he ever so slightly disappointed?
Amendment No. 51Z seems to me to be a fairly mode it requirement to impose upon the Government. I have never looked with great favour upon legislation which enables governments to take actions without some idea of what they are doing. For that reason, I hope that when my noble and learned friend replies on the amendment he will be able to say something to the effect that Parliament will be informed at a later stage of the Bill, before matters have progressed too far. The requirement contained in the amendment is modest.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to my noble friend for joining this otherwise somewhat endless duologue. I can say no more than that the Secretary of State invited a number of companies to tender. At the end of the day it is true that there were only two. One has been selected by him at this stage to be a preferred purchaser. My noble friend will appreciate that as yet there is no concluded contract, for obvious reasons. No contract could be concluded to privatise this part of ECGD until the Bill has reached the statute book. The answer is yes, the Secretary of State is satisfied with the preferred purchaser that he has secured.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Will my noble and learned friend allow me to intervene? I asked whether he was satisfied with the range of choice that he had had or whether he was ever so slightly disappointed.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not know whether my right honourable friend was ever so slightly disappointed. A number of companies approached him. If the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, were to try to sell his house for example, irrespective of how many prospective purchasers appear on the scene, the essential point is that the noble Lord should obtain a satisfactory purchaser. Although the Government have not yet reached a contractually agreed stage in this matter—and cannot yet do so—the preferred purchaser who has been selected by the Secretary of State meets with the latter's approval. That has been indicated in Written Answers both in this Chamber and in another place. My noble friend has said that he is not conscious of overwhelming support for this Bill or for NCM. However, I am sure he will have detected a suppressed xenophobia in some of the comments that have been made.
The commitment to ISG's business and to its existing customers has been a key factor in selecting the Government's preferred purchaser for ISG. NCM has stated publicly that, with its support, ISG in its privatised form will be able to strengthen further the range and quality of services it provides to UK companies. It would be quite inappropriate for the new company to be encumbered with statutory obligations which apply to none of its competitors.
In order to meet the competition, the company will be strongly motivated to provide the best possible quality of service to its customers. Privatisation will be good for exporters and other UK companies because they will be able to obtain combined export and domestic credit insurance, better service, greater flexibility and the ability to insure foreign subsidiaries, among other matters.
The interests of UK companies will, of course, continue to be protected by the continuance of ECGD, which is to remain a government department. As I have already pointed out, ECGD will continue to provide encouragement of medium and long-term exports and overseas investment through the provision of insurance against credit risks. It will also provide support for the new company's short-term business—we have dealt with that matter at some length this afternoon—including support in the national interest for certain higher risk markets to ensure no sudden change in the facilities available to exporters.
Amendment No. 51 E appears to seek a guarantee. Does that mean that the new company would be in breach if it refused to insure risks which it knew would produce a loss? The proposed amendment, as worded, could be held to oblige the new owners to provide credit insurance regardless of the risk. The noble Lord may not have intended that effect but that is the way I read the amendment. As I am sure the noble Lord would accept, that would constitute a ridiculous policy for ECGD as a government department, let

139
alone a privatised ISG. What sanctions would the Secretary of State be able to exercise if the amendment were accepted?
Amendment No. 51Z concerns a further guarantee. As I have indicated, as this matter progresses not only will the employees of ECGD be kept fully advised but also full information of what is going on will be placed before the Chamber.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. In a characteristic way he has done much to lift the veil over this unfortunate state of affairs. It is absurd for anyone to pretend that the Government could have been satisfied with a state of affairs in which only two undertakings have expressed an interest in this matter. There is less than full support—the Minister knows that —for the fact that the procedures which have been evolved have produced the result that they have. The noble and learned Lord said that there has been suppressed xenophobia in this matter. That is absolute nonsense. There is great disappointment, but one must ask why that is so. Surely even the Secretary of State on any reasonable showing must have been disappointed with the end product of this case.
The Minister has not begun to reply to the other points that I have raised in support of this amendment. It is not a question of whether risk is involved in this business—we all know that it is—it is a question of whether export business would be adjudicated on a somewhat conservative view (I emphasise "conservative" with a small "c") to be too risky in the circumstances. Will the Government be discouraging the kind of export possibilities that have hitherto occurred? That is the real issue we are discussing. With respect the Minister has dodged that issue, and I say that in the friendliest way. If that is to be the case, is it not likely that our exporters will be in a far inferior position compared with exporting companies overseas where governments will make satisfactory support available? The Minister has not answered those points. However, I do not propose to pursue the matter further at this stage. We shall consider what the Minister has said and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51F:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the aim of equal terms of competition within the European Community is not in any way distorted by any scheme made under this section.").
The noble Lord said: As regards credit insurance, we need to address two aspects of the concept of a level playing field within the European Community. First, we need to consider the question of a level playing field between official and private export credit insurers. That matter is being pushed by the Government, the private insurers, and, according to the Government, the European Commission. We dealt with that matter earlier.
Secondly, we need to examine the question of a level playing field between the United Kingdom and
140
other exporters. Kemp gave great emphasis to the requirement for the level playing field between official and private export credit insurers in the Community; that is to say that the perceived advantages enjoyed by official credit insurers such as ECGD should be removed and complete parity should be introduced. It is the private sector insurers who are placing great emphasis on the whole concept of the level playing field. We have a situation where a Belgian insurer, Namur, is litigating before the European Court of Justice. That firm is arguing that the Commission has breached its duty in relation to the first non-life insurance directive which exempts official credit insurers and also ECGD's major rival in the UK, Trade Indemnity.
Kemp has stated:
"the arguments about a level playing-field do not all run in one direction. The state insurers generally provide a much wider scope of cover than do those in the private sector many of which focus on a fairly narrow area of specialisation in which they are confident of operating profitably. The state agencies, on the other hand, have a responsibility to support national exports generally and a constitutional duty to treat all applicants equally. For those reasons, they regularly have to provide cover for risks or to types of client that the private sector would reject as not commercially interesting. Advantages such as freedom from corporation tax enjoyed by the official agencies could be seen as no more than reasonable compensation for the more onerous duties laid upon them. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that the official agencies are regularly and significantly undercutting the private companies in price at the present time".
Those were cogent arguments. At no time have the arguments adduced by Kemp been replaced by the cogency of government submissions. There are markets in which private market reinsurance could pose enormous problems—for example, the Soviet Union, China or India. However, in another place the Minister of State seemed to deny that self-evident proposition.
In answering the debate will the Minister give a categorical assurance to anxious exporters who wanted their anxieties ventilated that they face no peril and that they will not lose out in risky markets or in non-traditional markets? Those are the anxieties. It is high time the Government began to address them. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that the aim of equal terms of competition within the European Community is not in any way distorted by any scheme made under this clause. The Government conclude that privatisation will assist United Kingdom export competitiveness.
I accept, and the Government accept, that the insurance services business already provides a first-class service to United Kingdom exporters. That is under threat from competitive and legal challenges which, without a change of status, the insurance services business cannot meet.
The noble Lord said that our apprehension about legal challenge was premature or misplaced. As he well knows from his long experience in Europe, whether that is right or wrong most of our competitors within Europe are taking steps to reduce state involvement in

141
the provision of export credit and guarantees. The Government are concerned, particularly because of the competitive challenges that lie ahead, that failure to make such a change would lead to a gradual deterioration in the quality of service which British exporters enjoy.
The primary objective is not only to avoid such a deterioration but also to free the insurance services business from public sector constraints so that it can provide a more comprehensive, flexible and up-to-date service. The short-term export credit insurance market is fiercely competitive. To thrive in it as a private sector organisation the insurance services business will need to offer services which are at least as good as those of its competitors. That can only be of advantage to United Kingdom exporters.
Privatisation of the insurance services business will allow the successor company the same freedom as other private sector credit insurers, including many of ECGD's European counterparts, to offer cover for all the types of business from which it is presently excluded. That will enable the company to provide complete one-stop packages for credit insurance, including cover for domestic and foreign business, which many of its customers, particularly large international companies, seek.
After privatisation the UK structure for providing export credit insurance will mirror that in most other EC member states, namely, a company providing export credit insurance partly on its own account and partly on account of the state. Therefore, far from putting us out of line with the practice in the rest of the EC, the new set-up will place us in the mainstream of EC development.
The "national interest" reinsurance facility will be the UK equivalent of the state account arrangements in other EC countries. It will ensure that insurance services customers will continue to have the support to enable them to compete for business in the more risky markets.
While the noble Lord may be sceptical about what we shall achieve, there can be no doubt that the Government intend to achieve that very competitiveness and to provide the opportunity to operate on the level playing field to which he referred.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am interested in the proposition that has been put forward that the purpose of the exercise is to assist exporters by giving them "one-stop shopping", greater encouragement and so on. If that were so one would expect the exporters of this country to be lining up to support the Government in this exercise, but exactly the opposite is taking place. The noble and learned Lord has not convinced the export industry that these changes are desirable. He has said that the proposals are forward looking, that they will help exporters and that private enterprise will do the job. The state-supported export credit insurance service is highly regarded by industry. Industry seeks to retain the present arrangements. To maintain that selling off the service to a private company in Holland will in some way give British exporters a better deal than they presently enjoy is a fantastic proposition.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps the noble Lord will do me a favour. That is the fourth time that he has said that no one supports the principle of privatisation. I should like to make one small request. Perhaps he will examine the Second Reading speeches of those of my noble friends who are engaged in exporting. He will find that so far as concerns the privatisation of this part of ECGD there was general support in principle. The noble Lord can look at the Official Report, and he can write to me with an apology if I am right.
The noble Lord is confusing the fact that concern has been expressed by British exporters regarding the changes to portfolio management. Noble Lords took the opportunity of the Second Reading of the Bill to express their anxieties. However, I cannot accept that there has been such universality of disapproval of what we are attempting to achieve in the privatisation of this short-term business of ECGD.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister continues to say that this proposal will be enormously beneficial and will be a panacea for export trade. With the greatest good will in the world, that optimism is not shared by very large numbers of exporters, particularly smaller exporters. I agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. If the Minister read into the Second Reading debate that there was overwhelming support for the proposed privatisation of the sector to which he has just referred, he is looking at the matter in a somewhat partial manner. Of course major anxieties were expressed by virtually everyone in the Chamber, but I did not sense that noble Lords who spoke in that debate greeted the idea presented in the Bill with great acclamation. The Minister is deluding himself if he comes to that conclusion.
The Government have decided to go much further than most other countries in the European Community. Of course different procedures are being evolved in individual member states. However, the British Exporters' Association said in a letter to the Financial Times that there was serious concern among United Kingdom exporters at the seemingly precipitate rush to privatisation and the dangers which that poses in terms of retaining a competitive edge in the harsh world of exporting. That was the voice of the British Exporters' Association itself.
The Government are hell-bent on this idea. They do not listen and they ignore the anxieties of exporters and of the staff. We shall press matters further, but ultimately it will be for the Government to determine whether this exercise in ideology is to be pursued, because that is what it is all about. I shall read with care what the Minister has said. We may well come back to the issue later, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51G:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("(5A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that no scheme shall be made under this section such that any United Kingdom exporters requiring insurance against losses as specified in Part I of this Act shall be disadvantaged by virtue of the amount of business for which insurance is required.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment we seek to ensure that the smaller exporters are not faced with discrimination by the privatised ISG. The expectation is that small exporters will not be considered to generate adequate income to justify the administrative costs involved in handling their policies. That expectation is based on the practice of other insurers at the present time. Excessively high premium rates which discourage smaller exporters from seeking cover are frequently charged. That matter was raised in Committee in another place and the Minister of State then argued that a privatised ISG operating in a commercial market would be unlikely to increase its prices in a way that would discourage its customers and result in their seeking cover elsewhere. He included the smaller exporters among those customers, but he agreed that ISG already operated in a competitive market.
At a conference held in May this year, a prominent exporter expressed a view of ISG's operations in that market. I refer here to a speech made on the impact of the Export and Investment Guarantees Bill on the future of export credit insurance. The speaker, Mr. David Perry, listed a number of safeguards which exporters should attempt to secure from the Government should ISG be privatised. Among the safeguards was,
"an assurance that they will not discriminate against the small volume insured (more so than they are now)."
That gentleman was the Export Finance Director of the Massey Ferguson Group Ltd., a prominent exporter, and someone who knows what he is talking about. Those anxieties should now be addressed by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Small exporters represent by far the greater proportion of ISG's customer base. Because of their number, the diversity of their trades and the export markets in which they sell, they help considerably in creating the desirable spread of risk in the ISG portfolio. ISG also makes available a variety of managed credit insurance schemes via banks and other intermediaries designed to offer the small exporter an administratively simple means of obtaining the cover required.
There is no intention that that comprehensive support for smaller exporters will be changed to their disadvantage after privatisation, though obviously decisions about the new company's business strategy will be for its owners to take. For the reasons that I have mentioned, it would not be in the company's interest to do so, particularly since ISG already has, unlike some of its competitors, the facilities and systems to provide that support.
The commercial interests of ISG and its privatised successor company will best be served by continuing to support the smaller exporters. It is therefore unnecessary, even if it were practical to do so, to seek statutory protection for them in the manner proposed in the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We are dealing with assertion and counter-assertion and we are entering into conjecture. Basically, our case is that the system was working well, helped by smaller exporters, did not prejudice them and did not put the question of the paramountcy of profit above their interests in all circumstances. The Government say that none of that will be prejudiced, but they have not been able to resolve the doubts and anxieties that have been expressed, notably by people who are in the smaller area of the exporting trade. If they insist upon going ahead blindly, ignoring those anxieties and not carrying out proper consultations, it is all very well to say that the damage will be on their heads. Unfortunately, the damage will be caused to this country. It is obvious that I shall not be able to persuade the Minister to make any movement here. We may well come back to the matter, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51H:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("(5A) A scheme under this section shall contain a provision that there should be a period of not less than three months for consultation and agreement on employment terms and conditions at transfer between the transferee and the employee's trade unions. This period shall commence from the day specified under subsection (4) above.").
The noble Lord said: We embark here on a series of amendments which concern the staff of ISG who are to be transferred, assuming that the Bill is enacted, to a vehicle company under terms and conditions which remain to be decided.
I must tell the noble and learned Lord that to date there has been little consultation between the ECGD trade union side and the department's management. It was necessary for a start to go to the Central Arbitration Committee to require management to release a report prepared by Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte on the terms, conditions and pension arrangements that are likely to apply to existing staff who agree to transfer to the newly privatised company. Subsequently, management argued that the report had not been completed at the time of the request and, once published, the report was released in full. However, the report was unavailable some time after the deadline imposed on the consultants had expired and there was a suggestion that the terms of reference had been changed.
More recently, the trade union side has again prepared an approach to the Central Arbitration Committee, seeking release of information which has been made available to the shortlisted bidders for ISG —a shortlist which, as we know, disappeared rather rapidly, like the snow in springtime. Consultation within the department has been effected by a committee of the departmental Whitley Council which acts as an interface between the management committees handling various aspects of the ISG privatisation. The trade union side naturally requested a seat on each of those committees. That was refused. Subsequent attempts to arrange meetings with

