Sitting of 7 June 1991

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

Nationalisation
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Sackville.]
Mr. Speaker: This morning's debate is on nationalisation, denationalisation and renationalisation—
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: On that?
Mr. King: No, not on that but, with your indulgence, I should like to raise a point of order about the Official Report which, as you know, is the guardian of the spoken word in the House. I refer you to column 403 of yesterday's edition, which contains an exchange of views between her Majesty's Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister.
When making his point about interest rates charges as they affect small businesses, the Leader of the Opposition stated:
"Small businesses which used to have arrangements to pay 3 per cent. above base rate on their overdraft facilities are now paying as much as 17 per cent.— [Official Report, 6 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 403.]
There was then an interruption, of which I was a part, which was an expression of incredulity about the fact that base rates for some businesses could be the base rate plus 17 per cent. which is what we understood the Leader of the Opposition saying. He was making a highly ambiguous statement. If you read on a little further, Mr. Speaker, you will see that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also believed that the Leader of the Opposition was saying that the lending rate for small businesses was the base rate plus 17 per cent., because he expressed astonishment and frank disbelief at those allegations.
The Leader of the Opposition has since gone public and has written a letter to the Prime Minister, which is well reported in today's press, expressing his concern about the Prime Minister's ignorance of actual interest rates. My point—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Would this not make an interesting contribution to the debate? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think that it probably would because, as far as I can see, it is not a matter for me. After all, I am frequently astonished at what I hear in the Chamber but, provided that it is in order, I have to let it go.
Mr. King: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I wondered whether it would be possible to ask Hansard whether it has received any correction from the Leader of the Opposition by which he could establish what he was trying to say once and for all instead of leaving us with the waffly way in which he put it.
Mr. Speaker: I am not aware that Hansard has been asked to make that correction. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman's point would probably be in order if he were to make it in a fairly sophisticated way in the debate—that is, if he is fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair.
9.38 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): It is relatively rare for the House to have an opportunity to discuss an important theme such as this, which runs right across all sorts of departmental responsibilities. Understandably, there is a tendency for debates to be focused on relatively narrow areas of Government and public life. It is therefore useful to have an opportunity for a wide-ranging and relaxed debate on something of profound importance that applies right across British life.
As you have said, Mr. Speaker, the title of the debate on the Order Paper, "Nationalisation, denationalisation and renationalisation", has been chosen to allow us to range fairly freely, and to allow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) to make a few things a little clearer than they have been.
There used to be a complaint that in Britain we suffered from pendulum politics. The issue of private and public ownership of industry was used as an index of that. Ownership tended to lurch from private to public, public to private and back to public again. One had sympathy with those who worked in the steel industry, who were subjected to the pendulum. For years, the pendulum swung towards nationalisation and state ownership. From 1945 until the late 1970s, more and more areas of the economy came under state ownership. Since then, of course, the pendulum has begun to swing back.
In such matters, we should always seek to establish as broad a consensus as possible between the parties. Today gives us an opportunity to explore what scope there is for such consensus, how much of what it claims to believe the Labour party truly believes, and what we can agree.
The history of nationalisation and state ownership is lengthy and sorry. I do not doubt the motives of those who pursued the dogma. I accept that they believed that state ownership would somehow transform the lives of businesses. Indeed, it did so, but not in quite the way that was envisaged. I found an excerpt from the Labour party manifesto of 1945. It is an important and interesting historical document. It contains statements of the following nature:
"Amalgamation under public ownership will bring great economies in operation and make it possible to modernise production methods and to raise safety standards in every colliery in the country. Public ownership of gas and electricity undertakings will lower charges, prevent competitive waste, open the way to co-ordinated research and development, and lead to the reforming of uneconomic areas of distribution."
That is just a flavour of the spirit—I accept that it was sincere—in which the exercise was embarked upon all those years ago. It was believed that the process of state ownership would create dynamic companies with a work force driven to Stakhanovite effort by the knowledge that they were working, not for themselves, wicked capitalists or coal owners, but for society.
The commanding heights of the economy—railway, coal, steel, gas, electricity and companies such as Cable and Wireless, all the way through to Pickfords and Thomas Cook all fell sway to state ownership. I do not blame Labour for that. It was warned at the time that the

507
policy would be disastrous—which it was. However, Labour was in the grip of a dogma, and those who are in the grip of a dogma do not always respond rationally to warnings. Of course, many other countries apart from Britain were doing likewise. In eastern Europe, not only the commanding heights but the sunlit uplands, the deeps of the valleys and every part of the economy was subject to the liberating and dynamic hand of state ownership. One can see the results clearly.
For example, in 1938 the per capita gross domestic product of Czechoslovakia was the same as that of Switzerland. By the time that the Communist tyranny was removed in 1989, the GDP had sunk to a third of that of Switzerland. Such is the dynamising effect of state ownership. I do not wish to dwell on the record of nationalised industries in Britain. It is a sad and depressing saga in our nation's life. We all remember the British Steel Corporation, with its losses of £1 million every day of the year. We all remember British Telecom being in the Guinness Book of Records for the largest loss ever. We all remember the sloppy standards, the waiting lists for telephones, the ever-rising prices, the dingy tale of failure, the contempt for the customer, the craven management and the political interference. British Telecom was stifled by bureaucracies and governed by overweening trade unions. It had one theme running throughout—utter contempt for the customer.
In the early 1980s, when the Conservative Government started to blaze the trail that has now burned worldwide, what was Labour's response? Was it a pragmatic response of concern for the customer? Was it a questing, practical approach and an attempt to seek common ground? Sadly, no. The reaction throughout in every case without exception was blind opposition and crusted reaction. The Labour party desperately held on to the hands of the clock to stop the march of time.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Before my hon. Friend gets too deep into the incredibly—or perhaps naturally—negative attitude of the Opposition to all the privatisation measures, may I take him back to what he said about the Labour party wanting to conquer the commanding heights? He will recall a well-known organisation of the 1970s called the National Enterprise Board. It was not only interested in the commanding heights but invested in the most ridiculous small businesses. That is not to say that small businesses are ridiculous. They are the most important part of the economy. But the investments were ridiculous because they were unsuccessful.
Mr. Philip Oppenheim: It is called picking losers.
Mr. Grylls: My hon. Friend the Minister will remember, because of his excellent memory and the research that he has done, a firm called Thwaites and Reed, which was a tiny, unsuccessful clockmaker on the south coast—not that is a fault. The south coast is a good place to be and we should probably all prefer to be on the south coast now. But there was Thwaites and Reed—one of the commanding heights of the economy. The NEB put £140,000 into it, which went down the drain. The NEB then put another £180,000—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech which should be made a little later.
Mr. Grylls: I was drawing my hon. Friend's attention to that example, because it seemed to fit in with what he was saying about the commanding heights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the commanding heights are rather more than the commanding heights? Therefore, there is a danger that, if Labour ever returned to power, it would tackle the lower heights, as well as the commanding heights.
Mr. Maude: It is entirely true that the Labour party used to talk about the commanding heights. It usually managed to level down substantially what it referred to as the commanding heights, so that the heights were rather less high at the end than they were to begin with. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) does the House a service by reminding us of the tendency of the last Labour Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) put it, to pick losers with a sure and certain touch and to roam the byways of the British economy looking for something that they could make worse. Frequently they did so.
It is astonishing that, in spite of the self-evident failure of state ownership, when the Conservative Government came to reverse it and free businesses from the dead hand of state ownership and put them into the private sector where they could serve the consumers whom they were supposed to serve, the Labour party still clung to the dogma. It not only clung to the dogma and opposed what we sought to do but predicted the worst of disasters in every case. It predicted that there would be higher prices and less investment, that investment would cease, that poorer service and disbenefits for the consumers would be the result.
Let us examine what happened in practice, taking as an example British Telecom. Labour predicted that British Telecom would neglect public payphones and that they would disappear. What happened? In 1984, there were 77,000 British Telecom payphones. Today, there are more than 97,000, with Mercury payphones available on top of that.
Mr. John Marshall: And they nearly all work.
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend predicts my next point. Are payphones neglected? Not at all. Today, over 90 per cent. of payphones work, whereas before privatisation up to a third did not.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Some 95 per cent. of payphones work.
Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend, with his detailed knowledge of the company, is able to provide up-to-the-minute information. He, too, does the House a service. Some 95 per cent. of payphones now work, compared with the shabby, shameful record under state ownership, when up to a third of payphones did not work.
Does the Labour party admit that it was wrong? I am a fair-minded man, as my hon. Friends will accept. I should like to give the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East an opportunity to admit that the Labour party was wrong. Will it now apologise to all those who depend on

509
call boxes for deliberately misleading and frightening them, many of them elderly people? Will the Labour party, just once, admit that it was wrong and say that it is sorry?
Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Maude: I should have preferred to give way to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, but he has been smitten by unusual shyness.
Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend regard it as significant that only two Labour Members are present? Does he think that the rest have gone out into the highways and byways to find more losers into which to put public money? Does he agree with me that Labour Members regard their policy as such a loser that they do not want to speak about it?
Mr. Maude: I fear that it is worse than that. I fear that the Labour party has abandoned its policy of simply picking losers. If it got into government by some unhappy mischance, it would scour the economy and every highway and byway of it to find successful businesses it could ruin. Instead of just pouring taxpayers' money into failures, it would take successes, the successes which have transformed the British economy during the 1980s, and ruin those as well.
Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not possible that many of the Labour Members who should be sitting opposite have slunk off into the well-known highways and byways to hide their heads in shame at the abject failure of their predictions? It is noticeable that 50 per cent. of Labour Members present is the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who obviously feels so committed to clause 4 of the Labour party constitution that he has taken time off from his duties as collector-in-chief for the bail-out fund of his friend the leader of Derbyshire county council, Councillor Bookbinder, to be present today. We are very honoured that he is.
Mr. Maude: I wish that I could share my hon. Friend's optimism that Labour Members are hiding their heads in shame. I do not believe they are. I believe that they are preparing things that are worse, and I shall hint later at what they have in mind for the future.
Once again, I am prepared to give the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who is a straightforward chap most of the time, a chance to say honestly and in a straightforward, manly fashion, that the Labour party was wrong, that it misled and deceived the public. It should say that it is sorry, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not do that.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I hope that this will not come as a terrible shock to the Minister, even at this hour of a Friday morning, if I tell him that I will not say anything of that sort. I shall make my own speech, in my own time and in my own way.
Mr. Maude: The House will be united in disappointment at that poor intervention. The hon. Gentleman has shirked an opportunity to put matters right.
What were the Labour party's predictions about investment in British Telecom? It predicted that it would cease. However, in 1991, capital investment is running at £3 billion a year, double the 1984 level, since when total investment has reached £14·5 billion. In the 1970s, under
510
the benign hand of the Labour Government and state ownership, British Telecom fell victim to Labour's capital spending cuts. When the bailiffs came in, the first thing to be cut was capital spending in the nationalised industries and in the health service and education. Since 1984, British Telecom has been able to invest heavily. How would it be able to invest without profit?
I have another question for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East which he may care to reply to in his speech. Is it better for companies such as British Telecom to suffer under Government capital spending cuts, as it did in the mid-1970s, or is it better for a company to be self-sufficient and able to invest heavily in capital out of its own profits? I know what the customers think. They firmly believe that what happens now is better.
What about service to the customer? Throughout the debates on privatisation, the Labour party has harped on the theme that service to the customer will suffer. This year, British Telecom has offered a system of compensation to customers whose phones are not repaired within two working days. Did nationalised British Telecom ever do that? Is it conceivable that it would have been able to do that? Is the service now worse than the one that the customer previously received? Who now has to wait six months for a telephone number? Which is better, the performance of British Telecom when it was nationalised or the performance now?
Let us consider prices. I readily accept that call charges have risen. In one year, overall charges rose by 60 per cent. and local call charges doubled. Which year was that? It was 1975-76. Since 1984, call charges have fallen by 20 per cent. They will now be set at 6·25 per cent. below the June retail prices index increase, and it is not difficult to predict that that is likely to mean a fall in real terms. Clearly it is, and it is also likely to mean a fall in cash terms. Which is better for the customer: an increase of 60 per cent. and a doubling of local call charges, or a fall in real and cash terms? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East may like to answer that, too.
Let us consider pricing in the two decades. The cost of a three-minute, cheap-rate local call went up by 16 per cent. between 1971 and 1981. Between 1981 and 1991 it fell by 36 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman say which was better? British Telecom has delivered better standards, higher investment and lower prices in the private sec1or than it could ever have done in the public sector.
A similar story is told by the water industry in the brief period since it has been in the private sector. The quality of water has improved. In Severn Trent Water, my own area, 96 per cent. of the sewage works now comply with discharge consents, against only 76 per cent. before privatisation. Wessex Water is bringing forward the deadline to cease dumping at sea by five years, and it will comply with legislation to remove pesticide contamination from supplies three years early. Thames Water will open its London ring main ahead of schedule next year.
Capital investment in the water industry is rising sharply. In Thames Water, it rose by 59 per cent. last year, to nearly £400 million. North West Water spent more than £400 million on its core capital programme last year, and that is expected to rise to £500 million this year. Only five years ago, we were being told that the capital investment required by the water industry to replace the Victorian mains could not reasonably be met. What is happening now? The investment is being met by private sector

511
companies raising capital in the private sector, and they are doing a far better job than they could ever have done in the public sector.
In the past five years, electricity prices have fallen by 5 per cent. in real terms. Under a Labour Government, one has to admit that they rose by only 2 per cent.—2 per cent. every six weeks. Again, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East may like to comment on which was better for the consumer. Is he interested in the consumer or is he interested only in those who work for the businesses?
Throughout the debates on privatisations, Labour claimed that catastrophe was looming. In 1983, during a debate on the Telecommunications Bill, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said:
"the Bill will undermine and frustrate the development of the telephone service as a universal amenity for all our people." —[Official Report, 21 November 1983; Vol. 149, c. 37.]
What has been the reality? There are 3 million more private telephones for our people and lower charges have been introduced. The Labour party said that the customer would be ripped off, standards would fall and prices would rise. That was all wrong and irresponsible scaremongering. Will the Labour party apologise? So the record of privatised companies is higher quality, more investment and reasonable or falling prices.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East may claim that some of those companies' profits are too high and should be lower. The idea that shareholders who have invested their money in the companies should get a return on that capital is still anathema to him and his hon. Friends.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those profits mean that the state receives more in tax receipts from those companies than it ever received under state ownership? Does he believe that investment is better from profit or that it is better borrowed, subject to political control and whim? Whose judgment does he believe is better of what amounts to an acceptable rate of return? For example, for British Gas, does he believe that the sober, hard-headed judgment of Mr. Mackinnon, the director-general of the Office of Gas Supply, is to be preferred to the judgment of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)? I know whose judgment the British public at large prefer.
Profits are subject to control. If they are excessive—if it is judged to be an unreasonable rate of return—there is tougher regulation for those industries than ever there was under state ownership. The Office of Telecommunications has far greater powers to interfere and intervene, in detail if necessary, with the operation of British Telecom on behalf of the customer than ever the Government could have done. So the complaint that there are excessive profits says far more about the attitude of the Labour party than about the companies. Too often, Labour Members show how they hate success. Those profits show—at the same time as charges and prices have been falling in real terms —that businesses are performing better for the customer.
Considering that record of success, it is small wonder that privatisation is spreading far and wide. The Labour Government in Australia are proposing to privatise the Commonwealth bank, airlines and satellite communications.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: My hon. Friend has not referred to the appalling record of labour disputes that we used to have when those industries were owned and run by the state, with overmanning and so on. At that time, we had an appalling level of disregard by unions of the public's interest, leading up to the terrible crisis of 1979, when people were not even being buried. That was an appalling aspect of national ownership and control and political interference in industry.
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right. A grubby set of negotiations between the Government and trade union barons managed the state-owned companies under Labour Governments. Where, so often, were the interests of the consumer? The consumer was left out of the calculation. It was entirely to do with deals done between Labour Ministers and trade union bosses. I hope that we never see that again. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East can help us over that. Does Labour propose to return us to that state of affairs?
I was referring to parts of the world where privatisation has now taken hold. In Sri Lanka, the textile industries, television, hotels and distilleries are being privatised. In Greece, there is a list of 150 potential sales in preparation, including petrochemicals, vehicles manufacturers and refineries. In Eire, the list includes Irish Sugar and B and I Line ferries.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Oh, dear.
Mr. Maude: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that they are all wrong and he is right?
Mr. Campbell: If the position of the sugar industry in Ireland is considered by the Minister to be a compelling part of his argument, he is stretching for examples to prove his point. Surely he has better examples to give the House.
Mr. Maude: I am giving examples in random order, and I shall be favouring the House later with some better ones. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take part in the debate and say whether he thinks all those people are wrong and the Labour party is right.
In Hungary, telecommunications, construction industries, oil industries, chemical businesses and hotels are being privatised. Large companies in Czechoslovakia are lodging proposals now, and full-scale privatisation starts this summer. In Poland, 1,000 companies are being privatised this year. In Argentina, telecommunications, airlines, electricity businesses and shipping are all headed for the private sector.
In Brazil, the steel industry and a wide range of other industries are heading out of the public sector into the private sector. In East Germany, 1,200 companies have already been sold and other, more difficult, candidates are planned to be sold. In Japan, telecommunications, the railways and tobacco industries are all heading for the private sector. In Mexico, banks, the steel industry, telecommunications and television are being privatised. In New Zealand, the telecommunications business is being privatised.
In the Philippines, airlines, banks and oil are heading out of state ownership. Banking, steel and newspaper industries in Portugal are all heading out of state ownership. In Venezuela, airline businesses, banking and telecommunications are being released from the dogma of state ownership. In Cuba, they are selling housing.

513
In other words, in countries in every continent, under Governments of every complexion, privatisation is now the watchword. It is happening almost everywhere but, sadly, not quite everywhere. I think particularly of three redoubts of reaction, three bastions of the old dogmas. There is no commitment to privatisation in North Korea, Albania or—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends have probably guessed the third. It is the British Labour party. Walworth road lines up alongside North Korea and Albania. Labour Members have opposed every move to privatisation with every ounce of fight they could muster.
Mr. Steve Norris: My hon. Friend may not be aware that I have had the interesting privilege of visiting Albania several times. Before he links the newly elected democratic Government in Albania with the British Labour party, may I ask him to put on record the distinction that at least in Albania they recognise that nationalisation was wrong and are intent on changing the system?
Mr. Maude: A valuable part of this debate has been the way in which hon. Members have introduced up-to-the-minute information from all parts of the world, and my hon. Friend testifies that the list is now down to two. Only in North Korea and Walworth road do the dogmas lie untouched. Even in Albania, in Tirana, the world is moving forward. The thinking there is more advanced than it is in Walworth road.
Labour has opposed privatisation at every stage, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East now has the whole morning before him to set out his stall. He has had all week in which to consult his hon. Friends so that he can array their pledges before the House in sparkling order for scrutiny. He may also wish to answer a few questions. For example, is clause 4 still an integral part of the Labour party's constitution? [Interruption.] We note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has joined the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East may wish to seek some ideological reinforcement from his hon. Friend. Does the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange still bind the Labour party in the way that it always did? What is the current interpretation? Are there plans to repeal it? If not, what will the Labour party do? Perhaps the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will choose not to answer those questions, in which case we must look elsewhere to see what others have said about it. In 1986, a document intriguingly called "Social Ownership" said that clause 4 of the party's constitution
"is as relevant today as it ever has been".
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it still exists? Does he propose that it will operate under a future Labour Government?
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Spark brook (Mr. Hattersley) said that British Telecom
"is coming back into public ownership in its old form immediately".
I emphasise his statement that that is an immediate priority on the return of a Labour Government and there is no backsliding or temporisation about that. What could be clearer?
One of the last Labour documents, "Looking to the Future" published in May 1990, says:
"If the public stake in BT's equity remains at 49 per cent., we shall buy sufficient shares at a fair market price to take that stake to 51 per cent.".
514
That statement was made a year ago. In this year's document, the Labour forgot to mention that. Was it a mistakeof the printers? Did it simply get left out at the typesetting stage? At the press conference where it was launched, the Leader of the Opposition was asked about it and forced to admit:
"there's no change in the policy there".
Why was it not mentioned in the document? Was the Labour party ashamed of it? British Telecom is the largest company in Britain, and the Labour party should say whether it is committed to returning it to state ownership.
Mr. Tony Banks: They are working on it.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman says that the Labour party is working on it, and I believe that.
Mr. Banks: I was just passing through the Chamber. I said that the Government are working on it, and was referring to the Minister's statement that British Telecom was the largest company in Britain. If the Government's policies are in place for much longer, British Telecom, like many other companies, will find itself among the small businesses.
Mr. Maude: That is a remarkable proposition, because I fancy that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will, in a few minutes' time, complain bitterly-to the House that British Telecom is too large and becoming larger, and is making too much profit. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West takes a different view: he claims that British Telecom is a failure that will crumble away into nothing. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the House would like to adjourn for a few minutes to allow them to decide the Labour party's approach.
Is the Labour party committed to renationalising and stripping away the shares of the employees and millions of shareholders who have invested their money in British Telecom? If the House does not have a clear answer today, we shall be very disappointed indeed.
What did the Labour party say about British Gas when it was privatised? The then Opposition spokesman said:
"under a Labour Government will be returned to the public sector".—[Official Report, 25 March 1986; Vol. 94, c. 810.]
Is that still true? If not, was it wrong to claim that privatisation was bad and should be reversed? Will it be put right by the Labour party now?
What did the Labour party say about the privatisation of electricity? In 1988, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said, in the debate on the Address:
"We are implacably opposed to proposals to sell off our nation's electricity"—[Official Report, 28 November 1988; Vol. 142, c. 445.]
Is that still so? Is the Labour party still opposed to it? Will it renationalise it?
Mr. Nicholas Brown: That is a different question.
Mr. Maude: Perhaps then, we shall have a different answer. I hope, above all, that we shall have an answer. The Labour party has been dodging those issues for months, and the country demands an answer. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) gave a partial answer when he said:
"We shall ensure that the industry is returned to public control if the Secretary of State is successful in privatising it". —[Official Report, 7 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 66.]

515
That statement was made as recently as March 1988 by the then official Labour party spokesman on energy. Is that still Labour party policy?
How would the Labour party renationalise the water industry? That is the only part of its policy about which it has been open and honest. It has said that it will take water back into public control. How would it go about it? In its document, "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change" it said:
"There would be no question of paying other than a fair market price for any equity or other ownership rights we wish to acquire".
What is meant by "a fair market price"? The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East should listen to the words of the hon. Member for Dagenham, because the House will expect him to comment on them. He said:
"A Labour Government would take action to regulate the water industry, which would reduce the profitability of the privatised water companies and therefore would be likely to depress the share price. Investors should take that into account."
I agree that investors should take that into account, and I am sure that they will. Is that a description of paying a fair market price?
Mr. Tebbit: It is a fairly clear description of a Labour Government's policies. They would do what they have always done. First, they would wreck the business and then they would say that it is wrecked and worthless. The country would then have to wait for a Conservative Government to come back into office and reprivatise the industry to make it successful again.
Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend gets right to the point, as usual. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Dagenham was saying. The Labour party will regulate the industry, reduce its profitability, wreck it and lower the price. Thus, it will steal money from those millions of people who have invested their hard-earned cash in shares in the water businesses.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position is much worse than that? It will affect not just the millions of individuals who have invested directly in water, British Telecom, electricity and gas, but everyone who has a pension or life insurance with-profits policy will be affected by the confiscation proposals of the Labour party.
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend calls it confiscation; I call it theft. The Labour party will deliberately reduce the value of people's property, in order more easily to take the industry back into state ownership.
A little later, the hon. Member for Dagenham was asked whether that general approach would apply to shareholders in the other utilities, as well as water. He replied:
"I think that is very probable. I think we shall certainly be consistent in our general approach."
I think that the Labour party probably will be too. It will seek to wreck all those industries in the same way.
That leads us to ask where Labour's policy will end. It looks like a partial agenda. As so often happens, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East has given us a glimpse of the hidden agenda—the real Labour agenda. In an interview in May last year, the hon. Gentleman said of the British Airports Authority:
516
"These are areas which we are going to turn into public utility companies. We are not going to leave them as private sector companies."
Is that still Labour party policy? Is that another company that will be taken back into public—state—ownership? The hon. Gentleman was pressed to explain whether that meant that the BAA would be renationalised. The article continued:
"Prescott avoids a direct answer."
It goes on to say that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said:
"I have already told you more than I should. I have said more than I should."
As so often, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did his country a sterling service. He lifted the curtain and enabled us to see the Labour party's real agenda. What could be clearer than his statement that he had already said more than he should?
I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will tell us two things in his speech. I hope that he will come clean about Labour's real agenda and lift the curtain even further on Labour's hidden agenda for confiscation and theft. I hope that he will say what the Labour party intends to do, so that the millions of consumers can prepare themselves against the eventuality of a return to shoddy services, union-dominated bureaucracies, and the millions of shareholders can prepare themselves for another chapter of Labour's highway robbery.
I also hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will apologise to the House and country for all the deceptions, deceits and scare stories on privatisation used by the Labour party. I hope that, just for once, he will accept that the Labour party was wrong and we were right, and apologise to the House.
10.21 am
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Confiscation, theft and highway robbery are heady charges to be summoned to the House to answer on a Friday morning, but those are the charges that the Financial Secretary puts to me in his slightly hysterical romp through what he thinks are the Labour party's policies.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know better than anyone here that Fridays are reserved for debates on motions, private business, private Members' motions, private Members' Bills or Government legislation, but today we are discussing none of those. Instead, we are holding a Government-inspired debate on a motion for the Adjournment. The Government have been unable to find anything better to do with parliamentary time than hold a student union-style debate for its own sake, with no real conclusion except
"That this House do now adjourn".
The Financial Secretary then has the nerve to express surprise that my right hon. and hon. Friends have found something better to do than come here and take part in an Oxbridge-style debate.
If the Government have the sort of priorities that we think they have, why are we not discussing legislation to deal with what the Prime Minister believes to be the great issues of the day—pit bull terriers, Hackney council or the English cricket team? Those are the sort of priorities that the Prime Minister has and, surely, we should be discussing legislation on them now, instead of having to stay up until 4 am next Tuesday as I expect that we shall

517
have to do. The Government have found nothing better to do with parliamentary time than hold this debate today and I hope that the electorate will take note of that.
Mr. Oppenheim: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's attitude. He says that we are discussing a matter of no importance, yet we debate the future of some of the biggest companies in this country—employing tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of people —and the interests of not only their millions of customers, but their millions of shareholders. He comes to the House and belittles all those interests.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, I hope not deliberately, misunderstands me. I am saying that the proposition that the House do now adjourn is a matter of no importance. That motion was put in front of us today not by the Opposition or a private Member, but by the Government who are responsible for moving forward the legislative programme. Are they able to do that? No, they are not.
Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us Labour's policies?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman now intervenes from a sedentary position asking me to give Labour policies. I was about to do that when he intervened to complain about what I said earlier. He cannot have it both ways and I suggest that he sits still for a little while at least, and listens to our modest and reasonable policies.
We have made three specific pledges on renationalisation, which I will read from our policy review document, "Looking to the Future", so that the Financial Secretary can be absolutely clear about what we are saying and what we are not saying. The first of those propositions relates, as the Financial Secretary said, to the water industry. In the policy review document we clearly state that the provision of water is so fundamental that it should be made a priority for a return to the public sector. We go on to say:
"We shall of course pay a fair market price for any equity or ownership rights which we wish to acquire in the water industry."
On the subject of electricity we have made it absolutely clear that we shall take control of the national grid so that the Government may play the necessary strategic role in the industry—including the security of supply. We have confined our pledges to the national grid, not the rest of the industry.
Mr. Tebbit: The House will notice the difference between the words used by the hon. Gentleman when speaking about water, which he said would be returned to public-sector ownership—of course he means state ownership—at a fair market price, and those he used when speaking of the national grid, over which he said that a Labour Government would take control. Does that mean that the national grid would be repurchased or would it merely be expropriated without payment? What does he mean?
Mr. Brown: I can easily answer that question. It means that the national grid would be repurchased. We have no intention of expropriating anything—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary intervenes to say that that seems fair-minded, for which I am grateful to him.
Mr. Maude: I merely asked whether the national grid would be repurchased at a fair market price and, if so, what sort. Would it be the Dagenham doctrine of a fair market price?
Mr. Brown: I thought that it was too good to be true. I obviously misheard the Financial Secretary. "Fair market price" means exactly that. If the Financial Secretary is asking me to set that price, obviously I cannot because it depends on prevailing market conditions, but we would look to those prevailing market conditions to set the price.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may like to take this opportunity to help us. I am not asking him to set the price in pounds and pence, but how the price would be arrived at. Does he follow the Dagenham doctrine of over-regulating business and wrecking its profitability so that the price falls, which is what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) explicitly set out? Is that still Labour party policy?
Mr. Brown: I think that the Financial Secretary is misinterpreting what my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) means. I am absolutely certain that no Labour Member would seek to wreck a public utility—quite the reverse. We believe in publicly owned public utilities and would do nothing to damage them. When we say "market price" we mean precisely that.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Menzies Campbell rose—
Mr. Brown: I am much in demand and am enjoying being cross-examined as though I were the Minister, while Ministers are behaving as if they were Opposition Members. I shall give way to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and then to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I wish to press the hon. Gentleman on the issue of the fair market price. In some forms of compulsory acquisition, the fact that acquisition is proposed must be ignored in the assessment of the value of compensation. If the Labour party were to come to power with a proposal for an acquisition of the sort suggested by the hon. Gentleman, that would inevitably affect the value of shares the day after the change of Government. Would a fair market price include the acquisition as a factor to be taken into account or disregard it? That may be an important consideration in the actual value of the shares at the time of the takeover.
Mr. Brown: The best way to answer that is to say that we would not want to pay too much, but we would not pay too little—[Interruption.] I see that Conservative Members feel that that is not as ample a reply as they would like. I understand their disappointment, but it is difficult to respond without knowing the precise circumstances. All I can do is to set out the principles involved. The circumstances will differ with different industries. In a moment I shall discuss British Telecom, the subject of our third pledge, but we already own 49 per cent. of the shares—
Mr. Grylls rose—
Sir Michael Marshall rose—
Mr. Brown: I promised to give way first to the hon. Member for Esher.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. He is one of the reasonable men in his party so I am sure that we all understand that when he says fair he means fair. The problem is that some of his colleagues do not understand what fairness is in the context of the stock market. There have been questions about whether dividends for the water companies and others would be allowed. He must know that if a water company is valued on the stock market as a quasi-utility, the dividend yield is important to shareholders, and if it is questioned, that causes a fall in the share price. Millions of shareholders in the water industry will be listening carefully to the Labour party's policy on that. Although the industry may be safe in the hon. Gentleman's hands, it may not be safe in the hands of his colleagues.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said about my being fair and reasonable. I like to think that that is why I was chosen to speak for the Opposition in this debate—
Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is the acceptable face of socialism.
Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Lady for that compliment. The Labour party's approach to these matters does not mean that the whole of an industry has to be taken back into the public sector. We envisage private share ownership sitting alongside a public sector involvement —that is our policy for British Telecom. The policy review document states clearly that
"the public stake in British Telecom's equity remains at 49 per cent. We shall buy sufficient shares at a market price to take that stake to 51 per cent."
Hon. Members will notice that we do not say 100 per cent. That is our pledge and it follows logically that there would be private shareholders and public shareholders. It follows, too, that the position would not be very different from that of today.
It will not have escaped the attention of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that a 49 per cent. stake in any company is a significant stake. It makes the holder a significant shareholder—
Mr. Norris: But it is not the same as 51 per cent.
Mr. Brown: Neither is it far short of 51 per cent.
Mr. John Marshall rose—
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is third in the queue.
Sir Michael Marshall: I am sure that Conservative Members appreciate the hon. Gentleman's giving way so much, although I am conscious that we may be helping him to fill out What would otherwise be an uncomfortable morning for him. I accept his reasons for a lack of precision about some of his figures, but he can be precise in one area at least. He mentioned the water industry. He will know of the commitment to capital expenditure of £28 billion on the industry over the next decade. Will he assure us that if a Labour Government are returned they will undertake to meet that commitment? Will he add that to the rest of Labour's expenditure list, which already suggests that heavy public expenditure will be the order of the day?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman must not be graceless when I give way to him. I do not have to give way to my Conservative inquisitors; I could plough on through my speech and really excite everyone but I want to assist them. He makes a good point: he is right that significant investment is required in the water industry, not just for historial reasons but because new environmental standards are rightly higher. I suspect that much, if not all, of the investment programme is unavoidable and will be continued whoever forms the next Government—
Mr. Grylls: If British Telecom were more inefficient and served the public worse now than when nationalised, that would be a good argument for taking it back into public ownership. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that is not so and British Telecom has been transformed in respect of its service to the public—the customers. So why does the hon. Gentleman want to take it back into state ownership? If it were failing the nation I could understand why, but it is not.
Mr. Brown: I have only just got to British Telecom—Conservative Members keep intervening to ask me about water and electricity—It is our intention to make a moest adjustment to the state's already large shareholding in British Telecom—
Mr. John Marshall rose—
Mr. Brown: Hang, on; there is a queueing order today. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) is next, and after that I should like to make my speech.
We could justify our position on British Telecom solely on the grounds that it is a good investment, but we have a rather more sophisticated justification and I have it in the text of my speech. If the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) is not satisfied by it, I promise to give way to him again later. It is time for my next intervention.
Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, but he was remarkably disingenuous to suggest that the only difference between our party and his on British Telecom is a mere 2 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is trying to con the British people into believing that 49 and 51 per cent. mean the same. Everyone knows that they are profoundly different.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that nationalisation by the back door, leaving 49 per cent. of the stock stranded and strangled by ownership by the state, is the most dishonest form of nationalisation of all?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes too much of this. Shareholders perceive the effect of having one large partner with 49 per cent. of the shares. The hon. Gentleman said that 51 per cent. is a more powerful holding. Of course it is an absolute holding, but 49 per cent. is not that different. I realise that the Government have announced their intention to divest themselves of further shares—
Mr. Maude: To help the hon. Gentleman get his figures worked out, may I point out that the Government's holding in British Telecom is now less than 48 per cent., at 47.9 per cent.? At today's share prices, increasing that stake to 51 per cent. would cost £730 million. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of that?
Mr. Brown: I was aware of that; I was not aware that the stake is slightly less than 49 per cent., but I am not sure whether that alters the argument much. I apologise to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for allowing the Financial Secretary to intervene out of turn, but he probably takes precedence.
Mr. John Marshall: It is amusing to see that the classless society has not yet pervaded the Labour party. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to take the whole water industry into public ownership? He will be aware that it has never been wholly publicly owned.
Mr. Brown: I understand that. My area was served by a private water company regulated by a tough but fair regulatory regime. I do not think that it would be necessary to take 100 per cent. of the water industry back into public ownership to achieve our objectives. That is not our proposal for British Telecom, and it would not necessarily be what we would do in the case of the water authorities.
I should like to come to more intractable problems and reply to a point made by the Financial Secretary in his slightly over-the-top speech. The Tory charge, which the Financial Secretary has made, is that we will not be able to afford these three relatively modest purchases and that if we could afford them we would not be able to afford anything else. There is some strength in that argument.
Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his definition of affording those purchases means that Labour would have to tax the public to enable them to buy back what they do not really want because they are better off with what they have? The hon. Gentleman is talking about hidden taxes.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady is here a week early. I shall be here next Friday to deliver my very popular speech on Labour's tax policies. I know that it is popular because that will be the third occasion on which the House has invited me to deliver it. If the hon. Lady wishes to cross-examine me on Labour's taxation policies I shall give her the opportunity to do so next Friday. I promise to give way to her the moment she rises in that debate.
Conservatives say that to sell the nation's assets at less than their true value is a bargain, but that to buy them back at the same price would be theft. That argument would certainly be advanced if a Labour Government ever tried to renationalise at anything less than market price. I am sure that that is what the Financial Secretary would say.
Mr. Maude: We are interested in what Labour means by market price. Is it the price that would apply in the market without the intervention of a Labour Government, or is it the price according to the Dagenham definition, which is that a Labour Government would take action to regulate the water industry? That would be likely to depress the share price.
Mr. Brown: I was coming to that issue. The regulation of an industry should not be set alongside the share price.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: It has consequences for the price.
Mr. Brown: Of course it has. Would anyone argue that the share price should be maintained against the interests of the consumer or the environment? Labour stands for
522
regulation rather than for allowing the interests of shareholders free rein. There is nothing new and, I hope, nothing exceptional about that.
Our quite modest renationalisation pledges will have a cost attached and I suspect—as we approach the next election I think I know—that there will be other even more pressing demands on the public purse. As the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) will discover next week, our taxation and public expenditure policies are tightly drawn.
Mr. John Marshall: Oh.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman jeers. The Labour Treasury team has firmly set its face against allowing the tail to wag the dog and permitting public expenditure to get out of hand. It is unlikely that all our expenditure pledges will be implemented in the first year of a Labour Government.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is most generous in giving way. As he is to speak in next Friday's debate, he is obviously the Opposition's Man Friday. Perhaps he should start a ticketing system so that interventions can be regulated. He has said that a future Labour Government will be firm about public expenditure. Over the past few months every Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has told the House that his Department will have spending priority. Spokesmen on health, employment, and overseas aid have said that their Departments will receive priority. The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has said that only pensions and child benefit will be priorities. The hon. Gentleman has said that spending £700 million to buy back British Telecom will be a priority. Which of those policies will take priority? Will one of them be a top priority or an absolute priority, or will they all have priority?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Overlong interventions are made at the expense of hon. Members who are waiting to speak.
Mr. Brown: I did not say that the extra 2 per cent. stake in British Telecom would be the sort of priority that the hon. Gentleman seems to imply. I went out of my way to say something different. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would stop heckling and allow me to answer his intervention before trying to make his next point.
The precise ranking order of Labour's spending priorities will be determined in government and will have to fit the framework of the overall management of the economy and, in particular, the taxation and public spending policies. We fought that battle inside the Labour party throughout the 1980s, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) have won it. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) finds that hard to stomach. It is right for Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to set out the goals that they hope to achieve in government. However, they must all be set in the context of the famous phrase "as resources allow".
Mrs. Gorman: Would a 2 per cent. stake or the threat of such a stake in these industries have the same effect as a 2 per cent. stake by Hanson in ICI, about which the Labour party have been creating merry hell for the past couple of weeks?
Mr. Brown: The differences is that Labour does not intend to dismember the industries, sell their assets and

523
make substantial numbers of the work force redundant for short-term gain and a risk to continued supply by that public utility.
Mr. John Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his great tolerance in giving way on so many occasions. His speech is almost a reply to a series of interventions. He said that spending priorities would be worked out in government. Is he telling the House and the country that at the next general election Labour will not be able to give the British people a list of spending priorities? We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and it is a very expensive poke.
Mr. Brown: I like the bit about a very expensive poke. It will be part of my job to cut it a bit. The hon. Gentleman misrepresents what I said. Of course we shall put our objectives to the electorate. We have repeatedly said that the exact year-by-year order in which the priorities are redeemed will be a matter for the Government and Cabinet to fight over in the public spending round, which is what happens at the moment. That is all that I am saying. Our pledges are clearly set out in the public domain. To excite the interest of the right hon. Member for Chingford, I tell the House that they have been ruthlessly costed. The right hon. Gentleman is not so excited as I hoped.
We realise that achieving the protection of the consumer and the environment through public ownership may not be immediately obtainable on coming into government. Nevertheless, the environment and the interests of the state, as well as those of the consumer, must be protected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham has rightly said, we intend to put in place regulatory systems that will oversee the public utilities. We shall ensure that regulatory systems are strengthened so that utilities work in the interests of consumers and of the nation.
We propose to establish a new body—the consumer protection commission—that will cover all major utilities. It will bring together and strengthen the present major regulatory bodies. The commission will be accountable to a Select Committee and it will examine the performance of individual public utilities in public. In other words, there will be parliamentary scrutiny through a new Select Committee structure. If the proposal is implemented, it will reduce the present number of quangos. I think that that will appeal to Conservative Members and that they will welcome such a policy. I see from the faces of the Conservative Members who are in the Chamber that they do not welcome it.
It is not convincing when Conservative Members argue that our plans for the public ownership of public utilities would not be popular. Far from that being true, I think that we have public opinion on our side. I draw a distinction, however, between public utilities and other trading companies. I accept that the position of British Telecom is, to some extent, anomalous in the terms of the debate. That is because it has some of the features of a public utility and many features of a private trading company. I see that there is an intellectual difficulty.
Mr. Maude rose—
Mr. Brown: On that note I give way to the Financial Secretary, if he wishes to intervene.
Mr. Maude: It may be that the hon. Gentleman is about to deal with the matter that I wish to put to him. If so, I shall await his comments upon it with eagerness. He seems to be saying that for ordinary trading companies there is no case for a return to state ownership. If that is so, why did the Opposition oppose every privatisation, root and branch?
Mr. Brown: The Minister was right when he said that I might be about to move on to that very issue. My contribution to the debate has been not so much a speech so far, but more of a series of responses during Question Time. I have enjoyed the experience enormously.
Mrs. Gorman: Is the hon. Gentleman practising for the job?
Mr. Graham Riddick: Answer the Minister's question.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The interjection of the Minister's PPS, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), goes to show that he has entirely missed the point of these occasions.
I shall move on to some of our criticisms of the Government's privatisation programme.
Mr. Grylls: Finance is at the centre of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and he has tried to reassure the House about the Labour party's spending plans. If, for example, a Labour Government were to take the water industry back into nationalisation, it would be necessary to add to the cost of acquisition the investment programme of the industry, which is about £28 billion. As soon as 51 per cent. ownership is exceeded—my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will instantly intervene to tell me that I am wrong, if that is the position—it is my understanding that the industry becomes part of the public sector and, therefore, has to be consolidated in the public sector. All the capital expenditure of the water industry and of British Telecom would become part of the Government's public expenditure. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all the capital expenditure of British Telecom and of the water industry, and of any other organisation that is nationalised, has already been costed, or is he saying that, because a Labour Government would not be able to afford such a programme, the capital expenditure of the water and telephone industries, for example, will have to be reduced? The hon. Gentleman should be open about these matters.
Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) should seek to make his speech in the course of the debate and not by means of intervening in the speech of another hon. Member.
Mr. Brown: I get the impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would like me to make some progress with my speech and not to give way so often to those who wish to intervene. I have done my best to respond to the perfectly proper questions that Conservative Members have put to me, and to do so courteously.
The intervention of the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West touched on the important matter of adding to the public sector borrowing requirement through

525
renationalisation. It is a difficult matter for the Opposition. It is my view that we should devise structures in such a way as to enable public utilities to operate as separate centres so that they are not automatically drawn back into the Government's PSBR. That is why I have an affection for partnership arrangements with the private sector. I appreciate, of course, that such arrangements will endure only if private sector shareholders are able to secure a reasonable return on their investments. It follows in logic that the new-style nationalisation, if that is how Conservative Members wish to regard it, is not the same as the old approach. I hope that that goes some way to meeting the inquiry of the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West and demonstrates the thinking that lies behind what is called the new-model Labour party.
Mr. Ian Taylor: These are interesting matters and we would like to pursue them, with the hon. Gentleman's help. I am not entirely certain what he meant when he talked about keeping public utilities out of government. Under normal Government practice, a nationalised industry would be subject to external financing limits. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there would not be EFLs for the companies that he is talking about? That would be critical to the policy that he seeks to pursue. One of the advantages of going into the private sector is gaining access to private capital, which means that the investment programmes for water companies, for example, can go ahead for the benefit of customers for the next decade. If the companies were in the public sector, EFLs would prevent the programmes taking place.
Mr. Brown: As I said to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West, that is an important matter and one that is worthy of a full day's debate. Perhaps I am setting myself up for a third Friday. I very much enjoy the constructive contributions of the hon. Member for Esher to our debates as we consider the Finance Bill in Committee. He is fully entitled to at least a reply in outline, and with his permission I shall provide it by saying that we are trying to find our way to a structure that does not involve all the investment programmes of the public utilities being drawn into the public sector borrowing requirement. That is the strategic objective, and it is not one that will be impossible to realise. It is wrong to suggest that it is completely out of court. The objective involves a relationship with the private sector, and especially with the private money markets, which in the past have not served nationalised industries well. That is why we propose to proceed in the way that I have outlined.
I shall return to the main text of my speech. I wish to draw the attention of Conservative Members to some of the costs that the taxpayer has had to bear in the course of the Government's privatisation exercise. The costs to the taxpayer of privatising the water industry, for example, ran to about —2,173 million, for a total gain of about —882 million. The total cost to the taxpayer of that exercise, due largely to the write-off of debt and the injection of cash, is —1·291 billion. That is a substantial sum. In total, the taxpayer is subsidising the privatisation by —3·3 billion, and that is based only on the known costs. Conservative Members will say that the new structures justify the expenditure, but it is very heavy indeed. The Financial Secretary was quick enough to criticise our proposals for British Telecom, which would incur only a fraction of that, when Labour achieves office.
526
The sale of National Power and PowerGen has also been expensive for the taxpayer. The Government underpriced the shares by 37p. It follows logically that they lost the taxpayer —390 million. By the close of trading on Tuesday 12 March, 100p part-paid shares were trading at 137p—up by over a third in just one day. Under the Conservative party's own criterion, which is that the true value of an industry is what it will fetch on the market, the taxpayer has now lost —2·5 billion from the sale of the electricity industry. I think that that is an extraordinary price for the taxpayer to be asked to pay. Arguments about efficiency and managerial structures of public utilities should be dealt with on their own terms rather than by forgoing these assets—which are the state's assets—and losing taxpayers' money to transfer the utilities at great expense from the public to the private sector.
People's distress at the loss to the taxpayer of the true value of those assets is exacerbated enormously when they consider the profits made immediately the utilities are in private hands. They suspect that those profits have less to do with an efficiency exercise than with job losses and, above all, utility charges.
Mr. Maude: Do they not want environmental improvements?
Mr. Brown: We are not yet discussing the investment programme. The Northumbrian water company made a year on year rise in its pre-tax profits of 369·6 per cent. That is a substantial rise in anybody's terms, and it cannot be attributed solely to different managerial expertise in the private sector. I note that no Conservative Member has the cheek to say that it can.
Mr. Tebbit: I shall do so in a moment.
Mr. Brown: I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: As soon as possible.
Mr. Brown: The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), is reclining in a leisurely way in what I take to be his Friday suit. Perhaps he arrived late. I should perhaps explain that my speech is protracted because I have been fantastically generous in giving way to his hon. Friends when they have inquired, rightly and properly, into the policy of Her Majesty's Opposition, soon to be Her Majesty's Government.
The use that the privatised water companies have been making of their profits is quite interesting. South West Water has decided to spend its money not on environmental improvements, but on a bid for the south-west regional television franchise. If successful, it will have a 20 per cent. stake in the new company, West Country Television Ltd. What on earth has that to do with running a public utility and ensuring that the water supply is fit to drink? I suppose that South West Water could advertise that it is so by means of its newly owned television franchise, but that is not the same as putting the money into ensuring the actuality.
Severn Trent Water which, as the Financial Secretary said, covers his area—has just spent —212 million on a waste disposal company. Waste disposal now accounts for 15 per cent. of Severn Trent's activities. It may be legitimate for a water company to diversify into waste disposal. I have less quarrel with that than with Thames Water, which has a stake in the insurance industry. Welsh

527
Water has a stake in street cleaning; the Welsh and Yorkshire regional water companies, Northumbrian Water and Southern Water are involved in information technology; and apparently all the regional water companies are involved in property and leisure development—Welsh Water already owns two hotels. I remember what Conservative Members said when they discovered that British Rail owned hotels. They thought it was terrible and that they should be sold off straight away, but now that the other utilities are privatised, such activities are apparently to be encouraged.
It is suggested that the investment programmes of the great public utilities will take off now that the companies are in private hands, but British Telecom is not setting a good example to the rest. Notoriously, its profits for the year were more than —3 billion.
Mr. Maude: Investments are also at —3 billion.
Mr. Brown: The Financial Secretary rightly suggests by his murmurings as he cowers behind the Dispatch Box—either that, or he is falling asleep, I am not sure which—that there has been a public outcry about British Telecom's —3 billion profits. Consumers suspect that that reflected in their billing arrangements, and they are not wrong.
Mr. Riddick: What about investment?
Mr. Brown: The Financial Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary asks a good question. The investment programme has fallen by 11 per cent., or —370 million, compared with last year's programme.
Sir Michael Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman come clean and tell us what he regards as a reasonable return on investment? British Telecom's profits are normal compared with those of any other international company. Is he suggesting that it should have a lower return on investment than other similar international competing industries?
Mr. Brown: That is a difficult argument. After all, it is the Labour party that is proposing to buy shares in the organisation. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman would justify that by the return on investment, which he says is satisfactory and correct for an organisation of that size. It is the Financial Secretary who is saying that the returns on the investment are so good that the Conservative party will sell more of the Government's stake in that utility—presumably they will sell them at below their true market value. Is that the Financial Secretary's intention, or will the shares be pitched in at the actual market value? Perhaps he will answer that question—I have been very generous in answering questions.
Mr. Maude: The details of the further partial sale of British Telecom shares later this year will be divulged to the House in due course.
Mr. Brown: Now I know.
Mr. Norris: I know that the hon. Gentleman was very strict with himself about answering our questions, but he has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall). In the context of the size of the company and the size of any parallel
528
undertaking anywhere in the world, the profits of British Telecom are comparable and reasonable. More important, does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the profit figure is almost exactly identical to the figure for capital investment in the company the same year, it is an even more reasonable return on investment?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman would do better to put those assertions to British Telecom's customers than to me. I am a BT customer and I have noticed that my bill has risen substantially over the past year, although I am not sure whether that is reflected in the level of consumption.
Mr. Riddick: It has risen because the hon. Gentleman talks too much.
Mr. Brown: My real problem is trying to get a word in edgeways.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the British Government had led the way in privatisation. He compared Great Britain after 13 years of Conservative Government with countries that he regarded as analogous, and those included Sri Lanka, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the Philippines, Venezuela and Cuba. He also referred to several grim eastern European dictatorships. While some people in the Labour party might compare those countries to Britain under the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), I would not do that. However, it was interesting that such an analogy occurred to the Financial Secretary. The only nations that he suggested might be a correct analogy to the position of the parliamentary Labour party were North Korea and Albania. Such a proposition must have Mr. Peter Mandelson absolutely weeping into his duvet.
Mr. Maude: I will develop my analogy further. What Britain had in common with the eastern European countries at the beginning of the 1980s was an excessively large state sector which had to be reduced by businesses being returned to the private sector. Eastern and central European countries are going through exactly the same process now. The only redoubt of reaction is from the British Labour party and, of course, the North Korean communist party.
Mr. Brown: The debate has ranged widely, but it is probably not terribly productive to extend it to reforms in eastern Europe, although I wholeheartedly welcome what has been happening over the past three years in eastern Europe. It must be common ground in the House that the freedoms that we hope that people will enjoy in eastern Europe are freedoms that it is perhaps too easy to take for granted in western Europe.
Mr. Oppenheim: What about Ceausescu?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Amber Valley seems to be trying to lay Ceausescu at the Labour party's door. There must be embarrassing pictures of just about everyone in public life, not just people from our side, with that gentleman.
Mrs. Gorman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I promise not to interrupt him again because, like everyone else, I am anxious to hear other hon. Members.
Does the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) remember the remarkable event last year when the leaders of so many Socialist countries came to

529
this country and stated publicly at the Conservative party conference how much they admired the privatisation policies and what they had done to transform Britain? That was a magical moment. Does the hon. Gentleman recall the old days when the Labour party used to trot out its socialist friends from eastern Europe in an effort to boost the party? I notice that Labour Members nowadays are not really fond of associating themselves closely with those people.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I draw attention to the fact that the House has been sitting since 9.30 am and it is now 11.13 am but, so far, Back Benchers have only been able to intervene.
Mr. Brown: I accept that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members will allow me, I should like to complete my speech with less of the knockabout stuff. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Billericay that, regrettably, I have no friends in eastern Europe, communist or otherwise, disreputable or reconstructed.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may cite examples from Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Venezuela, Cuba and other states that he believes are directly comparable to Conservative Britain, but he cannot cite a trading partner of ours in the European Community which is putting its telecommunications network into the private sector. In every case the telecommunications network is owned and controlled by the state. Our EC trading partners are not lining up to follow Britain's example. I believe that the only two EC states whose telecommunications networks are in the private sector are Greece and Spain.
Another issue that has aroused a considerable amount of public interest and comment in respect of the Government's privatisation programme is the way in which the salaries of top executives are adjusted immediately after privatisation—[Interruption.] Conservative Members groan and look uncomfortable at that, and well they might.
After Cable and Wireless moved into the private sector, the chief executive managed a 114 per cent. pay increase. The pay of the chief executive of Jaguar rose by 100 per cent. after privatisation. Similarly, the chief executive of Enterprise Oil received a pay rise of 167 per cent. after privatisation. The lucky man at British Airways received a 126 per cent. increase and the individual at the E1ritish Airports Authority received a modest 110 per cent. increase. In all, the trading company privatisations managed an average increase for the top executives in the first year of 78 per cent. That was not bad going. Of course, the wages of others in the industries did not follow suit.
The position was not quite so marked with the utilities. According to Incomes Data Services, the average pay increase was 62·1 per cent. although there were some stark examples. In 1990, the chairman of Thames Water, Mr. Roy Watts, was awarded a pay rise of more than 168 per cent. when increases for the other top executives of water companies averaged 100 per cent. The chairman of Anglian Water, Bernard Henderson, received a 100 per cent. increase in 1990. I understand that the pay increase for the chairman of British Telecom is to be announced today. The figure has not been brought to me in the Chamber, but at some stage in the debate I hope that it will be possible to draw the attention of the House to it. It is
530
anticipated to be about 14 per cent. this year, but that is on top of the 32 per cent. that he gave himself last year. The suggested pay award for the employees is 8·3 per cent.
The Opposition have rightly made much of the position of the consumer. We believe that the privatised companies, whether they be trading companies or public utilities, are more concerned with the interests of the shareholders than with the interests of consumers or the country in which they operate. That is particularly important in the context of public utilities. However, it is clearly not right for the debate to be conducted along the lines of politicians' assertions with no evidence. In fact, we have some evidence to help us.
The London Business School conducted a survey with the United Research Group. That survey of privatised public utilities showed that customer service and product quality came bottom of the list of priorities that were put to senior managers. Only 27 per cent. of those surveyed mentioned product quality as a priority and only 18 per cent. mentioned customer service as a priority. Although that was merely a survey, it is indicative of attitudes among the newly privatised managements of those great ulitities. British Telecom has found that complaints from the public have been running at more that 30,000 this year. The Office of Telecommunications has stated that the total of complaints for 1990 showed a 21 per cent. increase over representations made in 1989, which itself was more than 34 per cent. higher than the figure in 1988. Gas complaints have been running at just over 21,000 and electricity complaints at more than 10,000. That suggests that the consumer is not satisfied, and one can understand that. The Conservative party is satisfied—indeed, it wants to go further. The Conservative party envisages private coal mines, private railway networks, privatised schools and privatised health care. All of that has its enthusiasts.
I have a pamphlet—I am always trying to improve my knowledge of such matters, and I know that the Conservative party is in favour of self-improvement—entitled, "The NHS—a suitable case for treatment", written by the No Turning Your Back group of Conservative Members. It must be Government policy because many of those people are now Ministers or at least serving in the Whips Office. The pamphlet talks about plans for the private sector, and it states:
"Particularly important for extending competition and co-operation"—
that is, inside the national health service—
"is that the spur should come not just from within the NHS, but with the private sector as well … As well as tendering for ancillary services, which have so far saved the NHS over —.100 million"—
I understand that the figure has risen since then—
"partnership with the private sector has grown far beyond this."
The point that they do not make is that the money that they allege has been saved to the national health service has been saved at the expense of the wages and conditions of employment of the employees—not employees who are well remunerated, but employees who are not very well remunerated at all.
I agree with the next point in the pamphlet, which states:
"Hospital waiting rooms are being made more like airport lounges".
That is true. Just as in an airport lounge, one departs from a hospital lounge without getting medical treatment. The pamphlet goes on:
"Hospitals have used private facilities to clear their waiting-list backlogs or when their own operating theatres were infected.

531
Whole treatments, such as dialysis, can be contracted out. Some NHS hospitals bring in a regular income by contracting out paybed facilities to private firms … Even more adventurously, hospital builders such as Tarmac Construction suggest that they could build and operate entire hospitals more efficiently and more cheaply than the public sector."
That would speed up operations, would it not? We would see blokes from Tarmac coming in with chainsaws and hammers to sort out the business. [Laughter.] I see that Conservative Members are happy with that; it cheers me up. The document concludes:
"Innovative partnerships with the private sector will bring more and more benefits as experience is gained."
It is a bit tough if one happens to be the patient on whom that experience is being gained. However, the pamphlet goes on:
"From the government side there must be a financial incentive structure which encourages such experimentation and development.
There should also be structural reform of NHS decision-making in order to take advantage of the best of both private and public sectors …
The introduction of internal markets within the NHS, as a first step, would get managers used to buying and selling services between themselves, and to both knowing and controlling the costs of everything they do."
That idea has taken off in Newcastle. As I pointed out in the public spending debate, the management of the health authority is doing precisely that. It has found that it can make more money selling radiotherapy beds. It first closed 15 of them, but it sold the remaining radiotherapy beds to neighbouring health authorities and generated an income for itself—by not treating people who live in Newcastle, of course. People in Newcastle are not allowed to go into hospitals for radiotherapy treatment as in-patients; they have to be treated as day patients regardless of condition. That strikes me as so outrageous as to be indefensible, even by Conservative Members.
The Freeman hospital in Newcastle is the flagship of the Conservatives' opting-out proposals. Not only was it the first hospital to opt out, but it is the one in which the famous IBM experiment on computerised costings is taking place. The allegation from the Conservative side is that that crypto-privatisation—that change of systems which would enable private and public money to go into the health service—will somehow help patients. One of my constituents, Mrs. Price, who lives in Monkchester road, has a pain in her knee. It is swollen and it is hurting her. Her general practitioner has asked the hospital consultant to look at her. She received a letter from the appointments officer, stating:
"I acknowledge receipt of a letter from your family doctor requesting an out patient appointment."
That is a reasonable enough beginning, but the letter goes on to say:
"We apologize for the fact that there is a waiting list of up to 30 weeks for a routine out patient appointment?"
That is what the opted-out system has done for that hospital.
Mr. David Lightbown: What about the rest of the letter?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman asks, "What about the rest of the letter?" I shall read the whole letter for him, which will teach him to intervene from a sedentary position. The letter goes on to state:
532
"Every referral letter is read and prioritised by the Consultant concerned, and a letter will be sent to you approximately four weeks prior to your visit to out patients, with details of the date and time of your appointment.
If you are concerned in any way regarding your medical condition, please discuss this with your family doctor who may be able to help or advise."
The family doctor has already helped and advised. His suggestion is that she should go to a hospital and be looked at by a specialist consultant. The specialist consultant is saying that she will have to wait in pain for the next 30 weeks. That is just not acceptable.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: That did not happen under Labour.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, rightly points out that that did not happen under Labour. I suppose that he will go on to say that it was a long time ago.
Our objections to the Government's privatisation programmes are, of course, the costs of privatisation, which have been borne by the taxpayer, and the excessive profiteering which protects the interests of the shareholder against those of the consumer and, sometimes, against those of the environment. The issue of boardroom pay has stuck in the throats of just about everyone who has been following the matter, and the number of complaints received by the privatised utilities has increased substantially.
The Government have much to be ashamed of in their privatisation programme and nothing to boast about or to be proud about. It is absolutely clear why the Government are holding the debate on no matter of substance to vote on. With their record on privatisation, they are doing absolutely the only thing that they possibly could—they are practising holding an Opposition Supply day for the time when we become the Government and they have to hold Supply day debates.
11.26 am
Mr. Norman Tebbit: I hope that I shall be briefer than some other speakers. I shall not attempt to follow either my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury or the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) through all the byways down which the hon. Gentleman in particular has taken us. In particular, I will not speculate on what goes on under Mr. Peter Mandelson's duvet: I give an absolute commitment on that.
Let me at once declare my interests in the debate. First, I am a taxpayer. Secondly, I am a consumer of the services of both the former nationalised and still nationalised businesses. Thirdly, I am a shareholder in Thames Water and British Telecom. Fourthly, I am a non-executive director of the latter company. Fifthly, just for the record, I hold the curious office of honorary adviser to the chairman of British Aerospace. I was also, for six of the eight years during which I served as a Minister in the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) a sponsoring Minister of nationalised industries. For 17 years, I worked for a nationalised industry. On the whole, therefore, I claim some right to know a thing or two about nationalised and denationalised industries.
I should like to emphasise at once one or two things that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said. He is right. He referred to Christian Democrat Germany, not least what was once called East Germany, or cynically

533
known as the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Germany. That was the one which was never democratic, although it was certainly socialist. The process of denationalisation is now under way there in Germany, in Mitterrand's socialist France, in Hawke's Labour Australia, in the more advanced countries of black Africa, under the Nationalist South African Government of President de Klerk, in South America and throughout eastern Europe. It is also happening in New Zealand where, in an advanced step, the national telephone company has been denationalised. Many other countries are now looking at the success of the denationalisation of our telephone company, and will be following suit.
Only the most backward reactionary socialists and hard-line Communists, referred to by the BBC's disinformation unit as "conservatives", believe any longer in state ownership and centralised economic planning—only them and, as we have heard again today, the modern British Labour party. Opposition Members call it "social ownership". It is more like an economic social disease—a business and commercial pox. These days, there must be more advocates of state ownership in the British Labour party than in the Albanian Government. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said, the Labour party would now be hard-pressed to find soulmates anywhere —even in Cuba. Apparently not even Cuba believes in state ownership any longer. The British Labour party would have to go to North Korea to find anyone who would join it in its belief that centralised state planning and nationalisation are the way forward.
I shall restrict my remarks to only two or three of the many areas that could be debated this morning. First, I shall make some general observations on the issues and some observations derived from my experience as the sponsoring Minister for some state industries. Secondly, I shall make specific remarks about some of the nationalised industries, especially British Telecom, and about one organisation that has not yet been mentioned, the former freight division of the British Waterways Board.
Calls for Government spending are always in excess of what any Chancellor feels could be prudently or even imprudently financed. There are few businesses in which there are not more ways of spending money than there are of financing that expenditure. We are all familiar with the annual round of discussions between the Treasury and other Departments, which leads, sometimes through the so-called Star Chamber, to the public expenditure White Paper, which is the means by which the seemingly irreconcilable are eventually reconciled.
Incidentally, I should like to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East about the subject of debates for the Adjournment. I remember a Labour Government who debated the public expenditure White Paper on a motion for the Adjournment because they could not get a majority, since the Labour party was split over the cuts in hospital, school and social spending, that were imposed on the Labour Government by the International Monetary Fund—as a result not least of the follies of nationalisation that were committed by the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman should therefore be careful when he criticises the use of motions for the Adjournment.
As Ministers strive for the approval of their spending plans, the outcome is decided on all sorts of less than logical factors, not least of which is the political weight and influence or even the sheer tenacity of the Secretary of
534
State concerned. It is hard enough deciding between whether there should be more expenditure on defence, or on education, the police, the health service, welfare or the other services, all of which fall fairly and squarely within the responsibility of the Government. As the finance director of any conglomerate will testify, it is hard enough to arbitrate on the financial needs of businesses that have little in common except ownership. However, if all that lot is put together in the public expenditure round, it is impossible to find any criteria on which one can arbitrate fairly between the demands of those inescapable Government responsibilities to which I have referred and the needs of commercial businesses.
In addition, if the business is nationalised, the Government are not only the financier and appointer of its management, but the regulator. The sheer impossibility of being fair when the Government are both the regulator and the financier, giving rise to the clearest possible conflicts of interest, stands out for all to see. The role of regulator may require the Government to impose extra costs on industries. However, in the role of financier, the Treasury may say that those costs cannot be afforded without closing another hospital, which is what the previous Labour Government did.
Inevitably, one also runs into the role of Ministers as politicians. We have heard this from a would-be Minister this morning, when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East was busy trying to buy votes by pretending that Government control, even though it would result in cutting the capital expenditure programmes, would bring lower prices and improved quality to the consumer.
Mr. Nicholas Brown indicated dissent.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. He may be willing to argue this, but he will not be able to find any historical argument to buttress his case. What I have described has been the problem of nationalised industries over the years. Things would be even more difficult for a Labour Government because, as we all know, Labour politicians are always in thrall to the bosses of the big unions which, historically, have had large memberships in the nationalised industries.
Let me tell the House from my experience—perhaps not all my hon. Friends in the Government will be pleased to hear this—how the needs of nationalised industries are decided under any Government. In order not to personalise the matter let us take as an example what I shall call the nationalised British Widgets Corporation. The senior managers of that business would meet the senior officials at, say, the Department of Trade and Industry. The managers would already have produced a draft corporate plan. The senior officials at the DTI would then second-guess the senior managers. After much to-ing and fro-ing, a modified corporate plan would be agreed by the Widget board, which would bring it before the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then third-guess it and send his senior officials to their Treasury opposite numbers, who would then fourth-guess them. A compromise would be reached, which the Secretary of State would then fifth-guess, before going to see the Chief Secretary, who would sixth-guess him.
By this time, the financial year of the British Widgets Corporation would be half over, but the corporation would still not have an approved corporate plan. Indeed, it would know that, even when the corporate plan was

535
approved, it would be a mess because the corporation had committed itself—or been unable to commit itself—to the necessary programme of investment. The bargaining would continue, with the Chief Secretary trying to arbitrate between the needs of the British Widgets Corporation and those of the national health service. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be wondering whether to force cuts in another capital programme that had already been agreed for another industry, so that he could avoid a crisis at the British Widget Corporation.
That is what actually happens, year in, year out, as a consequence of the state ownership of industry. If all that was not enough, it is possible that, at about the same time if there were such a Minister, the Secretary of State for England would crash in to tell the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that, if anyone tried to close the loss-making Widget plant in England, he would resign to join the English Nationalist party. That is the way in which these industries are treated and managed. One could not run the proverbial alcoholic reception in a brewery in that way, let alone an industry, but it is an inescapable feature of the state ownership and political control of business.
I lived with that for six years. I had to fight like a tiger against my colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that what was then British Leyland—it is Rover Group now—could proceed with the K engine, which is now the heart of its most successful model. I had to decide that case on the basis of the management's estimates of the market. It was an act of great courage, because most of the time those estimates were wrong. Fortunately, on this occasion, they were right. I had to persuade the Treasury to let me authorise expenditure on the car which became the Jaguar XJ6, and without which the group would not have a product line at all by now. Again, happily, I was right rather than wrong. I had to fight for the 524 Rolls-Royce engine, and again, I was right.
I am sure that other products on which I lost the battle might have been even better investments. As a politician, I had to make those choices and persuade other politicians that they were right. I was not the right man to do that, and nor was any other politician. If I got some of the decisions right, it was as much by luck as by good judgment. On products ranging from groundnuts to that expensive motor car in Ulster, my predecessors over the years got many decisions wrong, and that would happen again.
A while ago, we discussed some aspects of British Telecom. The process to which I have referred led the Post Office, which used to run our telephones, to ration telephones and neglect the capital investment which was so desperately needed to operate a decent telephone system. We all know what a party line is. Of course, not everyone in the House sticks to it. Sometimes it is hard to find one. People make up their own. I suspect that we have heard a bit of that this morning from the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East. From time to time, I thought that his was a better party line than that used by his leader and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman's speech very much. Does he accept that, if one of us is to make up Labour party policy, it is better that I do it than that he does it?
Mr. Tebbit: I am an independent sort of fellow now. If I were offered a consultancy, I might be able to do the hon. Gentleman's party some good. I did my party some good from time to time, as he may remember. If he wants some advice on a strictly commercial basis, I will give it to him. I could even do so in private, although I might leak from time to time.
I was talking about party lines. Do we remember what a party line was? It was an arrangement used when British Telecom was nationalised, by which two subscribers had to share one line because the business could not provide lines for all the people who wanted them. That is what customer service was about in nationalised industries.
When British Telecom was denationalised, one call in 25 failed to get through. Now, less than 0·5 per cent. of calls are not immediately successful. When British Telecom was denationalised, there were 20 million lines; the figure is now 26 million. There were 8,000 miles of optic fibre cables in existence then; there are now 800,000 miles. There was then but one digital switching unit; now the whole main network has digital switching, and 73 per cent. of all British Telecom lines are served by modern digital local exchanges.
British Telecom has created a mobile phone cellular network with more than half a million customers. It covers an area in which 97 per cent. of the population live. I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will assure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it covers every known restaurant in central London.
Itemised billing is now available to 19 million of our customers. All the achievements that I have listed spring largely from an investment programme of —14·5 billion since 1984, without any contribution from the taxpayer or any hassle with the Treasury. British Telecom has not competed for funds with hospitals, schools, defence or anything else in the Government programme. That investment programme currently runs at just less than —3 billion a year.
Last year alone, the Treasury received from British Telecom —1·4 billion in corporation tax and dividends. If that were not enough, let me rub the nose of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East in it a little. He talked about the costs of privatisation. When British Telecom was privatised, the market valued it at about —8 billion. The Government's half share is worth about that figure today.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Because of the profits.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman says that that is because of the profits. I say that it is as a result of the investment that has been made, which has led to profits and better service. If the hon. Gentleman ever became a Minister in a Labour Government in the near future, one tip that I would give him—this is free consultancy—would be not to engage in the folly of buying 2 per cent. of British Telecom shares but to sell what he would have and finance some of the extravagant programmes of his colleagues out of it. That would be a far better way to proceed.
Mr. Brown: Tell the Minister that.
Mr. Tebbit: I would give the same advice to my hon. Friend. Sell the shares and finance hospitals, which are the responsibility of the Government. Hospitals and schools,