145
representative committees have largely been fruitless. Little information is passed from those committees to the trade union side via the departmental Whitley Committee, so there is no real opportunity for trade union input or serious consultation.
I understand that it was management's intention that, once the purchaser of ISG had been selected, the package of employment terms and conditions offered by the purchaser would simply be presented to ISG staff, who would then have only one month to consider the package and decide whether to join the privatised company or remain in the Civil Service. Under some pressure, management has agreed to allow a period of at least two weeks, apparently for clarificatory discussions with the preferred bidder, before the release of the employment terms package to ISG staff. However, we on this side do not believe that that gives the staff sufficient time to obtain proper advice on the terms and conditions offered or for serious consultation to take place.
I understood the noble and learned Lord to have said earlier that at the moment members of staff can express a preference as to whether they will continue with the privatised ISG or remain within the Civil Service. But will they be able to express that preference? Will they have a serious choice or will they be forced out of the Civil Service against their will, as happened with the Property Services Agency? If they do not wish to work for NCM—if at the end of the day NCM is the purchaser—will they be allowed to stay on in the Civil Service? Under what terms and conditions will they be re-employed? All these matters require a period of consultation which is rather longer than the department, the management or indeed the Government have proposed at present.
I do not intend to press the amendment. It is a probing amendment to discover the Government's view c f the matter. But this is an important point. As we go through the amendments which deal with staff, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that there is serious disquiet on the staff side that the trade unions are not being given the opportunity for proper consultation. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment would provide for three months' consultation and agreement between the intended new owner and the trade unions on the terms and conditions to be offered to transferring staff after the transfer of the business had taken place. That would have the effect of the stafis existing Civil Service terms and conditions transferring across when the business transfers, instead of staff knowing at the outset, before expressing a final preference as to whether they wish to join the new company, what their eventual terms and conditions would be.
As the noble Lord appears to have understood from previous statements, it has always been the intention to present to staff a package of terms and conditions on offer before they are requested to express their final preferences about joining the new company. The trade unions will continue to be fully consulted, as indeed is required under the 1981 TUPE regulations. Once the proposed package of terms and conditions on offer is finalised, the trade unions will be
146
given a period in which to discuss them with the intended new owners before the package is formally presented to all staff. When that has been done the staff will be given at least one month to express their individual preferences.
In our view that will be an adequate timescale and there is no need to specify one in the Bill. Indeed, it is unreasonable to leave the staff in doubt as to their terms and conditions before they express their individual preferences. It is also unreasonable to include in the statute a requirement that the parties involved should reach an agreement on terms and conditions within a set period, whether the period for achieving it was a matter of days, weeks or months.
The noble Lord indicated that he begins this series of amendments on trade unions with a probing amendment. Although it is in fairly short compass, I hope that I have explained to him what has seemed to be an appropriate timetable for discussion and why it has been thought best to approach it in this way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord for clarification on one point. He reiterated that at the end of the day (if I may use that expression) staff would be able to express a preference as to whether they wish to remain in the Civil Service or join the newly privatised transferee company. What happens if a significant number of staff decide that they do not wish to go into the private sector but want to remain in the Civil Service? Can the noble and learned Lord give me an absolutely clear undertaking that the preference expressed by each member of staff will be properly respected?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall deal with this matter now although there are other amendments which may also bring it into focus. As the noble Lord will appreciate, staff who do not transfer will remain as civil servants on Civil Service terms and conditions. Volunteers will be transferred only so far as that can be achieved. But regard will have to be paid to the new company's need for sufficient numbers and staff who have the right range of experience.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We may have to pursue this matter. I am afraid that I am not entirely satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's reply. I understood that if staff were able to express a preference and preferred to take course A rather than course B, that preference would be respected. The noble and learned Lord said something slightly different; namely, that they may prefer to take course A, but may be pushed into course B. I understand that is what he said. We shall come back to that point when discussing later amendments. It is a very important point and one which will give us a great number of problems. We shall return to that point.
Leaving that matter aside for the moment, I still hold the view that the trade unions need to have a much more serious period of consultation on all these matters than the management and the department propose to give them. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept my point that ISG is not a company with major physical assets. Its assets are staff and the expertise of staff. Unless the staff are kept

147
happy and they and their representatives are happy about the way in which the transfer is being handled, the business will be worth very little to the purchaser.
I shall come back to this matter in later amendments because I wish to pursue the thought that the noble and learned Lord has introduced. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51J:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("(5A) No scheme shall be set up until such time as the pension arrangements in the new organisation have been agreed with the relevant trade unions. Such arrangements shall be no worse than those described in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 51R and 51V. We embark here on the vexed question of the pension scheme which will be available to staff in the new organisation. The Committee will know that the terms and conditions of employment of ISG staff who decide to transfer to the privatised company will be protected by the regulations known by the shorthand term of TUPE 81. I hope that that shorthand language will be acceptable in Committee.
Those regulations specifically exclude pensions. The principal Civil Service pension scheme is generally considered to be better than pension schemes available in the private sector, in particular because it is index-linked. There has been a great deal of discussion about index-linked pensions. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the chairmen of both British Gas and British Telecom, who have announced substantial pay rises for themselves, continued to enjoy index-linked pension arrangements when those bodies transferred from the public to the private sector. What is good for the chairmen of British Gas and British Telecom should be good for the staff of ISG.
We simply seek to ensure that the pension scheme that is agreed has been fully discussed with the trade unions and that the terms are no worse than those described in the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The point is that civil servants are not necessarily paid salaries as high as those in the private sector. They forfeit some of their potential worth as private sector employees because they have the benefit of index-linked and properly funded pension schemes. The Government and the state stand behind the payment of those pensions. Once employees transfer, either they will be paid more or they will retain their Civil Service pension arrangements or the equivalent thereof.
Amendment No. 51R addresses the provision of benefits and index linking of benefits. During 1990 the Skills Training Agency was sold somewhat piecemeal to a number of private buyers. Many of those small offices were sold to a company. Since then consultation on the terms and conditions of
148
employment has become acrimonious, and still continues. Amendment No. 51R therefore seeks to prevent such action being taken by the privatised ISG.
Amendment No. 51V, which also stands in my name, makes sure that the added years which can be purchased voluntarily by staff under the principal Civil Service pension scheme are respected. That will enable staff who join the scheme late in life to enhance their eventual pensions by increasing their own pension contributions.
They are important and fundamental amendments. I do not intend to press them to a Division. However, I expect a serious response from the Government. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The concerns reflected in these amendments are likely to be covered in the discussions between the various parties during the course of this privatisation. That is the proper place to resolve these issues.
The noble Lord will appreciate that it is unlikely that a private sector pension scheme on offer would be identical to the principal Civil Service pension scheme. It can be expected to be better in some details, and not so good in others.
The potential new owners have been required to offer a pension scheme which overall is at least comparable to the principal Civil Service pension scheme. The Government Actuary will certify that both the pension scheme and the overall package of terms and conditions are at least equivalent to those which staff presently enjoy. I hope that that general indication of the principles on which the discussions are properly carried forward between the various parties is helpful to the noble Lord.
The trade unions will be involved in the discussions about the terms and conditions, including pension arrangements, and will no doubt take an early opportunity to raise those issues. They will include the question of continuing purchase of added years—referred to in Amendment No. 51V—which I am afraid under the rules of the PCSPS, are precluded from continuing under that scheme after a person has left the Civil Service but, depending on the nature of the private sector pension scheme agreed, it may be possible for staff who had been buying added years under the PCSPS to continue doing so under the private sector scheme, in relation to that scheme. With regard to Amendment No. 51V there is clearly a substantial technical objection with reference to the Civil Service scheme.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, not least by what I said about certification by the Government Actuary.
Baroness Phillips: I wish strongly to reinforce what my noble friend said. I saw the terrible trauma that people experienced when the metropolitan counties disappeared and the pensioners of the Greater London Council had to fight to retain in particular the index-linked pension. My father was a civil servant. I remember that when my mother complained about the low salary he comforted her by saying, "I shall receive