537
not telecoms, are the responsibility of the Government. We can manage British Telecom fine without any call on the taxpayer.
Prices have fallen regularly in real terms throughout British Telecom's privatised life. I started by limiting its price rises to the retail prices index minus three. The current regime requires price rises of the retail prices index minus six and a half. Find me a nationalised industry that performs like that even under a Conservative Government. To find one under a Labour Government is an even harder search.
Today, British Telecom compensates customers if it fails to respond adequately to the demands for installations or for repair of lines. British Telecom gives —13 million a year in cash and in kind to charities and community organisations. This year, it will pay an extra —600,000 to Save the Children alone. Find me a nationalised industry that has similar resources and uses them in that way.
I willingly defend the increases in salary of senior managers in British Telecom. I do so for the following reasons. One of my failures as Secretary of State and as a Minister was to secure adequate salaries for the top management of nationalised industries. One of the reasons why nationalised industries do not have the quality of management that they should have is not only that managers are not prepared to be interfered with all the time by politicians when those managers are trying to do their job but that they see no reason why they should sacrifice the standard of living they would have if they worked in the private sector, either in Britain or abroad. These people are intensely mobile.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tebbit: I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene before I put the bombshell under him.
Mr. Brown: Perhaps I had better make my intervention quickly before the bombshell goes off. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's first point about salary ranges in nationalised industries, but his second point is surely bogus. He is saying that somehow a different and higher calibre of management appears in the privatised public utilities and trading companies as a result of the salary changes. Surely it is the same people who are in management, and they receive dramatically enhanced salaries. The managers whom the right hon. Gentleman criticises in the public sector become brilliant managers in the private sector and deserve the extra money.
Mr. Tebbit: There would have been no way in which I could have persuaded Lord King, then Sir John King, and his chief executive, Sir Colin Marshall, to join British Airways without an absolutely firm assurance that the company would be denationalised. The same is true of many senior managers of our privatised companies today.
To continue my point about salaries, a little while ago British Telecom was searching for a very senior executive just below board level to head up the function of planning for our future development. We scoured not only this country and Europe, but the United States to find the right man. We found him, but we had to pay him a salary that was out of line with the average of many of our executives in order to secure him to work for British Telecom. We did so to give the sort of service to our telephone customers
538
that those in America have enjoyed for many years because their telephone companies are in the private sector. That is part of the consequence of the absurd structure of nationalisation that we had in the past.
Mr. Grylls rose—
Sir Michael Marshall rose—
Mr. Tebbit: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not give way, as I do not want to speak for much longer. I hope that they will participate later.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Where is the bombshell?
Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the Opposition cannot see it. If they reintroduced a system under which we could not get the quality of management, either at home or from abroad, necessary for our nationalised industries and public utilities, we would head straight back to the appalling standards with which we had to put up from those industries in the past.
During the debate on the Bill to nationalise British Telecom, all sorts of amazing allegations were made. It was claimed that public call boxes would be virtually phased out. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has already said that that is far from true—there are many more now, and they are serviceable, too. In those days, there was no special programme to help British Telecom's disabled customers. Today the company is spending more than —3 million a year through its Action for the Disabled Customer. That is the type of change one gets from a company that seeks to serve its customers instead of taking them for granted and rationing telephones to them.
It is true that British Telecom has committed one of the great sins in the Labour party's book. Our work force has fallen from 236,000 to 226,000. It is clear that that number will continue to fall. The Labour party believes that that is a terrible sin and that the payroll should be kept padded. That is exactly what happened—
Mr. Paul Boateng indicated dissent.
Mr. Tebbit: If that is not the Labour party's view, why has it criticised British Telecom for reducing its work force? Why does it always raise the spectre of denationalisation leading to job cuts? [Interruption.] It is no good for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and the hon. Member for Brent, South gabbling away to each other; we know about the criticisms from the Labour party. It has criticised British Telecom for reducing its work force, while improving the quality of the product, reducing the price, increasing profits and improving capital investment. Such is the burden of the case against British Telecom put by the Opposition.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: As represented by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tebbit: No, as represented by Opposition Members. It is important to note that British Telecom has also preserved a research and development programme of more than —200 million a year as well.
We still do not know what the Labour party would do to British Telecom if it had the chance, or what it would do to Mercury. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East has proposed that the Government shareholding should be bought back up to 51 per cent. We did not hear what comes next. Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the shareholders manage the company? Perhaps some

539
Opposition Members are naive enough to imagine that that is the case, but the company is managed by the board. Would the board receive instructions from the shareholders as to what it should do? Would errant directors be fired by the shareholders if they did not do what they were told? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East should tell us.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Just one.
Mr. Tebbit: I would take that stoically.
Let us consider the serious point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to evade. Would there be any interference from the majority shareholder in the management of the company? Answer comes there none. What would be the effect upon the interests of the minority of shareholders of any such activity by the majority shareholder? There may be plenty of legal precedents that would restrain such interference were it judged to be against the interests of other shareholders.
If what we have been told today represents the thought-out programme of the Labour party, it is clear that it is incompetent nonsense, springing from sheer ignorance and prejudice. If there is some other agenda, we have not been told of it.
I worked for British Airways for 17 years when it was a nationalised industry. I know what it was like. Dear God, it was a dreadful period. Now, we have the world's finest airline. That was not true when it was nationalised, and it could not have happened were it still nationalised. The nationalised days were the days when the company was not allowed to order the aeroplanes it needed. It was not even allowed to choose the aircraft it wanted, but it was expected to run an airline. No wonder it was rated somewhere down on a level with some of the east European airlines in passenger estimation. It was treated as though it was an east European airline by an east European-style Government. [Interruption.] Do the Opposition seriously suggest that British Airways is not a better airline than it was when it was nationalised?
Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman has gone over the top.
Mr. Tebbit: Have I gone over the top by suggesting that British Airways could not be effectively managed when it was nationalised? If that is what the hon. Gentleman calls "over the top", he ain't heard nothing yet.
Let us consider the conflict of interests between the regulator and the regulated if they are in the same ownership. What about South West Water? Before it was privatised, it twice polluted the water supply of thousands of its customers.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: It will never do it again.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that it will not, and I will tell him why. When it did so in the past, any fine that was levied was paid by the taxpayer, and that is why those fines were never adequate. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury know that that was a daft idea because, if one fined the water authority, it would just bust its external financing limit and the taxpayer would have to pay it anyway. Today, if South West Water were fined, it
540
would come straight out of the bottom line, because it would hit the shareholders' profits. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman has said, it will not do it again.
There is no possibility that a Government can properly regulate and, at the same time, own a business. That is one of the chief reasons why changes had to be made.
Not all denationalised businesses are big ones. A few days ago, I received a letter from my constituent, Mr. Leggett. He runs a successful transport business, which is now part of a Leeds-based company known as Pointbid plc. A few years ago that company bought British Waterways freight division. The relevant section of that letter states:
"In June, 1988, British Waterways Board sold the major part of their loss-making Freight Division to the private sector. Pointbid plc—part of the Leggett Freightways Group —was established to run those former British Waterways board assets as a going concern; within a year of its purchase it was turned into a profitable company. Due to our depot locations largely being alongside, in the main, major inland waterways, we have become increasingly aware of the environmental, energy and cost benefits in barging commodities as opposed to road transport. Recently, for example, we diverted some of our ship cargoes from the Humber ports away from the usual road transport routing to barge; each ship cargo so diverted has taken from the road system over 300 road vehicle journeys!"
Why was that not done when it was in national ownership? What restraint prevented the British Waterways Board from using the same get-up-and-go initiative that my constituent's company used?
Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend will know that Mr. Leggett's partner, Graham Linney, is a constituent of mine and a co-operator in that successful company. My right hon. Friend will probably go on to relate that, in addition to the environmental benefits that have accrued from the change of management, the letter from which he quoted says that, in the first year of operation by private owners, that division of British Waterways has, for the first time, made a profit.
Mr. Tebbit: One is almost embarrassed by the number of examples one could cite of the success of denationalised industries. Against that fact, we have only the carping and idiotic criticism of Labour Members to the effect that there is something wicked about making profits, even when the consumer is being far better served. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) wish to intervene? He would be well advised not to do so, because he has neither the knowledge nor the intellectual capacity to join in the debate. In any event, he has not been here to listen to it. He has probably been dragged in to add weight to the number of Labour Members present.
What difference would be made by the Labour party's proposals for British Telecom? What is it about BT that Labour Members hate? Do they want to stop us giving money to charity, to restrict the amount of aid given to our disabled customers or to end the system of compensation to customers who do not get the service they should have? Do they want to go back to a formula of RPI-plus as it used to be, as opposed to RPI minus 6·5 per cent? Do they want to cut the capital investment programme, or are they satisfied with what is being done by the management of BT?
Do Labour Members think that they are better able to make the judgments that the directors and board of BT now make? Do they want to substitute the judgment of politicians and officials for those of people who have

541
responsibility for running the business? Or do they just want to fool around, wasting public money, taking a shareholding stake to raise the holding of the state to 51 per cent. and then make no other change? The embarrassed silence on the Opposition Benches is sufficient answer for those here and outside to judge.
12.2 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister began by charging the Opposition with dogma, a serious charge, the assumption being that at least since 1945, Labour Members have consistently clung to the concept of nationalisation as a remedy for the economic ills of the United Kingdom economy.
The Minister will recall that from time to time there were cracks in that dogmatic approach. The story is told —apocryphally, it is alleged—of the time when the then Prime Minister, now Lord Wilson, was at a Cabinet meeting during the 1964–70 period when there was a discussion about the need to extend public ownership. He is alleged to have said, "It will take a lot to persuade the British people that we can manage Marks and Spencer as efficiently as we have managed the Co-operative movement."
Any historical analysis of the issues that we are debating must take account of the fact that between 1951 and 1964 and between 1970 and 1974, Conservative Governments were not noted for their desire to change the basis of ownership of what were public utilities. One must derive from that the conclusion that while there may have been contemporary justification for the nature of a particular form of ownership, when there is a radical change in the nature of that ownership, what occurs may be an irreversible change in the circumstances of the industry, making the possibility of turning the clock back virtually impossible. I suspect that that judgment can be made with more certainty in the sort of period of great technological advance that we in this country have enjoyed in the last 10 to 15 years.
At issue in the 1990s should be not the question of the nature of the ownership but the nature of the service to the consumer. There is little doubt that any attempt to reverse the privatisations that have taken place would be diversionary in the achievement of the economic objectives of those companies, that it would take a great deal of time and that it would cost a lot of money. From a historical perspective, one need only examine the fate of the British road haulage industry since 1945 to see how damaging a continued change in ownership can be.
It should be the duty of government to establish and implement a preference for the breaking up of monopolies, be they national state or national private ones. I see no justification for the renationalising of any companies that have been privatised since the Conservatives came to power in 1979. That is not to say that I agree entirely with everything said by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), with his characteristically robust approach. He cited the United States as an example, and that is interesting in connection with telecommunications because the nature of competition there between the existing companies is more acute than it is in this country. One must wonder whether telecommunications in Britain would have been better served by the creation not of one
542
extremely large company such as BT but by the creation of a number of smaller companies with a greater capacity to compete one with the other.
Mr. Tebbit: British Telecom is smaller than the companies in the United States, so the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong on that point. Competition in America is not, in general, between companies offering services to the same people. It is competition such as exists here in our water authorities, with companies offering services to people in different parts of the country. He may be aware that BT has a 20 per cent. holding in an American telecommunications company and is hopeful of engendering more competition in the United States to benefit the consumers there in the way we are benefiting them here.
Mr. Campbell: In size, we are comparing two substantially different markets—the United Kingdom with a market of about 55 million people and the United States market of about 250 million. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point about the regional nature of the competition, and on that footing there might have been an argument for a Scottish Telecom rather than a United Kingdom-wide one. But that does not detract from the principle that if we are concerned about the creation of an efficient system at the most effective cost to the consumer, a degree of competition is of great importance.
As the right hon. Gentleman referred to the airlines, I cite him—I accept that it is anecdotal—the experience of those of us who fly regularly between Edinburgh and London. In the days when British Airways had a virtual monopoly on that route, the standards of service on the aircraft were less than one would have desired. As soon as British Midland was introduced to that route and the Glasgow route, the standard of service improved dramatically. That shows that genuine competition is of great value to the consumer. Few of those who travel regularly between Scotland and London would view with equanimity the idea that there should be less than two carriers on those routes.
Last year, I chose to replace my mobile telephone. I went back to British Telecom, from whom I bought my previous instrument and who dealt with me extremely well on the previous occasion. I went to the British Telecom shop in Princes street in Edinburgh and was received with great civility and efficiency. In due course, the instrument was provided and I asked for a car kit—a device that allows one to talk without committing a road traffic offence. Although the equipment was first class, by the time British Telecom had finished fitting it, much of the interior of my car was hanging off. The bracket on which the mobile telephone should fit would not stay upright but kept falling over. I complained to the chairman of the company, the fire service was sent for and the problem was remedied. I pronounced the fact that I was entirely satisfied. Like all proper consumers, I had declined to pay my cheque, so I then paid it. I received a polite letter acknowledging it and expressing the hope that everything would be perfectly all right in the future. Three weeks later, I received a demand from a debt collecting agency in Wolverhampton, telling me that if I did not pay British Telecom, a summons would be issued for the outstanding amount. Again, British Telecom apologised about that. There may therefore be scope for arguing that British Telecom could do better in some areas.

543
May I argue in favour of competition? A state enterprise such as the National Coal Board, which some people believe abuses its monopoly power by virtue of the fact that the ownership of coal and, therefore, the right to allow the winning of the resource, rests with the National Coal Board. Some people believe—I am one of them—that it would make sense to take that right away from the National Coal Board, either to rest with the appropriate Secretary of State and the Government, or to be given to some other institution. Other operators could then be issued with licences to operate. Such an element of competition could be embraced by the Government and could introduce competitive activity, which would benefit the consumer.
In moving away from state-owned enterprise, proper account should be taken of the need to encourage employee share ownership and employee buy-outs and to ensure that, as part of the newly privatised arrangements, a company is obliged to inform employees to permit them to participate, as far as possible, in the way a company is organised, or at least to consult them about how a company is to conduct itself.
It was inevitable that this debate has concentrated on the Labour party's policies. With due deference to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), he gave the impression of someone who had turned up at the Old Bailey on a quiet Friday hoping to have an early lunch, only to find himself landed with a dock brief in which he had little confidence. His enthusiasm for giving way was as much an endeavour to be courteous to those who sought to intervene as an attempt to deflect attention from the substance of his speech.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I shall give way when I have developed the point. To say that the most radical proposal that the Labour party has on competition is to take British Telecom into what is described, but not properly defined, as "social ownership", hardly seems like a manifesto for a radical Government of the 1990s. The hon. Gentleman failed to give the precise amount that would be paid by way of compensation or to explain the principle that lies behind market value. Market value may mean any number of things. Is it market value as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, or is it on the assumption that there is no proposal to acquire compulsorily? Alternatively, is it on the assumption that there is a proposal to acquire compulsorily? We are entitled to hear the hon. Gentleman explain more fully that matter of principle.
Mr. Brown: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is happy with the phrase, "a willing buyer and a willing seller," I am happy with the phrase as a description of our approach to those matters, However, the hon. and learned Gentleman is a little unfair to me when he says that I gave way to Conservative Members as a device. Conservative Members, particularly those who have served in Committees, will know that I always give way, as a matter of practice.
Mr. Campbell: I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman if his sole motivation was courtesy—it would be churlish of me not to accept his explanation—but he
544
cannot be allowed to use that to slide away from the question about a willing buyer and a willing seller. What is the nature of the market in which they operate? The hon. Gentleman may be aware that, in the compulsory acquisition of heritable property there is a principle called the "Pointe Gourde"—it is English law, for those who are not familiar with it—which requires, in the assessment for compensation, that no account be taken of the fact that compulsory purchase is being proposed. The mere publication of an intention to acquire compulsorily immediately has a depressing effect on value. That is an important issue and I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have dealt with it before he came to the House and that the Labour party will do so before it goes to the country. It should say whether it intends to acquire British Telecom or part of the shareholding at market value.
Mr. Brown: I have done my best to please the hon. and learned Gentleman by using the phrase that he used. I am satisfied with it if he is. I have been accused of many things, some fairly and others not, but I utterly rebut the charge that I am a lawyer.
Mr. Campbell: It was not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to offer that mitigation. That was obviously the case and no one would throw such an accusation against him. Perhaps I will offer the hon. Gentleman my services as a consultant, paid or even unpaid, because he has still not dealt with the important question of which kind of market price will be paid by a willing buyer. If he cannot do so today, he and his colleagues must do so before they take their manifesto before the people of the United Kingdom, whenever a general election is called.
Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a further point that was not dealt with in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) was the question of Mercury and how the renationalisation of British Telecom will increase competition. Will it not decrease competition in the telephone industry?
Mr. Campbell: I have no doubt that we shall hear about the proposals for Mercury. It would be curious if Mercury, with no element of public control, were competing with British Telecom, with an element of public control. One does not need to be an expert in such matters to divine that in those circumstances there could be a considerable distortion of the market.
Many questions were put to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, and I shall add some more. Let us suppose that a case was established to show that an undertaking currently in public ownership would be better managed and give a better service to the consumer if it were privatised. Would the Labour party be willing to privatise that undertaking or is its resistance to privatisation one of dogma rather than utility, as the Minister said?
Many of the services about which we are talking are referred to in the United States as utilities. At the risk of stretching the language, surely the issue is to determine what the utility would be to the consumer. If we were able to establish to the intellectual satisfaction of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, if not his emotional satisfaction, that the privatisation of a specific

545
institution would enable it to give a better service to the consumer, would he be willing to accept that and, if it were within his power, try to bring it about?
My criticisms of the Government's position lie in the fact that it does not seem that all the privatisations carried out have resulted in the degree of competition necessary to produce the most efficient use of resources. In spite of what the Minister said today, I am left with a strong belief that, in many cases, we have turned state monopolies into private ones, which cannot be in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom. That is why I continue with my questioning of the success of the Government's programme. However, I am firmly of the view that there is no justification in 1991, nor will there be in 1992, if it takes until then for the issues to be decided, for any movement back from the privatisations that have taken place.
Mr. Tebbit: If it is any comfort to the hon. and learned Gentleman, when I was in government my view was that if it was possible to arrange competition rather than regulation, competition would be better. I am still happier to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the board of British Telecom would far prefer the company to be in fair competition than to be regulated. I hope that the process of moving away from regulation to better competition will continue because I am sure that that would be in the interests of the companies and the consumers.
Mr. Campbell: I have no doubt that hon. Members and people outside the House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. I suspect that it may be within the gift of the Government to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity that he and other members of the board of British Telecom would relish and I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
12.24 pm
Sir Michael Marshall: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and I find myself very much at one with his reflections on the inevitability of privatisation and the totally bizarre view shown in the Labour party proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown).
It is important for us to have a chance to test some of the Labour party's ideas. I compliment the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East on his courtesy, which we all appreciated. It is understood that he is a kindly man. It is therefore painful for me to have to say that he has made himself a hostage to fortune, but he has done us a service by demonstrating how threadbare the Labour party's case is. That was shown even within his argument, which was merely a damage limitation operation.
I am glad that I had the opportunity to hear my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is also a kindly man. I thought that he might well have taken the full opportunity to trace the history of nationalisation, which one must do if one is to understand the problems and possible threats to the future that it may cause.
As one would expect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) with his knowledge of the subject, made an excellent speech highlighting many aspects. I speak from a more modest position. I had two and a half years at the Department of Trade and Industry, part of the time with my right hon. Friend. It is a source
546
of great personal pride that I had some responsibility for denationalisation of British Aerospace and Cable and Wireless, and at the beginning of the process to denationalise British Telecom. I declare an interest in the first two companies and I shall seek to comment on them.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East demonstrated that he was not prepared to give us any of the Labour party's ideas on hurdle rates of return on investment. He said that a Labour Government would pick up £28 billion investment for the water industry during the next decade, which is an interesting addition to what we already know. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East has not addressed his mind to the fair market value argument.
We were shown a range of uncertainties, but that is part of Labour party history. Everyone who has read the late Lord Shinwell's memoirs will know of the magic moment at the dawn of socialism in 1945 when he went to Transport house and said, "I have responsibility for the coal industry, please give me the plan for the denationalisation of coal", and he was asked, "What plan, mate?" That was the starting point of the great move in the coal industry.
I am a refugee from the steel industry, and had 20 years in the steel and heavy engineering industries. I was nationalised, denationalised and nationalised again, and it was not a pretty experience. I found it insupportable to have to put up with the economic and industrial illiteracy with which I was assailed by Labour Governments who sought to tell us how to do things. When I came to the House, I saw in the Beswick report, the Varley-Kaufman initiative, which a Select Committee roundly condemned and, at every twist and turn, how when a Labour Government seeks state control of industry in this country, they get it dreadfully wrong.
I have some sympathy with the Labour Government's problems because the system is peculiarly designed to make it difficult for Ministers to interfere in industry in our country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford highlighted that when he spoke of the sixth, seventh and eighth overviews. He, too, was being kind and should have added ninth and 10th overviews—the Prime Ministers of various colours who often feel that they have the final say. Our system makes it extremely difficult for Ministers to intervene, even with the best will in the world.
Although I accept the honesty with which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East put forward his views, he failed to address the realities of life when he spoke of the wonderful way in which he would sidestep the Treasury so that, at one bound, he would be free. He said that he would harness private capital and get out of external financing limits. I know that we should not refer to individuals in a particular part of the House, but if the hon. Gentleman had looked in one direction he would have seen the alarmed faces of some of those sitting here, with whom he might have to work in future.
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can break down the Treasury ethos he is a brave man.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with nationalisation, denationalisation and state ownership of and investment in industry has been the dead hand of the Treasury, which can never decide on anything until it is far too late to make a sensible decision?
Sir Michael Marshall: I would not necessarily disagree, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if those who manage industry have to route their affairs not only through Whitehall but through Westminster, where they are subject to scrutiny by the House, and if the attendant media problems also come into play, that is a recipe for rendering it impossible to manage a business effectively. Labour adopted the worst of all worlds by taking over internationally competitive manufacturing industries. It is one thing to interfere with an industry with a certain dominance in the domestic market, but steel, aerospace and British Airways are industries which need to be extraordinarily quick off the mark to survive, and nationalising them did great damage.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East was trying to deal with some of the arguments about Labour's proposals for British Telecom. It is an internationally competitive industry, however, which must produce services for the vast infrastructure of Britain's industry and service sector. If it does not perform that service properly, British competitiveness suffers. BT faces competition from Mercury—I have already declared my interest in Cable and Wireless. Labour is once again falling into the trap of eyeing industries that may have a high profile and may be profitable, while ignoring the damage that nationalising them might do to the underpinning of British industry and our service industries.
I want briefly to go over my experiences in the steel industry. The time in question was not a happy one, but it showed how it was possible for distortions of the market to work over the years in ways that I hope will never recur. This debate allows us to put down markers to ensure that if there is a change of Government the new Government will not, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said, reverse privatisation against the natural trend. Governments of all complexions were involved in political intervention in the steel industry. One of the cruellest problems for Conservative Governments was that caused by having to make a success of socialist-controlled industries.
One of the classic mistakes made in the steel industry was the decision to allocate strip mill facilities to Scotland and Wales—a decision taken by a Conservative Government for political reasons, as was the norm. That process is rounding off now with the tragic closure of Ravenscraig and the story has been repeated often in closures in the north-west, the midlands and the north-east. The build-up during profitable times of the private sector steel industry had a relationship with companies which allowed a certain geographical spread, but all that was thrown into the melting pot once political considerations involving location in Scotland and elsewhere entered the equation. It was all part of the same unhappy experience.
There was also a distortion of competition with the private sector. The Conservative Government in 1979 had to pump £700 million into the British Steel Corporation, which was still running at massive losses—£1·8 billion, as I recall. All that additional funding was in part at the expense of the private sector of the steel industry. There was a thriving private sector on a small scale, but my old home town of Sheffield was virtually wiped out. Little of the industry is left there, because the taxpayers and Government of the day had to bale out British Steel—and that subsidised competition in turn destroyed much of the private sector.
548
I am glad to say that things are much better today, and British Steel is running well. Clause 4 still exists, however, and that is why it is necessary to put down markers today to ensure that we never go down that route again.
I have also declared my interest in British Aerospace which, was nationalised for such a short time that there was fortunately no opportunity to do a great deal of damage. I want to concentrate on some of the benefits of privatisation that I have observed at first hand. We should not underestimate the real value of employee shareholding. Hon. Members will recall that trade unions marched in protest at Kingston and other British Aerospace plants when this idea was first mooted—yet when it came to it, the vast majority of employees took their free shares, naturally enough; but even more significantly, in 1979–80, 40 per cent. of employees bought additional shares with their own money. Today attitudes towards partnership and the commitment of shopfloor, management and boardroom have radically altered at plants throughout the country.
It was worrying to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East speak about what Labour would do with the water industry. He criticised attempts at diversification. It is prudent to encourage companies to diversify because it can help them to survive some of the swings and troughs of the market. It can also help them in the European imperative, which has not been mentioned in the debate. Cross-ownership between companies in this country and those in other parts of Europe is increasing and in that context many of Labour's arguments are sterile.
In speaking of telecommunications, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East prayed in aid the argument that it was a state activity in other European countries. There are different governmental relationships in that industry, but I say to the hon. Gentleman, "Watch this space". There will be radical changes during the move to privatisation which is already happening in many countries, such as Japan where British industry has been brought in. Nothing is static. I am worried about the old-fashioned Labour concept of state ownership.
Diversification by British Aerospace into the motor industry has kept Rover in this country and has been a key element in maintaining cash flow, counterbalancing the long-term nature of the civil aircraft business. We have recently seen the need for defence expenditure to be variable. All of that suggests that any industry that has an opportunity to diversify is wise to do so.
The privatisation of Cable and Wireless was significant in that it produced Mercury. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford agrees that while British Telecom still massively dominates the market, the principle of competition has been an enormous strength to BT management in carrying out necessary change. It altered BT's relationship with the trade unions and, as my right hon. Friend knows, in some areas the competition is very real. In the City of London, BT has about 60 per cent. and Mercury has about 40 per cent. of the market. Those companies are at the cutting edge of British activity in the service sector.
Competition occurs in areas where there are arguments about price. My right hon. Friend might argue about how that works in practice, but at least the consumer has a choice. That choice extends to Government Departments which have access to both BT and Mercury, and that is beneficial for overseas and long-distance calls. One of the

549
few remaining bastions where no such choice exists is in the House. Some hon. Members have spoken about that matter and I hope that we shall return to it. Competition has helped BT, Cable and Wireless, and Mercury.
In a revealing passage, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East lapsed into the politics of envy when he talked about top salaries. He gave the unfortunate example of a 140 per cent. increase in pay for the incoming chairman and chief executive of Cable and Wireless, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke. That increase came about following the strenuous efforts of Lord Glenamara, whom we recall in this House when he was Ted Short, and who simply could not pay his senior executives the going rate; there was massive discontent and people were leaving the company. After privatisation, matters had to be put right. We must be prepared to pay top people the going rate. One of the most outstanding leaders of the newly-privatised telecommunications industry is Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke, who is now retired and in another place. His appointment was a great success, but we must accept the logic of the price tag.
I do not wish to continue with case histories. I hope that I have said enough in comparing the past with what I hope will happen in future. I think that certain lessons have been learnt from the past, but I do not suggest that everything has been perfect. That will never be. One of my worries rests on the time scale of any developments. If private monopolies are created, the role of the regulator becomes all the more important. In Oftel, Sir Bryan Carsberg has presented us with a splendid example. We still have to find ways to ensure that other regulators will be effective, and that will take time. It will take time for us to gain experience, and the public will have to be prepared to live with us until we see how things have worked out in practice.
Much of the criticism of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East about competition does not stand up to examination. There is competition, for example, between one form of energy and another. It is interesting that one of the areas that the hon. Gentleman and his party are picking on for renationalisation is the generating sector of the electricity industry, where there is competition. We did not have a chance to probe the hon. Gentleman on that. It would be interesting to know how far—
Mr. Nicholas Brown: We are not picking on the generating sector of the electricity. We are focusing on the national grid, which is something separate and different.
Sir Michael Marshall: I understand that.
However, anything that begins to divorce the privatised sector from the public sector will, to my mind, bring back all the worries about that interrelationship. If the divorce takes place, we return to the old decision-making chain, which involves the Treasury chain. The hon. Gentleman will not give me much comfort by picking out one part of the process.
I think that I have made my point about capital investment. The argument about prices and profits must be considered more seriously and should not be left to media hype. We know that journalists try from day to day to fill their columns, and that some of them are inclined to make jazzy noises. In a serious debate, however, those who sit on the Opposition Front Bench, and especially the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who is a shadow
550
Treasury spokesman, must reflect that there has to be some relationship between prices, profitability and investment. There must be some reasonable understanding across the Floor of the House of what is a proper return on capital in capital-intensive industries. The hon. Gentleman is too intelligent not to understand the point and so he decided wisely to skate over that bit of the thin ice.
We cannot ignore all the underlying principles of Labour party policy. Clause 4 is still in place, which bears on control of the means of production and exchange. We know that if a Labour Government were formed who inherited the Labour party's present shopping list, there would be the inevitable argument about whether they would move down the road of clause 4.
Uncertainty is destructive of industry, of competitive international industry and, above all, of the needs of companies—including management and the work force —and of consumers. The Labour party has introduced the element of uncertainty into our debate, against what I believe is a general trend.
We have had a chance to get the flavour of some of the real problems that would be created if a Labour Government were ever able and unwise enough to carry forward the Labour party's present ideas. I hope that those of us who had to suffer the appalling period of external intervention by people who knew little of the businesses in which some of us worked will never forget what ensued. Businesses would be helpless in the hands of a structure that will never succeed in our country.
12.43 pm
Mr. David Evans: I do not think that anyone could sensibly deny that there are certain services that only the Government can provide. Defence is an example. The recent conflict in the Falklands and the even more recent conflict in the Gulf showed the world the great strengths of my right hon. Friends the Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who was Prime Minister, and for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who is now Prime Minister, and their Cabinet colleagues. They provided firm leadership and reassurance and, most importantly, implemented the co-ordinated employment of huge resources of military hardware and manpower.
One shudders to think what would have happened had the Labour party been in power at that time. I believe that the Argies would still be in the Falkland Islands and Kuwait would still be occupied by Hussein's forces. We had strong leadership, which took decisive action. That is the contrast between that lot opposite and the Conservative party.
I admit that the Labour party has given this country great service from time to time. For example, four years of socialist rule at the end of the 1970s displayed, to a greater extent than ever before, the gross inefficiencies of nationalisation. Who can forget the beer and sandwiches at No. 10 every week? They are a legend. Deals were made between union leaders and the Prime Minister of the time. The International Monetary Fund—the receiver, although it is now referred to as "the administrator"—arrived on the shores of this land to tell the Labour party how to run an economy. What did we get? Cuts, cuts, cuts.