149
a pension". The position cannot be different now. In many cases when people accept lower salaries they have in mind that they will receive some pension. I recall that it was only due to the concentrated efforts of many people that those pensioners were able to achieve a satisfactory arrangement. The present situation seems all the more important because it will involve even more people.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Phillips with her great experience in these matters. She reinforces what I said earlier and what the trade unions have been saying all along.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the assurances that he has given so far as they go. I hope he has understood that it is a matter of intense interest to the staff and we shall not simply let the matter go at that. Having taken advice on what the noble and learned Lord said, I shall consider how we may proceed in the future and whether it will be necessary to put some provision in the Bill at Report stage. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for going so far as he has done. We may have to push him rather further at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
On Question, amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before we leave Clause 8 I should like to put some questions to the Government. I have had difficulty in framing amendments around the issues. The major point that I wish to explore is the nature of the scheme outlined in Clause 8. It seems essential for Parliament to understand how the scheme will work. We need to know what net sum the Government will receive for the sale of the securities they hold in the vehicle company. There are many ways of skinning this particular cat—if I may use that rather vulgar expression. For instance, the Government could inject a substantial capital sum into tie company and then sell off the company for exactly that capital sum. In that case the net proceeds to the taxpayer will be zero. The company will have to maintain solvency requirements because it will be in the private sector. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the solvency requirements in the private sector will be rather more onerous under the new European arrangements than some companies understand.
In the view of some experts, the injection of capital required could be of the order of £35 million. If NCM —if it is the final bidder—pays £50 million the net sum to the taxpayer is only £15 million. There is then the question of what happens if there is no capital injection but some requirement by the purchaser for future support in some manner. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State is empowered to make loans to the vehicle company on such terms and conditions as he may determine. Is it the idea that the Secretary of State will make loans to the company? Will the Secretary of State introduce debt into the company's balance sheet and redeem it immediately? How will
150
the system work? Will the noble and learned Lord give us some idea how it is proposed that the scheme should operate?
Furthermore, will he give us an absolute and categoric assurance that we shall not have a repeat of some previous privatisations on which the Government have offered sweeteners to companies in order to encourage them to take public assets off their hands? The noble and learned Lord will be aware that the issue has engaged a good deal of public attention during the past two years. We need to know that this deal will be clean.
My final point relates to the transfer of good will and the way in which it will be valued. For example, ISG is to be sold as a going concern. If NCM had to begin to sell export credit insurance to UK exporters from scratch it would need to invest enormous sums of money and resources in establishing a viable customer base. It is difficult to quantify how much NCM would have to spend to compete effectively with ISG but in our view it would be a large sum of money.
I instance those matters in order to explore with the noble and learned Lord the way in which the scheme might operate. My only requirement is that we must have an assurance from the Government that the sale will be clean and will not involve underhand dealings such as we have seen in a number of previous cases.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall attempt to answer briefly the queries that the noble Lord has raised in this short debate. Copies of the draft scheme have been placed in the Library and perhaps Members of the Committee will find it helpful to refer to them. In the current proposals for the capitalising of the company it is not envisaged that there will be loans. The noble Lord's Amendment No. 51W seeks to address that proposal. I shall combine my comments on that amendment with those relating to this debate because the two matters are interrelated.
We have allowed for the flexibility that was provided in other privatisation legislation to allow for loans. However, I cannot say at present whether loans will be required or whether the capitalisation of the company will be by loan rather than direct cash injection. It is a possibility and I can say no more than that at present. The proceeds of the sale of the company will represent an inflow to government funds.
The company's capital requirements will be determined in discussions between the preferred purchaser and the DTI regulatory authorities in the light of the profile of the business to be privatised. The noble Lord indicated that £35 million might be necessary. For reasons that he will appreciate, discussions between the preferred purchaser and the regulatory authorities are confidential and it would not be appropriate for me to confirm or deny that figure at this stage. It is envisaged that the capital amount will be subscribed initially by the Government so that the company may be authorised before it is sold. The amount of the capital will be recovered by the Government in the sale of the proceeds. I can assure the noble Lord in the terminology that he used,

151
as did his noble friend, that no "sweeteners" will be involved in the arrangements with the preferred purchaser.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give me an assurance about one issue. I understand that under the proposed scheme the initial purchaser of ISG will be required to hold the shares for three years. Will there be any restriction on resale after three years or will it then be up for grabs?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord would like me to return to the matter at a later stage or to write to him I shall do so. I should be careful about commenting on the matter without advance warning.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider my question and respond in due course. We shall then consider whether to pursue the matter in a more formal manner on Report.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Transferred stuff]:
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51K:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations 1981") and insert ("EEC Directive 77/187 (The Acquired Rights Directive)").
The noble Lord said: We return to the status of the staff who arc to be transferred. I am advised that there is a discrepancy between the TUPE 81 regulations and the EC Acquired Rights Directive No. 77/187 under which they were introduced in the United Kingdom. Article 6 of the directive states:
"The transferor and the transferee shall be required to inform the representatives of their respective employees affected by a transfer within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the following: the reasons for the transfer, the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for the employees, measures envisaged in relation to the employees. The transferor must give such information to the representatives of his employees in good time before the transfer is carried out".
We return to the thrust of an earlier amendment about the period of time required for consultation. The directive continues:
"If the transferor or the transferee envisages measures in relation to his employees, he shall consult his representatives of the employees in good time on such measures with a view to seeking agreement".
TUPE 81 regulations only require employees to inform recognised representatives long enough before a relevant transfer to enable consultations to take place and make no reference to the requirement to seek agreement. I am advised that if the management of ISG takes no steps to reach an agreement, it will be possible to apply to an industrial tribunal under the acquired rights directive. However, since the whole issue is untested in the courts it is probable that it would go to the European Court in order to be resolved. I doubt whether anyone in this instance will want that because it would destroy the value of the business.
The amendment seeks explicitly to invoke the acquired rights directive to cover the transfer of ISG
152
to a private buyer. It imposes a greater obligation on the ECGD management to consult the unions about the transfer. However, we believe that that is in keeping with the directive and that it is right to bring ourselves into line with the rest of Europe. We do not believe that TUPE 81 truly reflects the directive. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The Government recognise the good intentions that lie behind this amendment and they share the desire to ensure that the interests of the transferred staff are protected on transfer. It is for that reason that Clause 9, which is a perfectly normal provision in a Bill of this nature, exists. Despite what I said about the amendment's intentions, it is misguided, unnecessary and will not have the intended effect.
The Committee will be aware that the transfer of undertakings regulations—that is, TUPE 81—were passed to implement the EC acquired rights directive. The regulations already require the transfer of the transferor's rights, powers, duties and liabilities on completion of a relevant transfer. Nothing would be gained by inclusion of the directive that is not already covered by the regulations, which are well established in our law and which have the benefit of interpretation by the courts. To substitute the directive for the regulations in the way proposed in this amendment would inevitably create uncertainty and confusion. In so doing it would be detrimental to the interests of transferring staff. For that reason alone I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
However, I must also comment on the allegation made by the noble Lord and made at the Report stage of the Bill in another place that the information and consultation provisions of the regulations are an inadequate implementation of the requirements of the directive. It has been said that Article 6 of the directive provides a greater obligation to consult meaningfully than do the regulations. The Government do not accept that view. The criticism is based on the requirement in the directive for employers to provide information "in good time", whereas the regulations use the term:
"long enough before the relevant transfer to enable consultation to take place".
It is also said that the regulations make no reference to seeking agreement in the consultations.
Any concerns on these points are easily dispelled. On the first point, the words "in good time" are not defined in the directive. The words themselves are unspecific. In order to give them some meaning the regulations were drafted in a way which would be generally understood to require information to be given in sufficient time for meaningful consultation to occur.
As to the second point, I must agree that the regulations do not state explicitly that consultations should be,
"with a view to reaching agreement".
However, the words were omitted because they are unnecessary. It is clearly implicit in the regulations that agreement should be reached if at all possible. Otherwise there would be no purpose to the

153
regulation. Our courts are sensitive to these issues. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, for example, has stated that,
"consultation must not be a sham",
and has referred to the need for "meaningful consultation".
Those points bring me back to my earlier remarks. The amendment, however well intentioned, is unnecessary and will only cause uncertainty. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I perceive that there is a difference of opinion between us as to the status of the regulations and whether they fulfil the acquired rights directive. We have legal advice which says something rather different. However, two lawyers can disagree, and that is no great problem.
The essential point which I wish to get across to the Minister and the Committee is that, following TUPE 81, any negotiations must be with a view to seeking agreement. The noble Lord has gone a little way towards me, but on the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill the Minister concerned said that in applying TUPE 81 regulations nothing would happen,
"without the consent of the workforce".
That is the way to pursue this matter. If it is true that agreement is being sought, matters should not take place without the consent of the workforce. I hope that t le noble Lord will follow his colleague on the Front Bench and put that assurance into the Committee's proceedings.
Lord Henley: I should have thought that what I have said has gone far enough for the noble Lord. I said that consultation must be meaningful. It cannot be meaningful if it has no end point in its process and if it is not designed to achieve something. We believe that consultation must be meaningful; that is, at the end something must be achieved.
The noble Lord will know that the TUPE regulations require that the trade unions shall be consulted. They must be informed and any representations which they make must be considered. There is no firm requirement to reach agreement but obviously we prefer to reach agreement; that is the point of meaningful consultation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry that the noble Lord was not able to take the extra step which I should have liked him to take. I emphasise that the main assets of this business are the staff. We are not selling factories but people's lives. It is essential that the staff remain happy and contented. They should agree to any attempted changes to their terms and conditions. I understand that the noble Lord feels constrained. Perhaps he will reflect on what I have said and I shall reflect on what he has said. At a later stage in the Bill we may have another run round this course. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51 L:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert:
154
("( ) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 shall apply to the transfer of the Equal Opportunities Policy and all Agreements made under that Policy between the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Export Credits Guarantee Department's Trades Union Side and in force on the day of any transfer made under Part II of this Act and no changes shall be made to this Policy or these Agreements by the transferee without the agreement of the employees through their trades unions".).
The noble Lord said: The trade union side of ECGD has been extremely successful in negotiating an effective equal opportunities policy in the department. I understand that that would transfer, along with other departmental agreements under TUPE 81 regulations, to the new company.
However, those regulations are only effective—and this is the point that I made as regards the last amendment—on the day of transfer. Subsequently the new employer is free to make changes without consulting the unions. On the last amendment the noble Lord went some way to reassuring me that there will be "meaningful consultation" with the unions. We wish to ensure that if there are to be future changes in equal opportunities policy—which has been carefully negotiated by the trade unions inside ECGD—they will be made not only after consultation but with the agreement and consent of the recognised trade unions.
I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate the importance of this and will take the extra step which he was unable to traverse on the last amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is mistaken. ECGD does not have a formal equal opportunities policy agreement with the trade unions. The purpose of this amendment thus appears to be to try to ensure that ECGD's policy and practice in this area is adopted by the new company despite the fact that there is no tangible agreement for TUPE to bite on. We hope that the new company will follow similarly good practice on equal opportunities.
Where formal agreements on any aspect of ECGD's policy towards its staff do not exist but instead best practice is followed, TUPE 81 does not cover the situation explicitly. It would be wrong—and very difficult to enforce—to extend the ambit of TUPE to cover such inexact matters. We can expect the new owners of the insurance services business to be enlightened employers who will also follow the best practice in this area.
The noble Lord pointed out that the employer will need to take the staff with him in order to have a viable business. Therefore it is in the employer's interest to follow the practice and policy which have been built up by ECGD. When the business is privatised it will be subject to all the anti-discrimination legislation relating to sex and race. I am confident that staff transferring need have no fears on that account. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord something about the equal opportunities arrangements inside ECGD. The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer and we should insist that ISG—whoever purchases it—should remain an

155
equal opportunities employer. An equal opportunities employer means only that the employer must comply with equal opportunities law, which is by no means comprehensive.
The Race Relations Act 1976 states that it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of,
"colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins".
The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 states that it is unlawful to discriminate,
"on the ground of religious belief or political opinion".
The noble Lord referred to the Sex Discrimination Act.
The ECGD currently has an equal opportunities policy. I do not know whether it is at the moment enshrined in a formal agreement. It states that it is a disciplinary offence to discriminate unfairly on the grounds of race, sex, marital status, sexual preference, religious belief, disablement or political opinions. Also, offensive personal behaviour including racist remarks or sexual harassment is a disciplinary offence. That is the policy operating in the ECGD and it is a strong one.
In the ECGD there are also agreements and policy statements which need to be protected, such as those concerned with part-time working, maternity leave, paternity leave, job-sharing arrangements, special leave for domestic purposes, sexual harassment, racial discrimination and reinstatement priority for those who leave for domestic reasons. Negotiations took place with the trades unions on the precise status of the agreements. Agreement was reached between the two sides but was not formalised. Although there was no formal signature, I hope that the provisions of the agreement will he brought through the transfer process into the newly-privatised company. That is something which should be supported by the Government. I hope that the noble Lord will consider my remarks and perhaps give me a little more comfort.
Lord Henley: I can go no further. As I said, there is no formal policy agreement. ECGD has policy and practice in this area but best practice is not a matter that TUPE 81 covers explicitly. I hope that the assurances I gave when I first responded satisfy the members of staff that they need have no fears on that account.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not think we can go much further on the matter. We shall return to it at Report stage because I do not believe that the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, are the ones that we seek. It is something on which we shall ponder until the next stage. I hope that the noble Lord and his advisers will ponder on the matter also. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51M:
Page 5, line 45, after ("person") insert ("with his written consent").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 51, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51Q. We
156
touched on this matter in an earlier amendment and I want to explore it further with the noble and learned Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government.
The problem is whether any of the staff in ISG will be compelled to transfer to the newly-privatised company. From our earlier debates we understand that they can express a preference either to stay in the Civil Service or to go into the private sector with the new company. If they prefer to stay in the Civil Service, the question arises whether they will be allowed to stay in the Civil Service.
I must advise the noble and learned Lord that many members of staff of ISG are worried that if too few volunteer to join the privatised company—this advice comes from the trades union side—in order to ensure its viability management will compel others to transfer. Our understanding of the TUPE 81 regulations is that employees occupying ISG posts at the time of transfer to the purchaser must transfer to the privatised company if so requested. The amendment seeks to ensure that nobody will be forced against their will to move into a job that they do not want; they will be allowed to stay in the Civil Service if that is what they wish. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord indicated, this is a matter on which we have already had some discussion. It may be useful if I expand on it in part now.
Amendment No. 51M would have the effect of limiting staff to be transferred to the new company to volunteers only. It is possible that the number of volunteers will not accord with the business requirements of the new company. The matter must be seen in context. ECGD privatisation is unlike some others in that only about half the organisation measured by number of staff, is planned to be privatised. That gives more scope than is normal for meeting the preferences of individual members of staff.
The then Secretary of State indicated on 18th December 1989 that all ECGD staff would be asked to express a preference on whether or not they wished to join the new company and that,
"ECGD will use its best endeavours to meet their wishes where these are consistent with the business needs of ECGD and the New Company".
That was reiterated during the Second Reading debate in another place.
It is worth putting on record that once it had been indicated that NCM had been selected as the preferred purchaser by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the chairman said,
"I am delighted by the news and look forward to working towards the completion of the transaction … ISG is a strong business with an impressive record of experience and performance and an enviable business base serving Britain's export community. We have no doubt that, with NCM's support, ISG will be able to strengthen further the range and quality of services it provides to British exporters. We believe firmly that combining our complementary experience and resources can only be to the joint benefit of our organisations and of our customers in the increasingly international and competitive export insurance market place. We have long admired [and I echo this] the ability of the executive and staff of ISG. We look forward to working closely with them to establish a strong and productive base for our future partnership".

157
NCM made very clear that if possible it would be its wish that those who go to the new company should be volunteers.
As has been indicated, the assets of the company are the staff and the experience contained there. However, while we fully recognise the desirability of avoiding an outcome that means not only volunteers would have to transfer, and while we regard that as a remote eventuality, the Government must retain the right to post people in order to meet the business needs of the new company and of ECGD.
The terms and conditions on offer to people transferring to the new company are expected to be at least as good as those they now enjoy. It is not unreasonable to expect them to transfer on a permanent basis and to show the sort of commitment to the business that I am sure they will expect from their new employer.
Acceptance of Amendment No. 51Q would mean, in effect, that everyone who transferred to the new company would do so on a secondment basis. Neither the Government nor the new company would have any clear idea about the eventual numbers of staff wishing to remain with the company or return to the Civil Service. Neither the Government nor, I am sure, the new company could regard that as a satisfactory position. The new company would have to face the possibility that many, or even the whole, of its workforce would suddenly decide to exercise that option. It could not run a business on that uncertain basis.
If they exercised such an option in large numbers, the Government would also face a very difficult situation and might even have to make some of the people redundant if they had not been found other Civil Service jobs within a reasonable time. I noted that the noble Lord's brow furrowed when I came to the kernel of the retention of the right to post people in order to meet the business needs of both sides. However, I hope that he and the trades unions will consider what I indicated at an earlier stage. The context of this particular privatisation must be regarded very carefully. Only about half the organisation will go. It is the clearly expressed desire on both sides that, if possible, it shall be volunteers only.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is easy to understand because if they are not volunteers there will be nothing left of the business. However much the noble and learned Lord may like or dislike it, if people are compelled to go in a direction in which they do not want to go, they will tend to walk out of the door. The assets of the company walk out of the door at about half pest five each evening. The assets will disappear rather rapidly if there is not some arrangement with which they are satisfied. I do not believe that the Government can be at all complacent about the possibility of ISG staff being happy enough to volunteer in sufficient numbers to go to the privatised company.
The fact that NCM is the preferred bidder has been known for some weeks. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that there has been no approach to the staff from that company. No formal talks have taken
158
place, no offers have been made and no discussions have been embarked on. NCM claims that the Government are holding up matters. I do not know whether that claim is true or not. There is a genuine worry in the staff of ISG that quite a few of them will be forced into jobs that they do not want. That will be bad for them, bad for the business and bad for privatisation. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that. Nevertheless, I believe that we have pursued this matter as far as we can at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51N:
Page 6, line 1, leave out ("not").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 51P and 51U. Clause 9(2) (a) refers to the Superannuation Act 1972. Under Sections 1 and 2 of that Act a person transferring under Clause 9 which we are discussing, could be regarded as having been technically redundant by that transfer and thus be entitled, on transfer, to receive redundancy compensation. Subsection (2) of the clause removes the possibility of that technical redundancy compensation.
These are three probing amendments. If the noble and learned Lord is to respond, I hope that he will explain the concept of technical redundancy and how the Government can justify the withdrawal of the possibility of receiving such compensation from ISG staff, bearing in mind that redundancies could follow as a result of the purchase of ISG by a private buyer. Redundancy compensation terms currently applicable to ISG staff as civil servants could be altered by the purchaser without negotiations with the staff, the individual or the trades unions. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord's information that the NCM has not met with the trades unions does not coincide with my information. I understand that NCM has already seen them and that the president of the company has addressed all the ISG staff and met a large number of them. Furthermore, I understand that about 50 of the ISG staff are flying to Amsterdam this week to meet with the NCM management and staff. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome that opening of discussions directly with the trades unions if it has not already occurred.
Turning to Amendment No. 51N, if a civil servant is made redundant, compensation payments are funded from the principal Civil Service pension scheme. We cannot expect that any redundancy compensation payments in the private sector will be funded in this way. Instead, they would be a charge on the assets of the employer, or in the unlikely event he is unable to meet them, the redundancy fund would provide some compensation.
As regards pensions, we can expect that they will be funded through an exempt approved scheme established under a legally binding trust deed with

159
funds separated from the new company's business and subject to the controls of the Inland Revenue and the Occupational Pensions Board. The standing of the new company is likely to be such that there is no basis for concern by employees about either job prospects in general, about the security of their pensions, or the payment of compensation if any individual were made redundant. Accordingly, Government and Treasury support are not appropriate.
As I have said previously, the Government will require the new owner to offer a basis of calculating pension entitlements and redundancy compensation payments equivalent to those applying in the Civil Service. The redundancy compensation will need to take fully into account the length of time people have already spent in the Civil Service. As the noble Lord appreciates, Clause 9(2) of the Bill will ensure that. This means it would be very expensive for the new company to make people redundant because it would have to compensate them in full for their length of time in the Civil Service as well as in the new company. Therefore it is to be anticipated that the new company will be unlikely to take on more people than it is quite confident it will need.
The proposed amendments could mean transferees were entitled to redundancy compensation payments now despite no loss of job, nor any loss of the protection they would have in case of redundancy during service with the new company. They would effectively confer windfall gains on the employees concerned at substantial cost to public funds and for no good reason. The proposed procedure that the Government have advanced will give adequate assurance to people transferring about their security of employment and about their pensions. With that explanation of the technical point, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the amendment need not be insisted on.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing me up to date concerning the contacts that have been made between NCM and the staff of ISG. However, I am advised that NCM has met the staff only to hear what they want. There have been no offers, negotiations or anything of that kind. The company says that up to now it can only note the concerns of the trades union side and that of the staff and that all such notes are subject to the restriction placed on it by the Government. That is the state of play with NCM. I understand that the amendment as drafted would create certain difficulties. I indicated at the outset that it was not meant to be other than a probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51P, 51Q and 51R not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 51S:
Page 6, line 7, at end insert:
("(3) No person who has ceased to be employed in the Civil Service and become employed by a transferee by virtue of a
160
scheme under section 8 of this Act shall at any time following the transfer have his employment terminated by the transferee for the purpose of making changes to the rates of pay, pension scheme or other terms and conditions of employment offered to employees of the transferee".).
The noble Lord said: I referred to this amendment a little earlier. It is a question of whether at any time following a transfer and ceasing to be a civil servant, an employee can have his terms and conditions changed. I refer again to the Skills Training Agency which was sold rather piecemeal to private buyers. The result of that was quite appalling acrimony and aggravation between the staff and the new employers on the terms and conditions of employment. That acrimony still persists. We very much hope that that will not take place in the case of the privatised ISG. I should be grateful for the comments of the noble and learned Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I hope I can reassure the noble Lord by saying that in our view the amendment is unnecessary. Existing employment law will protect the position of employees at any time. TUPE 81 applies only at a time of transfer; but it establishes a basis of terms and conditions which will be included in binding contracts of employment. The new company can only amend these contracts by agreement or by appropriate notice, otherwise compensation could be sought. Also, if change were imposed and this amounted to constructive dismissal the noble Lord will appreciate that compensation could be payable. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied with that brief explanation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We are coming to the end of a rather long series of amendments. I apologise for having wearied the noble and learned Lord with them. These are very important amendments which the staff have quite rightly asked us to put forward in order to probe the situation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51 T to 51 V not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Vehicle companies]:
[Amendment No. 51W not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51X:
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("or partly").
The noble Lord said: This was an issue which was raised at Committee stage in another place. The Minister then explained that the words "or partly" were included to provide the opportunity for the successful bidder—ISG—to pay by instalments. What the Minister said was:
"If company A offered £100 million down and nothing more later and company B offered £100 million down and £20 million later, all other things being equal—and I stress that many other things must be taken into account, for example, commitments and financial resources—I should he inclined to take company B's offer. In these circumstances, it could he that partly-paid shares would be the best method of ensuring that the second instalment was paid".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee H. 7/3/91: cols. 386–387.]
I note that with some interest, particularly in the light of the situation which has arisen vis-a-vis NCM. Can the Minister say whether there is any question of a

161
payment on the basis of instalments so far as concerns NCM? What happened in relation to the other bids —the bids of AG of Italy and Trade Indemnity? Was any suggestion made of instalments in those cases? Is the Minister able to tell us anything about the value of the bids at this stage?
I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 10(3) fulfils the technical purpose of providing a means by which the paid-up status of the shares of the vehicle companies can be established. This is particularly important in relation to the shares of the transferee company which are not issued in consideration of the injection into the company of assets or cash but in consequence of the transfer of ISG business to it. The normal Companies Act procedures for issuing shares do not apply as this clause provides for a special statutory issue. It is necessary to be able to classify shares so issued as paid-up fully or partly so that the Companies Act can then apply to them.
Little purpose is served in removing power to classify as partly paid. The subsection so amended would give a discretionary power to the Secretary of State to classify the shares as fully paid-up. The implication would be that if he did not they would be treated as partly paid; in substance the same as giving power to choose between these alternatives.
It is unlikely that the Secretary of State would wish to treat the shares as partly paid but it would be unwise. to foreclose any options at this stage of the privatisation process. It is difficult to speculate on circumstances in which the Secretary of State would wish to treat shares as partly paid. There is the possible use of partly paid shares in the sale of shares by instalments. However, as the noble Lord asked a direct question on this matter, I should emphasise that instalment sales are not presently contemplated. The important point is that the enabling power must be wider than any specific use of it that is envisaged to ensure the precise use within the scope of the power, and hat flexibility remains to deal with any eventualities. This is clearly a technical point concerning company law and the particular circumstances of privatisation. I hope I have answered the queries of the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I assume from what he said that the answer to the specific question that I posed is in the negative. Is that right? I specifically asked about NCM. The Minister said that no question of instalments is contemplated. It therefore follows that in relation to NCM there is no question of instalments.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I thought that I had indicated as clearly as I possibly could. I included the words "at present" or "presently" that is the state of affairs. I cannot advance on that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51Y:
Page 6, line 39, at end insert:
("(c) transfer any shares held on behalf of the Crown in any vehicle company unless he has made provision for that vehicle company or its subsidiaries to continue to operate through a regional network which assures an office in each standard planning region of the United Kingdom". ).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. At the present time there are nine regional offices all of which handle only ISG cases. Therefore they are destined to transfer to the private buyer. The question is whether the purchaser is likely to retain these regional offices. I understand that NCM has indicated that it will wish to review the cost-effectiveness of the regional network. This is a matter of considerable anxiety to the staff. However, it is more than the staff that one has to consider in this situation.
The fact that there are regional offices has stimulated the view that NCM has been invaluable as regards a local presence in enabling people within the areas of the regional offices to enter into meaningful discussions. If NCM was closed down that would no longer be the case. It is the view that there is a considerable need to contact a local office when it comes to processing applications for cover.
These are not just my views. They are views which are attributed to Bain Clarkson who are important brokers in this field. The even more forceful view was expressed by Mr. Granger, the former deputy chairman and current consultant with CIA. Mr. Granger believes that it is a question "of people dealing with people"; that the experience of staff within the regional office network was an important consideration and represented a fine source of education for most exporters.
Therefore the general view on the part of brokers and others is that it is extremely important to maintain a local representation. It enables people to feel at home, so to speak, in securing information that they want, in obtaining meetings with reasonable convenience, which may be extremely important in this area, particularly with regard to smaller exporters. Jardines go so far as to say that ISG will have to be careful not to try and service customers from different areas within too big a geographical location. We are not just thinking here of NCM. We are thinking in terms of the convenience of exporters and of the input they make to the national effort. Those are, frankly, quite as important as the interests of NCM, if not more important. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Henley: We went over some of this ground, or rather similar ground, in dealing with Amendment No. 5 last week. The ECGD network of nine regional offices is that which is best suited to meeting the reasonable needs of ECGD's customers and, therefore, to getting business. These offices handle only the insurance services business. As the noble Lord will know, the project group business is dealt with directly by the head office in London.
I am confident that the new owners will wish to keep the network that responds to these needs and also developments in business communications. However, it would be unreasonable to impose a