551
The Labour party's fundamental arguments for nationalisation are always political and economic. As long ago as 1933, Herbert Morrison said of nationalised industries:
"the quality of service will tend to advance and the price charged will tend to fall".
Nearly 60 years later, the Labour party still has not realised that he was talking rubbish, and it is still talking rubbish. It is as simple as that. Far from prices falling, between 1971 and 1982 prices in nationalised industries increased by 380 per cent., and in the retail sector prices rose by 310 per cent.
Nationalised industries, as we all know, were a colossal drain on the public purse. In 1979, £50 million a week was being lost. The steel industry was losing £3 million. I recently visited British Steel with Lord Hesketh. It is now the finest maker of steel in the world. I asked the managing director what the Government could do to help the industry. He said, "You can do one thing: keep out of our business," I pass that message to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown): the best thing that we can do for the industry is to keep out of its business.
The crippling rates of taxation imposed by the previous Labour Government, far from providing funds for a prosperous and efficient national health service, were being used to prop up state monopolies. They did not provide more money for education or health. In 1979–80, the industrial state sector consumed more than a third of the national health service budget. It was clear to the man in the street—although not to the Labour party—that those organisations were not geared to international competition, consumer services or productivity. They were the overstaffed fiefdoms of militant trade unionists. That is what we were faced with, so the economic argument falls.
What of the political argument? We were told that public ownership would be accountable ownership. However, nationalised industry became unaccountable. When Ministers were questioned in the House, they declined to answer on matters that they considered commercial. The poor consumer got nowhere, market forces did not operate, and nor did political forces. The result was that so-called public services served no one.
All the tripe about industries that are owned by the public being taken away from the public is nonsense. They constitute a drag on the public purse and the poor consumer has no say in the matter and no means of redress. The state dips its fingers into his pockets to shore up an inefficient and unaccountable utility. Between 1956 and 1972, the five major nationalised industries lost £1·25 billion. There was only one year in that period when those five industries recorded an overall profit. There is no economic or political case for maintaining or, even more stupidly, resurrecting those state monopolies. It is laughable that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East should say that he wants public ownership to be extended to provide quality services. It is a good job that he is not in charge of the Humber bridge: if he was, there would be cars from there to Acton.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and his Labour colleagues cannot grasp the fact that privatisation forces economic efficiency and, more
552
importantly, results in consumer accountability. Public services do not need the warm and sweaty embrace of the state; they need the cold wind of market forces.
Until my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley entered No. 10 Downing street, the United Kingdom was paying through the nose for Mickey Mouse experiments in economic management. I thank God that the state-owned sector has been reduced by no less than 60 per cent. since the Conservative party came to power. In all, 44 major businesses have been privatised. Their fortunes, as a result, have been rejuvenated.
In 1978–79, the nationalised industries that have since been privatised received Government subsidies of £19 billion. In 1989–90, those same companies back in the private sector contributed £1,500 million to the Exchequer in corporation tax. That money will be spent on hospitals, schools and the individuals in our community who are most in need of care.
Privatisation also provides funds for other social projects that are vital for our quality of life. Today the environment is quite rightly at the top of the Conservative party's political agenda. Last year's environmental White Paper "Our Common Inheritance" lists a number of challenging, but expensive, targets for industry.
The most crucial of our natural resources is water. Since privatisation, the water industry has invested huge sums in its infrastructure. A record £28 billion will be spent over the next decade cleaning water and providing better facilities. Without setting the industry free, such investment would not have taken place. Perhaps the Opposition, who want to snatch the water industry back into the state's clutches, will tell me where they would get the money. It will not come out of a tap; it will come from the taxpayer.
It is astonishing that the Labour party wants us to return to the mess of the 1970s. The Labour party does not want to free us; it wants to regulate us. A new quango is proposed on virtually every page of Labour's new policy document. Why should British Telecom, the gas and water industries return to the 1970s?
The Conservative party wants to free citizens. We do not want to create a bureaucratic black hole into which complaints disappear never to be seen again. Bureaucrats are not the answer. This country was not made great by bureaucratic pen pushers; it was made great by entrepeneurs operating in market conditions. Privatisation has put the "Great" back into Great Britain.
If you will excuse my phraseology, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Labour's approach to the economy can be likened to a lady of the night. On the surface there is fine dressing. It looks new and may even appear glamorous. However, on closer inspection, what is underneath is worn out and wrinkled. The Labour party still wears the old clothes of clause 4. That is closest to Labour Members' hearts. The procession of policy documents from Walworth road, where the last Marxists are to be found, is only cosmetic. Believe me, they cannot hide the fact that the Opposition, unlike Conservative Members, have not learnt the lessons of the 1970s. Therefore, like the lady of the night, they seek to con the punter. I do not think that the British people will be conned by that lot opposite.
12.54 pm
Mr. Bill Michie: I wish a clarification from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) that when he talked about the Mickey Mouse experiment, he was making a general point and not making a personal reference to me.
I suppose that, in a sense, I was part of the experiment with nationalisation, because I, too, worked in the private and nationalised sectors of the British Steel Corporation and United Steel. Therefore, I have had considerable experience. However, unlike right hon. and hon. Members who also worked in the nationalised industry, I was not a high flier. Obviously, I worked on the shop floor and in research. There was considerable trauma in going from the private to the public sector. I will not allow hon. Members to mislead the House—[interruption.] Does the Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) wish to speak? Obviously not.
There are criticisms of nationalised industries. Everyone would admit that. There are faults and failures in many industries, whether private or public. I do not want anyone to be misled. The nationalisation of the steel industry, which I know something about, was a necessity. It is not true to claim that we had a buoyant, viable steel and mining industry before nationalisation.
Sir Michael Marshall: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. Like him, I am an ex-United Steel man and, by extension, a BSC man. The hon. Gentleman must be careful about what he is saying. The profit record of the steel industry at the time of nationalisation in 1967 was made during a long post-war boom. We can argue about whether we were riding with the tide, but the problem is that if one threatens to nationalise a company, investment dries up. That is the nature of things. One cannot justify putting forward more money when one does not know what compensation one will receive. That was one of our big problems with nationalisation. I have much fellow feeling with the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will play it straight on that point.
Mr. Michie: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand what he is saying. Of all private steel companies at that time, United Steel was making a profit. Also, by coincidence, it was investing more than others in research in the private steel industry. I think that there was about £9 million profit in the year before nationalisation. In those days, that was quite a lot of money. I do not think that that can be said for general steels which were obviously going through problems, particularly investment, which nationalisation helped to some extent.
We saw some of the mistakes that were made on nationalisation. Although I am still very much a supporter of public ownership in certain crucial industries, I am not happy with the practice of state capitalism, which is precisely what nationalised industries were. Although the Government appear to be hostile towards taxpayers having shares in crucial industries, they do not seem to have the same hostility towards crucial industries being literally controlled by foreign investment.
The obvious case that comes to mind and which was redressed slowly but surely concerns Kuwait and the shares in British Petroleum. We must bear in mind that there are interests in this nation that we should look after without being too dogmatic one way or the other.
554
On the demise of the steel industry in Sheffield, the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) referred to the east end of Sheffield, which he knows as well as I do. I accept that it has been devastated. Similar devastation of industries and areas occurred in the private-sector system —also as a result of the lack of investment and—I have a bee in my bonnet about this—because the Government allowed Europe to dictate the steel and engineering closures that should be made in this nation. I believe that the British suffered an unfair proportion of such cuts as a result of the edict from Europe and that our Government should have resisted that more fully.
It was not only the nationalised industries that were falling apart—those in the private sector were closing at the same rate, if not faster. Many who know my area know that it used to have large, proud steel and engineering firms, but they no longer exist. They have been bulldozed and, in their place, we have the retail sector which is the theme of the day. A strong manufacturing base is, however, a darn sight better than a whole load of leisure centres and supermarkets. We should not get this out of proportion and say that the failure of our steel and engineering companies was due to nationalisation, because the failure would have been equal if not greater had they remained in the private sector.
Conservative Members have said that the first "smell" of a future Labour Government intervening in industry—I use the word "intervene" advisedly rather than the words "take over" or "renationalise"—will have an immediate effect on share prices and will rock the market, causing all sorts of problems. Out of sheer fascination I read most of the financial pages in the Sunday newspapers instead of the normal news which I find pretty boring. The financial pages, however, are interesting with share prices rising and falling all the time at any little smell or rumour, never mind one of a Labour Government taking over.
Even now the share price of fairly large industries can drop because someone like Lord Hanson decides to buy 2 per cent. of a company. Is that a hostile bid or not? Should ICI defend it or not? If it does, it is admitting that it is weak; but if it does not defend the bid, it will be in even greater trouble and the share price will drop. What does Lord Hanson do then? He not only says, "I am not interested," but, "I am not interested, so it must be no good." The share price then drops and in come the predators.
We should not worry about a few share prices dropping because a Labour Government may intervene in industry. Every week the interventions of the power bosses and financial houses cause more problems for the share price than could any future Labour Government. It is a red herring for Conservative Members to use that argument.
People make a fortune buying and selling shares—not to enhance the company because most of the time the company is of no interest to them, but to break it up and strip its assets which is how the financial houses get fatter and richer while the workers in the industries finish up on the dole. Unemployment is the biggest scandal today—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Irvine Patnick: The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived.
Mr. Skinner: I was here first thing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) is absolutely right about asset stripping. My

555
constituency contains the 100-year-old firm of Reeve-Burgess, which has been taken over by Plaxton, which is headed by David Matthews. Reeve-Burgess was a winning manufacturing firm, with sky-high productivity and profits of £60,000 in May which looked like being repeated this month, yet 180 jobs are going down the road in July because Plaxton has decided to strip its assets and transfer the work to Scarborough. In addition to facing the Government's inflationary policies and massive unemployment, we have to listen to Conservative Members talking like that.
Mr. Michie: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The loss of a firm is bad enough, but those 180 jobs will never be replaced. The employees end up on the dole, with the taxpayer paying. Strangely enough, the Tories do not seem to moan about profits from asset-stripping which affects people's jobs and livelihoods and makes them a burden on the state. We hear nothing from Conservative Members about the private sector in that regard, except the occasional proud boast that those marvellous big private companies give more to charities than the nationalised industries used to give. I much appreciate the kind hearts that lead the large industries to give to charity. If we had a much more socialist economy and a more caring society, we would not need so much money to be given to private charities. But, of course, the Conservative Government do not recognise that.
Both large and small successful firms can be taken over by predators. That affects jobs and the value of shares. How will the Government protect essential industries, such as the water industry, from such predatory takeovers in future? I accept that regulations may be used, but I shall deal with that point later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right about small firms. I worked in small private companies before I joined United Steel, as it was known before the steel industry was nationalised. Those small firms had family concerns and some accountability to the work force, but most of them have disappeared—not because they were inefficient, had production problems or lacked orders, but because predators bought and sold shares above their heads. The people who thought that they owned the factory woke up one morning and found that they no longer owned or controlled it. Within weeks or sometimes months those companies disappeared.
The classic example of what I described is a company called Tyzack Sons and Turner Heeley, for which I worked as an apprentice. There was nothing wrong with the company. It still had orders for exports. Hostility between companies forced people to buy shares and then the company simply to obtain the trademark. Not only does that company no longer trade, but the whole site has been bulldozed to save rates, taxes and so on. What good is that to the work force or, indeed, the country?
The Government favour such a predatory attitude in our essential industries. That is wholly unacceptable. The marketplace should have no say in our crucial industries or economic planning because at the end of the day if it does, it means that foreign companies and financial houses dictate the odds when the elected Government of the day should make the decisions. There is no accountability to the nation or to the consumer.
556
We are being held to ransom by private monopolies which are there for all to see. There is no real competition in water prices, despite the claims that are made. In telecommunications there is no real competition with British Telecom. More or less the same monopoly persists, but it operates all for profit and not for anything else. Conservative Members have said that British Telecom is much more efficient and up to date than a few years ago when it was nationalised. With hand on heart I agree that that is the case. British Telecom had been neglected over the years. There was some mismanagement, but I remind right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that the telephone companies that were nationalised in the first place were a byword for quality. They set standards in cable and everything else in the electrical and electronic industries. All the standards were set down by the nationalised industry years ago and the system worked correctly then. The reason why the industry went a little wrong later was neglect on the part of management. It was not the fault or the philosophy of public ownership.
Although this is on a smaller scale, there is a prime example of how the Government are irresponsible in allowing some of our crucial industries to go directly into the private sector. Over the years we all must have received complaints from people seeking to buy or sell a house that the estate agents forced their clients into bidding up blind. People do not know the customer or the price and they are screwed by the estate agents. Many hon. Members, including me, took the matter up many years ago. I finally received a telephone message from the Minister responsible who said that he was sorry for the delay but that he could not get agreement from the estate agents on a code of practice. Estate agents were screwing consumers and the taxpayers, yet the powerful Government could not persuade them to agree to a code of practice.
That was only estate agents. If the Government cannot control estate agents, despite some statutory instruments that will protect customers to some extent, what hope do they have of controlling financial powers, such as international and multinational companies? They have no hope whatever. It is irresponsible to follow the dogma that no public intervention in crucial industries should take place. If the Government have trouble with small companies, there is no way in which they will be able to deal with the big multinationals.
I want to make one point plain: although we may have differences over private and nationalised industries, it would be totally irresponsible of the Government, because of dogma, to allow the nation's crucial industries to be at the mercy of the fat cats of the City. That is not good for the nation and I do not believe that the nation will allow it.
1.9 pm
Mr. Steve Norris: This has been an interesting debate, not least because of the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). He is, as we have all remarked, kind and generous, and he is obviously bright. During his hour-long ramble, one thing became overwhelmingly clear to me: he is too bright to believe the nonsense that detains the Labour party in its time warp on the question of ownership. However, he is perhaps not bright enough—God knows, no one in the Labour party is—to see a way out. He should take the one great intellectual bound

557
which, with one leap, would set him free. He should accept some of the simple truths about state and private ownership that are clear not only to a narrow minority on the far right of the political spectrum in Britain, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made clear, are lessons that are becoming clear throughout the world.
I shall not detain the House with what is surely common ground, but let us consider some of the lessons that we in the centre and on the centre right of politics might learn about ownership either by the state or by private individuals. The debate should not be a philosophical ramble about the ownership of shares. It should be about ordinary people and how they receive the services offered by state-owned enterprises or those liberated into private ownership. It is ordinary people who matter.
Ultimately, the issue is about how well the trains run, whether they arrive on time, whether they are clean, and whether one can buy a hot cup of tea at a reasonable price or a decent sandwich that does not taste like cardboard. To me, it does not matter whether the service is provided by a Labour Government or a Conservative Government, by a state-run enterprise or by a private company. I want basic standards of service. Any intelligent person does not consider the dogma of whether a service should be owned by the state or by a private individual or a combination of the two. He wants to consider the combination that delivers quality of service to individuals.
While seeking the answers, we should not make the mistake of assuming that the arguments in favour of private ownership are so clear that they do not need to be restated. One thing that is clear is that in the days immediately after the second world war, when the Labour Government set themselves on the path to nationalisation, they had a great justification for doing so. I believe that one of the things that Conservative Members are not sufficiently able to accept is that there were great deficiencies in the old management styles which were the norm in the 1940s. There was a sense of them and us, and of managers or owners—or at least, those who were directors being disengaged from the business and not being involved with those whom they employed in a co-operative effort to ensure better quality and standards. They were paternalistic.
I remember a wonderful description of that sadly peculiarly British feature of the relations between the board and the shop floor. It was in the first book ever published in this country that considered the theory and practice of management called "Up the Organisation'', by Peter Townsend. He had a marvellous way of subdividing the book in headings from A to Z and I shall never forget the first sentence of chapter B, which said "B is for the board of directors. It is useful to have someone on the board of directors who knows where the factory is." One could sense that that was a reflection of a spirit in British industry of directors who dined in their own dining rooms, who wore suits while the workers wore overalls, and who no doubt studied business plans and met regularly with their bankers but had little practical involvement in the management of their companies. Not only was that a cynical abdication of their responsibility, but, more important, when a vacuum was created at the top of those businesses, the trade unions said, "Thank you" and quickly filled them.
558
I will give examples of that, the first from the motor industry, which I know well from personal experience. Only recently, companies such as the old British Leyland—the British Motor Corporation and now the Rover Group—accepted that it was a good idea for draughtsmen, who are referred to as professionals in the industry, to visit the shop floor to see how the designs that they put on the drawing board could be manufactured.
That was the single greatest lesson the Japanese taught the British. When one sees it applied in factories such as that which I used to have the honour to represent, in Oxford, East, at Cowley, one appreciates the way in which British workers can—surprise, surprise—produce goods of just the same quality as their Japanese counterparts, because it is not a function of how intelligent or willing they are but of how organisation and management can make a business sparkle.
My first warning to the Government is that we should not assume that there is any automatic merit in the word "private" and that somehow, because something is private, it must work. That is not true and there are many cases to show that where management abdicated its responsibility and allowed a vacuum to be created, it was quickly and willingly filled by the trade unions.
The process of nationalisation, understandably enthused over by the Labour Government after the war, simply replaced bad with worse. Nationalisation carries with it inherent technical faults. That should by now be common cause between us and no longer be regarded as even worthy of debate.
There is the technical fault of reliance in nationalised industries on funding determined essentially by the size of the public sector borrowing requirement. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) brilliantly exposed that. It is a sorrow that he will not be with us in the next Parliament, and that is the best possible justification for postponing the date of the next general election for as long as possible. That would enable us have a few more speeches like his, brilliantly witty and hitting the point absolutely.
That reliance on public capital has, under successive Governments of both complexions, resulted in chronic capital underfunding. That underfunding and underinvestment in nationalised industries across the whole spectrum have in turn led, in effect, to a subsidy of running costs rather than to the provision of capital for investment. That, in turn, has led to a whole culture of further reliance, following another abdication of responsibility, this time not even to a definable source of authority but into the limbo of the civil service, and that has been to the detriment of all the nationalised industries.
Another technical inherent flaw in nationalisation is the sense in which civil servants—who are employed by Government to regulate the affairs of Government and who are sympathetic to the specific and discrete concerns of Government—are inherently unsympathetic to the needs of individual businesses. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford gave an amusing account of the processes of meetings, disagreements and second-guessing that is commonplace wherever there is that interface between the civil service and industry.
Intelligent Governments recognise that it is not a question of personal antipathy and ideology—that it is not a question of liking or disliking—but that it is a structural impossibility to have two groups of intelligent people, both

559
of whom have separate priorities, and imagine that they can come together and work as one with the single priority of making sure that the business operates properly.
The third structural and inherent flaw in the concept of nationalisation is the total absence of incentives—not only monetary but even of encouragement by a management that is dedicated to making a discrete business work. The death knell of socialism is the fact that the technical and structural defects in the underlying principle of socialism —nationalism—mean that it simply does not work in practice. It is dreadfully sad to have to recognise that we live in a world in which financial incentives must play a part. However, given that it is so clear that people must be given a stake in the enterprises in which they work, so that they work a little harder for themselves and their families, we should recognise that that concept is now the reality of the world. Those of us who accept that and build on it to make a better basis for British industrial management are those who have come to terms with reality.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Norris: Before I give way to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is a regular attender, may I point out for the benefit of those who will read our proceedings in Hansard that he joined us only a few moments ago and therefore missed the pleasure of hearing the hour-long speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and the significant contribution of my hon. Friend the Minister. The hon. Gentleman no doubt has something interesting to offer.
Mr. Skinner: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the national health service should be privatised?
Mr. Norris: Of course not, and neither do my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health. I believe that the health service should remain free at the point of delivery to those who need it. However, I do not believe that a pound of the money that is expended on the national health service should be wasted by the chronic overmanning and inefficiency inherent when it was run more by the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees than by efficient managers who want the best out of the service. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is so locked into the neolithic idea of delivering services that he makes that greatest of all errors. He imagines that only a cleaner employed by the Government can clean properly. The dreadful irony is exactly the reverse—only a cleaner employed by a company which cares enough about its work, because its contract may not be renewed, will do the job properly.
Mr. Bill Michie rose—
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Norris: I cannot allow a further intervention because it would be extremely discourteous to my hon. Friends, who have been here throughout the morning, and because Opposition Members, too, wish to speak—[Interruption.] Did I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) refer to the embarrassment of some Derbyshire Members over the Bookbinder affair? I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member
560
for Chingford is not here at the moment as I know that he has a passing interest in the matter. It may be more instructive for the hon. Gentleman to consider that.
The greatest lesson of the nationalisation debate is not the fact that, in 1979, publicly owned businesses were costing the taxpayer £50 million a week, which the taxpayer no longer has to find, although that was dramatic enough. Neither is it the fact that the proceeds of denationalisation have raised £33,000 million, which can be spent on much more needed public services, including health. It is not even the fact that so many more people now participate in the ownership of those companies and therefore have an interest in the quality of service offered. When we consider the long list of nationalised industries that have been privatised, such as British Telecom, British Airways, British Steel, British Aerospace and Cable and Wireless, we see that the losses, underinvestment, intelligent and practical management starvation, have given way to success so that those companies now lead the world in their own sectors in investment, innovation and their desire to expand into new markets, often overseas.
I shall make my final point briefly as hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends, have been extraordinarily indulgent in allowing me to speak for so long.
We should relate this philosophical debate to the service offered to ordinary people. Anyone who imagines that the service level provided in a cafeteria in socialist Russia is better than here, or is or was better in any of the central European countries where the state regulated standards and provided facilities and services, has obviously never been to those countries. The wonderful American philosophy, "Have a nice day"—vulgar and even, on occasions, mildly offensive though it may be to us reserved Brits—expresses one of the greatest and most important truths of nationalisation and denationalisation. When one has to care whether the customer will return because, if one does not, one's business and ultimately one's job might be on the line, the service offered tends to be more generous, efficient and better regulated. That is the key to this debate and on that basis I earnestly pray that, to the list of nationalisation, denationalisation and renationalisation—the Government have embarked on a further process of denationalisation—we shall never have to add the word re-renationalisation.
1.27 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) gave us, as usual, a lively and entertaining speech. He said that financial incentives were always necessary—some of us would dispute that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred to that in relation to the health service—a public service. But the Tories have a funny idea about financial incentives. They give the rich more tax cuts and more money, while making the poor poorer. That is their idea of financial incentive, but it does not work.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest talked about the 1940s and the idea of the owners being against the workers and detached from them—the "them and us" mentality. What has changed? We only have to look at those huge pay rises to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) referred to see that the owners take the attitude, "Do what we say, not

561
what we do." That concept is inherent in the private ownership system that the hon. Member for Epping Forest was defending.
The title of this debate is interesting. The Government dare not include the word "privatisation" in the title because people know that privatisation equals a rip-off and public squalor, and they are right. The Government put the emphasis on nationalisation which, at its best, is public ownership. We all know that there have been problems with that in practice, but the aim of nationalisation is public ownership, which is achieved when nationalisation works. Its objective is to secure for the workers the fruits of their labours. They do not get them now, and they certainly did not get them in the past, when there was massive exploitation of working people, with huge profits for a few and low pay, long and arduous hours and conditions of work and poverty and unemployment for the many.
The purpose of nationalisation was to do something about that system and to take industry into public ownership. The theory was that we could not control what we did not own. At its best, public ownership is perceived to be necessary—for instance, to secure worthwhile jobs and to protect whole industries.
My colleagues from the north-east regularly mention shipbuilding, which has been destroyed in this country. We are now at the mercy of ships built by other nations, yet we are supposedly a maritime nation. The Government wiped out that industry with their dogma.
It is perfectly sensible to plan. We all plan for the future, both for the short term and for our old age. Planning is recognised as a virtue in private life, but somehow it is believed that capitalist nations should not plan the running of their economies—they must be left to market forces.
Of course there have been problems with nationalisation in the past, and Conservative Members have made hay with them. In the well known phrase, "Nationalisation plus Lord Robens doesn't equal socialism," as the left used to describe putting one man in control. Such nationalisation failed; the compensation given to the previous owners loaded a huge debt on the new ones.
The corporate model failed, as did the Stalinist model, because it was too centralised. Herbert Morrison based the running of such enterprises on the big private corporations, so, like those corporations, they lacked a democratic element.
The Stalinist model as seen in the Soviet Union also failed, but we must remember that, with its programme of nationalisation, the Soviet Union achieved huge growth to emerge from its feudal status of the early years—so much so that its economic growth rate still places it in the top 10 European countries. However, its system failed for three main reasons, the first of which was the huge arms race on which it embarked to try to keep pace with the United States. All that useless production meant that the money was not available for economic development.
In the main—this is another, perhaps good, reason for failure—the Soviet Union was not imperialist—[Interruption.] I concede that there were exceptions such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary, but the Soviet Union was nothing like as imperialist as the west, which exploited third-world resources by taking them over lock, stock and barrel without paying for them, thereby imposing debts on the third world which are still being paid off.
The third reason for the failure of the Stalinist model was the bureaucratic elite centred on the control of one
562
man—Stalin—and the central committee. But that merely mirrored what happens in the west—a few people control these organisations. At any rate, these factors led to enervation on the part of the workers and the failure of the model.
Neither model let in the workers or the consumers; it did not let in the public or any elements of democracy. That is what must change in our industry. Privatisation will certainly not bring about that change. It is, as Harold Macmillan said, like selling off the family silver. I remember a councillor shouting across the council chamber that privatisation was like eating the seedcorn and that we would reap the consequences in the future.
Thames Water has announced profits of about £220 million, and that is all to the good. The company has been built up by the high bills charged to the public in the past. Those profits will be siphoned off to a few shareholders. When Thames Water announced its profits, it also announced another price rise of 15 per cent., which is well above inflation. That shows how privatisation works.
The public transport system outside London has been deregulated and privatised, and that dreadful prospect looms for London. There are 16 per cent. fewer buses and a worse service is being provided, certainly at off-peak times and in unprofitable areas. When the Government end all public service provision, especially in transport, the travel card and the old-age pensioners' card will disappear because matters will be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which will say that such benefits are a restriction of trade. Unprofitable routes will be closed and people will have to pay higher fares and accept lower standards. Those things are already happening outside London.
My third example relates to the national health service. The formation of NHS trusts is the first of a two-stage process of privatising the national health service. The so-called provider, the trust, can require the GP and the district health authority to buy service contracts. Eventually, the trusts will lead to people having to pay for the health service.
Cleaners in the health service received low pay and did a terrific job, but when the Government privatised that service, the contractors put those cleaners out of work and employed people on even lower pay. The result has been dirtier hospitals. Those are three examples of how privatisation is bad. It leads to the sort of asset stripping of which Harold Macmillan spoke. The public services cannot be left to the market, because the market is interested only in profit. The result is much more public squalor and severe damage to the environment. The Government have run down the public services in preparation for privatisation, and such a policy shifts the burden to people and makes them pay more.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says that public services cannot work if they are privatised. He also spoke about the national health service and the fact that a Tory said that he did not believe in privatisation and financial incentives in the NHS. Another Tory Member said that she was in favour of privatising it. My hon. Friend would do well to emphasise that, if the Tories are returned to power, the majority of Tory Members who believe in privatising the health service would win the day and would also privatise social security benefits. That is what they would be up to if they got a chance. Thank God they will not get it.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. Privatisation of the NHS would result in more and more people paying for their treatment.
The market is chaotic and unplanned. It is also harsh and grossly unfair and, as we see, that causes many companies to go bust. The result is vast wealth for fewer and fewer people, and mostly undeserving people at that. For others—the majority—there is rising unemployment and poverty. The process contributes to environmental devastation if it is allowed to continue unchecked.
In reality, we are talking about class and the preservation of inherited wealth. Most of the ancestors of the members of the powerful class elite were robber barons. They either obtained their wealth by robbing or they engaged in a huge programme of exploitation, including the exploitation of workers. Most wealth is passed on from one generation to another, and those who control that wealth now have done nothing to earn it.
I accept that there are a few self-made people who have created great wealth in a lifetime, but I would be critical of half of those who come within that category. Many of them are speculators, especially in finance capital. They are making money out of money. Only a few have gained their wealth from production that benefits the country.
Privatisation furthers the unmerited class elite. Some of those who have the money to buy out the nation's assets sell them on to foreign capitalists so that they can enjoy the high life here. The system must not continue if we are to maintain living standards. It must not be maintained because of its impact on the world environment.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has talked about shareholders. It is an interesting fact that 15 years ago, private individuals owned 30 per cent. of all shares. Despite all the privatisation measures and the so-called spread of wealth through share ownership, private individuals now own only 20 per cent. of shares. The Government have certainly spread some wealth.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend has made the point well. Most of those who bought shares in privatised industries could see that the Government were engaged in a great rip-off. They said to themselves, justifiably, "Why shouldn't we get some of it?" They bought shares and then took their profit. The shares went back to the large corporations. Privatisation has not led to the spread of wealth.
The competitive system must not be maintained, because of the threat that it presents to the world's environment. It leads to pollution and threatens other countries. There is competition on a huge scale between countries when there is a recession, and that can lead to war. When third-world countries say, "We shall not put up with this any longer," that sometimes leads to war in the long term. That is where the private market system will take us. There is every danger that it will take nations into war.
Against that background, it is reasonable for the public to take control and to take some of the profits that are made, so that the moneys can be reinvested to create jobs. We must plan for the future, change direction and invest in worthwhile production. Control is a political concept. It must not rest with one man or a central committee.
Mr. Skinner: Or one woman.
Mr. Cohen: Yes—or one woman. Control needs to be decentralised or democratised. It should be extended to lower levels of accountability.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend initially failed to mention women, but he recovered in time. We have just had nearly 12 years of a woman Prime Minister. Some Tory Members are so disgusted with the present Prime Minister's failure to run the show that they are forming a group to bring back the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) as Prime Minister—as happened with De Gaulle. They are arguing about what to call the group. I think that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is in the group, as well as Alan Walters, Pinochet and De Klerk. They are having a row about the name. One faction wants to call it "the rottweilers", and another faction says that it should be called "Save Her In Time".
Mr. Cohen: I do not know about rottweilers, but if the Tory party gets back into power, the country will certainly go to the dogs.
We need decentralisation and democratisation at a much lower level to provide greater accountability, with only a strategic overview at the centre. Small businesses would be virtually unfettered; certainly less fettered than they are now. They would probably pay less tax, too. Such a model would mean the break-up of most of the large corporations, especially the monopolies, which run much of our industry at present.
The finance capital should also be democratised. The banks should be taken into public ownership and be subject to public control. A Labour Government would need to do that to prevent betrayal by the people who run those banks, who would export capital to undermine a Labour Government. They have done that before and a Labour Government would have to place the banks under public control to prevent that from happening again.
Mr. Tebbit: Among his examples of privatisation, will the hon. Gentleman be referring to the way in which Hackney borough council's housing stock seems to have been privatised? It could be called an "employee steal-out". The practice seems to be prevalent in Labour-controlled authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman have a Stalinist way of preventing that from happening in the future?
Mr. Cohen: That is an engaging point, but I am disappointed because I was referring to the banks and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask abut the privatisation of banks. The Midland bank had such bad debts that it should have gone broke, but it was baled out by the Government, and the taxpayer had to pay huge amounts. Whenever financial institutions have had atrocious results because of bad deals and huge debts, the Government have helped them out.
Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past three years, more than £4,000 million of taxpayers' money has gone to the top four clearing banks—Midland, Lloyds, National Westminster and Barclays? They were up to their necks in debt—mainly overseas debt—and rather than write off the debts of third-world countries, the Government wrote off the debts of their friends in the banks, yet they have the cheek to talk about intervention in the public sector.
Mr. Cohen: The Government do not have the courage of their convictions; they are not prepared to apply their views on privatisation to the banks. Several of those banks would have gone broke, and the Government know that. It would have been better to bring them into public control, because public money has baled them out.
Big business should be democratised so that the workers and the consumers are more involved. Democracy is distorted when vast sums are available to finance the Conservative party. The Tories also virtually control the media in this country.
The big corporations must be decentralised and democratised in the interests of democracy. There are dreadful problems with the markets: that is clear from the level of unemployment in eastern Europe and in this country. I believe that public ownership and public control will always have a role to play in democratic socialism.
1.49 pm
Mr. Michael Grylls: From the point of view of the Labour party, this debate has fallen apart in the past few minutes. Until a few moments ago this was a suave debate with the respectable and respected hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) responding on behalf of the Opposition. It seemed that other Opposition Members had been advised to stay away so as to downgrade the debate, but it seems that the cat has got out of the bag and that strategy has fallen apart.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) has just announced a new tenet of Labour party policy. He said that the banks should be nationalised. No doubt everyone with a bank account will have noted that statement. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just entered the debate rather late in the day, but he is more representative of the real Labour party.
I have a horrific scenario to describe. Let us suppose that there was a Labour Government. Would the Labour Government Benches be empty if the House was discussing nationalisation? They would not. They would be full of Labour Members egging the Labour Government on to nationalise more, to intervene more, and to create what we have already been told Labour would create—a national investment bank into which to pump taxpayers' money to invest in various companies, most of which are making losses. The hon. Member for Bolsover will recall how, under a Labour Government, the National Enterprise Board threw money away. Money was taken from successful industries and thrown away through idiotic investments. Today we have seen the real face of the Labour party. A Labour Government would be egged on towards more interference and nationalisation.
I wish to reinforce the point about interference. If a Government—whether Labour or Conservative—owned an industry, they would be tempted to intervene. That is not my imagination—it is the reality. I have great respect for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but if he were a Minister in charge of a nationalised industry, even he—one of the most robust Members of the House—would be tempted to intervene.
For example, if British Steel had a plant in a constituency in which there was to be a by-election the outcome of which was uncertain, a Minister might be leaned on and told not to make a fuss just before that by-election. Similarly, if a general election were imminent,
566
he might be told to keep things quiet and under wraps. Such things have happened under Labour and Conservative Governments.
That practice is not restricted to Ministers. Sir Ian MacGregor ran British Steel and British Coal. He used to say that decisions were taken in the boardrooms of those concerns, but as soon as they were taken they were leaked via civil servants to the Ministry. Politicians would then contact Sir Ian MacGregor and question his actions. A business cannot be run if people are plugged in at all levels trying to second-guess every decision. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) said, politicians are not the right people to make such decisions.
The great lesson and rationale for privatising industry is to remove it from state control and from the interference of politicians and civil servants. History shows that we have been bad business owners. We interfered and we neglected investment. Bearing in mind the investment in British Telecom, the water industry or British Steel, who can honestly believe that such investment would be allowed if there were a greater demand, which for political reasons there would be, for investment in schools and hospitals? Schools and hospitals are of deep concern to politicians because they affect votes. They would come first and investment in those industries would come second. We were thoroughly bad owners for two reasons: interference and the neglect of investment.
The investment successes of those industries, which the Labour party cannot realistically deny unless it wants to close its mind to them, have put them on their feet. The British Telecom service, which has been improved, is very exciting and relevant to the customer. What also excites me enormously is that new markets have been opened. Opportunities for new companies have been made. Those companies would never have been able to come into the market before privatisation and certainly not before the monopolies position was broken up. There have been massive opportunities for new businesses. Most of those businesses were very small and they have been able to enter a market that was previously closed to them. One of the great lessons is that we must not go back down the nationalisation route, but if the Labour party were ever in power again, that is precisely what would happen.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford said with great pride that he had worked for British Airways for 17 years. Having seen it become the most successful and profitable airline in the world, we really must not say, "It is rather embarrassing that it is making so much profit." We should be proud that it is profitable. If companies are profitable, they will be able to afford to make investments to make sure that they remain profitable and serve the public in the most effective way possible. One almost sees the old Adam coming back into the political world. Having privatised companies and allowed them to become successful, we must not succumb to the temptation to attack them for that very success. Politicians can all too easily do that, and I beg hon. Members not to do so.
Mrs. Gorman rose—
Mr. Grylls: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is getting agitated. I wish to speak only briefly.
The sad thing is that if those industries were taken back into control, whether or not a percentage point above or below 51 per cent., and if a Government started to

567
interfere, high-flying and successful managers who have been attracted into those industries would fly out the window and go to work in an industry that would not be interfered with by government. That would be the stupidest thing that any Government could do. In earlier decades, we did not have many successful businesses, but we can now tick off a whole list. Reference has been made to the 44 that have been privatised, including British Steel, British Airways and British Telecom. Those three companies, together with Cable and Wireless and Amersham International are world-leading companies.
Mr. Oppenheim: And British Aerospace.
Mr. Grylls: As my hon. Friend rightly reminds me, we must include British Aerospace. Those companies are the most successful in the world. Let us take pride in them. The most effective thing to do is to try not to undermine them. That is the danger of a Labour Government, because that is the route that they would take. Our greatest service must be to ensure that we remain in government and keep sanity in our policies so that successful industries can continue to be successful and go from success to success for the good of those who work in them as well as for the good of the consumers whom they serve.
1.59 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is a hard act to follow, because he was prepared to admit only that there were some minor difficulties with the nationalised industries when they were run by the Labour Government. He said that the problems that were experienced by the socialist economies of eastern Europe were due to the little matter of the cult of Stalinism. If he is prepared to say that, he will believe anything. It is astonishing that some Labour Members still hold views that would more appropriately have been heard in the House in the 1940s.
One of the interesting things about our Friday debates is that only hon. Members who are really interested bother to turn up. It is remarkable that the Labour Benches have been practically empty today. As three hon. Members representing Essex are present—myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris)—at times there have been more Essex Conservative Members present than Labour Members in total.
It is surprising that those who believe the same as the hon. Member for Leyton do not beat a path to the wonderful socialist economies of eastern Europe where they could live under such a wonderful regime. I can think of only three people who went there—Burgess, Maclean and Philby—all of whom were socialists in their own way and, as I understand it, mostly regretted it once they got there. Apart from them, I have not heard of any socialists beating a path to the socialist economies, although we hear every day about the great pressure of socialists who are trying to escape from their socialist economies to live and work in this country where we have the benefits of free enterprise and a mixed economy. We have managed to make most of our major nationalised industries successful again by taking them out of the public sector and putting them back into the hands of private management.
568
Labour's performance today has been remarkable. The Labour party is busy doing an Oxfam, taking our old clothes and belatedly adopting most of our old policies, such as selling off council houses. However, Opposition Members have not put in a showing today such as would let the British public know how strongly they feel about economic matters. Perhaps they are all in Liverpool, Walton trying to persuade the true face of the Labour party not to show itself at the coming by-election. The real reason for their absence, however, is probably that the Labour party sees itself as the representative of organised labour and of the work force in industry. It is entirely in the pay of trade unions. I do not know what Labour Members believe in their heart of hearts, but I am not sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) really believed in what he was talking about. At one stage, I thought that we might get a convert—most of the best converts to capitalism come from the left—and that he was about to admit that he was trying to defend an absolutely hopeless case.
The Labour party does not understand how business works, because few Labour Members have tried to run a business or to understand how businesses get information. A business's profits are one of its most important sources of information. A business that is not making a profit does not know what its customers want. If it is making a loss, it knows that what it is doing is not profitable and is not what the public want. That information was denied to the public all the time that the state ran our major industries because when they made massive losses, the taxpayer was squeezed to make good those losses. Through its profitability, therefore, Britain's smallish private sector had constantly to prop up the awful nationalised industries that were brought in after the war and which were making massive losses. It is to the great credit of private management and its profits that Britain could maintain that ramshackle system for so long.
The great British public, whom we are here to represent, do not give a stuff about who is running an industry. They care about the service that they get from the industry and the choice, variety and value for money offered to them. That is the interface between Joe Public and those who provide the goods and services.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had a little crack at me by suggesting that I was the only Conservative Member who was prepared to admit that the private sector has a great deal to offer the public welfare industries. That is true. I am solid on that. I do not believe that public services, such as the health service, must be run by public boards. They can be much more effective through the introduction of elements of subcontracting and competition. That is precisely what the Government are doing in not only health but education. I hope that in the not-too-distant future we shall apply those principles to other aspects of the welfare services, because wherever they have applied they have been marvellously successful.
The benefits of taking industries back into the private sector are so manifold that it is almost impossible to have time to talk about them all. Throughout my time as a schoolteacher and later in business, we suffered the misery of schools having to close because we had no heat because one of the nationalised producers of oil, gas, coal or electricity was on strike. Sometimes schools had to be closed because there was no public transport as a result of strikes.

569
The legacy of nationalisation, under which industries were run in the interests of trade unionism, was that the public received no service whatever. I remember the great shortages. We had a shortage of toilet rolls as a result of strikes in the docks. No toilet rolls could be imported. People would sneak over to the continent with lorries and bring them back full of toilet rolls.
We had to queue for cars. One would put one's name down and three years later the nationalised car industry British Leyland allocated one a car if one was lucky, by which time the car was so valuable that no one did not buy it. Most people then sold it at 300 per cent. profit. Most people ran miserable worn-out cars, just as people do in eastern Europe today. That is what passed in those days for competition in the car industry. That is what people put up with as a result of the nationalised state car industry. It is almost impossible to believe what circumstances were in our lifetime.
One benefit of denationalisation has been an absence of queues and of shortages of basic products, commodities and services for which people in eastern Europe still queue but which in Britain we take for granted as being in abundance. Sometimes we even criticise the private sector because we have too much variety rather than too little.
We now have far more jobs. The industries that we have taken out of nationalisation were previously full of feather-bedded jobs and overmanning. They have now provided more than 1 million new, real jobs in a competitive market where people have a great prospect of increasing their job opportunities. Previously people were simply standing still because the state was keeping them in a job that did not really exist.
We now have lower taxes than previously because we do not have to bale out industries with the billions of pounds which we paid out in subsidies, not yearly but weekly. The change in attitude to those industries means that we, the British taxpayers, pay far less tax to central Government. We now have more shareholders in Britain than ever before.
Mr. Skinner: We have not.
Mrs. Gorman: We have less interference. We have the incentive of better management. The hon. Member for Bolsover intervenes from a sedentary position. He knows perfectly well that the great majority of shares in our denationalised industries are now held by pension funds in which everyone of us who has a private pension to look forward to when we retire is a shareholder.
Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Gorman: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been waiting all morning to make my speech.
The best thing that we now have in the denationalised industries has been mentioned a great deal this morning. It is choice. British Telecom has been referred to time and again, but there are many other examples. The benefits are absolutely undoubted. I doubt whether even the hon. Member for Leyton could deny those benefits. We must maintain the momentum of those choices that we have introduced.
We may have privatised 44 companies, but there are many more to go. We need to put the Post Office into the private sector and have more competition in the provision
570
of its services. We need to introduce new private companies to deliver letters. Why not? We know that such a service would work, so let us provide one.
Every spring, people queue up at the Passport Office and the state keeps them waiting three or four months for their passports. Honeymooners are now unable to holiday abroad because they are unable to receive a passport on time. We could do away with all those problems by privatisation.
We need a lot more privatisation in local government. We should not forget when we speak of the remnants of socialism in eastern Europe that they also exist in Liverpool. Toxteth is as good an example of the eastern European experience as anything that one could wish to see on the other side of what used to be called the iron curtain.
We need more privatisation in the prison service. The Government have begun that experiment and I am pleased. Given the problems that we have experienced with social workers, we could do with a bit of privatisation there and the introduction of more outside consultants. In education, schools are increasingly under the management of parents and boards of governors. For my money, that is as good as privatisation, because parents and governors will have a say on how things are run and the Government will not be dictating from the centre.
We need much more private money and private enterprise in housing. In my experience as a councillor in the inner city, housing in the state sector is almost universally disliked. People want public-sector housing to be transferred to the private sector. We should transfer responsibility for housing from the state sector. Whether that is achieved through private landlord management, as under the opt-out scheme offered to council estates, or however, we should have more private sector involvement.
Most of all, I put it to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that we should apply the doctrines and philosophy of privatisation to the money markets. If there are problems in this country—I do not deny that there are—they relate to money management and interest rates. Part of the reason for that is that we do not yet apply the denationalisation principle to the money markets. I suggest to the Government—I do not believe that all the errors have been made by the Opposition, although they are responsible for 99 per cent. of them—that we have yet to apply our vote-winning philosophy to that sector through the privatisation and denationalisation of banks, especially the central banks.
The countries with the greatest amount of privatisation and decentralisation and the most independent banking structure have the greatest stability in terms of inflation, the creation of jobs and interest rates. My only criticism of the Government is that they are not moving fast enough on denationalisation.
If the Labour party's performance today is a guide, heaven help this country if it embarks on a renationalisation programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) said, behind those on the Labour Benches would be the trade union paymasters. They would force the Labour party to return power to those who, in the past, showed themselves absolutely unworthy of it and totally indifferent to the real needs and desires of consumers.
2.13 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Anyone would imagine—
Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be well aware that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) characteristically poses as a great parliamentarian and a diligent attender of debates. Is it therefore in order for me to point out that he has not been here for the bulk of the debate? He strolled in at about I o'clock after a long lie-in this morning and a cup of coffee in the Tea Room. Now he is seeking to speak. Do you think that that shows diligence, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), with his usual sense of fairness, will allow time for another contribution before the end of the debate.
Mr. Skinner: I was here as early as any other hon. Member. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made his speech and waltzed off, but I have not heard Tory Members complaining about his attitude. Several others have waltzed in, spoken and cleared off. Frankly, I see no difference between my having a chance to speak and certain Privy Councillors coming in, saying their bit and slinging their hook.
From the contributions of Conservative Members today, one might have the impression that Labour was at the bottom of the poll and the Tories at the top. This is a Government day, so the Tories could choose any subject for debate. Yet they chose a subject which the public at large could do without having discussed when there are scores of things that we ought to be discussing. Labour Members would be here in force had the Government not selected for debate a subject which, considering all the problems that the nation faces, is inconsequential in the extreme. Every Business Question Time the Leader of the House is asked by perhaps 20 Members on each side to try to find time to discuss certain items in the coming week, and he invariably replies, in effect, "Sorry, we don't have the time."
Anyone would imagine, after the words of praise that the Tories have heaped on the concept of privatisation, that it had led them to a glorious end. The Daily Telegraph, a Tory newspaper, having conducted a poll, reveals in this morning's issue that Labour is eight points ahead of the Tories, who have 33·5 per cent. support and that the Liberals have 21 per cent., the Liberals no doubt picking up votes in some strong Tory areas. Translated into general election results, Labour would have a majority of 80 or 90.4
As I say, one would imagine, listening to Tory Members, that privatisation had brought about a change in the political scene beneficial to them. After 12 years, the people are fed up with privatisation. Many of those who bought shares have sold them, so the 30 per cent. or so of shares in privatised companies that were held by private individuals is now down to about 20 per cent. The shares have gone abroad, into pension funds, or been bought by other institutions.
What has happened to the great capital-owning democracy we used to hear about? The Tories have privatised the relatively easy bits and now have to deal with the difficult parts. That was made clear when they finally succeeded in privatising the rain—the water
572
industry—when the public realised that the Tories had gone too far. The people did not like the idea of water being privatised, and they were right, as their quarterly or half-yearly bills are proving.
The executives of the water boards have been given large salary increases, but the workers who create the wealth of the nation have had a paltry rise. The public are therefore asking what privatisation has been about, and in view of the huge profits made by British Gas and British Telecom, people are bound to conclude that the privatisation exercise was not for the general public, but for a few people closely wedded to the Tory party.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am pleased to see the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) in his place in view of his references to British Telecom. British Telecom's annual report is published today. What does my hon. Friend think of the fact that its publication has been delayed until three o'clock so that its contents cannot form part of our debate? That is hardly a gesture of confidence.
Mr. Skinner: I imagine that my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have been on the blower to one of their friends in British Telecom to say that they have asked for an embarrassing debate and have shot themselves in the foot and to ask for the report to be held back until the debate is finished. That is almost certainly true.
This debate has shown that the Government have run out of privatisation ideas, with a few exceptions. They have now reached the difficult bits. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), who has just left the Chamber —I do not make a fuss about that, but I say it because Tory Members have had a crack at me—favours privatising many more industries, including the national health service. Many Conservative Members want that, but the last thing that they want to do is to tell the public before a general election.
Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman is obviously proud of the public sector. Is he proud of the fact that the public sector, in the form of Derbyshire county council, has given his brother a well-paid job as a minder for Japanese business men when his brother was sacked by Derbyshire county council, under an earlier regime, for fiddling work sheets? Is the hon. Gentleman proud of such a public sector?
Mr. Skinner: I am in favour of public bodies such as local authorities throughout the country. I expect all Tory Members to be in favour of local authorities, as they have not privatised them yet and I have not heard them talk about doing so. As for the Japanese plant, which the hon. Gentleman supports and I do not—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), who is trying to intervene from a sedentary position, support the Toyota plant coming to Derby?
Mr. Oppenheim: Yes, I did.
Mr. Skinner: Right. I did not, and I have nothing to do with that. It is not my business who gets jobs there. The hon. Gentleman likes the Japanese and the fact that they have brought their plant to Derbyshire. That is his business and not a headache for me.
The debate has degenerated into an argument between Tory Members who want to privatise the health service, the social security benefits payment system and now, it

573
seems, local authorities as well. They do not intend to discuss that before the next general election. If they will not disclose their intentions, perhaps they will say why they have not yet privatised the armed forces. If providing financial incentives is the only way to make things work, why are the Tories not yet talking about privatising the Royal Air Force, the Army, the Navy and the police force? Are those privatisations on the next agenda? Are Tory Members not prepared to tell us?
Privatisation has been a failure. After 12 years of privatisation and monetarism, Britain's manufacturing economy has gone through the floor. In every region there are examples of manufacturing industry being closed every week. I should have thought that after 12 years of monetarism and privatisation far more people would be in work, but more than 2 million people are now out of work, according to the official figures—and it is more likely that if the women, and the half a million young lads and lasses on slave labour schemes were added to the register, the figure would be some 3 million. Here we are with a Government who have practised privatisation and monetarism for 12 years and, according to their figures there are 2 million people out of work—in fact, there are probably about 3 million people actually without a job —and the numbers are rising every week.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman said that after 12 years of this Government's policies we would expect to have more people in work. He will be delighted to know that there are more people in work in Britain today than ever before.
Mr. Skinner: We know that the Government are very handy at massaging the figures. We also know that included among the numbers to which the Minister referred are many people in part-time occupations. There are also plenty of Members of Parliament in part-time occupations—they have moonlighting jobs. While we are on that subject, there are 19 ex-Cabinet Ministers with 59 directorships between them and 250 Tory Members have consultancies, advisorships or directorships. After the next general election, when Labour has won, all the ex-Tory Members will be looking for jobs in all the private companies, and those still with a job will be looking for more directorships. Instead of rabbiting on, the Minister should go through the list of companies in the Confederation of British Industry to see what jobs he can get as a director when he loses his job after the next general election, because that is bound to follow as sure as night follows day.
The Minister might have a row with the right hon. Member for Chingford, who is one of the 19 ex-Cabinet Ministers holding 59 directorships between them. The right hon. Member probably has six already—the Minister should go and ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford to give him one because he has been gobbling them up like the other ex-Cabinet Ministers who have taken on jobs.
Mr. Tebbit: It would probably be possible for my hon. Friend the Minister to get a job with Derbyshire county council if he wanted another job at some time. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows, there is a printing department in Derbyshire county council which is
574
sometimes grossly overloaded with work. Although it costs the chargepayers of Derbyshire much money, the council has to contract out work from its printing department to the private sector, which costs £50,000 or £100,000 or so. Would not the hon. Member for Bolsover agree that that is a damn fool idea?
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Chingford knows how to print money because he was the Minister responsible for the privatisation of British Telecom. He then became an ex-Cabinet Minister, and one of his first jobs was a non-executive directorship with British Telecom. As a result, he knows how to print money. He is the last person who should talk about Derbyshire county council.
Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to say that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) probably wishes he was out collecting money for Councillor Bookbinder's legal fund rather than being in the House?
Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Member for Chingford knows how to print money and is the last person who should talk about anyone else, including those at Derbyshire county council. If the auditor had been allowed to give evidence in the libel case in which the right hon. Gentleman has just participated, there is just a possibility—I put it no higher than that—that he might have lost and the other fellow might have won.
Mr. Tebbit: I should have liked the district auditor to give evidence—I should have liked Councillor Bookbinder to give evidence, but unfortunately he would not do so. For the very same reason, there is a junior member of the Labour party's Front Bench team here today. The party's leadership is afraid to put in a senior member, but it can always back down from what a junior member says. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has been good under cross-examination—better than Councillor Bookbinder would have been, I expect.
The hon. Member for Bolsover was right—I do know a thing or two about printing money. At British Telecom, we have effectively been doing so for our customers for the past four years—they have enjoyed reductions in the cost of their telephone bills every year since the company was denationalised. What is more, they have had better value for money and better service. The list is endless. Improvements in the service—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is long enough for an intervention.
Mr. Skinner: I have one thing to say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a non-executive director of British Telecom. He is earning a big fat fee. BT's profits have gone through the roof. What has he been doing lately while British Telecom's executives and bosses have been awarding themselves massive pay rises? Why has he not been doing a job in the public interest? Why has he not been telling the people around the boardroom table—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Adjournment, please.
Mr. Skinner: Not a bad finish.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

British Rail (Reorganisation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Railways are in the news this week, but when I won this Adjournment debate a fortnight ago, the speech by the Secretary of State for Transport and the relevations of yesterday had not yet occurred. I wish to discuss something at least as fundamental—a major reorganisation of British Rail's management structure.
This reorganisation was referred to in The Observer on 19 May 1991 under the headline, "BR managers in open revolt." The article revealed for the first time a proposal by British Rail known as "organising for quality", which represents the dismemberment of the main line railway regions as we know them.
This has caused considerable anxiety both on the railways and among people who are not professional staff but who take an interest in these matters. The proposal implies the break-up of the functional and operational actuality of the main line regions of British Rail in favour of a complex structure based on perceived markets. That is confirmed by British Rail in an article in Railway Gazette International, saying:
"Businesses and profit centres based on markets will be responsible for managing nearly all British Rail assets including infrastructure, and for most operating and engineering staff; sharing of assets, including track, is covered by rental agreements."
This is a fundamental change which means that all track, earthworks, civil engineering works, depots, motive-power depots, stations and, presumably, management and control of staff and their promotion will be divided up in a new way. I can see no other interpretation of the statement.
All this is very strange given the sort of railways that we have in Britain. Railways are run differently in the United States and elsewhere, but here, a railway is a complex organism bringing together a wide variety of skills, occupations and experience in order to provide a multiple service to public and industrial clients alike. Efficient operational control on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute basis over the whole route is a central task, around which a successful railway service inevitably revolves. This happens not to be a quotation—it is my summation of what I believe to be good railway practice, but it appears not to be the view of the chief executive of the British Rail Board. He continues in the same article:
"territories covered by the private railway companies that were nationalised in 1948, the Regions evolved into operational units running trains to the order of business sector managers with bottom line commercial responsibility. The logical process of serving distinct markets rather than arbitrary geographical regions is now to be completed by BR's Organising for Quality project. OfQ is far reaching, permeating every corner of the industry. Yet its goal is clear and simple: devolve responsibility and accountability to our component Business Units as far as possible within the constraints imposed by the BR Board's statutory duties",
which are imposed by this House.
Hon. Members will have noted the expression, "arbitrary geographical regions". They are not arbitrary; they are largely the railways as built and subsequently modified with sensible adjustments and interpenetrating linkages. The document says that as far as possible it will be done within the legal constraints that are imposed, not
576
within the constraints imposed by effective and efficient operation. That statement by the chief executive of the British Railways board is quite astonishing.
From the early 1980s, a matrix organisation has evolved that has not been entirely satisfactory, although it had some good points. The brand name "InterCity" led people to expect a certain standard that would be maintained throughout the journey, but that is not always the case. Brand names such as Network SouthEast were satisfactory as long as they did not mean going much further than painting all the coaches in the same colours. Mr. Pullman had that good idea more than a century ago.
As any accountant knows—and the Minister has practical experience of this—running a double set of internal accounts is not only necessary but helpful in improving efficiency. However, that should not be driven to the lengths to which British Rail appears to be driving it. The board says that public support has gone down from 37 to 17 per cent. of revenue in the past 10 years and that the fall is due to that fact. It says that conflicts and difficulties have arisen and that it will push matters to the other extreme. Instead of having regions based on operational actuality and the movement of passengers, it will create seven business units, each of which will be independent and will report loosely to central headquarters. All the assets, including signalling, will be transferred and the operative firms will buy and hire track between themselves.
We heard on Wednesday about this reorganisation by British Rail, and yesterday a map was placed in the Library. It shows the nine business units and about 26 or more profit centres on which the whole organisation will be based. Performance and, no doubt, promotion will be centred on those profit centres. The map is not much use because it shows only InterCity. Yesterday I showed it to an hon. Member who said, "Where is my station? Oh, my line is not even there."
The note on the map states that as well as the Network SouthEast divisions, of which there are nine, and the regions, it shows the whole route network over which InterCity will operate, including some track sections and facilities of other businesses. The note states that it is beyond the scope of the map to indicate such detail.
The fact that InterCity will own some lines and rent others is not a matter of detail. The seven organisations are InterCity, which will have some track of its own and hire the rest, and will have five profit centres; Regional Railways, which will consist of ScotRail, north-west region, north-east region, central region, south Wales and west region; Network SouthEast, which will have nine divisions each based upon—surprise, surprise—the old main lines out of London. There will be a European passenger division, Train Load Freight division with four profit centres, and Rail Freight Distribution, which we know better under its brand name of Freightliner, which will have two divisions, United Kingdom and Europe. There will also be a Telecommunications division and a Parcels division, the latter being jointly owned by all the operating divisions.
Southern region disappeared on 1 April and the other regions will disappear over the next year. That is the only part of the plan with which I can agree, because the three southern divisions of Network SouthEast follow the three divisions of the old southern region—eastern, central, and western—which is common sense. For the rest, there are all sorts of problems. What about Euston, St. Pancras and

577
King's Cross? Who will own the track from those stations to the Network SouthEast boundary? If it is one or the other, what will happen when there are delays? Who will control the signal box? We shall be back to Victorian times, when there were shenanigans between the private railways companies, lawsuits and all sorts of things.
I shall give an example of the extent to which the process has already gone. About a year ago I was on a train that broke down at Ilford. It was an electric train of the sort that are always breaking down between Liverpool street and Norwich. In the siding was a diesel locomotive. I thought, "They will get that out." Railfreight was painted on it. I said to the railman, "Let's have that." He replied, "No, sir. We would have to hire that."
I understand that at Peterborough recently an InterCity train had to use a loop line which is already allocated to Network SouthEast. I understand—this is only reportage —that the signal man was told, "Make sure you book that because we can have 46 quid off InterCity for using the line." That may or may not be true, but the crews and the staff understand it to be the position. Nothing has been done to stop such problems arising.
I shall use Stratford to present a more practical example, though the Peterborough example was practical enough. I represent part of the London borough of Newham where the Great Eastern railway was born and where the hub of its operations was located. It is the densest suburban railway network north of the Thames. There is Liverpool Street, with its network of former Great Eastern lines, which is divided into two. There is Great Eastern and a new animal called West Anglia, which is the route to travel to Cambridge, and probably to King's Lynn. As I have said, the map is not especially clear. It is probable that Stratford will be operated by Network SouthEast, Eastern, which would make sense. However, it becomes Regional Railways beyond Manningtree.
InterCity trains will go through Stratford. Trainload Freight will be coming out of the Ford company on the Thames estuary, an area in which there is a great deal of industry. There will be oil trains, for example. So we have three firms competing for lines from Stratford already.
There is also Railfreight, which has a lot of trains coming out of Tilbury, and perhaps from the channel tunnel. That is firm No. 4. Surprise surprise, the north London link is run—quite sensibly up to a point—by Network SouthEast, north. Its trains run out from Willesden, but underneath. That is firm No. 5. We have plans for Crossrail. They are good plans, which the Metropolitan railway produced 100 years ago. That will come from Network SouthEast, Thames and Chiltern division. That is firm No. 6.
We must not forget the docklands light railway and the Central line of London Underground, which currently co-operates with British Rail.
We have six firms that are all competing, all of which have profit centres, I suppose, and controllers. Railway operation is not especially well known to the general public although it receives a lot of hobby interest. It is, however, familiar to many through the remarkable books of the Rev. Awdry. When chaos and human nature ran amuck, the fat controller sorted everything out. That illustrates precisely the importance of a centralised railway operation over a certain route and a certain network.
We do not have a fat controller at Stratford. Instead, we shall have six thin controllers, all be hungry for profits
578
and promotion from the six businesses, each of which will be trying to find its little bit of track. I have no doubt that Network SouthEast, being in a strong position, will screw them all down hard. This is private enterprise. That is the way that we get efficiency, or do we?
I would not wish to joke about safety. As I have said, letters have been sent privately to the chairman of the British Railways Board and others which have found their way into The Observer. One of them was from Mr. Peter Rayner, who should not be confused with his namesake, David Rayner. In a 44-page memorandum Mr. Rayner says:
"The present organisation has evolved over 150 years, and it has its problems, but when safety is threatened the hierachy of Area Manager, Regional Operations Manager, Area Engineer, Regional Engineer and General Manager becomes a professional protective team that would pass any Safety Validation Panel, because traditional systems, knowledge and experience apply, and transcends business decision making."
Irrespective of safety, a team effort is involved, giving the results of a team corporate railway.
Mr. Rayner went on:
"To destroy these traditional values for no obvious reason other than to make financial management easier is not a big enough prize. Again it appears to compromise the key role of running a safe railway and contradicts Hidden 50."
That refers to the 50th recommendation of the Hidden report on the Clapham disaster, which reads:
"BR shall ensure that the organisational framework exists to prevent commercial considerations of a business-led railway from compromising safety."
I have heard about some of the details of the new organisation and I know that there are audit boards, officers and surveillance. Safety will be affected if morale is lowered and team effort is destroyed because people believe that, rather than working together, they are allocated to an organisation which is in competition with another.
In the Secretary of State's recent statement, only one approach was new. The other matters to which he referred appear to be happening now to some degree. He made a remarkable statement about BR's monopoly. I thought that the problem with BR—and with most railways in western Europe—was that it has no monopoly—the Government have to do something about that—to solve our traffic problems and to deal with green issues. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that, in future, in addition to those nine businesses others will be using the 14 track authorities which also run trains through the 14 sub-businesses? I suspect that that is what he has in mind.
Why did it take so long to receive a summary of these proposals, which I asked for on 23 May—I received a courteous reply from the Minister—when it was written up by Mr. Welsby in the April issue of Railway Gazette International? I do not know whether that publication is read at the Department of Transport, but the information should not have taken so long to reach me.
Thirdly, were the far-reaching plans approved by the Government? Was BR asked to provide such an organisation or did it suggest it itself? Fourthly, bearing in mind the recommendation of the Hidden report, to which I have just referred, was the railway inspectorate asked to assess the safety implications of the new commercial structure for the railways? If so, what were they and will they be published? If not, will the Minister consider referring the structure to the inspectorate for its comments?

579
Railways were invented in this country. We have an emotional attachment to them and interest in them coupled with a fairly widespread ignorance of the complexities of their operation. Since the death of Mr. Huskisson when the Rocket was being tested, Parliament has had a responsibility for these matters. I know that the Minister shares my view and understands the relative importance of accounts and humanity. I hope that he will consider these matters with the utmost seriousness.
2.48 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is an expert on transportation matters, particularly railways. Not meaning to be critical of the hon. Gentleman, I must say that, when he speaks about the provision of transportation in London, I associate his thinking but not his age with Herbert Morrison. Right after the war—and indeed before the war—there was much to be said for corporate, public sector or state provision and planning of railway services. However, the Government believe strongly that times have changed.
There is a basic difference of approach and of philosophy between the Government and the hon. Member for Newham, South and many of his Opposition colleagues. That is reflected in the approach of some—but not all—members of British Rail management. That view is that the best services are provided as a result of judgments by rail professionals of what is needed for the corporate good. In other words, what is corporately good for British Rail must, by definition, be good for the passenger. I understand that approach: it has been deeply embedded in the attitudes of some parts of British Rail's management for many years.
The previous chairman, Sir Robert Reid—not to be confused with Bob Reid, the present chairman of British Rail—introduced almost nine years ago the first steps towards reorganising British Rail's internal management to encourage greater accountability and greater management orientation towards the market and what the passenger wanted. The organisation was intended to be more responsive to the passenger.
As the hon. Member for Newham, South is aware, that reorganisation in the 1980s resulted in a rather complex matrix. Those responsible for what were called the businesses sectors—InterCity, Network SouthEast, freight and what were known as provincial railways, but are now known as Regional Railways—were responsible for marketing and pricing decisions that were quite separate from the business management. There was a system of regional or area railway management and also functional management involving the engineers, accountants and others.
The Government have been kept fully informed of British Rail's plans, and we support their thrust. British Rail wants to simplify that matrix so that, within each business sector which the hon. Member for Newham, South identified, the financial responsibility for marketing, pricing and advertising is brought together with the operational responsibility and the safe provision of services.
It must be a tenet of every good and well-organised business that it should bring together responsibility for the
580
provision of services with the responsibility for the interface with the passenger; that involves the quality of service, the pricing of that service and its frequency. That is what the reorganisation is all about.
The hon. Member for Newham, South asked me four main questions. I shall try to respond to them, but if I cannot cover all the points I will read the Official Report and write to him. He asked why it has taken so long to deposit the relevant papers in the Library. I can only apologise. There has been no attempt by the Government or by British Rail to be secretive about "Organising for Quality." A document in the Library now contains a summary of the proposal, and the hon. Gentleman has clearly read it. There has been no attempt to cast a veil of secrecy over the proposals. As the hon. Gentleman has admitted, the senior management of British Rail have explained the proposals patiently and clearly, and I welcome that.
The hon. Member also asked about access. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport re-emphasised a few days ago the Government's commitment to move as much freight as possible off the roads and on to rail. I know that the hon. Gentleman supports that notion, and he outlined changes in section 8 grant procedures to encourage that process.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about access to the existing rail network, my right hon. and learned Friend directed his remarks primarily to freight, and indicated the Government's desire to permit other companies to have a right of access to a British Rail track. Clearly, to provide a statutory right, we would require new legislation. There is already much voluntary co-operation between British Rail and private sector freight operators. We greatly welcome the joint venture with Charter Rail—the Foster-Yeoman haulage of aggregate from the west country to London, with British Rail drivers but privately owned wagons. We wish to encourage that.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that, in addition to the concept of the privatisation of British Rail, there was in parallel with that and related to it the right of other operators—properly regulated, of course—to use the rail track of British Rail, and indeed the rail track of others. Perhaps in future, others apart from a privatised British Rail will construct new rail track in this country—obviously, subject to appropriate regulation. There must be a mechanism by which railway operators can travel over that track.
The "Organising for Quality" initiative is rooted in the reforms that were begun nine years ago. The proposals simplify the management matrix. I strongly believe that that is a logical development of the earlier proposals. It was British Rail's idea. It was not suggested by the Government and not forced upon British Rail. The reorganisation, welcome though it is, is in no way consistent with ideas that the Government may or may not have for privatisation, and neither is it inconsistent. Our approach to privatisation is a wholly separate exercise and it is not directly related either to the earlier reforms or the later reforms.
The hon. Gentleman touched on safety, a crucial matter. British Rail believes that the reorganisation is consistent with Hidden recommendation No. 50. The hon. Gentleman and I may need to correspond on that matter further. There is in place a process of safety validation at each stage of the reorganisation to make sure that, before

581
it is introduced, it is not only consistent with the high standards that British Rail has set itself for safety but in no way confounds or complicates those standards.
For each profit centre—each business sector—there is to be a safety manager. The hon. Gentleman must concede that in the present system—the reorganisation is not complete—safety responsibilities were placed not only on different levels of responsibility but on different individuals. That is not to say that British Rail is not a safe railway on which to travel. The reorganisation places specific responsibility upon a safety manager for a particular sector of operation.
The headquarters of British Rail will set national safety standards and ensure that they are in place throughout not only British Rail's operations but any private operation that is permitted voluntarily to run on British Rail track at the moment. As and when there is deregulation and access is permitted to other operators to run on railway track, those safety standards will apply to all.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's position. I hope that I have explained that it is a British Rail plan. We welcome it, but the details are for British Rail. However, we support the thrust of the plan. The hon. Gentleman held up a newspaper article—I believe it was from The Guardian. I have travelled widely on British Rail in the 12 months in which I have been a Minister in the
582
Department of Transport. I have found widespread support among the management to whom I have spoken for the thrust of the reforms. That is not to say that there is no dissent or disagreement. There is bound to be dissent and disagreement. It is an open organisation, and senior management, with the wisdom of their experience of 30 or 40 years, should be allowed to express their opinions. I find support and enthusiasm for a reform that gives management greater accountability. It will be a simple system.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about dual control of track running out of London termini. That will not happen. It is not envisaged that InterCity track and Network SouthEast track run in parallel but under different ownership and control. That would be a recipe for chaos.
We welcome the report. The hon. Gentleman and I share great admiration for what British Rail has done. It brought me back from my constituency in time for the debate—from Kettering to St. Pancras, on time. It was a safe, reliable, well-priced and excellent journey. The hon. Gentleman and I want that to apply to all railway journeys.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  School Clothing Grants
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what would be the cost of a non-discretionary school clothing grants scheme administered by his Department.

  Mr. Fallon
  The cost would depend on the scale and nature of any scheme. We have no plans to introduce such a scheme; it is for local authorities to decide, in the light of local circumstances, when and to what extent to provide clothing grants.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what visits or other official engagements were undertaken by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science during his visit to the east Birmingham task force area on 23 April 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The programme included visits to the Aston Science Park, a meeting with Sir Reginald Eyre and Heartlands training group, attendance at the Heartlands training event, visit to the east Birmingham task force, East Birmingham college and attendance at the launch of the Asian business handbook.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the level of funding to the Natural Environment Research Council in each year since 1 April 1985.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Details of the level of grant in aid paid by this Department to the Natural Environment Research Council since 1 April 1985 are as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  67·880

  1986–87

  70·325

  1987–88

  73·315

  1988–89

  91·859

  1989–90

  114·955

  1990–91

  135·233

  11991–92

  122·564

  1 Estimates.

TRANSPORT

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are currently being taken to meet Government targets for the stabilisation of carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005.
  350
  Mr. Chope
  Over the past year or so, the Government have taken a number of initiatives which will help to reduce emissions from the transport sector. These include an emissions check in the MOT test, proposals to fit speed limiters to heavy goods vehicles, and improvements to information about new car fuel economy. The tax changes announced in the last Budget statement will also help to improve incentives to choose fuel efficient cars and drive them in a fuel economic fashion.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been undertaken for his Department to show how the Government will meet their target of stabilising carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2005; and if he will make available any forecasts and associated calculations.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has published a report by Dr. M. H. L. Waters on "United Kingdom road transport's contribution to greenhouse gases: a review of TRRL and other research" (Transport and Road Research Laboratory contractor report 223.) This is being followed up by a programme of research into various measures which might help to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. Where appropriate, the results will be published in due course.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's traffic forecast for the next 15 years; how he estimates these will affect the Government's declared objective of stabilising carbon dioxide emission levels from 1990 by the year 2005; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department's traffic forecasts are published as National Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1989 copies of which are in the Library. They indicate that by the year 2005 traffic will be 31 to 52 per cent. higher than in 1990. The impact of traffic levels on emissions of carbon dioxide will largely depend on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle fleet.

  Great Glen Bypass
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made since 1987 in plans for the construction of the Great Glen bypass, Leicestershire, on the A6; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Following public consultation the preferred route for the A6 Great Glen bypass was announced in November 1989. Since that time surveys have been carried out leading to the detailed design of the scheme. We plan to publish draft orders in the autumn.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people living in residential and nursing homes are paid for by income support; and how many of these are over pension age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest estimate of the number of people in receipt of income support in residential care and nursing homes is for August 1990, when the figure was 199,000. Information on how many of these were over
  351
  pension age is not available but, as of May 1989, about 80 per cent. of income support recipients in such homes were over pension age.

  Community Charge (Lambeth)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many community charge payers in Lambeth were in receipt of community charge benefit at the last period for which figures were available, based on claims for refunds by his Department to Lambeth council.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 28 February 1991, it is estimated that 38,200 charge payers were receiving community charge benefit in the London borough of Lambeth. This figure is likely to understate the true position as, in addition to having a number of unprocessed claims, a computer-related problem prevented Lambeth from including certain cases in its February stock count.

  Social Fund Reviews
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for review by a social fund inspector were outstanding for more than one month on 30 April.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 3 May 1991 at column 350.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy on informing the next of kin of deceased unemployment benefit claimants of any outstanding benefits to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement on the considerations leading to the formulation of this policy.

  Mr. Jack
  When a claimant dies, any outstanding unemployment benefit may be paid to persons claiming that benefit as legal personal representatives, legatees, next of kin or creditors of the deceased. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the individuals mentioned to make sure that any outstanding benefit has been claimed. However, following the hon. Member's question, steps are being taken to ensure that in administering unemployment benefit on a day to day basis instructions to employment

  Married couple with two children aged 4 and 6

  Gross Pay (£pw)

  Net income in work after mortgage and community charge (£pw)

  Net income on income support after mortgage and community charge (£pw)

  mortgage £50,000

  mortgage £75,000

  mortgage £100,000

  200

  60·84

  -1·42

  -63·68

  101·22

  250

  93·84

  31·58

  -30·68

  101·22

  300

  126·84

  64·58

  2·32

  101·22

  350

  159·84

  97·58

  35·32

  101·22

  400

  197·34

  13508

  72·82

  101·22

  450

  234·84

  172·58

  110·32

  101·22

  500

  272·34

  210·08

  147·82

  101·22

  352
  service offices properly reflect this policy intention and that, where a legal personal representative or next of kin notifies the ESO that a claimant has died, an invitation to claim any arrears will be issued. Instructions to staff in offices of the Benefits Agency will also be reviewed to ensure that similar procedures are followed where this is not already the case.

  Information regarding the payment of arrears of benefit following a death can be obtained from offices of the Department of Social Security and unemployment benefit offices. In addition, advice on claiming arrears of benefit is included in social security leaflet D49, "What to do After a Death", which contains detailed information on the action to be taken when someone dies.

  Disposable Income
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing disposable income in and out of work, after 16 weeks, for a single-wage family with two children aged four and six years and a mortgage of(a) £50,000 (b) £75,000 and (c) £100,000 assuming offer wages of £200, £250, £300, £350, £400, £450 and £500 a week.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: The information is set out in the table. The figures are based on the following assumptions.

  Mortgage payments are for interest only and contain no repayments of capital. Where an income support claimant's outgoings are unnecessarily high they may be restricted to the amount that they would need to obtain suitable alternative accommodation. In the table, it has been assumed that no such restriction has been applied. They are shown net of tax. The mortgage shown is the capital outstanding. Mortgage interest is calculated at 12–95 per cent.

  In calculating the figures the same assumptions have been used as are found in the tax benefit model tables. Net income in work includes child benefit and any community charge benefit as may be payable. It should be noted that the results in the tables remain arbitrary. They cannot reflect, except by chance, the actual circumstances of particular people and cannot claim to be representative of the population at large.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Iraqi Detainees
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to publish the report prepared by the Red Cross on prison conditions under which the Iraqi detainees in the United Kingdom were kept during the course of the Gulf war.

  Mrs. Angela Rumbold
  No. The convention is that such reports are made available only to the Government of the detaining country and to the national Government of those detained, and in confidence.