163
statutory requirement to do so on a private company which is in competition with other private companies which are not subject to such requirements. The regional offices and their staffs will be among the assets transferred upon privatisation of ISG. Their locations are, of course, of long standing and were chosen to provide a balance between the needs of Insurance Services customers, the local service and contact and the costs of running a widespread regional network which is funded from the premiums paid by exporters.
Lastly, in relation to the amendment itself, I should point out that the regional office locations are not and never have been entirely consistent with United Kingdom standard planning regions; nor would it necessarily be appropriate that they should be, given the factors determining their location. Also it is not necessarily appropriate that the successor company should necessarily have standard planning regions imposed on it, as regions in which it should deal. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am not entirely reassured by the explanation. Has NCM intimated to the department the steps it proposes to take to give consideration to this particular matter?
Another point which gives rise to concern on the part of exporters, and most notably the smaller exporters—I should have thought that Ministers would want to know about it because after all NCM is the preferred bidder—is a matter which, although I entirely agree that it is not something that is written into the law, is nonetheless a subject of concern to the staff, to exporters and is of importance for the viability of our export business. I should like to ask the noble Lord what information he has gathered from NCM as to its intentions. Surely he will have extracted from them some undertaking to enter into a process of consultation in this connection. After all, it is not inconceivable that it will be cheaper to run a central office. On the other hand, that may not be in the best interests of the smaller exporter and there may be a conflict there.
Lord Henley: I do not accept what the noble Lord has said. As regards what NCM has actually said to my right honourable friend and to my department, it has expressed appreciation of the fact that there is a concern in the negotiations for taking over the regional offices. There is no reason to believe that it intends to change the regional pattern that it is proposed it might purchase.
The noble Lord said, I think, that it was not just NCM's interests we should look to, but I think he should remember that the company's interests are also those of its customers. If it cannot bring in the customers there is little point in buying the new company. NCM needs customers to make the company viable, and I am sure it will find it necessary to keep a regional network.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Here again there is a conflict of view between us. It is our view that it is not at all
164
inconceivable that some customers may be dispensable and that NCM will not in fact be looking for customers so there could be some prejudice to our export trade if certain of the smaller exporters in particular are found to be unnecessary to NCM's overriding interests. However I have listened to what the Minister has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 51Z and 51ZA not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Reinsurance of ECGD risks]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 7, line 14, at end insert:
("(1A) The Secretary of State shall from time to time determine, in relation to such classes of risk determined by him as might be insured by him under section 1 of this Act, whether it is expedient in the national interest for him to exercise his powers under that section to make arrangements for reinsuring persons providing insurance for risks of that class.").
The noble Lord said: My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52A not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Delegation of assistance function]:
[Amendment No. 52B not moved.]
Clause l2 agreed to.
Clause 13 [The Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Export Guarantees Advisory Council]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 7, line 40, at end insert:
("(4) In exercising his duty under section 11(1A) of this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult the Export Guarantees Advisory Council.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. My noble and learned friend spoke to the amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 51.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 53A and 53B not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Expenses]:
[Amendment No. 53C not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, interpretation, commencement, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 53D not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
On Question, Whether the schedule shall be agreed to?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I have indicated opposition to this schedule not because I have any reason to oppose it but simply because I do not understand what on earth it means. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would explain in comprehensible language what it means.
Lord Henley: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will find the schedule very easy to understand after I have given a brief explanation of its purpose. I can understand that it is possibly the legal

165
language that the noble Lord finds somewhat confusing, although he is well versed in the skills and arts of the draftsman. I am sure he will ultimately find it perfectly straightforward.
The schedule contains useful supplementary provisions which tidy up some loose ends which will be left after the transfer envisaged by the scheme has taken effect. The purpose is to ensure that all references to the Secretary of State in documents and proceedings which relate to the properties and liabilities transferred are to read in future as references to the transferee, who will then own the property and be subject to the liabilities.
For example—it is very often by means of example that we can make things clear—if the ECGD is a party to a contract whereby a person provides cleaning services for Insurance Services Group premises which are to be transferred to the transferee company, the schedule ensures that, when the contract is transferred by the scheme to the transferee, the transferee is to be deemed to be the party to that contract—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I did ask for simple language to explain the system. Would the noble Lord be kind enough to observe my request?
Lord Henley: I apologise to the noble Lord. However, perhaps I may return to the beginning of my example.
I was trying to explain a situation where, for example, ECGD was party to a contract. I suggested that it might be party to a contract providing cleaning services for its own premises; that is, the premises of ISG. Those premises are then transferred to what I would describe as the transferee company, but I shall call it i he new company. The schedule ensures that the contract will be transferred by the scheme to the new company; in other words, the new company will be a party to the contract with the old cleaning firm which was providing those services to the ECGD. I believe that that is all perfectly straightforward.
Baroness Seear: Is the Minister saying that under these arrangements the new firm will go on using the old cleaners?
Lord Henley: As always, the noble Baroness puts the matter far more succinctly than I can. Indeed, she has it exactly right.
However, I shall continue with my explanation for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, whose skill in reading fairly simple and straightforward legislation is not the same as that of the noble Baroness. The schedule also enables a certificate to be provided by the Secretary of State conclusively establishing that any asset or liability was vested in the transferee company on a particular date. That is a useful provision for establishing title to assets.
I hope that that brief explanation will be sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord that the schedule is perfectly straightforward and that there is nothing sinister in its purpose. I trust that he will, therefore, feel able to withdraw his opposition to the schedule forming part of the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: I wonder whether my noble friend is aware that, quite contrary to the look of puzzlement on the faces of those on the Opposition Benches, his explanation was almost as clear as the words in the schedule itself. Therefore, it has been of great assistance to the Committee.
Lord Henley: I knew that my noble friend would need no explanation. I am sure that he quietly read the schedule, as we all do from time to time, before going to bed. He immediately knew exactly what it meant.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Rights of Access to Neighbouring Land Bill
7.12 p.m.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has its origins in Law Commission Report No. 151 presented to Parliament in December 1985. It relates to the rights of persons to gain access to neighbouring land for the purpose of carrying out work to their own land. The present law does not provide any general means whereby a person who is unable to carry out necessary works to his own land without access to that of his neighbour can lawfully enter that land without the neighbour's permission.
I should state at this juncture that there is no definition of "land" as used in the Bill. It therefore has the meaning ascribed to it by Schedule I to the Interpretation Act 1978 and so includes buildings and other structures which in law form part of the land and the airspace above the ground.
Some 27 years ago as a Member of the other place I was approached by a constituent with a classic example of what this Bill seeks to rectify. An elderly couple who I shall call A lived in a small house contiguous to another, both built before the First World War and to the same design, with minimal space in the boundary between them. For one reason or another and over a considerable period of time A had fallen out with the neighbouring household who I shall refer to as B.
A's guttering had collapsed because of neglect occasioned by B's refusal to allow A to erect a ladder on the narrow strip of B's land in order to effect repairs. In consequence, A's bedroom on the boundary side was uninhabitable. It was so damp that part of the ceiling had collapsed and part of the plaster on the inside of the affected wall had fallen away. The room was full of mould and the house was moving steadily into a state of dereliction.
A had no legal remedy against B, however unreasonable B's refusal might have been, and, as it so happened, there was a tragic outcome. Problems such as this occur from time to time and can affect rural as well as urban land.
Mr. John Ward, the honourable Member for Poole, has recently been faced with a similar situation. His constituency case is also of an urban nature but rather more complex than the one already described. A

167
householder who I shall refer to as X had an apple tree growing 18 inches from his boundary wall. On the far side was his neighbour's garage. I shall call this neighbour Z. Neighbour Z wrote to X informing the latter that his tree was both overhanging and undermining his garage and demanded that it be removed within 14 days or Z would cause someone to enter upon the premises to remove it and that X would be expected to foot the bill. This was followed up by another letter, this time from a solicitor, alleging progressive damage to the contents of the garage and stating that his client Z would be in order to cut back the branches overhanging his property and that X would be responsible for paying for this work.
On his own initiative, neighbour X cut back all the overhanging branches. He also asked for permission in his turn to enter upon Z's property to carry out some remedial work to the flank wall of his house abutting upon Z's land, where defective rendering was allowing rainwater to penetrate.
After a long history involving solicitors, surveyors and tree surgeons and the voluntary removal of the offending tree by X, even though expert opinion had found this to be innoxious as far as its roots were concerned, permission was offered by Z for entry to repair the flank wall by X but only on condition that X paid Z's legal fees amounting to £250. X was advised by his solicitor not to accept this proposition because it would set a precedent should there be future need to seek permission from Z for entry to attend to X's premises.
So the matter rested for three years until X was about to retire, when he decided to sell his house and leave the district because of the stress occasioned to his wife. His son-in-law wished to buy it, but before it was sold X tried again to come to terms with Z by offering the original £250, only to be told that the licence fee for entry, if I may call it such, was now £555. X declined to pay and his son-in-law Y bought the house without the dispute being resolved.
Two years have passed and letters written to Z by the new owner Y remain unanswered. The leak in the flank wall grows worse and Y's wife is ill with stress caused by the progressive damage to her home. The situation is once more deadlocked.
In view of that sorry tale my honourable friend has introduced this Bill, which he took through the other place in all its stages on 5th July without amendment. As I have already stated, the law does not provide any general right enabling a person to gain access to neighbouring land in order to carry out work to his own land. In consequence a person who enters neighbouring land without any authority does so as a trespasser and renders himself liable to civil proceedings at the suit of the occupier. It is no defence to show that the need for access was compelling or that loss arising to the plaintiff from access by the defendant was negligible.
There is a small number of exceptions to the above, such as easements of varying kinds, covenants, contracts or licences and estoppel rights. Peculiar to
168
London, the London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 may in certain circumstances provide an owner with the right of access to his neighbour's land.
However, generally speaking, reliance for access rests upon good neighbourly relationships in which two (or possibly more) neighbours come to an amicable arrangement whereby A is given permission to enter B's land with a promise to make good any damage caused or, alternatively, B may offer to do the work himself subject to reimbursement by A.
Unfortunately, not all owners of land in its broadest sense are thus amenable; and it could be claimed by some that their boundaries should remain inviolable whatever the discomfort to their neighbours. But, of course, many public authorities already have statutory rights of access to carry out their functions in the interests of the public at large: for example, the Public Health Act 1936 or the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954.
It would seem reasonable therefore that there should be a change in the law to cover entry for the purpose of the preservation of land or property; but any such change should be limited both in its nature and its scope and should interfere as little as possible with the property rights of individuals. For that reason the Bill is framed so as to grant a temporary right of access to another's land but only at the discretion of county courts and the High Court, which shall have jurisdiction in all access proceedings.
The temporary right of access should be specifically for "preservation work"—that is to say, work intended to protect and maintain existing land which of course includes things on, in or above the land, as indicated in Clause 1(4) of the Bill. Such work must be reasonably necessary and, in regard to buildings and other structures, may include inspection, repair, maintenance, improvement, decoration, alteration, adjustment, renewal or demolition. Improvements and alterations contemplated for their own sake are not to count as preservation work and are outside the scope of the Bill: but improvements and alterations which are incidental to preservation work are not so excluded so long as they could not be construed as development.
Access orders would not be obtainable against the Crown: nor would access be given to any neighbouring land that is the highway, because existing law provides adequate means of access under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980. The courts will have the normal discretion as to costs which would be exercisable in accordance with existing principles, including those applicably where any party is legally assisted.
It is always to be hoped that neighbours finding themselves in difficulties can come to amicable agreement before resorting to the law. To my mind it would be rare, but nonetheless unfortunate, if neighbour B were suddenly to find himself respondent to an access order sought by the applicant, neighbour A, without a prior attempt at an informal compromise. For this reason I venture to suggest to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he might consider the recommendation in paragraph 3.63 of the Law Commission report that anyone