  Racial Attacks
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been made to each police authority in England and Wales in the past year regarding improper handling of an offence caused by racial prejudice.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is not held centrally and may only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Police Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will describe the procedures used by the Metropolitan police when disclosing criminal records to local authorities to allow them to determine who is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence; whether he will list the offences deemed to make a taxi driver unfit to hold a taxi licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not the practice of the Metropolitan police to disclose criminal records to local authorities for this purpose.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has issued advice to local authorities concerning the use of criminal records to determine on who is a fit and proper person to hold a taxi licence; what appeals procedure there is should a criminal record be inaccurate or not relevant to a taxi licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Home Office has not issued any such advice to local authorities. Anyone aggrieved by the refusal of a district council to issue a licence may appeal to the courts.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many successful prosecutions there have been in each of the past five years under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 relating to having an unmuzzled ferocious dog at large in a street, park or open public place;

  (2) how many successful prosecutions there have been in each of the past five years under the Animals Act 1971 for injury or damage caused by dogs in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The table shows the number of prosecutions and convictions under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 Section 28(2) to (4).
  354

  Number of defendants prosecuted and convicted under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 section 28(2) to (4) 1985 to 1989 England and Wales

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1985

  55

  28

  1986

  54

  26

  1987

  52

  37

  1988

  80

  43

  1989

  93

  60

  Note: Information is not collected centrally on civil offences committed under the Animals Act 1971.

  Control of Explosives
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of cases where explosives other than fireworks have caused accidents in the home in the past five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Accurate figures are not available. In 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) drew my noble Friend's attention to an unfortunate accident in his constituency when a young boy was badly injured while playing with materials used in the home loading of ammunition.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bear the extra cost to the police of carrying out inspections under the proposed control of explosives regulations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The cost of operating the statutory enforcement powers to be conferred on the police as a result of the proposed control of explosives regulations, which should not result in a significant additional burden upon police resources, will be met by police funding in the usual way.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of cases in the last convenient period where explosives have been stolen from private homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no legal requirement to report thefts of explosives. Accurate figures for thefts from private homes are not available, but five are known to have been reported by police since 1969.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now postpone the control of explosives regulations to allow increased consultation time for the guidance notes to be fully studied by all interested parties.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not normal practice for the Health and Safety Executive to consult on guidance notes. They represent an explanation of the regulations and advice on compliance. The proposed control of explosives regulations have been subject to full consultation. We see no need for postponement.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long has been allowed for consultation on the form of the guidance notes applying to the new proposed control of explosives regulations; and what factors underlay the decision to set this length of time for consultation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No general consultation on draft guidance notes applying to the new proposed control of
  355
  explosives regulations has taken place. Draft guidance notes were sent to a number of organisations by the Health and Safety Executive on 3 May 1991. Comments were requested by 17 May 1991. This time was set to permit the guidance notes to be published prior to the draft regulations coming into force. However, important comments received after this date could be taken into account if printing schedules permitted.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library the case histories that led to the proposal by the Health and Safety Executive of new control of explosive regulations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The new proposed control of explosives regulations are part of the ongoing modernisation of the Explosives Act 1875 and related regulations. This forms part of the Health and Safety Commission's programme of work to review and reform existing legislation. So far a number of new explosives regulations have been made. The draft control of explosives regulations are the latest proposals. These proposals are not driven by particular case histories.

  Dog Fights
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Greater Manchester on the action taken in connection with publication of "Pit Bull News" by P. Graham from 44 Midland road, Bramhall, Stockport, in respect of possible offences related to promotion of organised dog fights.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the chief constable of Greater Manchester police that the police are aware of the publication "Pit Bull News". Together with the RSPCA, they have looked into the possibility of prosecuting the publication for offences relating to the promotion of organised dog fights, but have concluded that there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution to proceed.

  Sellafield (Security)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Cumbria as to the investigations being conducted into the break-in at the Sellafield site in the week beginning 20 May, and as to the security implications of these events.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The incident was handled by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary and Cumbria police were not involved.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what targets he has approved for the Civil Service College for 1991–92.

  Mr. Renton
  The primary target for the Civil Service College executive agency will be to cover its costs from income: planned costs for 1991–92 are £14,476K. Other agreed targets for the college in 1991–92 are:356

  Targets

  Student days

  82,750

  Course days

  5,465

  Students

  20,900

  Students at grade 7+

  5.501

  Number of students in development schemes

  4.190

  Number of students for formal qualifications

  1,980

  Number of students from the private sector

  450

  Percentage of course evaluations in boxes 1 and 2

  78

  Students per course day at the college's two main sites

  16·5

  Income from consultancy

  £130K

  There is also a target for "cost per student day" which is not published for commercial reasons, and a five-year value for money target. The rating of college services as revealed by a detailed survey of the views of students must increase over the five-year period to 1995 by 10 per cent. more than the real cost of the college's output.

  I am arranging for copies of the college's stategic plan for 1991–1995 to be placed in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament.

EMPLOYMENT

  Redundancies
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average time for his Department to process redundancies; how many redundancies are awaiting processing; and whether there are any plans to recruit extra staff to increase efficiency.

  Mr. Forth
  The average time to process a redundancy payment is currently 10 weeks and the number of claims awaiting processing is 53,000. My Department has introduced a number of efficiency measures to improve the time taken to deal with claims, including the recruitment of additional staff.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of the effect on employment of the introduction of a minimum wage based on two thirds of male median earnings.

  Mr. Forth
  Officials in my Department have estimated that the introduction of a minimum wage of two thirds male median earnings could over time lead to the loss of over 1 million jobs if wage differentials were restored by 50 per cent. They have also estimated that in the extreme case of full wage restoration the losses could be of the order of 2 million jobs.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what would be the cost to the public sector wages and salaries bill of the introduction of a minimum wage of two thirds of male median earnings.

  Mr. Forth
  We do not have the information to provide a full answer, and even a partial answer could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money is set aside for employment training in each English county.
  357
  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested. In 1991–92 budgets were allocated by funding block rather than by individual scheme. Funding block 2 includes employment training (ET) fees, ET allowances and high technology national training (HTNT). The table below shows the money allocated to each regional office in England for funding block 2:

  Region

  Allocation £ million

  South East

  57·25

  London

  93·02

  South West

  46·51

  West Midlands

  89·88

  East Midlands

  67·75

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  100·49

  North West

  123·93

  Northern

  82·63

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action the Health and Safety Executive is taking in respect of the drafting of regulations for the storage of(a) propane or butane gas, (b) petrol and (c) weed killer, in the home.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Commission's current reviews of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 and regulations concerning the storage of petrol in containers include consideration of the domestic storage of liquefied petroleum gas and petrol respectively.

  The storage of weed killer in the home is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who has no plans to produce regulations on such storage.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the role of the Health and Safety Executive in respect of safety in private domestic premises as proposed in the new draft of the Control of Explosives Regulations; and on what section of which Act this role is based.

  Mr. Forth
  None. The Health and Safety Commission has proposed new draft control of explosives regulations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The police will be the enforcing authority for most requirements in the proposals; the Health and Safety Executive for others. The proposed new regulations give the Health and Safety Executive no role in respect of safety in domestic premises.

  Training (Finance)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received regarding reductions in funding for people on training schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  A number of hon. Members have written to me about funding for training, including the hon. Member for Truro. It is for training and enterprise councils to allocate funding to training schemes locally. Nationally resources for youth training and employment training now stand at over £1.7 billion for 1991–92. Following a reappraisal of the range of measures available to help unemployed people and a reassessment of the overall demand for ET adjustments were made to the 358
  balance of our measures involving an increase in the number of opportunities delivered through the Employment Service.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much money has been set aside for the purchase of tools to enable the unemployed to gain skilled employment.

  Mr. Jackson
  No money has been allocated specifically for the purchase of tools for this purpose.

  Skills Training
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans the Government have to provide training for people aged over 25 years in skills necessary to gain employment, including interview skills, literacy and numeracy.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government aim to offer to all adults under 50 who have been unemployed for more than two years, and to all unemployed people with disabilities, a place on employment training (ET), enterprise allowance, the job interview guarantee or in a job-club. Many people who need the help described will be included in this group. Other people who need help with literacy/numeracy are eligible to enter ET without being unemployed for 26 weeks.

  Job preparation courses are offered as part of the job interview guarantee initiative and are designed to give long-term unemployed people the knowledge and confidence to succeed at a guaranteed interview for vacancies offered at the end of the course.

  The Government have recently announced sponsorship of £3 million over the next three years for a new initiative called "Basic Skills at Work" intended to enhance the quantity and quality of literacy/numeracy training.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people of employment age are on literacy and numeracy training courses; and if he will give these figures for each English county;

  (2) what money is available for each English county For people with special training needs in literacy, numeracy and social skills; and what the figures were for 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much grant aid has been provided for Sri Lanka during each of the past five years; and if he will increase grant aid for next year.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being provided to Sri Lanka in this financial year; and what was the figure in each of the previous three years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I will write to the hon. Members.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have been recorded in Gwynedd caused by cancer in each of the past five years; what incidence rate the figure for each year represents; how that rate corresponds to the figure for(a) Wales and (b) Great

  Deaths from malignant neoplasms, ICD 140–208 in Great Britain, Wales and Gwynedd. 1986–90.

  Great Britain

  Wales

  Gwynedd

  Age

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 population

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 population

  Deaths

  Rate per 1.000 population

  1986

  Under 1

  17

  0·02

  2

  0·05

  0

  0·00

  1–4

  122

  0·04

  7

  0·05

  1

  0·09

  5–14

  269

  0·04

  10

  0·03

  2

  0·07

  15–24

  515

  0·06

  24

  0·05

  1

  0·03

  25–34

  1,125

  0·14

  69

  0·19

  6

  0·21

  35–4

  3,630

  0·48

  196

  0·52

  13

  0·44

  45–54

  9,994

  1·66

  500

  1·63

  40

  1·61

  55–64

  29,070

  4·87

  1,648

  5·18

  132

  5·01

  65–74

  48,679

  9·95

  2,604

  9·73

  243

  10·01

  75–84

  45,853

  15·78

  2,412

  15·72

  241

  15·36

  85 and over

  14,348

  20·62

  656

  18·46

  72

  18·56

  All ages

  153,622

  2·78

  8,128

  2·88

  751

  3·20

  1987

  Under 1

  20

  0·03

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  1–4

  116

  0·04

  5

  0·03

  1

  0·09

  5–14

  249

  0·04

  9

  0·03

  0

  0·00

  15–24

  480

  0·05

  18

  0·04

  3

  0·08

  25–34

  1,148

  0·14

  52

  0·14

  4

  0·13

  35–44

  3,717

  0·49

  183

  0·48

  22

  0·74

  45–54

  9,971

  1·66

  535

  1·73

  54

  2·15

  55–64

  28,473

  4·85

  1,574

  5·03

  122

  4·68

  65–74

  48,722

  9·89

  2,616

  9·67

  257

  10·55

  75–84

  47,198

  15·98

  2,474

  15·86

  262

  16·60

  85 and over

  15,324

  20·54

  786

  20·31

  90

  21·26

  All ages

  155,418

  2·81

  8,252

  2·91

  815

  3·45

  1988

  Under 1

  19

  0·03

  2

  0·05

  1

  0·34

  1–4

  135

  0·05

  6

  0·04

  0

  0·00

  5–14

  266

  0·04

  17

  0·05

  1

  0·03

  15–24

  534

  0·06

  15

  0·03

  1

  0·03

  25–34

  1,125

  0·14

  53

  0·13

  2

  0·06

  35–44

  3,838

  0·50

  200

  0·52

  14

  0·46

  45–54

  9,999

  1·64

  550

  1·75

  45

  1·76

  55–64

  27,921

  4·81

  1,481

  4·77

  111

  4·24

  65–74

  49,130

  9·99

  2,821

  10·38

  247

  10·12

  75–84

  48,154

  16·10

  2,546

  16·09

  258

  16·23

  85 and over

  16,117

  20·63

  864

  21·23

  105

  23·50

  All ages

  157,238

  2·83

  8,555

  2·99

  785

  3·28

  1989

  Under 1

  22

  0·03

  0

  0·00

  0

  0·00

  1–4

  146

  0·05

  7

  0·05

  0

  0·00

  5–14

  228

  0·03

  13

  0·04

  2

  0·07

  15–24

  485

  0·06

  30

  0·07

  1

  0·03

  25–34

  1,107

  0·13

  37

  0·09

  7

  0·21

  35–44

  3,807

  0·50

  196

  0·51

  25

  0·82

  45–54

  9,992

  1·60

  529

  1·65

  45

  1·72

  55–64

  26,985

  4·70

  1,448

  4·71

  133

  5·10

  65–74

  48,903

  9·96

  2,790

  10·21

  253

  10·33

  75–84

  49,504

  16·33

  2,631

  16·35

  284

  17·70

  85 and over

  17,177

  20·95

  871

  20·45

  95

  20·25

  All ages

  158,356

  2·85

  8,552

  2·98

  845

  3·51

  1990

  Under 1

  13

  0·02

  1

  0·03

  1

  0·34

  l-4

  109

  0·04

  4

  0·03

  0

  0·00

  5–14

  271

  0·04

  13

  0·04

  4

  0·14

  15–24

  420

  0·05

  22

  0·05

  0

  0·00

  25–34

  1,109

  0·13

  46

  0·11

  7

  0·21

  35–44

  3,702

  0·48

  187

  0·49

  18

  0·59

  360
  Britain in each of those years; and if he will break down the total number of cancer deaths in each year into convenient age groups.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The tables list the number of deaths, and rates per 1,000 population, from malignant neoplasms (ICD 140–208) for the years 1986–90, in Gwynedd, Wales and Great Britain. The data are presented in convenient age groups.
  361

  Great Britain

  Wales

  Gwynedd

  Age

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 population

  Deaths

  Rate per 1.000 population

  Deaths

  Rate per 1,000 population

  45–54

  9,956

  1·57

  552

  1·69

  48

  1·84

  55–64

  26,494

  4·65

  1,417

  4·65

  118

  4·53

  65–74

  48,636

  9·94

  2,738

  9·96

  250

  10·21

  75–84

  49,416

  16·20

  2,591

  15·90

  260

  16·20

  85 and over

  17,654

  20·92

  868

  19·73

  91

  19·39

  All ages

  157,780

  2·83

  8,439

  2·92

  797

  3·31

  Note: 1990 rates for Gwynedd based on 1989 population for all ages.

  Cervical Cancer
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of research into a vaccine for cervical cancer; and what funds are being made available by his Department for such research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Education and Science. I understand that no research into this subject is currently being undertaken by the MRC.

  The Department's view is that although some strains of human papilloma virus, against which such a vaccine would be used, may pre-dispose to the development of cervical cancer, there is no absolute proof that it does.

  It is not normal practice to contemplate developing a vaccine unless there is clear proof that the infectious agent against which the vaccine is directed has been proved to cause the condition under consideration.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current population of England, Scotland and Wales who are aged 18 years or over.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The estimated resident populations aged 18 years and over at 30 June 1990 were as follows:

  Million

  England

  37·00

  Scotland

  3·94

  Wales

  2·22

  HIV (Blood Transfusions)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from Mr. Graham Ross in regard to financial help for NHS patients who have become infected with HIV through infected blood transfusions, and their families; what reply he is sending; if there is any action he has taken or will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) on 6 June at column 302.

  Sefton General Hospital
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will direct the Liverpool area health authority to publish its plans for the future of Sefton general hospital.
  362
  Mr. Dorrell
  No. The planning and development of health services locally is a matter for the health authority concerned. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Michael Emberton, the chairman of Liverpool health authority.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will itemise land and property sales by Trent regional health authority between 1987 and 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information in respect of sales of over £50,000 and over 1 acre in area is given in the tables.

  Trent Regional Health Authority

  District health authority—Property and address

  Price obtained (£)

  1987–88

  Leicestershire—Francis Dixon Lodge, Towers Hospital

  280,000

  Leicestershire—Glengate Hospital, Desford

  420,000

  North Derbyshire—Ridgway Hospital, Belper

  200,000

  North Derbyshire—Land at Penmore Hospital, Chesterfield (Phase 1)

  229,750

  North Lincolnshire—Louth and District Hospital

  30:5,000

  Nottingham—Coppice Hospital, Ransom Road

  450,000

  Rotherham—Land at rear of Fairfield House

  340,000

  South Derbyshire—The Grange Children's Unit, Etwall Road, Mickleover and adjoining land

  90,000

  South Derbyshire—Rough Heanor Allotments, Kingsway Hospital

  475,000

  South Derbyshire—Derbyshire Hospital for Women

  403,000

  South Derbyshire—Ilkeston General Hospital

  385,000

  1988–89

  Barnsley—Land at Broadway Ambulance Station

  52,000

  Central Nottingham—Dale Crescent, Balderton

  932,500

  Central Nottingham—Langwith Lodge

  620,000

  Leicestershire—Bosworth Park Infirmary

  1,500,006

  Leicestershire—Land at LeicesterGeneral

  2,670,000

  Leicestershire—Welford Road Ambulance Station

  585,900

  North Derbyshire—Land at Penmore Hospital

  257,296

  North Derbyshire—Penmore Hospital

  60,000

  North Derbyshire—Carbar Hall, Buxton

  150,000

  North Derbyshire—Dronfield Hospital

  363,000

  North Lincolnshire—St. Mark's House

  51,000

  Nottingham—Land at Highbury Hospital

  591,200

  Nottingham—Saxondale Hospital

  767,000

  Nottingham—Clarendon Street

  612,000

  Sheffield—Edgar Allen Poe TC

  70,590

  Sheffield—Clifford Road

  268,000

  South Derbyshire—Derwent Hospital

  658,333

  South Derbyshire—Makeney Hospital

  541,100

  South Derbyshire—Etwall Hospital

  676,000

  South Lincolnshire—Johnson Hospital

  325,000

  1989–90

  Barnsley—Land at Bolton on Dearne HC

  121,100

  Barnsley—Pinder Oaks

  105,000

  Bassetlaw—49 and 51 The Holdings

  80,000

  Central Nottingham—Collingham Health Centre

  225,000

  Doncaster—Land at Neston Hospital

  175,000

  363

  District health authority—Property and address

  Price obtained (£)

  Leicestershire—Welford Road Ambulance Station

  390,130

  Leicestershire—Courtesthorpe Health Centre

  350,000

  Leicestershire—67 Coventry Road

  440,000

  North Derbyshire—Penmore Hospital

  540,000

  North Lincolnshire—St. John's Hospital

  4,641,508

  North Lincolnshire—2 Ancaster Avenue

  67,000

  Nottingham—Saxondale Hospital

  6,848,000

  Nottingham—54 and 56 The Ropewalk

  516,000

  Rotherham—Ferham House

  148,500

  South Derbyshire—Ashbourne Maternity Home

  535,250

  South Derbyshire—Heanor Maternity Hospital

  150,000

  South Lincolnshire—Oldleake Health Centre, Boston

  120,000

  Trent RHA—Markfield Training Centre

  1,750,000

  1990–91

  Bassetlaw—Larwood Health Centre

  220,000

  Leicestershire—Humberstone Grange Cottage

  60,000

  Leicestershire—40 Thumaston Lane

  176,500

  Leicestershire—Land at Carlton Hayes Hospital

  15,900,000

  Leicestershire—Kibworth Hall Hospital

  675,000

  Leicestershire—Framland Hospital

  540,000

  Leicestershire—Fielding Johnson Hospital

  1,130,000

  North Derbyshire—178 Broomhill Road

  170,000

  North Lincolnshire—Land at Birchwood Health Centre

  50,000

  North Lincolnshire—St. John's Hospital (Stage 1)

  450,000

  Nottingham—Radcliffe-on-Trent Health Centre

  205,000

  Sheffield—73 Lightwood Lane

  53,500

  Sheffield—Land at Chapeltown Nursing Home

  120,000

  Sheffield—7 Leopold Street

  475,000

  Sheffield—74 Lightwood Lane

  50,000

  Sheffield—471 Redmires Road

  50,000

  Sheffield—33 Clifford Road/14 St. Andrews

  184,000

  South Derbyshire—7 Hospital Lane, Mickleover

  52,200

  South Derbyshire—Manor/Kingsway Hospital (Phase 1)

  1,275,000

  South Lincolnshire—13 Rushcliffe Road

  56,333

  Regrading Appeals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give his latest figures for the number of outstanding nurse regrading appeals at regional and at national level for each health district or NHS trust in(a) Yorkshire regional health authority and (b) Trent regional health authority; and when he expects all the regrading appeals to be completed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 31 May 1991 the number of regional clinical grading appeals in Trent regional health authority and Yorkshire regional health authority was as follows:

  Regional Health Authority

  Number of appeals outstanding

  Yorkshire

  1,242

  Trent

  1,416

  Information about regional appeals outstanding for each district or NHS trust in these regions is not available centrally.

  At 31 May 1991 the number of national clinical grading appeals outstanding in Trent regional health authority and Yorkshire regional health authority was as follows:

  Number outstanding

  Yorkshire

  District

  Calderdale

  1

  364

  Number outstanding

  Dewsbury

  1

  East Yorkshire

  1

  Harrogate

  1

  Hull

  1

  Pontefract

  11

  Wakefield

  6

  York

  5

  Trent

  District

  Barnsley

  1

  Central Nottinghamshire

  3

  Nottingham

  1

  Sheffield

  4

  These figures include appeals outstanding in NHS trusts.

  We cannot predict when all the regrading appeals will be completed, but every effort is made to process cases as quickly as possible within the currently agreed procedures.

  East Birmingham Hospital
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why he has appointed Mr. John Bettinson to be chairman of the trust for East Birmingham hospital before the end of the consultation period for the proposal to establish a trust for this hospital.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  NHS trust chairmen and non-executive directors cannot be formally appointed until an NHS trust is established. Our current programme for second-wave NHS trusts envisages formal establishment in the autumn of this year. The names of the chairmen will be provided around the same time.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the applications received for approval in the second wave of NHS trusts.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The information requested is as follows:

  Formal applications approved for consultation in the second wave of trusts

  Northern RHA

  Cleveland Ambulance Services

  Gateshead Community Unit

  Northgate Hospital Northumberland Services

  Derwentside (North West Durham Hospital and Community Unit)

  North Tees Acute and Community Services

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Dental Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne

  South Tees Acute Hospital Services

  Yorkshire RHA

  Airedale Health Services

  Bradford Mental Health and Community Services

  Harrogate Health Services

  Northallerton Health Services

  Scarborough Health Services

  York Health Services

  Trent RHA

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services Unit

  City Hospital Nottingham

  Nottingham Community Unit

  Mulberry Health Care Services (South Lincolnshire Mental Handicap Services)

  Central Sheffield University Hospital (South Sheffield

  365
  Hospitals)

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Services

  Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Services

  Children's Hospital Sheffield

  Doncaster Priority and Community Services

  East Anglian RHA

  Allington (East Suffolk Community Unit)

  Hinchingbrooke (Huntingdon Acute, Hinchingbrooke Hospital)

  King's Lynn and Wisbech (QE2 Hospital)

  North West Thames RHA

  Barnet Community Health Services

  Wellhouse (Barnet and Edgeware Hospitals)

  Ealing Acute Hospital

  East Hertfordshire Acute, Priority and Community Services

  Northwick Park Hospital (Harrow Acute Unit)

  Harrow Community Services

  Hillingdon Community Health Unit

  North West Hertfordshire Mental Handicap Unit

  Parkside Community Health Services Unit

  South Bedfordshire Community and Mental Health Services

  Bedford Hospital (South Bedfordshire General Hospitals)

  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington

  Ashford Acute (Hounslow and Spelthorne)

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  North East Thames RHA

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals

  Essex Ambulance Services

  Mid Essex Hospital Services

  Essex Rivers Healthcare

  North East Essex Mental Handicap Unit (Turner Village)

  North East Essex Mental Illness Unit (Severalls Hospital)

  Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital

  Southend Community Care Services

  Forest Healthcare

  South East Thames RHA

  Brighton Community and Mental Health Services

  King's Healthcare Trust (Camberwell)

  Eastbourne Acute Services

  Hastings Provider Services

  Optimum Health (Lewisham Community)

  Mid-Kent Healthcare Services (Maidstone Acute)

  Maidstone Priority Care Services

  Thameslink Healthcare (Dartford and Gravesham Priority Services)

  Princess Christian (Tunbridge Wells Mental Handicap Unit)

  West Lambeth Priority Services

  South West Thames RHA

  Frimley Park Hospital

  Mid Surrey Mental Handicap Unit

  North West Surrey Acute Unit

  North West Surrey Community Services

  Wessex RHA

  Bath District (Mental Health Unit)

  Bournemouth and Christchurch Acute Unit Poole Acute Unit

  East Dorset Community Services

  Royal United Hospital, Bath

  Wiltshire Healthcare (Bath and Wiltshire)

  Avon and Somerset Community Unit

  Oxford RHA

  Aylesbury Vale Priority Care Services Unit

  East Berkshire Mental Handicap Unit

  Horton General Hospital

  Milton Keynes Acute and Maternity Services Unit

  Milton Keynes Community and Mental Health Services Unit

  West Berkshire Mental Handicap Unit

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospital

  South Bucks (Wycombe Health Services)

  South Western RHA

  Avon Ambulance Services

  366

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals (Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Acute Hospitals)

  Frenchay Acute and Community Services

  Plymouth Community Unit

  Southmead Acute and Community Services

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Services

  West Midlands RHA

  Coventry Walsgrave Health Services

  East Birmingham Acute

  Herefordshire Community Services Unit

  South East Staffordshire Community and Mental Health Unit

  South Warwickshire Community and Handicap Services Unit

  Staffordshire Ambulance Services

  Mersey RHA

  Aintree Hospitals (Walton and Fazakerly)

  Liverpool Community and Priority Services

  Liverpool Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Services (Mersey Metropolitan Ambulance Services)

  Mersey Regional Centre for Radiotherapy and Oncology

  Mersey Regional Centre for Neurosciences

  St. Helens and Knowsley Community Unit

  Southport Acute Unit (Southport and Formby)

  North Western RHA

  Burnley Provider Unit

  Oldham Acute and Community Services

  Rochdale Acute and Community Services

  Lancaster Acute Hospital Services

  Lancaster Priority Services

  Wrightington Health Services

  Post-registration Education
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are being made to fund both training and time off for training under the post-registration education and practice project.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The post-registration education and practice project has been undertaken by the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC). I understand that the UKCC has just completed consultation with the professions on the project report and that it plans to discuss the outcome with the United Kingdom Health Departments in due course. Any specific proposals addressed to the Health Departments will be considered at the appropriate time.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Hearth what information his Department has on the links between abortion and subsequent sterility or reproductive complications.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The most recent information that the Department has comes from a major study we have funded of the short and long-term sequelae of abortion. The researchers, who have presented some of their recent findings orally at conferences have concluded that overall, abortion was not materially related to future fertility. However, the findings showed lower fertility in women who had induced abortion in their first pregnancy, as measured in the time it took to conceive again. It was also shown that induced abortion does not increase the risk of non-viable outcome, decreased birthweight of the baby or shortened gestation in the subsequent pregnancy, although certain features of the abortion operation may affect the outcome.
  367
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the national health service over the last year for which figures are available of(a) abortions performed within the national health service, (b) abortions contracted out by the national health service, (c) pre-abortion counselling and preparation, (d) post-abortion counselling, (e) treatment following abortions and (f) other costs associated with abortion in the national health service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The estimated revenue cost of a straightforward abortion as an in-patient in a national health service hospital is £250 in 1989–90 prices. The other information is not collected centrally.

PRIME MINISTER

  Middle East (Arms Control)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent consultations Her Majesty's Government have had with the United States Government concerning the creation of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east.

  The Prime Minister
  We worked closely with the United States Government and other members of the United Nations Security Council in the preparation of Security Council resolution 687, which specifically refers to the need to work towards the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the middle east. President Bush's recent initiative, if implemented, would be an important step towards that objective.

  Special Forces
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what questions Her Majesty's Government have answered relating to special forces since November 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 24 January at column 317 and on 21 March 1991 at column 230 and by me on 17 May 1991 at column 281 and 20 May at column 333.

  National Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether GCHQ, or Cleave station, Warminster has undertaken surveillance of any communications in order to assist criminal or civil investigations or to aid the enforcement of court orders since 1979;

  (2) whether GCHQ, or Cleave station, Warminster has undertaken surveillance of any communications for purposes other than national security since 1979;

  (3) what provisions are in place to prevent the dissemination of information gathered at GCHQ, or Cleave station, Warminster, in cases other than those representing a clear danger to national security.

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to discuss the work of the intelligence services. The dissemination of intercepted information is governed by safeguards under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

  NUM
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will request the commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to report on allegations of the use of intercepted material in pursuit of the enforcement of court orders against the National Union of Mineworkers.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Foreign Visits (Journalists)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 34, if he will list by date of journey and newspaper those accounts for journalists travelling on official transport provided for Prime ministerial visits abroad which remained unsettled as of 3 June.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 June 1991]: It is not my practice to give details of outstanding accounts.

WALES

  Motorways
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many miles of(a) motorway and (b) near-motorway standard trunk road have been started in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of miles of major new construction involving motorway and dual carriageway trunk roads started in Wales for each year since 1979 are given in the following table:

  Motorway standard

  Dual carriageway

  1979–80

  —

  14·5

  1980–81

  2·7

  3·1

  1981–82

  —

  22·8

  1982–83

  —

  14·4

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  5·9

  1985–86

  —

  16·5

  1986–87

  —

  9·5

  1987–88

  —

  7·6

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  3·0

  7·1

  1990–91

  —

  3·9

  5·7

  105·3

  Cancer
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what investigations have been commissioned by his Department during the past four years into the level of cancer incidence in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  An investigation of data relating to the incidence of cancers in north Wales over the period 1974 to 1983 was undertaken at the invitation of the Welsh Office by Professor Hubert Campbell, emeritus professor of medical statistics, university of Wales. The results were published in July 1988.

  "Cancer Registration in Wales: 1974–1984", published in 1988, contained a comprehensive analysis of cancer incidence in Wales based on information held on the

  369
  Welsh Cancer Registry in respect of the years 1974 to 1984. A further report of the Welsh Cancer Registry, which will include data for 1984 to 1986, is currently being prepared.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further steps he proposes taking to improve cancer services for people residing in Gwynedd.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Consultation on the wide-ranging recommendations in the Deloitte, Haskins and Sells report into cancer treatment services for north Wales produced numerous and varying responses. These are being considered and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Sheep
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table indicating the number of farms in Wales affected by the sheep movement prohibition resulting from the Chernobyl disaster, in each year since that disaster occurred, together with an estimate of the number of sheep involved in each year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information is given in the following table:

  Date

  Approximate number of holdings

  Approximate number of sheep (post-lambing)

  20 June 19861

  5,100

  2,000,000

  1 January 1987

  315

  225,000

  1 January 19882

  416

  300,000

  1 January 1989

  416

  300,000

  1 January 1990

  416

  300,000

  14 January 19913

  410

  292,000

  1 Date of first Statutory Instrument imposing restrictions.

  2 Some re-restriction was necessary during 1987 on about 2 per cent, of those holdings released from restriction during 1986.

  3 Date of most recent Statutory Instrument derestricting part of the restricted area.

  Right-to-buy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the number of households currently on right-to-buy housing waiting lists in each district council area in Wales and the latest available figures showing the average amount of time spent by applicants on such waiting lists in each district authority.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The number of households on right-to-buy waiting lists at the end of March 1991, the latest available dates, are given in the following table.

  Information regarding the average amount of time spent by applicants on right-to-buy waiting lists is not collected centrally.

  District

  Applications outstanding

  Aberconwy

  52

  Alyn and Deeside

  121

  Arfon

  107

  Blaenau Gwent

  50

  Brecknock

  121

  Cardiff

  2,263

  Carmarthen

  121

  Ceredigion

  283

  Colwyn

  0

  Cynon Valley

  353

  370

  District

  Applications outstanding

  Delyn

  18

  Dinefwr

  80

  Dwyfor

  61

  Glyndwr

  40

  Islwyn

  135

  Llanelli

  692

  Lliw Valley

  80

  Meirionnydd

  103

  Merthyr Tydfil

  76

  Monmouth

  270

  Montgomeryshire

  78

  Neath

  160

  Newport

  575

  Ogwr

  349

  Port Talbot

  273

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  30

  Radnorshire

  0

  Rhondda

  55

  Rhuddlan

  47

  Rhymney Valley

  978

  South Pembrokeshire

  63

  Swansea

  382

  Taff-Ely

  361

  Torfaen

  496

  Vale of Glamorgan

  174

  Wrexham Maelor

  665

  Ynys Mon

  193

  Wales

  9,905

  Music Teaching
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications for the provision of peripatetic music teaching in the schools of south Glamorgan of the introduction of local management of schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We attach great value to the music service in schools and are anxious to see it continuing. Nevertheless, we do not believe that valuable provision of this sort will be threatened if local education authorities decide to delegate the funds to schools. Parents will want to see music provision maintained in the schools that their children attend and so will governors.

  Unruly Children
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales where in Wales, when the Children Act comes into operation, children subject to unruliness certificates can be accommodated.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Secure units at Ty Mawr, Silverbrook and Llwyncelyn community homes; and Cardiff and Swansea prisons. This matter is covered in the review of secure care policy in Wales which has been undertaken and which is to be issued for consultation next month.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales why copies of the Welsh Office report on three children's homes in Wales published on 4 June were not placed in the Library; why they were not made immediately available to hon. Members via the Vote Office; and whether he will make immediate arrangements for them to be placed in Library and to be made available at the Vote Office.
  371
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Copies of the reports were placed in the Library of the House on 5 June and have been provided to the hon. Gentleman. Copies are freely available from the Welsh Office.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Recycled Paper (HMSO)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Her Majesty's Stationery Office documents are printed on recycled paper; and what plans he has to increase the percentage.

  Mr. Maples
  To calculate the proportion of HMSO documents printed on recycled paper would be possible only at disproportionate cost.

  Monthly interest payments1

  Region

  Average new building society mortgages Quarter 2 1988

  On (A) at June 1988 9–8 per cent, interest rate, inflated to 1991 prices2

  On (A) at current 12–9 per cent, interest rate

  Difference (C)-(B)

  (A) £

  (B) £

  (C) £

  £

  Northern region

  22,200

  169·78

  178·99

  9·21

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23,000

  175·90

  185·44

  9·54

  East Midlands

  27,000

  206·49

  217·69

  11·20

  East Anglia

  34,800

  278·37

  293·48

  15·10

  Greater London

  54,900

  483·33

  509·55

  26·22

  South East

  44,500

  377·28

  397·75

  20·47

  South West

  34,900

  279·39

  294·55

  15·16

  West Midlands

  28,100

  214·90

  226·56

  11·66

  North West

  24,300

  185·84

  195·92

  10·08

  Wales

  23,900

  182·78

  192·69

  9·92

  Scotland

  24,200

  185·07

  195·11

  10·04

  Northern Ireland

  24,300

  185·84

  195·92

  10·08

  United Kingdom

  32,900

  259·00

  273·05

  14·05

  1 Assuming endowment mortgage, net of basic rate tax relief.

  2 Inflated from June 1988 to April 1991 prices by reference to the movement in the RPI.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to ensure that the price of unleaded petrol is contained to make its use attractive to private motorists; and if he will publish an analysis of the cost of this petrol throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Measures taken in the Budget increased the tax advantage of unleaded over leaded petrol to more than 4 pence a litre (18·4p per gallon). The Government neither have nor seek the power to intervene directly in commercial price setting, but are determined to maintain a free market where the consumer is best served by unfettered competition between the oil companies. Pump prices of unleaded petrol at locations throughout the United Kingdom are published in the Petroleum Times energy report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the latest meeting of the European Community's Economic and Finance Council.
  372
  HMSO actively encourages increased usage of recycled paper. Currently initiatives includes trials of recycled copier paper, computer stationery and recycled paper for tinted forms.

  A catalogue has been issued highlighting the availability of environmentally friendly products.

  Mortgage Payments
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by region in tabular form and at constant prices the average monthly domestic mortgage payment payable in the month when interest rates were at their lowest since 1983, the current average mortgage payable and the difference between the two figures.

  Mr. Maude
  Information for average new mortgages in the second quarter of 1988 is in the table. Details of average amounts outstanding on all mortgages by region are not available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Economic and Finance Council of the European Community met in Luxembourg on 3 June. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed a Presidency package of proposals on VAT and excise rates and systems, the most important elements of which were a minimum standard VAT rate of 15 per cent., minimum rates for all excises and provision for reduced rates including protection for our own zero rates. There was no agreement on the package as a whole and discussion will resume on 10 June.

  In the discussion of VAT rates, I restated the Government's view that the centrally imposed approximation of tax rates was not necessary for the establishment of the single market, but I made a statement that the United Kingdom had no present intention of reducing the standard rate of VAT below the 15 per cent. minimum proposed by the Presidency or indeed of making any change to the current rate of VAT of 17·5 per cent.

  On excise duties, I argued that, for health reasons, we needed to agree either high minimum rates for the duties on alcohol and tobacco, or limits on the amounts of these goods which can be brought into any member state tax-paid, and I said that the United Kingdom would in principle be prepared to accept a minimum rate for diesel

  373
  duty which would not oblige us to make any changes to our present levels. Any final agreement will, of course, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

  In a brief discussion of export credits and tied aid I urged that the European Community should agree to the Helsinki 5 revised package for revision of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development export credit arrangement and of the Development Assistance Committee's draft agreements on tied aid.

  Inland Revenue (Leaflet)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to the Inland Revenue by the Royal Mail about the wording of a leaflet advising taxpayers on payment methods; and what action has been taken as a result.

  Mr. Maude
  The Post Office recently asked the Inland Revenue for a meeting to discuss this subject, and this meeting will take place shortly.

  P11D Forms
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report, column 593, what is his estimate of the yield from the outstanding P11D forms.

  Mr. Maude
  The additional yield from examination of the outstanding forms is estimated at £10·25 million.

  Many of the forms on hand in April included benefits returned for earlier years and already covered by adjustments to tax codes.

  Security Vetting, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many posts in the Inland Revenue in Northern Ireland are subject to reliability checks under the new procedures for security vetting announced by the Prime Minister on 24 July 1990.

  Mr. Maude
  Since the new procedures were introduced, no posts in the Inland Revenue have been the subject of reliability checks. All new recruits to Northern Ireland complete a security questionnaire which is the basis for counter-terrorist checks.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people with annual investment income over £3,000 in 1991–92 who are(a) over the age of 55 years, (b) women over the age of 60 years and (c) men over the age of 65 years.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 6 June 1991]: Available information indicates that approximately 500,000 men aged over 65 and 500,000 women aged over 65 have investment income over £3,000 in 1991–92. I regret that information for those aged between 55 and 65 is not separately available.

  Number of medical physics technicians

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Total

  Scotland

  14

  42

  140

  102

  31

  12

  0

  2

  343

  CSA

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Argyll and Clyde

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Textiles
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list in the Official Report all investigations which the European Commission has made into state aids in textiles and clothing in the European Community since 1986 and the eventual outcome of those cases which have been resolved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer my hon. Friend to the European Commission's annual competition policy reports (part 3, chapter 1 and the annexes to the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th reports on competition policy), copies of which are available in the Library of the House. These list all formal investigations opened by the European Commission into state aids, including those for textiles and clothing, arid their outcome.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will refer bank margins on interest rates to the Office of Fair Trading for inquiry in to the extent and effectiveness of competition.

  Mr. Lilley
  I would of course ask the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate any anti-competitive practices by banks of which I had evidence. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked his officials, with the Bank of England, to look into concerns which have been raised about bank lending and my regional offices have been arranging a number of meetings between banks and small businesses.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give for each health board the number, in both absolute and percentage terms, of medical physics technicians, pharmacy technicians and medical photographers in each of the new pay scale categories.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  An agreement concluded by the Professional and Technical Staffs "B" Whitley Council in September 1989 introduced a new pay and grading structure for various groups of technicians in the NHS. Medical physics, technicians, pharmacy technicians and medical photographers were assigned to one of the eight medical technical officer (MTO) grades which are assistant, senior assistant, trainee and grades 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Health boards have stated that on 30 September 1990 the number of staff formerly in these grades in each of the MTO grades is as set out in the following tables.
  375

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Total

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Borders

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Forth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  0

  3

  9

  4

  2

  1

  0

  0

  19

  Greater Glasgow

  6

  18

  78

  60

  15

  6

  0

  1

  184

  Highland

  0

  2

  15

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  20

  Lanarkshire

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian

  7

  12

  28

  18

  6

  1

  0

  0

  72

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  1

  7

  8

  16

  7

  3

  0

  0

  42

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Percentage of total number of medical physics technicians

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Scotland

  4·1

  12·2

  40·8

  29·7

  9·0

  3·5

  0·0

  0·6

  CSA

  0·0

  0·0

  100·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  50·0

  50·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Borders

  0·0

  0·0

  33·3

  66·7

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Fife

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Forth Valley

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Grampian

  0·0

  15·8

  47·4

  21·1

  10·5

  5·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Greater Glasgow

  3·3

  9·8

  42·4

  32·6

  8·2

  3·3

  0·0

  0·5

  Highland

  0·0

  10·0

  75·0

  10·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  5·0

  Lanarkshire

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Lothian

  9·7

  16·7

  38·9

  25·0

  8·3

  1·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Orkney

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Shetland

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Tayside

  2·4

  16·7

  19·0

  38·1

  16·7

  7·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Western Isles

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Number of pharmacy technicians

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Total

  Scotland

  0

  2

  24

  85

  124

  76

  0

  3

  314

  CSA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Argyll and Clyde

  0

  0

  0

  4

  9

  1

  0

  0

  14

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  0

  3

  12

  2

  11

  0

  0

  28

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  1

  0

  0

  8

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Forth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  4

  8

  4

  0

  0

  16

  Grampian

  0

  0

  8

  6

  7

  4

  0

  0

  25

  Greater Glasgow

  0

  0

  1

  24

  43

  26

  0

  3

  97

  Highland

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  4

  0

  0

  8

  Lanarkshire

  0

  0

  0

  4

  12

  6

  0

  0

  22

  Lothian

  0

  1

  7

  21

  18

  17

  0

  0

  64

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  0

  1

  4

  2

  17

  1

  0

  0

  25

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Percentage of total number of pharmacy technicians

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Scotland

  0·0

  0·6

  7·6

  27·1

  39·5

  24·2

  0·0

  1·0

  CSA

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  28·6

  64·3

  7·1

  0·0

  0·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·0

  0·0

  10·7

  42·9

  7·1

  39·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Borders

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  00

  66·7

  33·3

  0·0

  0·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·0

  0·0

  12·5

  12·5

  62·5

  12·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Fife

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  100·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Forth Valley

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  25·0

  50·0

  25·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Grampian

  0·0

  0·0

  32·0

  24·0

  28·0

  16·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Greater Glasgow

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  24·7

  44·3

  26·8

  0·0

  3·1

  Highland

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  37·5

  12·5

  50·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Lanarkshire

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  18·2

  54·5

  27·3

  0·0

  0·0

  376 377

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Lothian

  0·0

  1·6

  10·9

  32·8

  28·1

  26·6

  0·0

  0·0

  Orkney

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Shetland

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Tayside

  0·0

  4·0

  16·0

  8·0

  68·0

  4·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Western Isles

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Number of medical photographers

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Total

  Scotland

  0

  0

  12

  23

  13

  3

  0

  0

  51

  CSA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Argyll and Clyde

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Borders

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Forth Valley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greater Glasgow

  0

  0

  5

  11

  11

  1

  0

  0

  28

  Highland

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Lanarkshire

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  5

  Lothian

  0

  0

  3

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Orkney

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tayside

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Western Isles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Percentage of total number of medical photographers

  Grade 5

  Grade 4

  Grade 3

  Grade 2

  Grade 1

  Trainee

  Senior assistant

  Assistant

  Scotland

  0·0

  0·0

  23·5

  45·1

  25·5

  5·9

  0·0

  0·0

  CSA

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Argyll and Clyde

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  100·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  0·0

  0·0

  50·0

  50·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Borders

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Fife

  0·0

  0·0

  25·0

  75·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Forth Valley

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Grampian

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Greater Glasgow

  0·0

  0·0

  17·9

  39·3

  39·3

  3·6

  0·0

  0·0

  Highland

  0·0

  0·0

  33·3

  33·3

  33·3

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Lanarkshire

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  40·0

  20·0

  40·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Lothian

  0·0

  0·0

  60·0

  40·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Orkney

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Shetland

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Tayside

  0·0

  0·0

  50·0

  50·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Western Isles

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Health Boards (Regrading)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the time between an appeal against the physiological measurement technicians, cardiology, regrading and the hearing of that appeal;

  (2) how many physiological measurement technicians, cardiology, have appealed against their regrading in (a) Greater Glasgow health board and (b) all other health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on appeals lodged with health boards against their implementation of a new pay and grading structure for various groups of technicians and the length of time it has taken to process them is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest number of expressions of interest about hospital trust status received by his Department; and if he will name the hospitals concerned.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There have been seven expressions of interest arising from which South Ayrshire and the Royal Scottish National hospitals have submitted applications and an application from Foresterhill (Aberdeen) is expected shortly. The Victoria infirmary (Glasgow), West Grampian unit and Princess Margaret Rose hospital (Edinburgh) are continuing exploratory work, but I have indicated to those promoting the Forfar proposal that it would not be appropriate for trust status in its original form.

  Health Consultation Document
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to publish a green paper in line with "The Health of the Nation", as released for consultation by the Secretary of State for Health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have already published on 25 March, after an extensive period of consultation, "Health Education in Scotland: A National Policy Statement", copies of which were placed in the Library. The statement identifies our priorities and sets challenging targets for improvements in health in Scotland. It describes the role of the health education board for Scotland, which was established on 1 April 1991 to lead the health education effort in Scotland, and sets the framework within which the board, health boards, local authorities, voluntary organisations, employers, the media and individuals can work together to secure the health improvements we seek. I expect to take further initiatives which will be announced in due course.

  Church of Scotland (Expenditure)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate to which vote in the estimates expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is attributed; and if he will list the amounts provided for the current year and in each of the last three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The expenditure for 1991–92 is held on class XV vote 13, law, order and miscellaneous health services, Scotland. The amounts provided were:

  £

  1988–89

  158,000

  1989–90

  173,000

  1990–91

  171,000

  1991–92

  76,000

  1 Outturn.

  Lanarkshire Working Group
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he has received the report of the Lanarkshire working group; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I welcome the report of the Lanarkshire working group, which was published today and I commend the way in which the organisations represented on the group have worked together to propose Lanarkshire-wide solutions to the economic problems caused by major steel and related job losses.

  The group's report makes it clear that Lanarkshire has many advantages and assets. Building on the Lanarkshire development agency's business plan, and the ideas and plans of the other private and public bodies in the area, the group has offered proposals which would greatly benefit Lanarkshire's economy. These embrace good sites, good communications and infrastructure, improved training and business support, a better environment, and attractive tourism and leisure facilities. All of these together will support the new and replacement jobs Lanarkshire needs. Given the spirit of co-operation evident in the group itself,
  380
  I expect the local authorities, Scottish Enterprise, the Lanarkshire development agency, East Kilbridge development corporation, Scottish Homes, the local enterprise trusts and British Steel (Industry) Limited, together with officials of the Scottish Office and the Employment Service, to maintain that partnership and work to ensure that in their programmes and activities, projects identified by the working group are given priority and driven forward to successful completion. The financial assistance now being made available by the Government totals £120 million.

  The group has identified a number of early action and medium-term projects, achievement of which will require the sustained co-operation of the various local and national bodies involved, as well as the full co-operation of the private sector. It will be for the Lanarkshire development agency to co-ordinate implementation of the 16 early action projects for site development identified in the report. The agency is, I know, keen to get on with the job.

  The group laid particular stress on the need for improvements to the road infrastructure of Lanarkshire and, in particular, the need for early upgrading of the A8 between Newhouse and Baillieston to give better access to industrial sites in the Lanarkshire area and to accommodate increased traffic flows. I recognise the need for such improvements and I have, therefore, commissioned Strathclyde regional council to undertake a design study for a revised road scheme for the upgrading of the A8 between Newhouse and Baillieston which would also allow for early upgrading of the existing Shawhead and Chapelhall junctions to facilitate access from local industrial sites in line with the group's recommendations.

  The group also noted the economic benefits which construction of a new general hospital would bring to the Motherwell area. I am therefore very pleased to announce that I have today endorsed Lanarkshire health board's proposal in its acute services strategy to build a new district general hospital at Netherton in Wishaw. This decision will enable detailed planning work to go ahead with a view to a start on site well within the period of four to seven years envisaged by the group. Apart from its welcome contribution to improved health care, this project will contribute construction and long-term jobs, and should help attract business, to the area. A fuller announcement will be made in due course about other aspects of the board's strategy.

  Throughout the group's report, stress is laid on the need to stimulate private sector investment in Lanarkshire. I strongly support this approach. Now that we have a report which highlights Lanarkshire's assets and its many and varied prospects for development, I shall be looking to the private sector to take up the opportunities available, and to build on the foundations of increased public sector investment.

  I look in particular to the positive role which British Steel can play, recognising British Steel (Industry) Ltd.'s important existing contribution to the area, and welcoming its recent initiative in opening a new office in Wishaw. I am also especially pleased to welcome today's announcement by British Steel (Industry) Ltd. that it intends to spend an additional £10 million in Lanarkshire over the next three years on measures to which the Lanarkshire working group also attached priority—particularly the provision of finance for business projects,

  381
  and additional managed work space. This will integrate well with the proposals in the working group's report, and make a valuable contribution towards their fulfilment.

  The report recommends that selected strategic and industrial development sites in north Lanarkshire should be given enterprise zone status, recognising that for an enterprise zone to be designated within an area, it has to satisfy the criteria established by the European Commission. The Government are considering this recommendation against the background of its existing policy on enterprise zones, and the costs which might be involved.

  Taken together, the recommendations of the group would represent a substantial call on public expenditure. The bulk of the expenditure needed to implement the proposals on site and business development, training, and environmental improvement would be the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise and the Lanarkshire development agency. Strathclyde regional council and the five Lanarkshire district councils would be responsible for meeting necessary expenditure on local roads, water, sewerage and factory building identified in the report.

  I have already made available for the Lanarkshire development agency and the Lanarkshire district councils nearly £28 million of additional funding for expenditure in the course of 1991–92. These resources, which include the £15 million announced in May by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, are over and above Scottish Enterprise's basic allocation to the Lanarkshire development agency of £36 million, the £5 million spent by the Scottish Development Agency in buying key north Lanarkshire sites earlier this year, and the £26 million capital programme for East Kilbride development corporation, and will enable a substantial early start to be made on the site developments and environmental and other improvements recommended by the group.

  Through the Department of Trade and Industry the Government will make available some £28 million to assist British Steel employees made redundant who qualify under the iron and steel employees readaptation benefits scheme.

  I am also pleased to announce today that the Scottish Office has approved a project proposed by Strathclyde regional council for funding under the urban programme to help redundant steelworkers. The project would be based in Motherwell, and concentrate on the deprived communities in north Lanarkshire.

  On European Community assistance, I agree that Lanarkshire's needs should be urgently considered for enhanced support under the Strathclyde integrated development operation. I shall ensure that the other recommendations concerning European Community assistance are drawn to the attention of the European Commission.

  The Government will announce their expenditure plans for the years 1992–93 onwards at the end of the public expenditure survey. I shall give the needs of Lanarkshire priority in deciding the allocations to my programmes. I shall also expect the other public bodies represented in the group to give similar priority to projects for which they are responsible. It will be important that the projects which proceed in the short term are those which provide the maximum economic benefits for Lanarkshire, thus ensuring the best use of the resources available.

  In Lanarkshire, the Government have identified the problem, established the working group to address it and
  382
  is now bringing together the measures and resources to respond to it so that, over the next few years, Lanarkshire's economy will have the chance to diversify and regenerate for the benefit of its people and of Scotland as a whole.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Diversification
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he gives to farmers about diversification in the countryside if they wish to develop motor-cross training areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Under the Agriculture Act 1986 there is no charge for general advice to farmers on diversifying their businesses into non-agricultural activities. Such advice is given within the context of the farm's resources, its location and the objectives of the farmer. Activities such as the provision of motor-cross training facilities normally require planning permission and as such, farmers will be advised to consult their local authority, whose responsibility it then is to approve or reject such projects.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial aid is available in the United Kingdom for the breeding and rearing of greyhounds as part of the diversification of agriculture; and whether he has made any such payments.

  Mr. Gummer
  No such aid is available in the United Kingdom. No such payments have therefore been made.

  43 International Whaling Commission
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the members of the United Kingdom delegation from the non-governmental organisations who were represented at the 43 International Whaling Commission meeting at Reykjavik; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom delegation included two representatives from Wildlife Link, the liaison body for major voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom concerned with wildlife.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his review of environmentally sensitive areas policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  My review of the ESA policy has been based primarily on an evaluation of the schemes that have been in operation since 1987 in the Broads, Pennine dales, south downs, Somerset levels and moors and west Penrith. I have also received views from a wide range of interests. The achievements of these schemes have been carefully monitored and have proved their value in conserving he special habitats, landscapes and items of historical or archaeological interest in these areas. I have, therefore, concluded that they should continue with the aim of securing further environmental protection and enhancement.
  383
  I intend to publish reports on the monitoring together with proposals for these ESAs as a basis for consultation, and to bring revised schemes before Parliament later this year. Agreements with farmers in the remaining ESA schemes in England that were introduced in 1988 begin to expire in 1993 and I will be reviewing those schemes next year.

  My right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales have reached similar conclusions concerning the ESAs designated in 1987 in Scotland and Wales. They will also be making proposals for consultation.

  Phosphate Waste
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what informaton he has on phosphate waste being discharged into British coastal waters and its effect on marine life.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 7 May 1991, Official Report, column 398.

ENERGY

  Sellafield (Illegal Entry)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will Ball for a report from the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc on the circumstances of the illegal entry of two persons into secure areas of the Sellafield plant during the week beginning 20 May;
  384
  (2) if he will make a statement on the security and health and safety implications for the people of Workington of the break-in to secure areas of the Sellafield site in the week beginning 20 May;

  (3) if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary on the circumstances of the break-in at the Sellafield site during the week beginning 20 May, and on the security implications of these events.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  British Nuclear Fuels plc has kept my officials fully informed of this incident. I understand that in the late evening of Thursday 23 May two demonstrators were detected and apprehended within the Sellafield perimeter fence. BNFL and the UKAEA constabulary are satisfied that no access was gained to sensitive buildings.

  All civil nuclear sites employ defence in depth, these include successive layers of protection around sensitive operations and materials. I understand that in this case, only the outermost layers were involved. Security of the installation was, therefore, maintained and there were no health and safety implications for the demonstrators, the Sellafield workers on site or the public.

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

Hallmarking of Precious Metals
Lord Mulley Lord Mulley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they oppose any proposals to end or modify the well established system of hallmarking articles made of precious metals.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Government are not aware of any current proposals to end or modify the system of hallmarking. However, the Government have made it clear that they regard the compulsory marking of precious metals as essential to protect both the consumer and the trader and that this is best achieved through the British hallmarking system.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Viscount for that reply. However, is he aware that my information is that German interests are applying both to the Commission and to the European Court to have our system of hallmarking declared outwith the competition and regime of the treaty? I should be glad to hear from the noble Viscount that he will resist that. As he said, our system is greatly welcomed by both the trade and consumers in this country as a guarantee of authenticity and quality which is unsurpassed in any other country. I hope that the Commission will not consider that proposal because it has better things to do, but if it persists I hope that for once it will harmonise on our system and not on one of the others.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, is entirely correct to point out that an application for judicial review has been made by a German jewellery manufacturer in which, inter alia, it challenges the incompatibility of the Hallmarking Act with the EC treaty. This case raises complex legal issues and we are considering our legal position. However, I have already stated that the Government are firmly of the view that the British hallmarking system is best placed to protect both the consumer and the trader. We shall support any defence of it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of your Lordships will regard the Answer as extremely satisfactory, particularly for the reasons eloquently set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what is the situation on the different standard; for silver on the continent and in Britain? We do not recognise the continental standards. How is this situation being dealt with?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we recognise our own standards. We know that other countries have different standards but we are dealing with the standards required before items can be sold in this country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I too welcome the firm position that the Government are taking. Can the noble Viscount clarify one point for me? He mentioned that a German company was considering, or was applying for, a judicial review on the hallmarking system. Is this a matter to be taken up before the European Court? Will the British Government make their own case or will the matter be taken up in a lower court in Germany?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, so far as I am aware, at present the application for judicial review is made in this country and nowhere else. A similar case was brought by the Germans in the Netherlands and it was unsuccessful.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's stand on this. Will he endeavour to keep both the trade and the House informed of progress? If it is possible for the government view to be presented to the court, as is often so in such cases, we would not have to go through the whole matter later. As the noble Viscount knows, silver must be of our standard to be sold here; though that is not strictly correct. The German interest is that Germany has a standard of 800 parts per thousand of silver whereas we have a standard of 925 parts. The Germans want it all to be classified for sale as silver, which would give them a considerable advantage.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is clear that at some stage in the future agreement must be reached on a Community-wide basis for a regime for precious metals. That will obviously happen; but, as I said, we strongly support our own system.

Adult Education: Funding
11.10 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy for the funding of adult education.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government's policy is set out in the White Papers, Education and Training for the 21st Century and Access and Opportunity—A Strategy for Education and Training. The White Papers make clear the value we place on the further education of adults for their own benefit and for the benefit of the economy.
From April 1993 the new funding councils for England and Wales will have responsibility for supporting the further education of adults leading to academic and vocational qualifications and a range of other important provisions. In Scotland, funding for further education provision in these areas will be the responsibility of the Scottish Office education

841
department. Expenditure on provision which meets the leisure interests of adults will so far as possible be met from fees.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the Minister referred to further education. There is a generally accepted distinction in education establishments between further education and adult education. I am asking about adult education. In the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century to which the noble Lord referred, paragraph 9.11 states:
"It is not intended that colleges should receive explicit funding from Councils for courses catering for adults' leisure interests".
Can the Minister tell the House whether that means that there will not in future be public funding for work done by organisations like the WEA and the extramural departments of universities?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the White Paper makes no distinction between the funding of non-vocational and vocational further education for adults. The further education to be supported by the councils includes that leading to academic qualifications, the acquisition of basic skills and access to higher education. It is support for leisure and recreational provision which in future will be provided by fees as far as possible.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will reconsider his reply. Both further education, which is a step on the road to qualifications and employment, and adult education, which is intended to broaden the horizons of people who are often in full-time employment, are vital elements in the British education pattern. I lectured on behalf of the extramural department of the University of Manchester some 50 years ago. The education provided by that department was considered an important part of the university's obligations towards the urban communities of the area. It is enormously unsatisfactory that such education should now be classed as a leisure activity. It is not a leisure activity. It is a broadening of people's educational experience. The muddle in the White Paper must be cleared up by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, as regards the additional provisions that I have mentioned, apart from the obvious basic educational activities such as national vocational qualifications, GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels, the funding councils support access to higher education, access to higher levels of further education, the acquisition of basic skills such as literacy and numeracy, proficiency in English for speakers of other languages and, in Wales, proficiency in Welsh. The funding councils will also support courses for adults with special educational needs.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the question that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked. The critical question concerns which activities are considered by the Government to constitute leisure activities and leisure interests. Will there be public funding not just for the study of German but also German literature? Will there be
842
public funding not just for the study of science but also the philosophy of science? Will public funding continue to be made available for the kind of liberal studies that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has mentioned?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe the categories mentioned by the noble Lord come under the heading of academic studies. Those studies are covered.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, academic studies are provided for. As regards recreational activities, I would refer to flower arranging as a typical example. Funding for such activities will continue through the local education authorities, if those authorities decide to subsidise local provision.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what my noble friend Lord Beloff has said will command widespread support on this side of the House as well as elsewhere? I hope he will clarify the position of the City Literary Institute as regards these distinctions.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe the City Lit will be supported by the funding councils.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it would be difficult to express more strength of feeling on this matter than did the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The House is grateful to the noble Lord, who has vast experience in this matter, for commenting on it. It seems to me quite clear from the White Paper that adult education is now the Cinderella of the whole education service. Does the Minister agree that adults who wish to take university degrees and diplomas will in many cases be unable to do so? Adults who study at that level represent the best educational investment for this country. The result of their studies is good for the nation as a whole and not just for the individuals concerned.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord's final comment. But I believe the new framework encourages such studies. The noble Lord claimed that adult education is the Cinderella of the education service. However, the average increase in the standard spending assessment for education for 1991–92 is 16 per cent., which is well above inflation. The increase calculated in the SSA for adult education is 13 per cent. That again is well above inflation. Those resources should enable authorities to finance an education service of a high quality if they manage their affairs well. I do not believe that the noble Lord would suggest that we prescribe how local authorities manage their affairs.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is it not apparent that a measure of clarification is required on this important subject? I hope my noble friend will undertake to place a paper in the Library of the House which covers this important distinction so that it may be studied.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the whole matter is covered, admittedly at some length, in the White Paper. I shall make inquiries to see whether a summary can be produced and placed in the Library.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must take issue with the Minister and contradict him as this matter is not covered at length in the White Paper. The White Paper is an enormous document in which two sentences are devoted to the subject. I regret to say that when most of us first studied it we did not even notice those two sentences.
With due deference to the noble Lord who asked the earlier question, we need to find out whether this is a distinction without a difference. The White Paper contains two cryptic remarks. It says that the Government can help people in their daily life as regards education but that they cannot help them as regards education and their leisure interests. We want to know where the distinction has been drawn. We have pursued this matter before and the Government always refer to flower arranging. That is the only example they use. Is the whole of adult education being determined by some antipathy on the part of the Department of Education towards flower arranging? We are trying to get to the bottom of the matter. If that is the best example the Minister can come up with, one has every reason to be worried about what the department is up to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, there are such courses. It may surprise noble Lords to know that I am myself a lecturer in adult education on gardens. Those who wish to hear me are usually willing to pay. I agree that the matter is complicated but I think that the word "academic" covers it. All of the subjects mentioned by my noble friend and by the noble Lord who mentioned Greek or philosophy would be covered by the funding council.
Lord Peston: My Lords, like the noble Lord, I, too, have lectured to these people at the City Literary Institute, as many of us have. Will the noble Lord recognise what many of us are saying, namely that his lectures on gardening are valuable as adult education and that adult education should not be limited, for example, to lectures such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on history or my lectures on economics? We are asking the Government to think the matter through' again and recognise that gardening and flower arranging are perfectly good mind-broadening activities which it is in the public interest to encourage people to pursue.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I recognise that there is a strong feeling on all sides of the House that there needs to be greater clarity on the subject. I shall convey that to the department to see whether there cannot be a clearer definition of what the White Paper seeks to achieve.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I apologise for following my noble friend, but is the noble Lord aware that adult education is an old and respected tradition in Wales? It does not yet include flower arranging but there is a whole range of subjects. The
844
object is to enable young men and women to improve their position and to go on to further education. Many of them go on to university. Is the noble Lord aware that Coleg Harlech is the major college of further education in Wales? Can he give an assurance that the future of Coleg Harlech will not be prejudiced by the White Paper and that its funding will not be affected?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to confirm that the councils will be responsible for public funding of long-term residential colleges—namely, Ruskin College, Plater College, Hillcroft College, Fircroft College, Northern College, the Cooperative College and, last but not least, Coleg Harlech.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when the noble Lord is preparing the digest paper will he make sure —because he is obviously not clear in his own mind—that there is a clear distinction between vocational and non-vocational education? We are talking about non-vocational education. He said that that is to be left to the funding of LEAs. If he looks at the relevant paragraph again he will see that it refers to "public expenditure". That includes LEA expenditure. That is removed from the funding of adult education. Does the Minister not accept that it is an essential part of our democratic system that, without taking diplomas or degrees, people should be discussing economic, social and political affairs in order to raise the awareness of the public at large?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I recognise that last point, as do the Government. It would repay the noble Lord to look at page 8 of Volume Two of the White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century, which amounts to more than two cryptic sentences. Where I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is that the White Paper does not make a distinction between funding of non-vocational and vocational further education for adults. That is included within the funding council arrangements.

Blood Transfusions and AIDS: Compensation
11.24 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether public support for giving compensation to those infected with the AIDS virus at NHS hospitals has persuaded them to reconsider their policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper):My Lords, the Government have no plans to extend the special financial help for haemophiliacs to people who have been infected through blood transfusions.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Baroness for the correspondence that she has been gracious enough to send me on this matter; it is very much appreciated. Nevertheless, the Answer which she has just given the House is somewhat sad and almost devoid of understanding and compassion.

845
Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling throughout the country that the Government are not doing the right thing? Can she say that this will never happen again and that imported blood, from wherever it comes, will be examined thoroughly to ensure that no such disaster occurs again? Will the Government nevertheless recognise that the disaster that they caused by not having the American blood examined is almost one of the most criminal endeavours which has afflicted this country? Is she aware that the general public are very much aware of that fact and believe that our Government should now make some realistic approach to help those who have suffered so much?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord knows very well that in general the Government do not accept the case for no-fault compensation for medical accidents. We have considered the position very fully, as each individual case is clearly a personal tragedy both for the family and individual concerned. However, we believe that the circumstances of HIV-infected haemophiliacs are wholly exceptional and justify the special provision which the Government are making. We have been consistent in making that clear.
As to the safety of blood supply in future, action has been taken. For example, since 1983 information has been given to blood donors identifying who should not give their blood. Furthermore, as soon as properly evaluated HIV antibody screening tests were available they were introduced. Since October 1985 every single donation has been screened.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have listened to Government Answers on this subject several times in the past in your Lordships' House. I have always been mystified as to the logic of the Government's position. Can the Minister clarify the situation? Essentially what seems to have happened is that some innocent people have been infected with HIV. The Minister used the expression "medical accident". As I understand it, the Government's view is that those people have to take the rough with the smooth; it was just bad luck, an accident, and that is it. Their lives have been ruined and their families' lives have been ruined but no case can be made. I should like to ask the Government two questions. First, can the noble Baroness explain why this particular class of accident is not being singled out? Secondly, more generally and wearing my Treasury hat I ask, is there not an overwhelming case for using public money to help these people? I speak as an outsider and an amateur, but the cases that I have read about in the newspapers are sufficiently appalling to suggest that the Government have not got this right.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said, in principle blood transfusion cases are no different from the cases of other people who have suffered medical accidents or the unintended side effects of treatment. In all of those cases the recourse is to seek the appropriate remedy through the courts upon proof of negligence. The wholly exceptional case of haemophiliacs, who are doubly disadvantaged by a serious
846
hereditary condition affecting their employment, mortgage and insurance prospects, and the additional disadvantage of HIV infection, has produced a combination of factors which we believe do not generally apply to blood transfusion cases, although, as I have said, we appreciate fully that they are tragic cases for each individual and family concerned.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness further on this matter. As I understand it, if I go into hospital to have an operation—and I see that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, is in his seat—I take a chance. The operation may not work out and I may end up dead. I hope that that does not happen, but I know the risk beforehand. That is a chance I take and I understand that. However, if I go into hospital for medical treatment and have a blood transfusion it does not seem to me a priori that I understand that one of the chances that I take is that I may end up infected with HIV. The difference in the two cases is that this is not a chance that I could have conceivably thought about or to which I should have been subject. That is why my noble friend is asking why the Government do not see that that is a medical accident in the sense that most of us understand it. I am still at a loss to know the answer to the question.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps we shall be privileged to hear some specific examples from my noble friend Lord McColl which may go some way to responding to the noble Lord. However, we believe that, if an exception were made in that case, we should head in a piecemeal fashion towards a general scheme of no-fault compensation which we believe would be unworkable and unfair.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, was one of the reasons why the haemophiliacs were given compensation that they ran a good campaign? It is difficult for individuals to run campaigns. Was another reason that Factor VIII, when it was infected with the AIDS virus, was still given to haemophiliacs? Might there be a little bit of guilt?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the reason is the one that I have described; namely, that there was a wholly exceptional combination of factors which do not generally apply in other cases.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that AIDS is a death sentence to any individual and therefore that the disaster is the same?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, but the noble Baroness is missing the point that the general rule in all those cases is not a system of no-fault compensation. That has been made clear in recent debates on the subject and has resulted in a clear parliamentary decision not to introduce no-fault compensation for medical accidents. The exception was made in the case of haemophiliacs because we believed on all the evidence that this was a wholly different case.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords—
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House we are now approaching the 25th minute of Question Time and we still have another Question which needs to receive an Answer from the Government. If we do not proceed to it, I do not believe that we shall have a chance to answer it properly.