169
contemplating application to the court could, without having to seek professional assistance, use a suitable pro forma letter to send to his neighbour on the basis of an effective "letter before action" in the hope that the two sides might then come to terms and thus avoid subsequent litigation through having to call into effect the provisions contained in the Bill.
I shall go quickly through the clauses. Clause 1 deals with access orders. Subsection (1) is the operative provision. It enables a person who, for the purpose of carrying out work on one piece of land, requires to enter neighbouring land but is unable to obtain the necessary agreement to such entry, to apply to the court for an order authorising his entry. There is an extended definition here because the applicant's difficulty in carrying out the work may, exceptionally, stem not from the neighbour's refusal of access, but from the refusal on the part of the owner of an easement to allow him to obstruct the easement.
By virtue of Clause 6, the "court" may be either a county court or the High Court. However, Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 enables the Lord Chancellor to make a jurisdiction order in respect of the allocation of cases between the High Court and the county courts. It is likely that once such an order has been made the vast majority of proceedings under the Act will be handled by the county courts. The phrase "adjoining or adjacent" land covers the possibility that the applicant may need to enter land divided by a narrow strip from the land on which the work is to be done.
Subsection (1) does not define, or impose any limitation on, either the category of person who may apply for an access order or the category of person against whom such an order may be sought. Thus, any person, whether or not he has any legal or other interest in the land to which the work is to be done, may apply for an order and may make respondent to his application any person whose agreement to his entry on the adjoining land he thinks he needs, but cannot obtain. "Land" has the meaning ascribed to it by Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978.
Subsection (2) prescribes the circumstances in which, subject to subsection (3), the power of the court to make an access order is to be exercised, namely on its being satisfied that without access the carrying out of preservation work would be impossible or substantially more difficult or expensive. "Preservation" for this purpose excludes work designed to improve or alter the land, though improvements and alterations which are incidental to preservation work are not excluded, as I explained earlier in my speech.
Subsection (3) qualifies subsection (2), by requiring the court not to make an access order, notwithstanding that the work is necessary and the entry is required, if the respondent satisfies the court that, notwithstanding the obligations on the applicant arising under Clause 3 or the imposition by the court of conditions under Clause 2, entry by the applicant in pursuance of an order would cause such hardship that it would be unreasonable to make the order. In so providing, subsection (3) puts the burden on the
170
respondent to satisfy the court that no order should be made, once the applicant has made out the case for access to do necessary preservation work.
Subsection (4) deals with the categories of work which fall within the meaning of "preservation", as I have already explained. Subsection (5) enables rules of court to prescribe the procedure to be followed by an applicant who is unable to ascertain the name of a person whom he should make respondent. Rules normally require a respondent to be named.
Clause 2 deals with the power of the court to impose terms and conditions. Subsection (1) provides for three matters which must be specified in every access order. These matters, relating to the extent of the work, the timing of the access and the particulars of the land to which access is to be given, are essential elements in any access order.
Subsection (2) gives the court power to impose terms and conditions for the purpose of minimising any adverse consequences arising out of the entry authorised by the order. Subsection (2) thus imposes a limiting factor on the purposes for which conditions may be imposed and does not give the court a "blanket" power.
Subsection (3) paves the way to subsection (4), which specifies a number of matters which may be included in terms and conditions imposed by the court. Subsection (3) makes it clear that the specifying of these matters does not detract from the generality of the power conferred by subsection (2), but equally does not detract from the prohibition imposed by subsection (5) on making inconvenience or "mere access" the subject of compensation.
Subsection (4) specifies in paragraphs (a) to (e) a number of matters which the court may include in exercising its power to impose terms and conditions.
Subsection (5) ensures that the court's power to impose terms and conditions cannot be used to compensate a respondent merely because an access order has been made or merely because entry in pursuance of the order is inconvenient to him. The words,
"entry as authorised by the order",
make it clear that damages for breach of a condition imposed by the court to avoid or minimise inconvenience are not excluded: they would fall within Clause 4.
Subsection (6) enables the court to make provision for a respondent to be reimbursed expenses, such as professional fees, reasonably incurred by him, notwithstanding that those expenses could not—for example, because they had been incurred before any proceedings were instituted—be part of the "costs" of the proceedings. The court may also require the applicant to give security for any money that may become payable to the respondent under this clause or Clause 3.
Clause 3 deals with the effect of an order. Subsection (1) sets out the legal effects of an access order. Paragraph (a) provides that an access order authorises the applicant to enter the neighbouring land to carry out the preservation work specified in the order. Paragraph (b) provides that an access order authorises the doing of a number of ancillary acts,

171
including the bringing of materials and equipment on the neighbouring land and the entry of the applicant's contractors, and so on. The authority conferred under this provision is subject to the power of the court under subsection (2).
Paragraph (c) provides that an access order imposes on the applicant an obligation to make good the land before his authority to enter expires and to indemnify the respondent against any damage to the land or goods on it resulting from the entry. This, too, is subject to exclusion or variation by the court under subsection (2). The reason for giving an access order under these automatic effects is that they will be appropriate in all but the most exceptional cases.
Paragraph (d) provides that an access order imposes on the respondent an obligation to permit the applicant to do anything provided for by the order. Enforcement of this obligation will be facilitated by the inclusion of this provision, since if the respondent fails to comply with the order the applicant will be able to apply directly to the court for committal proceedings rather than have to apply first for an injunction.
The concluding words of subsection (1) provide for an access order to have the same effect as if the respondent had consented to the applicant acting in accordance with the terms of the order. The respondent will not therefore be able to sue the applicant in trespass (or, in the case of an easement owner, in nuisance) for acting in accordance with those terms. Nor will an applicant entering land pursuant to an access order be liable to prosecution under any provision making it an offence either to trespass on that land or to enter or be on that land without the respondent's consent.
Subsection (2) enables the court to dispense with or vary the effects of an access order specified in paragraphs (b) or (c) of subsection (1).
Clause 4 dealing with enforcement does not provide expressly for the assessment of damages. That is left to the court. In some cases where there has been physical damage to a party's property, it is to be expected that the court will adopt the principles applicable to the assessment of damages for tort. In others, for example, where the applicant has defaulted on his obligation to make good, the court is likely to adopt the analogy for breach of contract. It would not be practicable or necessary for the legislation to cater specifically for every possibility.
Clause 5 deals with the variation, discharge, suspension and cessation of access and other orders made by the court. Subsection (1) enables any party to apply to the court for an access order to be varied, suspended or discharged and extends to any previous order for variation, suspension or discharge of an access order, as well as to any terms or conditions imposed by an order. It also enables a term or condition to be temporarily suspended or to be revived. This ensures that the new regime will be flexible enough to deal with changing circumstances.
Subsection (2) provides for an access order to cease to have effect on the date specified in the order for the cessation of the authority to enter—a terminal date is
172
a necessary feature of an access order. If the work is completed before that date, the respondent will be able, if he so wishes, to apply for the order to be varied accordingly. Equally, if the applicant needs more time, he will be able to apply for an extension. Cessation is without prejudice to the respondent's right to enforce, after that date, any term or condition of the order or any obligation imposed on the applicant, to make good the land and to indemnify the respondent against damage.
Subsection (3) makes it clear that the cessation of an access order does not affect its previous operation.
Clause 6 gives the county courts and the High Court jurisdiction in all access proceedings under the Act. This is in line with Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and jurisdiction orders made under it.
Clause 7 contains supplementary provisions relating to the effect of an access order and invalidates any contracting out. Subsection (1) provides for an access order to bind no one other than a party to the access proceedings.
Subsection (2) renders ineffective any agreement, whenever made, which would, but for this provision, have the effect of preventing or restricting a person applying for an access order. The reason for invalidating contracting out is that the scheme would otherwise be undermined.
Clause 8 concerns the Short Title, interpretation, commencement and extent. Subsection (1) gives the Short Title of the Bill. Subsection (2) defines "entry" as including the doing of anything necessary for carrying out works. This extended definition thereby ensures that the Bill, particularly Clause 1, caters for the exceptional case in which the objection to access comes not from the occupier, but from the owner of an easement over the land to which access is sought who refuses to allow the applicant to obstruct the easement.
Subsection (3) provides for the Bill to come into force on a day to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Rules of court under Clause 1(5) and a jurisdiction order under Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 will need to be prepared before the commencement date.
Finally, subsection (4) provides expressly that the Bill is to apply only to England and Wales. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Murton of Lindisfarne).
7.35 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we can all give a welcome to the Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Murton, on sponsoring such a helpful measure in the House. His speech was illustrated by examples of what may seem to be minor but are often most distressing social breakdowns.
The Bill relates only to England and Wales. I understand that the legal position in Scotland is somewhat different. I am not sure of that, but I have no knowledge of Scottish situations that quite parallel those illustrated by the noble Lord. I have a feeling that Scottish title to land is perhaps more explicit in

173
allowing some flexibility for those owning or occupying neighbouring land. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to enlighten the House on the point or indicate whether there are equivalent loopholes in Scottish law on which, at a future date, he may think legislation for Scotland would he helpful.
Sadly, the Bill is all too necessary to regulate disputes between neighbours if agreement cannot be reached between them. There is also protection by the courts against unnecessary intrusion. Both these safeguards are unfortunately necessary since bad relations sometimes exist between neighbours. The root cause of the disagreement may have been lost in the mists of time and totally forgotten by both parties. Time can cause quite irrational positions to be taken over what may appear to be quite unimportant matters.
Having given a general and basic agreement to the Bill, I have a few doubts about one or two details. The Bill does not appear to cover damage involving costs. For example, who will be liable for damage caused while exercising a court order? I am thinking of someone chasing a drain or a sewer through a tennis court or a croquet lawn. Will reinstatement be necessary? Who will be responsible for the standard of reinstatement that will be required?
Does Clause 2(5) require some form of words to allow for financial or physical inconvenience? As an illustration, we find more and more in our cities that every piece of private ground is taken up with car parking, in order to get cars off the main roads due to the frequency of needless and heedless vandalism. Someone may require access via a small drive with three or four tenants living in a small block of flats. There may be no way for cars to enter, and people may feel strongly that if damage is caused to their cars because they are unable to use their normal parking place, there should be compensation. The same could apply to a caravan park at the height of the season. If a drain had to he taken across the park, there could be a problem and the owner of the caravan park could claim that people were unable to have access to it.
I am not trying to nit-pick. I am genuinely anxious about problems that I believe may arise. However even with those doubts which may exist only in my own mind and may be quite unnecessary, we would not wish to delay this Bill. However, we would be happy to receive any assurance that the Minister can give us tonight or in writing to assuage any doubts. I hope that we shall see progress with this little Bill which could turn out to be very important for many people involved in the situations that the noble Lord, Lord Murton, has described. We on this side of the House wish the Bill well.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, there are at any rate two welcome features in the presentation of the Bill this evening. First, it brings before this House a report of the Law Commission that was made in 1985. That step is not universally taken with regard to Law Commission reports. The Government may have
174
taken five-and-a-half years to bring this report out of its pigeon-hole but that is perhaps rather better than par for the course. We should therefore be grateful.The second good feature was the fair and full presentation given by the noble Lord, Lord Murton. He has enabled us to understand completely what the Bill seeks to do. I hope I may add a point 2(a) as it were. It is interesting and totally not unwelcome that the Bill seems to have been taken over in this House by our friends north of the Border. I am very happy to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, on the Front Bench and to listen to the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am also glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—he will perhaps relate his experiences in this matter—and the noble Baroness, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, who is seated behind me. The Bill appears to be a Scottish affair. That is remarkable, as it does not apply to Scotland. Nevertheless no doubt our friends north of the Border will be able—as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggested—to give us the benefit of their experience, as in most matters pertaining to land the Scottish law is centuries ahead of ours. It is much more practical and much more sensible than the English law in this area. We hope that we may draw something from the wisdom of our Scottish friends.
So much for the good points. However, there are certain matters which give me at any rate cause for concern. The noble Lord, Lord Murton, said quite accurately that this Bill was taken through all its stages in the House of Commons without amendment. One ought to be a little more precise and state that the Bill was taken through all its stages on a Friday afternoon, 5th July, together with a great number of other Private Bills. It was taken through without a word of explanation or a moment of discussion. It was simply passed on the nod. Yet it is a Bill of considerable interest to the public, as the Law Commission's report states in paragraph 1.7. The report states that the Bill is of general public interest. The Bill is one that greatly affects citizens' rights in a sensitive area; namely, a man's right to his home or castle.
The Bill may involve the homeowner being subjected to inconvenience without compensation. He may be involved in litigation in a county court. He may suffer physical damage to his property or he may be harassed by people who want to make life difficult for him. Are not all those considerations worth a moment of legislative time? I should have thought they were. The fact that the Bill was treated so rapidly by our honourable friends in another place makes it all the more important that we in this House should give it some attention. If we cannot revise this Bill, our claim to be a revising Chamber is rather hollow.
It is certainly not a good omen that the Bill comes before this House in the dinner break, late in the Session and at a time short of the 14 days prescribed in the Companion to the Standing Orders which should elapse between consideration given to a Bill in the House of Commons and the consideration given to it in this House. The Bill has been very well described by the noble Lord who presented it. I shall not attempt to repeat his points, but I wish to underline one or two

175
features which seem to me to be worthy of consideration. In general terms the Bill allows entry onto a person's land, including entry into his house or garden, to carry out one or more of a series of works. The Bill also provides for compensation to be paid for any damage.
The examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Murton, suggest that there is in this area a need to be met. There is a problem in this area, but the question is how that need should be met and how the problem should be solved. Does the Bill go too far? Should the provisions stated in the Bill be accepted in the interests of the public? At first sight it appears that the rights given under the Bill are rather exceptional and closely limited. Clause 1(2) (a) states that a court shall make an access order only if it is satisfied that,
"the works for which the entry is sought are reasonably necessary for the preservation of the land".
The Law Commission's report states that entry to a neighbour's land is to be limited to preservation work. That all looks very nice, but the Bill itself appears to go far beyond works that one would normally consider as being connected with preservation. The Law Commission report quite fairly accepts that factor. On page 55 of the report the term "preservation" is used in a very wide sense. Preservation work is not considered merely as work that stops something from falling down or maintains it in existence. The term covers a wide range of factors.
Clause 1(4) (a) of the Bill states that an access order may be made for the purposes of carrying out,
"works of repair … improvement, decoration … or demolition".
The demolition of buildings is an extraordinary version of preservation. Subsection (4) refers to other works for which an access order may be made. Clause 1(4) (g) refers to those well-known sources of neighbour disputes and irritation—hedges, trees and shrubs. The noble Lord, Lord Murton, mentioned an apple tree. I do not think such a tree is dealt with in the Bill, although no doubt the consequential argument that was mentioned is dealt with.
Under the terms of Clause 1 a man may enter my land to clip my hedge. He may chop branches off a tree or shrub, check on the roots or even replace a tree or shrub. All those provisions give the word "preservation" a wide interpretation. That is not the end of the matter. A man who is working on my land, having gained entry to it, may leave his materials and plant on my land. He may leave the debris resulting from his work on my land; that is to say, the lopped branches, rusty gutters or demolished structures. We all know that works are seldom or never completed on time. One has visions of tools, painting materials and ladders being left on one's land for weeks while a workman is on holiday or off on another job. Those consequences are automatic on any order being made. They follow from the terms of Clause 3 unless a court decides not to apply those provisions. An order that is made may automatically result in those effects.
Even that is not the end of the matter. A neighbour who wishes to have the works carried out may bring as many people onto his neighbour's land as he wishes. If I happen to be the neighbour involved, I would not
176
have the opportunity of vetting those people. They may be unidentified cowboys who have no respect for my property. I have no means of checking on those people. Again that is one of the automatic consequences of Clause 3. Were not all those factors worth a moment's examination by our legislators?
It will be said that all of these provisions are discretionary and are under the control of the courts, which may impose conditions, protections and other factors. There are certain protections in the Bill but there are also some drawbacks. First, the owner is obliged to go to the court, which may not be in his home town, or he may be obliged to employ a lawyer and probably an expert such as a builder. He may possibly have to obtain legal aid. My next point will no doubt be taken up by other noble Lords. The owner will not even be sure of recouping his costs.
County courts are particularly busy tribunals and they will be much busier in the next few years when the work of the High Court will be largely devolved onto the county courts. No doubt a Chancery judge, with the help of a surveyor or a good builder, and with the parties present, could draw up an excellent and workable scheme that included time limits, notices, restrictions, guarantees, deadlines and other provisions. But all of that takes time, especially if a court is to give consideration to the personal needs of a man, his wife, his children, his roses and his lawn. Can a busy county court be expected to devise a comprehensive scheme of protection on all those lines?
The Bill is a lawyer's construction, and from that point of view a very good one. It is essentially an attempt to put into a straitjacket of legal procedures what are essentially rules of good neighbourly behaviour. Although we always hear of the cases in which neighbourly behaviour breaks down, we should realise that for each of those there are probably a hundred cases in which such matters are arranged amicably between neighbours, with a small payment and a little negotiation and without the need to go to court.
Finally, your Lordships will wish to bear in mind that this is not an uncontroversial Bill. It is not a simple, technical Bill which one would expect to put before the House and to be passed without undue consideration on the basis that the Law Commission has gone into the matter and there is no need to do the work again. As the report shows, there has been a great deal of consultation. There is a long list of those who have been consulted. However, the views expressed in the Law Commission report are by no means unanimous. For example, paragraph 1.8 indicates that there have been considerable divergences of view. There are alternatives. There are minority views, the merits of which ought to be looked at before the law is passed.
There is a marked difference of opinion on the very important matter of compensation for access which is referred to in paragraph 4.56. There are a variety of views as to whether access should be given when "strictly necessary" or when "reasonably required" which are mentioned in paragraph 4.102. Consideration is required as to the merits of Clause

177
1(2) (a) and (b) which is expressed in rather broad terms. Consideration should also be given to the important issue of compensation for inconvenience, and: here is the important issue of costs. There is also the very interesting suggestion made by the noble Lord in opening the debate as to whether a pro forma letter ought to be sent. I agree with him that it would be a very useful piece of machinery. That is mentioned in paragraph 3.63 of the report.
All those matters deserve consideration in this House. They may or may not lead to amendments. I hope that we shall not hear the argument that if we try to amend the Bill it will be lost. If that argument were to prevail it would mean that we accepted unicameral legislation, made by a Chamber which has not thought fit to give one moment's consideration to the Bill. There are many experts in this House, not only lawyers but other sensible people who know what the rights of a citizen in relation to his house ought to be, and I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill careful consideration. We should not be rushed into telescoping its stages. We should be given an opportunity to consider it in Committee and to give proper consideration both to suggestions made today and to others which may come before the House.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Murton of Lindisfarne on taking this opportunity to introduce the Bill. I wholeheartedly support some parts of the Bill but have reservations about others. It is, as the noble and learned Lord has just pointed out, a controversial Bill in several respects. In general, I support its aims and the way in which it sets about achieving them.
My own two experiences of the problem—one professional and one personal—have related to the common problem of a house wall on a boundary and the need to repair the house wall. I do not recall difficulty arising in either case. However, I accept that, where disputes arise between neighbours—and all lawyers know that the most common source of dispute is the boundary—difficulty can arise. It is also the case that it may be difficult to sell a house which has such a defect in its title. The Bill deals admirably with that kind of problem.
The Country Landowners' Association discussed the Bill with me today. The association feels that the Bill does not begin to take proper account of the position of farmers and landowners. It asks why, for example, a large-scale extractor of timber, who may have many miles of forest road on his land, should be entitled to require his farmer neighbour to allow him to take felled timber out over the farmer's fields, perhaps over a road which the farmer has installed at his own considerable expense, without any liability to pay the premium which he has always had to pay in the past and which represents some part of the benefit which the timber extractor has gained as a result of the co-operation of his neighbour. I see considerable merit in the CLA's point that all of the consideration behind the Bill has been directed at the problem of disputes affecting property owners in the urban and semi-urban context.
178
I should like to turn now to some detailed aspects of the Bill and ask some questions which my noble friend or my noble and learned friend may be able to answer when they sum up. Why does Clause 1(2) provide that the court "shall" make an access order if satisfied on the two points set out in that subsection unless the respondent satisfies the court on the grounds of hardship set out in Clause 1(3)? As I read paragraph 3.42 of the Law Commission report, the Law Commission decided that a general right of access should arise only at the discretion of the court. Why, then, does the clause not give the court that discretion by using the words "may if it thinks fit" instead of "shall"? It seems to me that the points on which the court is required to be satisfied do not involve discretion. I may be wrong, but I do not understand the liberal references to reasonableness as creating a discretion.
I am advised by the CLA that plc corporations and statutory undertakers with compulsory powers to enter land to construct works, to lay pipes etc., normally exercise their rights by negotiation. When they take the rights to lay the pipes and build those works, at the same time they will negotiate rights of access for the very necessary powers which they will need over the years, perhaps every year, to maintain the pipes and to repair and oil the works. I am advised by the CLA that in some cases the compensation payable for rights to enter land for such purposes may amount to as much as half or 75 per cent. of the total compensation payable.
Under the Bill, if enacted, such undertakers will not need to negotiate access rights when they negotiate the rights to carry out the works in the first place. The CLA is concerned that, instead of exercising compulsory powers and paying compensation for access, undertakers will exercise rights under the Bill. Because of their statutory powers under Clause 1(2) (b) they will not need to satisfy the court they will merely have to satisfy the "reasonably necessary" test of Clause 1(2) (a).
Clause 1(3) provides that:
"The court shall refuse to make an access order if it is satisfied by the respondent that … such hardship will be caused by the entry as to make it unreasonable to make the order".
That does not go far enough towards the protection of the respondent. I should have thought that the court would refuse to make the order if the respondent satisfied it that it was unreasonable to make the order by reason of hardship or for any other cause.
My next inquiry is: why is inconvenience not to be compensated for under the Bill? If, to save himself large sums of money in repairing his property from his own land, someone wants to cause noise and dust and intrude on the privacy of his neighbour, making his neighbour's life a misery, surely he should pay some compensation.
I now turn to Clause 7(2), which precludes in a general way any contracting out of the provisions of the Bill. I certainly envisage cases in which it will be dangerous to let, for example, a landlord granting leases contract out of the provisions of the Bill as regards the rights of entry between one part of a building and another. However, I can also see a case

179
in which a landowner—I am talking, for example, about the owner of a house with two or three acres of land—may have obtained planning permission for that land and sold two acres of it on the basis that houses would be built in such a way that no access would ever be needed to his land for the repairing of the houses on the land that had been sold. Then the person who has built the houses may have gone to the planning authority and achieved a more financially desirable layout which has thwarted the intentions of the person who sold the land. Alternatively, it may well be that the person who sold the land included in the sale land which could have been used for access purposes, but the developer has sold that piece of land for a large price. He may come back to the court a few years later saying that he cannot obtain access to his land to repair the houses on it, and requesting an order. In those circumstances, it would seem reasonable for the owner of the land, when selling it, to contract out of the provisions of the Bill.
The final point of difficulty that I find with the Bill concerns the question of costs. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend would explain what Clause 2(6) means when it states that:
"The court may make provision for the reimbursement by the applicant of any expenses reasonably incurred by the respondent and not recoverable as costs".
It appears, at least on first reading, that the subsection assumes that, when an access order has been made, the respondent will be entitled to his costs. I see nothing in the Bill, apart from that tangential reference, to suggest that the normal rule does not apply. As a result, the successful applicant will obtain not only his access, but his costs. When introducing the Bill, my noble friend said that the normal rule as to costs would apply.
The implication of paragraph 3.48 of the report is that, because it will be obvious whether an application will succeed, an unsuccessful respondent should pay the costs. I readily concede that an unreasonable unsuccessful respondent should pay the costs. It seems right that a respondent should pay the costs, for example, where he is clearly shown to have acted unreasonably because he did not permit his neighbour, by agreement, to come on to his land, bring a ladder into the garden and repair a roof slate, but instead forced the neighbour to go to court. That is one situation in which the Bill might help because it will stop owners being unreasonable when they receive requests from their neighbours to allow them onto the land. They will know that they cannot go to court because they will have an order for costs made against them and the order for access will be made. However, I doubt whether in real life the situations to which the Bill will apply will be as simple as that.
It is equally likely that when an application to the court is made there will be questions as to whether hardship will be caused by granting the application, or whether the carrying out of the works will be substantially more difficult or expensive without entry to the land. Those are cases—I refer especially to those cases in which the applicant may save a great deal of money if he obtains his right of entry—in which lawyers and judges might come to different
180
conclusions and give different advice. Those are not matters on which the result of an application can be predicted in advance with any certainty and in which one can reasonably say that someone should not have resisted the application. Because the Bill confers a special and exceptional right of entry on to another person's property, it should be only in exceptional cases where that person—the respondent—has been shown to be unreasonable in resisting the application that the respondent should not be awarded the costs of the application. If that is not the case, there will be many instances in which small people threatened with a court application by larger interests—perhaps commercial interests—will simply give in for fear of the expense and consequences of a court action.
There are a number of points in the Bill which should be considered. I join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who thought that it should be given proper consideration by the House. I hope that that will be so.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, my name was meant to go down on the speakers' list but, as a result of an oversight, it did not do so.
I have listened with dismay to the speeches of the two learned lawyers who have spoken. Their speeches show that neighbours should be sensible and should not go to law. There is an old story in Scotland which no doubt everyone has heard, but that will not stop me telling it. It concerns two sheep farmers in the braes of Balquhidder who quarrelled. Eventually, they were foolish enough to go to law and both went off to Edinburgh to seek a lawyer. One chap was explaining his case when the lawyer suddenly held up his hand and said, "I'm sorry, but I'm acting for your opponent. I'll give you a letter to a good lawyer". So he scribbled a note, sealed it and handed it to the farmer who, not being a fool, when he got outside thought that he had better open the letter, which said, "Dear Geordie, two rams are fighting on the braes of Balquhidder. You fleece one and ill fleece the other". That appears to be a lesson to all of us.
The two pathetic cases quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Murton, show that there are times when, unbelievably, there is no redress for some poor householders against neighbours who stop repair work which is necessary to stop the house falling to bits. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will assure us that foolishness does not pertain in Scotland and that there are methods whereby in Scotland an unreasonable neighbour, or rather the neighbour of an unreasonable man, can be protected.Having said that, it is obvious from the words of the two experienced lawyers who have spoken that one must examine the consequences. However, as regards the principle, I have no doubt that it is absolutely scandalous that people can be left in that position without any recourse to law. It will be good if the Bill puts that right.
The noble Lord, Lord Murton, seemed to indicate that a repair was quite a reasonable cause for which to obtain an order but that an improvement, unless it

181
simply resulted from the repair, was not. I wonder whet her he could enlighten us on that point. It would appear to me to be reasonable that if a man wanted to improve his house and that did not affect his neighbour, he could apply under this legislation to have it done. However I believe that the Bill is necessary. The illustrations which have been given prove it.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to convey to the House his apologies for not being able to be present tonight. I must tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that this is not a matter of a Scot taking access to neighbouring land. My noble and learned friend is at a state banquet for the heads of government who are attending the 1991 Economic Summit and I have been asked to speak for the Government in his place.
I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend will follow this debate with great interest. In particular, I suspect that he will be keenly interested in the support that the noble Lord, Lord Murton, gave to the proposal for pro forma letters, which is to be found in paragraph 3.63 of the Law Commission's report. I congratulate him on having introduced his Bill so eloquently, and with such pertinent and poignant examples. I echo the congratulations that he extended to Mr. John Ward, the honourable Member for Poole, who introduced the Bill in another place. As the House will be aware, he did not have the opportunity to speak, and for that reason I entirely accent the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, about the desirability of having some debate in this Chamber so that at least the issues that gave rise to this proposed legislation should be fully understood.
As noble Lords will appreciate, the Bill does not extend to Scotland. But I hasten to add that I do not come to the Dispatch Box trying in any sense to indicate that Scotland has solved the problem or that in this particular area of law it can claim any superiority. As in England, there is no such general right of access to neighbouring land in Scotland. It is only possible if there is some statutory or contractual right or a right arising out of land law. It is certainly not completely general.
On the other hand, the land law of Scotland is very different from the law of England. While there may be those who think that some such legislation ought to be provided in Scotland, I should most firmly counsel against any effort to extend this Bill to Scotland. It will be readily appreciated that it would not happily sit with the rest of Scottish law. Curiously enough, although there have been marked problems on this side of the Border, the situation does not seem to have given rise to quite the same difficulties North of the Border.
It is right to congratulate the Law Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Murton, has already drawn attention to the fact that the Bill had its origins in its report which was published in 1985. The matter was
182
first referred to the Law Commission in 1978. With the thoroughness that has for long been the hallmark of the Law Commission's work, it issued in 1980 a working paper inviting comments on its provisional proposals. The paper attracted a considerable response from the public as well as lawyers, surveyors, professional bodies, government departments, statutory undertakers and others. One reason for the size of the public response stems from the fact that the publication of the working paper was coupled with the distribution of free copies of a pamphlet which summarised the main issues discussed in it. That was one of the earliest examples of a useful additional method of giving greater publicity to law reform proposals adopted by the Law Commission. I am told that the project was mentioned on the Jimmy Young radio programme and that in turn prompted a great many further responses from the public to the Law Commission.
That Law Commission report identified the crucial point: the present law of England and Wales does not provide any general means whereby a person who is unable to carry out necessary work to his land without access to his neighbour's land can lawfully enter that land without the neighbour's permission. As my noble friend pointed out, the right of access may exist or arise in particular cases but there is no general right. That has led to a number of cases in which extreme hardship has been caused. Buildings have fallen into disrepair, which has an adverse effect not only on the properties themselves but also on the lives of those who live in them. My noble friend gave details of a number of such cases. Over the years similar cases have been drawn to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department. That is what led to the matter being referred to the Law Commission in the first place.
The Government fully support the Bill. A little while ago they announced that they had accepted the commission's recommendations in the report. Unfortunately the Government were not able to find the necessary parliamentary time to include the Bill in their own perennially busy legislative programme. It is particularly pleasing therefore that my noble friend and the honourable Member in another place have been able to find an opportunity to bring forward this measure.
The contents of the Bill have been carefully and fully explained, but perhaps I may single out a few matters within it. The Bill enables a person who, for the purpose of carrying out work on one piece of the land, requires to enter neighbouring land, but is unable to obtain the necessary agreement to such entry, to apply to the court for an order authorising his entry. The circumstances in which the power of the court to make an access order is to be exercised are prescribed in the Bill in Clause 1(2); namely, on the court being satisfied that access is necessary for the carrying out of the preservation work. The court is required not to make an access order notwithstanding that the work is necessary and that entry is required if the respondent to the application satisfies the court

183
that, whatever conditions are imposed, entry by the applicant would cause such hardship that it would be unreasonable to make the order.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Coleraine had to say about Clause 1(2). However, it seems to me that the Law Commission has attempted to balance carefully the respective rights of neighbours. It has put forward a scheme which allows for access to be taken in all circumstances in which one would generally think it appropriate but which allows for that entry to be refused where there is hardship.
Although Clause 6 provides that both the High Court and the county courts are to have jurisdiction, in practice applications will be handled by the county courts, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, anticipated. I was glad to hear from those who contributed to the debate that the Bill is generally welcomed. I appreciate that there has been anxiety in some quarters about the effects of the Bill on the rights of individual landowners who fear that the Bill will deprive them of the peaceful enjoyment of their property. With respect in particular to the Country Landowners' Association (which I too have met), I consider that a number of fears are in danger of being exaggerated. I understand the arguments that have been advanced with regard to statutory undertakers and others; but, as I am sure the association is aware, my view is that after examining Clause 1(1) (b), it would properly reach the conclusion that a statutory undertaker could not by-pass the present arrangements that have to be made because the provision is:
"Where a person … for the purpose of carrying out works to land … does not have the agreement of a person … whose agreement to the entry he needs".
In the case of the farmer and the statutory undertaker who has a statutory right to enter the land, it cannot be said that he is a person whose agreement to the entry the applicant needs. He is already entitled to take that entry without securing agreement.
First, the type of work for which access is to be available under the scheme is limited to preservation work. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, pointed out, the statutory definition of "preservation" in the Bill is possibly wider than most people would consider fell naturally within the word "preservation". Nevertheless the type of work permitted is clearly spelt out. Most importantly, access for the purposes of constructing new buildings is clearly outwith the scheme.
Secondly, the right of access under the scheme is not a permanent right. It will subsist only for the purpose of carrying out the particular project of work for which the right of access is sought—a one-off right to which a terminal date will be fixed by the court.
Thirdly, as has been explained, the court will have power to impose conditions on an access order with a view to minimising the neighbour's inconvenience and loss of privacy, reducing security risks and the risks of financial loss, physical damage or personal injury, ensuring that the work is done properly and quickly and awarding compensation if appropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, seemed to consider that there
184
was no provision for compensation. Perhaps I may advise him that if he considers Clause 2 he will find such provision.
Provision is certainly not made for an award of compensation in respect of inconvenience, to which my noble friend Lord Coleraine referred. He will find that there is a useful discussion on the matter within the Law Commission Report. It begins conveniently at paragraph 4.52. Interestingly enough, the provisional proposal was that damages or compensation for inconvenience should form part of the scheme. However, for the reasons spelt out at paragraph 4.52 and more fully at paragraph 4.54 it reaches the conclusion that compensation for inconvenience should not be allowed.
I am confident that if the courts apply the principles set out in the Bill, cases of undue hardship caused to neighbours upon whose land entry is sought will be kept to a minimum.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Coleraine asked a question about costs. As I am sure he appreciates, there is very little in statute about costs in the High Court and county courts. Section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 is the relevant provision which gives the courts a general discretion. Different rules therefore can be applied in this situation, although there is no reason to suppose that the courts would apply them in the absence of any provision in the Bill.
On behalf of the Government I wish my noble friend every success in getting this small but worthwhile measure on to the statute book. I shall avoid the error of suggesting to the noble and learned Lord or others that this House should not consider amendments if it is of the view that they are desirable. However, it will be clearly appreciated that the Bill had to be introduced quickly in another place. It is a valuable small piece of legislation. I hope that our consideration of it will not impede or damage its prospects of reaching the statute book.
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have been kind and considerate enough to remain to discuss this short measure, in particular, sadly, in front of a fairly empty Chamber and rather late in the Session.
Perhaps I may explain my difficulty to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The Bill came to this House within the normal 14 days' notice. My honourable friend in the other place was able, somewhat to his surprise, to get the measure through another place virtually on the nod. He had not expected that. We are now up against a difficult dateline. As I understand the position procedurally, if we were to amend the Bill at Committee stage and were to send it back again to another place, that House is not in a position to receive it because the last day for Private Members' business has passed. We shall have to consider carefully whether to proceed with the Bill as it stands or to amend it at the next stage, in which case I fear that it will fall and will have to be re-introduced at some other time. However, that is for your Lordships to decide. I simply say how grateful I am to those noble Lords who have spoken.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, raised the issue of improvements. If one carries out a repair one is

185
authorised to do a minor improvement. For instance, if one's wooden window frame is falling to pieces, it would be quite in order to put in a better frame, perhaps double-glazing. It is only intentional improvement which is not allowed. Work which is incidental to preservation is all right so long as it cannot he construed as development. If alterations and improvements are contemplated for their own sake, that does not count as preservation work.
It is a long Law Commission report. Although I have read it two or three times, I do not pretend that cart remember all that is said in it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, it is clear that
186
there are questions. It is not necessarily only a technical Bill. However, I have to leave the matter in your Lordships' hands. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past eight o'clock.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT, HOUSE OF LORDS
  MR. ANDREW TOWELL: FALL FROM TRAIN
  MR. ANDREW TOWELL: FALL FROM TRAIN
  FALLS FROM PASSENGER TRAINS
  FALLS FROM PASSENGER TRAINS
  THAMES BRIDGES: DAMAGE BY SHIPPING
  THAMES BRIDGES: DAMAGE BY SHIPPING
  NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT
  NORTH CIRCULAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT
  AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING: JUSTIFICATION
  AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING: JUSTIFICATION
  AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING: COST
  AIRBORNE EARLY WARNING: COST
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RUC AND UDR MEDICAL AND WELFARE OFFICERS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: RUC AND UDR MEDICAL AND WELFARE OFFICERS
  NAVAL SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
  NAVAL SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
  DIAMORPHINE: IMPORT BAN
  DIAMORPHINE: IMPORT BAN
  WHITCHURCH JUNIOR SCHOOL
  WHITCHURCH JUNIOR SCHOOL
  PRODUCT SAFETY: RESPONSE TO ECC REPORT
  PRODUCT SAFETY: RESPONSE TO ECC REPORT
  BEER DISPENSING
  BEER DISPENSING
  BEER GLASS SIZES
  BEER GLASS SIZES