Social Services Inspectorate
11.33 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the report of Mr Allan Levy QC, they propose to make any changes in the responsibilities of the Social Services Inspectorate.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the House will be aware from the statement repeated by my noble friend Lord Henley on Monday of this week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has instructed Sir William Utting, the Chief Social Services Inspector, to undertake a special review of residential child care, concentrating particularly on questions of monitoring, control and implementation in the light of the report by Mr. Levy and Mrs. Kahan. Sir William is expected to consider, in the course of his review, whether any changes in the role and responsibilities of the Social Services Inspectorate are required. His report will be published.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, is she aware of the statement made by Sir William Utting that only a minority of resources is devoted to our formal inspectorial work? That is the current position, as I understand it. That being so, in the light of Mr. Levy's report on the scandal in Staffordshire, can it possibly be right not to have detailed inspectorial reports on all children's homes in that category and for those reports not to be published in exactly the same way as the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on 15 and 16 year-olds kept in prison accommodation?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have introduced a number of ways to strengthen the controls and improve: the quality of training of staff and other aspects of this work, and we must wait to see their effect. As a direct result of the report, a circular has been sent to every local authority in the country requiring them to review their provision in the light of the Levy-Kahan report to ensure that no practices of the kind referred to occur in their districts, and requiring them to inform the SSI of the outcome of that review within one month.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it seems curious that Sir William Utting, who presumably is the person who decided to apply only a minority of the resources available to him to inspection work of that kind, is now the person who is being asked to pass judgment on the situation? Is it not clear that it is necessary to have an independent person to look at the work of the Social Services Inspectorate and to deal with the situation as disclosed
848
in Staffordshire, which indicated that there had been a visit by inspectors and that they had seen absolutely nothing during their visit?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the noble Lord should suggest that the report being prepared by Sir William Utting would not be impartial. After all, he will consult independent experts in the course of his inquiry and the report will be published. It is not a normal SSI report, in the sense that it is one that he has been asked to carry out personally.
On the other point raised by the noble Lord, the Levy-Kahan report contains no criticism whatsoever of the SSI in visiting the two Staffordshire homes in the course of what was a wider investigation which was designed to produce a descriptive report of family centres. It was not a normal inspection of a specific home, which would have been more detailed and would have included an examination of log-books, for example.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the suggestion that there should be an independent report in no way criticises or is intended, as I understood from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, to impugn or criticise the integrity or competence of Sir William? That is not the point. In these astonishing circumstances should there not be an independent inquiry which is seen to be independent in the same way that justice is seen to be done? That is the point. There is no personal animus about the matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am glad to have that reassurance from my noble friend, but, as I said earlier, a number of new ways have been introduced to strengthen controls and improve quality. New regulations and guidance are about to be issued. Until those things settle into place, we should not be forced into taking any other action.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
11.37 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security, (Lord Henley):My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short Bill designed to address a deficiency in the national insurance system. Its single purpose is to require employers to pay national insurance contributions on company cars and free fuel made available for their employees' private use. This is a Budget measure and, as I shall explain later, should he seen in that context.
The background to the Bill is as follows. Under present legislation, the earnings on which employers' contributions are due are defined in such a way as to exclude payments in kind. That exclusion dates from the time when such payments represented only a very small proportion of people's earnings, were generally paid on an irregular or infrequent basis and often consisted of goods which were difficult, if not impossible, to value. But today the situation is very

849
different. It is necessary only to glance through the appointments page in any daily newspaper to see how widespread a practice it is for employers to offer remuneration packages which include substantial non-cash items. Of those, by far the commonest is the company car. There are now more than 2 million and the numbers have doubled in the past six years. In financial terms, they represent some three-quarters of all the benefits paid by employers. Because of the way our national insurance rules operate, employers have a financial incentive to pay their employees in cars rather than cash. That cannot be right. In our view, the time has come to extend the scope of our national insurance rules to include cars and fuel provided by employers.
Before describing the Bill's provisions, I should explain that in devising the new arrangements we have stuck very closely to Inland Revenue rules for income tax with which employers are already familiar. We have done so in order to make it as easy as possible for employers to understand and operate the new scheme. We are constantly asked by employers to reduce the differences that exist between the tax and national insurance systems and we have taken great care to do precisely that as far as the new contributions are concerned. Further, we have told employers that we will not settle the final details of the collection arrangements until they have had a chance to comment on our proposals. We shall listen carefully to their views and do our best to meet any particular concerns they may have. We have already had one round of consultation with the department's employers' panel and some helpful ideas have been put forward. As the DSS Minister responsible for deregulation I can assure the House that we are doing everything we can to see that the new arrangements do not place any unnecessary burden on employers.
Under Inland Revenue rules, employers are already required to report the details of company cars and free fuel that they provide to those of their staff who will pay tax on the basis of a scale charge. Broadly speaking, those are directors and employees whose earnings including benefits are more than £8,500 per annum. In order to match the Inland Revenue approach, the Bill is drafted so as to impose an employers' contribution in respect of those people only. Thus, contributions will be payable only where the employee or director concerned is subject to a scale charge.
The reporting of details about company cars takes place annually at the end of each tax year. We see no reason why employers should face any particular difficulty in combining that reporting process with the assessment of contribution liability. The Bill introduces the new contributions with effect from the beginning of the current tax year and they will be collected for the first time in 1992–93. We propose that, in order to follow Inland Revenue practice on the reporting of company cars, the new contributions will be due for payment in June of each year in respect of the immediately preceding tax year.
We have decided that employees will not be required to pay the new contributions. We have done
850
so for a number of practical reasons. First, more than half of all employees who have a company car are above the upper earnings limit for contributions. Secondly, employees are already required to pay income tax on the value of company cars so that, for them, the imbalance in the tax and contributions rules is not so manifest. Finally, the rules for assessing primary contributions make it difficult to integrate the new system with the existing NIC arrangements so as to produce a workable system for collecting the new contributions for employees. We believe that the additional complications for employers would be out of all proportion to the extra revenue raised and we therefore intend that employees should be excluded from liability.
We intend to use the Inland Revenue scale charge system to assess the value of cars and free fuel and thereby arrive at the figure on which employers' national insurance contributions must be paid. There will be no scale charge if there is no private use but, where the employee derives a benefit from using the car for private purposes, the value will be calculated according to the age, original cost or engine capacity of the car and business mileage. Reductions will be allowed if the car is unavailable for a continuous period of more than 30 days or if the employee makes a contribution towards the cost of the car. The scales distinguish clearly between new cars of high market value or engine capacity and older vehicles with smaller engines. This year, for example, a new car costing more than £29,000 has a scale value of £8,900, whereas a five year-old car with an engine capacity of 1300 cc is assessed at only £1,400. The rules on business mileage work as follows: "perk cars", or those which are used for fewer than 2,500 business miles a year, have their scale charge increased by 50 per cent. "Tool of the trade cars", or those which are used for more than 18,000 business miles in any year, have the scale charge reduced by 50 per cent. Thus, in the example I gave earlier, the brand new car used for only 2,000 business miles a year has a scale charge of £13,350. Where it is used for 20,000 business miles the scale value falls to only £4,450.
Having explained the circumstances in which the new liability will arise and the way in which it will be calculated, I turn now to the individual provisions of the Bill. I know that the Bill itself —despite its commendable brevity —is rather difficult to follow. That is because its purpose is to amend the Social Security Act 1975 and, in consequence, many of the subsections do little more than add a few words to the sections of that Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will find the following description of the Bill to be helpful in understanding how its individual provisions will work.
Clause 1 amends the 1975 Act to specify the circumstances in which the new contributions are payable and who will be liable to pay them. It also defines the amount on which the contributions will be calculated —those are the scale charge rules to which I referred earlier —and also the percentage rate at which they will be paid.
Subsections (1) to (4) introduce the new contribution which is to be called Class 1A. The

851
purpose of subsection (5) is to insert an entirely new section into the 1975 Act. It may be helpful if, in describing the rest of Clause 1, I merely use the numbering of this new section. Thus subsection (1) of the new section ensures that Class 1A contributions will arise only where an amount is chargeable under tax rules for the employment in question; and where that employment is employment for which national insurance contributions would be due. Subsection (2) identifies the person who is to pay the new contributions. Subsection (3) is merely definitional. Subsection (4) provides for the value of company cars and free fuel to be assessed using Inland Revenue's scale charges. Subsection (5) of the new section makes provision for the Class 1A contribution rate to be the same as the rate for the highest secondary earnings bracket —or put more simply the employers' main rate. As your Lordships will know, that is currently 10.4 per cent.
Subsection (6) contains further detailed rules about the calculation of liability. Paragraph (a) deals with reductions in liability allowed when a car is unavailable for periods of more than 30 days. Paragraph (b) provides that, unless the employer has information to the contrary, the cash equivalent on which contributions are due are set at the highest relevant level. Paragraph (c) deals with circumstances in which an employee is provided with more than one car.
Subsection (7) allows for this section of the legislation to be amended by regulation following any alteration to the main provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. That power will enable us to ensure that our legislation remains consistent with the income tax rules for company cars and fuel; it is limited to such amendment as is necessary or expedient for this purpose. Subsection (8) is included for the avoidance of any doubt, to ensure that a person shall be liable to pay the new contributions in respect of different earners, different cars and different tax years.
Finally, subsection (9) includes a regulation-making power to except persons from liability in prescribed circumstances or to reduce the Class 1A contributions due. That power will be exercised only in limited circumstances. Its purpose is to make special provision for the employers of those taxpayers who benefit from extra statutory concessions operated by Inland Revenue.
I turn now to Clause 2. The clause extends the current arrangements for the collection of NICs to the new Class 1A contributions. It includes provision for deciding who should pay the charge when employers share the cost of a car; allows for refunds in cases where the contribution has been overpaid; and provides a regulation-making power in respect of record keeping. That parallels existing provisions for Class 1 contributions and will include, for example, the need for a record of the contributions to be kept on deduction working sheets. The penalty provisions which exist in respect of other Class 1 contributions have been extended to Class 1A contributions and Clause 2 also provides that previous non-payment of
852
contributions can be declared before a court in cases where legal proceedings are necessary to recover Class 1A contributions.
The remaining four clauses require only a brief explanation. Clause 3 extends the existing adjudicative system so that where there is a dispute over Class 1A contributions employers will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for resolution of the question. Clause 4 provides that, as for all other contributions, a specified percentage of the new contributions shall be allocated to the NHS. The effect of that will be to make over an estimated £50 million to the NHS from the new contributions. Clause 5 contains provision for Northern Ireland. Finally, Clause 6 contains consequential provisions and provides for the Act to have effect from 6th April 1991.
As I said at the outset, the purpose of the Bill is to fill a gap in the national insurance contribution system. It will ensure that employers no longer have a financial incentive to pay their employees in cars rather than cash. I know that employers are unlikely to welcome the Bill, but I have to say that that change in the contribution rules is long overdue. We estimate that some 300,000 employers —about one quarter of all employers —will be affected and that about 75 per cent. of them employ more than 25 employees. It must be right that, where employers are providing such a significant benefit on such a widespread basis, a liability to pay contributions should arise just as if the employees had been paid in cash. The National Insurance Fund will receive additional revenue of just over £600 million in 1992–93 but this represents less than one-fifth of 1 per cent. of employers' overall manpower costs. The Bill should he seen in the context of a budget which was good for business with measures worth some £750 million in 1991–92 and more to come in 1992–93.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Henley.)
11.50 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his usual lucid explanation of what is a quite complex, small Bill. As your Lordships will know, the Bill before us today was not opposed by the Opposition in another place; and it is not my intention to offer obvious opposition today. However, I cannot give it entirely unqualified support. There are a number of points that I should like to raise with the Minister.
As I understand it, one of the objectives appears to be to increase revenue to the National Insurance Fund. Of course with such an objective I am in total agreement. But I cannot help recalling that the present condition of the fund is largely due to activities undertaken by the Government in the past. It will be recalled that at one time there was an input from the Treasury to the fund. In 1979 I believe that it was of the order of 18 per cent. The concept originally was that the fund should be built up by contributions from employers, employees and the Government. As a result of successive pieces of legislation, there is, as I understand it, now no Treasury input.

853
We then had the "bribe" to people to come out of SERPS and to join personal private pension schemes. I understand the figures vary but I believe that the correct figure is that it has cost of the order of £6.75 billion; and we have yet to see the real cost when, some years hence, people realise that they would be better off with SERPS and seek to opt back again.
Therefore it is not surprising that the Government should be looking around for ways in which to boost the fund and should have decided that it would be appropriate to treat the company car as if it were a cash benefit, and that employers should pay what amounts to another tax upon it.
However, there are some problems. First, it may be difficult —the CBI has already made the point —to distinguish the genuine tool of the trade from the perk. I should declare an interest. For many years I was assistant general secretary of a union which had within its ranks large numbers of those who were once called commercial travellers but who are now, of course, sales representatives. They once had their own organisation —the United Commercial Travellers Association. UCTA merged with my own union some 10 years ago. Those people are most vehement that the car is for them a tool of the trade and decidedly not a perk. Indeed, they tell me that the pressure to sell is now so great that they have little time or inclination for private use. As the Minister explained, the employee is already taxed in regard to private use. But the Government appear to think that 18,000 miles a year constitutes a dividing line beyond which a car is obviously used for work but that is not necessarily so if the mileage is below that figure. Reference to any sales representative who works, say, in London will produce a very different impression. It is possible to use one's car almost solely for work but still to undertake mileage substantially below that figure.
The recession is now hitting many people who hitherto have escaped. Smaller firms may find in this Government proposal a reason to cut down on sales staff, although one hopes that that will not be the case. There is a case for arguing that during a recession one should try to sell even harder than before. But I am seriously concerned about a possible knock-on effect as regards people employed in such capacities.
There is then the reference to the figure of £8,500 below which there will be an exemption for low paid personnel. I need hardly say that that is not a very high figure. It is about two-thirds of average earnings. Will the Government be prepared to look again at that issue?
There is also a possible effect upon the motor industry. Most large firms buying car fleets tend to buy British cars. The motor industry in this country is a substantial employer of labour. In a situation in which manufacturing industry in this country has been in decline, it is important that the motor industry should be maintained. Of course I understand that it is a question of balance. Environmentalists will argue that the Government are right to attempt to restrict the number of cars on the roads; and I would agree
854
with that if only we had a better public transport system. However, the fact remains that at present we have not.
On this side of the House we do not disagree with the Government's intention of endeavouring to ensure that payment in cars rather than cash should be discontinued or, where it is not, that a contribution should be paid by the employer to the National Insurance Fund. However, we urge that a real attempt be made to distinguish between those for whom it is a real "perk" and those for whom the use of a car is as necessary for them as the word-processor for a secretary and without which they would not be able to make a living.
Finally, what do the Government intend to do with the extra money? Will there be improved benefits, or at least will some of the restrictions placed on access to benefits that we have seen in the past few Social Security Bills now be reviewed? I believe that it is necessary to have an answer to some of those questions. We shall of course be able to pursue the matter further in Committee if we are not satisfied with the answers.
11.56 a.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I was impressed by the Minister's statement when introducing the Bill in another place. He said:
"The purpose of the Bill is to fill what I believe to be an important gap in the national insurance contributions system, as a result of which employers do not pay contributions to the national insurance fund if they pay their employees in cars rather than in cash". —[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/91; col. 849.]
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said something similar this morning. I agree with him and I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
We on these Benches support the Bill for the following reasons. First, Britain's roads are already crowded and the forecasts of future road use are frightening. In 1987 road traffic churned out into the air that we breathe the following: 98 million tonnes of carbon dioxide; 1.03 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides; 4.47 million tonnes of carbon monoxide; and 0.66 million tonnes of hydrocarbons. The most toxic of those emissions is carbon monoxide, a colourless gas which combines with haemoglobin in the bloodstream and makes the blood less efficient at carrying oxygen.
Secondly, we must do all that we can to encourage a move to the use of public transport; yet even after this Bill we shall have, as I understand it, the most favourable tax regime for company cars in the world. We do not even have a neutral system between cars and public transport —cars are actually encouraged.
Thirdly, it is not only in order to allow everyone to travel at a reasonable speed that we need to encourage public transport. It is also environmental suicide not to tackle our transport problems.
Fourthly, the National Economic Development Council estimates that 90 per cent. of cars entering London between 7 a.m. and 1 p.m. are subsidised by companies.
As the Minister explained, under the Bill it is only employers who will pay national insurance. Therefore,

855
there is still a tax advantage to having a company car. We believe that employees should also pay national insurance so that they pay 34 per cent. on both car and income rather than 25 per cent. on the car and 34 per cent. on the income.
The Minister in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, have explained that the Government are not introducing the measure for employees because of the complications. They say that it would be impracticable. That may be so under present arrangements but it would not be impracticable if the income tax and national insurance systems were integrated. That is of course our policy. Perhaps it is a reform for the future.
The integration would mean that people would pay 34 per cent. —that is 25 plus 9 —up to a taxable income of approximately £23,000 and 40 per cent. thereafter.At present income tax works out at 34 per cent. up to £20,000; 25 per cent. between £20,000 and a taxable income of £23,000; and 40 per cent. thereafter. That occurs because national insurance is currently paid only up to £20,000, which is below the higher rate tax band. We would raise the level of contributions in the higher rate band thus eliminating the present position.
In addition, there is room for improvement of the structure of the scale. For example, the mileage that one needs to cover to qualify as driving a works car as opposed to a perk car is 18,000 miles per annum. That is a high figure for someone working in London but not for someone working in a rural area. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Therefore the formula must be flexible. Public employees such as district nurses should no longer have contracts which oblige them to have company cars and thus sell their own cars. When left to themselves they would simply use their own cars for work. As an immediate step they could be exempt from car tax as the Royal College of Nursing has asked. I understand that at present a district nurse makes a contribution to the local health authority to cover the private use of the car. Therefore any tax that those nurses pay relates to the working use of the car.
I approve the Second Reading of this Bill.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on one issue: this is a complicated Bill. For a short Bill which has only one particular objective it is about as complex and difficult to understand as one can imagine. We are not particularly indebted to the draftsmen; the Bill could have been drafted more clearly and plainly.
Furthermore, it is misdescribed as a Social Security (Contributions) Bill. It has nothing to do with social security; it is an attempt by the Government to raise an additional net sum of about £410 million per annum. That is a perfectly respectable objective. However, it is a misnomer to describe the Bill as a social security Bill when no corresponding benefit is given as a result to the contributors and when no additional benefit to the beneficiaries of national insurance are provided by it. It would have been more frank to insert the provisions in the Finance Bill as a straightforward tax measure because that is their
856
purpose. In his usual elegant style my noble friend had to wrap that up a little, but it is plainly the purpose of the Bill.
In that respect the Bill bears a considerable resemblance to the previous measure to emerge from the same department; that is, the Statutory Sick Pay Act. It has a similar effect in two ways: it contains two provisions which enable the Bill to be amended by statutory instrument if the Government so wish. That is the effect of Clause 1(7) and Clause 2(2). Your Lordships will remember that we had a considerable discussion about whether such a provision was acceptable in respect of the Statutory Sick Pay Act. Your Lordships decided to take that provision out of the Bill and that decision was accepted by another place. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why we are now presented with a similar provision which my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale describes as a Henry VIII clause. I have never understood why his late majesty should be given the discredit of that particular provision; he has suffered enough discredit for his matrimonial activities.
It is in principle difficult to justify asking Parliament to give the Government powers to amend whenever they think fit —and up to a certain extent this is work that they wish us to do —a statute that we are asked to put on the statute book. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend deal with that matter in reply. When one looks at the precedent of the attempt by the Department of Social Security to do that in the Statutory Sick Pay Act it appears as though the department is trying to slip a similar provision into this Bill. I hope that in Committee your Lordships will feel that the issue merits full discussion.
I do not share the obsession of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, with company cars. Of course some use of some company cars is a perk and is probably acceptable. Companies provide cars largely in order to facilitate efficient working. If one is a senior executive of a company one does not want to have to rush out to find a taxi in London or to struggle onto a train in the country when one is working through a highly complicated day. When I was chairman of a large cement-making company the use of the car was absolutely essential to enable me to do the job that I was set to do.
That leads one to the difficult question which the Bill will pose; what is private use? If one is a senior executive of a big company one will have all kinds of activities which can be looked upon as private use or as being part of one's duty according to one's point of view. So much depends upon personal contacts. For example, if one goes to what appears to be a lunch party with the purpose of meeting the operators of another company with whom one hopes to establish dealings, is that private use or is it use as part of one's work? I warn my noble friend that in practice it will be enormously difficult to determine what is private use. A company executive, for example, may have to visit one or two establishments, competitors and sales organisations outside his company and at the end of a full day's work his car will take him home. Is the latter private use or is it, as common sense suggests, a proper and sensible use of the car? It would be silly if he

857
should suddenly have to abandon the car at his last business meeting and then seek with considerable delay, and possibly additional physical strain, to work his way home. I suggest to my noble friend that the provisions will create enormous difficulties.
As the noble Baroness said, this is taxation. I do not know whether she has observed that, moreover, it is retrospective taxation. If your Lordships look at Clause 6(5) you will see that the charge is to run during the current financial year which began at the beginning of April. We are now more than two months past that time and the Bill is far from being law. And yet, the liability of companies to pay this money is already accumulating in the current financial year as a result of that provision. Therefore, to the charge that this is taxation, I add the more damning charge that it is also retrospective taxation. That seems to me highly undesirable both in itself and as a precedent.
I ask your Lordships to consider whether the cost to companies, which is fairly admitted at the beginning of the Bill will amount to £410 million per year net, is sensibly imposed at this moment. We are in a state —and I shall not use the word "recession" —of trade difficulties. Companies are being quite rightly adjured by the Government to keep down their costs. They are advised to remain as competitive as possible by having reduced costs. Yet this Bill proposes to impose upon companies a net excess of payment of £410 million per year. As the matter is arguable one may take a different view of this matter if we were in a time of high prosperity and boom, when this measure could be imposed without causing companies too much difficulty. However, to make this provision with effect from the current financial year seems to me a matter which calls for a great deal of explanation.
Finally, there is the effect on the motor car industry. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, did not worry about that. He would rather like to see fewer cars. In fact, the motor car industry in this country is an extremely important industrial activity giving a good deal of employment at very good remuneration. It produces excellent products.
The motor car industry is very much down. If one refers to The Times this morning one can see that the sale of new cars in this country last month was only two thirds of the figure for May 1990. Alas, it needs no emphasis from me for it to be seen that the motor car industry is going through a very bad time. If one takes the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, one does not worry about that. It is good that cars should be restricted because they pollute the atmosphere. However, I take a different view. I take the view that the motor car industry is extremely important and has been so for a great many years. I remember, as a boy, when my father was a Member of another place for Coventry, which then as now was a great centre of the motor industry, one was convinced of the great economic importance of the motor car industry as an exporter in this country. There is no doubt that this provision would have adverse effects on that industry.
858
Therefore, there are two reasons which make the timing of this measure particularly inappropriate and surprising from a Government who appear in general to understand well and clearly the economic necessities of the time. I repeat that it is a mistake to add £400 million to the costs of industry just like that. Surely it is a mistake to add increasing discouragement to the purchase of cars by industry and business generally which is a very important element in the market of cars.
Therefore, with regret I believe that this Bill is misconceived. It should receive the same careful examination as that received by the Statutory Sick Pay Bill with similar satisfactory results by way of improving it. It seems a pity that at this moment the Government —a Government which in general I fully support and for which I have the greatest respect and regard —should produce a measure which in a modest degree, for I do not wish to exaggerate, is damaging to the economic objectives which Government policy seeks to support.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I welcome the partial support which I have received for this measure from the Benches opposite. I take note of my noble friend's points. I hope that I shall be able to answer some of them in the course of my speech.
First, I turn to the allegations made by my noble friend that this Bill contains what may be termed a Henry VIII clause. I do not accept that it is such a clause. Also, in my view, there is no need for anxiety on this score. I am referring to subsection (7). First, the regulatory powers can be exercised only following an amendment to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act; that is, following primary legislation.
Secondly, the content of such regulations is limited to matters which are necessary or expedient in consequence of any alteration to that legislation. Thus, the powers can be used only to amend the new section following the introduction of the primary legislation which makes necessary such a change.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if that is right why are not those amendments, if they are necessary, made in the forthcoming legislation? Why is the thoroughly bad precedent being used of amending primary legislation by regulation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend alleges that this provision should be contained in a finance Bill and not in a social security Bill. It is not possible to use the Finance Bill to amend the national insurance system. I do not accept that the new contributions are a tax. It has been a long established principle that employers should contribute to the balance of the National Insurance Fund. Therefore, necessary amendments should be made in this social security Bill.
If we take out the clause to which my noble friend objects, we shall not be able to amend this legislation to keep it in line with the Income and Corporation Taxes Act. Therefore, any budget changes would

859
necessitate a social security Bill every year or the two systems would fall out of line. That would not be in the interests of employers operating this system.
Also, I do not believe that we have breached any principle as regards retrospection, as my noble friend alleged. As I said in introducing the Bill, this is a budget measure. Budget measures are normally introduced from the beginning of the tax year and before the necessary legislation has been passed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, surely the difference is that budget measures are introduced before the beginning of the financial year. The Budget is before the beginning of the financial year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes. I have explained to my noble friend that this is a budget measure. The announcement to introduce this provision was made in the Budget. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced these measures in the Budget. The Bill followed later. Liability will not arise until next year.
I turn to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. She asked about the state of the fund and whether this Bill is merely designed to prop up the fund. The measures in the Bill are not .solely aimed at revenue gathering. I have made it clear in opening this debate that we are principally adjusting an anomaly which has grown up by virtue of the now widespread practice of employers providing what is essentially remuneration by means of cars and free fuel for their employees' personal use. We believe that that should attract liability for national insurance contributions.
With regard to the balance of the fund mentioned by the noble Baroness, as she will be aware it is in a healthy state. The balance will be £11.2 billion at the end of 1991–92, which is equal to 33 per cent. of annual benefit expenditure. As the noble Baroness is aware also, the Government Actuary recommends a minimum balance of two months' benefit expenditure, which is 16.7 per cent. However, it is expected that the expenditure from the fund will exceed income over the next few years and the balance is therefore projected to fall to around the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary.
In fixing any future rates of national insurance contribution my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, as he is obliged to do by law, will take into account the balance in the National Insurance Fund including any additional revenue raised by the Bill. The benefit rates are fixed in the light of all the relevant Factors at the time of the uprating. My noble friend alleged that it should not be a social security Bill in that there is no benefit to the contributor. As I said, my right honourable friend will take into account the balance of the fund in fixing future contribution rates. To that extent there may be some benefit. If my noble friend had listened to me he would also have noted that the clause allows some of the money to be paid to the National Health Service, as happens with contributions from the National Insurance Fund.
The noble Baroness was worried that there was insufficient distinction between those cars used as essential tools of the trade and those given purely as
860
perks. The scale charge rules recognise that distinction. As the noble Baroness is aware, within each of the five bands of types of car —decided on either price or engine capacity —there will be a standard charge for those used between 2,500 and 18,000 miles. Those that are purely perk cars that is, used for less than 2,500 business miles and therefore mainly for private use —will pay an extra 50 per cent.; the scale will be 50 per cent. higher.
Those who use the cars over 18,000 miles will pay 50 per cent. less in that they are largely cars used as tools of the trade. However, I must emphasise that a large amount of private use takes place even for those cars that do more than 18,000 business miles. If there is private use it should be treated as a perk and therefore there should be some contribution liability. If they are not available for private use there is no liability at all. These rules are exactly the same as those operated by the Inland Revenue. I accept that there may be concern in deciding what is and what is not business use —a point raised by my noble friend —when calculating the number of miles done over the year on business use. That is why, when opening the debate, I stressed that we intend to consult with business interests and welcome their comments on the best way of operating the system.
I turn to the effect on employment. The noble Baroness suggested that firms will cut down on their sales staff. I simply do not accept that. It is ridiculous to believe that firms will cut down on the one way that they can survive in difficult times by getting rid of their sales staff. I do not accept that this measure will have a deleterious effect on the manufacturing industry. We recognise that the car industry is currently experiencing a difficult time. My noble friend quite rightly mentioned the figures for last month. We know that demand is falling and that the recession has proved to be much deeper than expected. However, the industry has prospered under the Government's economic policies and will continue to do so in the future. The reduction in inflation and falling interest rates will have a beneficial impact on United Kingdom car sales. Recent budgets have seen a steep rise in scale charges without reducing the growth of new car sales.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister accept that when employers or firms buy fleets of cars they tend to buy British cars rather than cars from overseas? That was the point I was making. I was referring to the effect on the British industry of reductions in the size of fleets.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness says. I do not believe that it is always the case that firms tend to buy British. I can certainly think of a great many perk cars that are foreign imports. I do not accept that it is a valid point that we should artificially support a company car system so as to artificially support the car industry. What will support the car industry best is producing the best cars that people will wish to buy. I am sure that the car industry in this country will eventually achieve that. These measures should be seen in the context of the Budget as a whole. That was good for business as a whole, including the car industry.

861
The noble Baroness asked about the figure of £8,500 and why we chose it. Again, we deliberately chose that figure to have exactly the same threshold as that used by the Inland Revenue. That will keep the system as simple as possible for those who operate it and enable them to understand it. I confirm that there are no plans to increase that threshold.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, made a point in regard to district nurses. I confirm that there is no tax or national insurance contribution if there is no private usage. The scale charge is designed to reduce the contribution made by the employee to the cost of private motoring.
The noble Lord felt also that employees should pay. I do not accept that. As I said in opening the debate, I do not see that it would serve any practical purpose and it would be difficult to operate. Over half of the employees who are provided with company cars are above the upper earnings limit and would not be affected. We would have to introduce a very complicated scheme to bring in relatively small amounts of money.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that this was the wrong time to impose an extra burden on employers and the industry, and I know that some employers will resent the imposition of this new contribution charge even though it will represent only a tiny fraction of industry's overall labour costs of some £300 billion a year. However, the Bill must be seen in the context of the Budget as a whole. It is a way of correcting an imbalance in the contribution system. The Budget itself was good for business with changes in corporation tax and VAT worth £750 million with yet more to come in 1992–3.
As part of the Budget judgment the measures before the House today are a matter of fairness producing a less distorted choice between paying in cars or in cash. It is right that employers who choose to pay their employees in cars and fuel should face the same obligation as those who feel that they have to pay with cash or have no alternative but to pay with cash. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Badgers Bill
12.29 p.m.
Lord Houghton of SowerbyLords, it gives me particular pleasure to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords will see that there are two Bills before the House today. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and I have formed a harmonious partnership on the two Bills. They are compatible, complementary and they do not overlap; each has its part to play in amending the Badgers Act 1973. I was not in the House when the principal Act was passed in that year. I came a year later. I was here in time to deal with the tragic aftermath of the Bill to protect badgers which arose from the discovery of the infection that could be passed from cattle to badgers or from badgers to
862
cattle. Authorised persons had to be admitted to badger destruction on a very large scale. That was much too soon after we passed the first Bill to give badgers any protection at all.
It is worth recalling for a moment or two that your Lordships' House was the pioneer of badger protection. A Bill from your Lordships' House was sponsored and skilfully piloted through this Chamber by the late Lord Arran, the father of the present Earl. It is to him that all badger lovers pay tribute in the cover which his Bill first gave to badgers and from which has flowed an enormous public sentiment in favour of the badger. It is the best loved, most easily recognised and perhaps least known of all our wildlife mammals. We have gone a long way since 1973 in the wave of public interest in the badger. I can tell the extent of that from a collection of Christmas cards, birthday cards, and others, portraying the badger which I have found in the shops over the years. The volume of those cards is simply astonishing. The badger has supplanted cats, dogs and foxes and become the nation's favourite mammal. That is an augury which we can all feel happy about.
The Bill comes from the House of Commons. The original Bill went from here to the other place on 1st May 1973. It received Royal Assent on the very last day of the Session before the Recess, on 25th July 1973. Another noble Lord mentioned in the history of the Badgers Bill is the late Lord Cranbrook, the father of the present Earl. It was his parliamentary skill and knowledge which was placed at the disposal of the rather amateur band of lobbyists and supporters of the Badgers Bill who wanted some guidance to deal with the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and convention.
We now have to thank those who have sent the present Bill here. We owe the Bill to the persistent and devoted work of two members of another place, Mr. Tony Banks and Mr. Roy Hughes. My Bill came to grief in the last Session over the problems to which I shall refer in a moment or two. We hope that we shall overcome them in your Lordships' House. When Mr. Roy Hughes came out of the ballot with a sufficiently high place in this Session, he chose to reintroduce the Bill of Mr. Tony Banks. It is that Bill which we now have before us, having gone through all its stages in the other place. We are grateful to both of them for the persistent work that they have done.
Perhaps I may also say in passing that the experience of the last Session and the desire and determination this Session to get an agreed Bill has led to what is called the "coalition", which has been in frequent session and consultation. It consists of the main interests connected with the badger; namely, the animal protection societies, the hunting committees and others who have an interest in the Bill. To establish a sufficient accord between the diverse elements in this controversy and to get them together in the same room talking to each other about the same Bill and the same subjects, is quite an achievement. On this occasion that has been made possible.
The main thrust of the Bill is quite clearly Clause 1. It is an attempt to make the protection of the badger as complete as it is possible to do by statutory law.

863
From the definition of a lawful activity noble Lords will sec that the Bill seeks to preclude almost any activity which might be a disturbance to a badger. Clause 1(3) states:
"If any person shall interfere with a badger sett by doing any of the following things, that is to say,

(a) damaging a badger sett or any part thereof;

(b) destroying a badger sett;

(c) obstructing access to or any entrance of a badger sett;

(d) causing a dog to enter a badger sett: or

(e) disturbing a badger when it is occupying a badger sett intending to do any of those things or being reckless as to whether his actions will have any of those consequences, he shall be guilty of an offence".

The draftsmen feel that that is just about 100 per cent. protection of the badger that can be put into statute law. It follows that for permission to authorise persons to be free from prosecution under this Bill it is necessary to be more precise than ever before in defining what is the range of activity that an authorised person can undertake without the mischief of the Act coming on him. That is what we are doing in the rest of the Bill and that is where the main trouble has arisen. Incidentally, we have stiffened the penalties under the 1973 Act. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 we put the onus of proof on a suspect to prove that he was not digging for badgers.
The main problem that has arisen in many decided cases where prosecutions took place has been the excuse of the suspected person that he was digging for foxes and not badgers. We all know that foxes and badgers are compatible and are to be frequently found in adjoining setts. I have a thriving colony of badgers within a three-minute walk of my house. I have been watching it for the past 30 years. I have found large open setts which divide a few feet down. The badgers go down one and the foxes go down the other. They can be as close together as that. Therefore, it is not only this compatibility between foxes and badgers that has provided the excuse for those accused of badger digging, it enters into the provisions of Clause 3 when we come to deal with one of the authorised licences under what is called "stopping out" in hunting jargon.
The onus of proof was changed to make it more difficult to use the excuse of digging for something else. The law was changed to provide that if any trace of a badger is found on an accused person that should be regarded as prima facie evidence that they were seeking to destroy that evidence. I have said enough about Clause 1. I hope there will be no controversy about it. If anyone can make it 101 per cent. complete then that is worth consideration.
I turn now to Clause 3. If one is to define in statute law conditions of immunity from the mischief of the law for certain activities by certain persons, the problem of definition arises. Hitherto, guidance has been given to those employed by the hunts in the process known as "stopping out". Indeed, the hunts have operated under guidelines which have kept them free of the conditions of the 1973 Act; but now the clearer assertion of what is unlawful requires that we should be equally clear about what is not unlawful. Therefore, one of our problems is to define a badger sett. We shall come to that later in the Bill —and neither is that free of difficulty. The problems of definition are very tiresome, as your Lordships know.
864
The licences that can be issued give rise to some difficulties which were acknowledged in the House of Commons when this Bill was passed and on which we might have to do a little sorting out. The first problem will be to define the materials which may be used to stop up a badger's sett for the purposes of the hunt. That is found in Clause 3(5). It may be rather amusing but, to other people, the inference is rather sensitive. The materials which may be used are:
"clean loose straw or hay, or leaf-litter, or bracken, or loose soil placed in the entrances on the day of the hunt, or … a bundle of sticks or faggots, or paper sacks either empty or filled with clean loose straw, or hay, or leaf-litter, or bracken, or loose soil."
Do we need the word "clean"? If we take it out, what inference does one draw from that? Those are very fine points; but important decisions hang upon them.
Having mentioned that, the definition in Clause 3(5) of what may be used for "stopping out" has to be considered. Under the same clause a record must be kept of persons authorised to act on behalf of the hunt. The words appear a little further on:
"the person is so doing with the consent of the landowner".
Should it be the landowner? Should it be the occupier by reason of his hounds marking a sett? That is the second point. The third point, which we find in Clause 5, is the definition of a badger sett.
Those are the three points that are likely to receive attention during Committee stage. I hope that out of the partnership of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and myself, and the consultations we had together with the so-called coalition representing all interests, amendments can be tabled early next week which can provide the basis for our final judgment when we come to the Committee stage. I understand a provisional date has been fixed for Friday 21st June. That represents the sum total of what we may have to deal with. Other points may arise and obviously we shall listen to all speakers. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate.
Finally, I have just a little note of personal pride. I am the only Member of your Lordships' House with badgers as supporters in his coat of arms. Only two other coats of arms contain badgers; one is a municipality in County Fermanagh in Northern Ireland and the other, believe it or not, is Tesco. I have badgers as supporters for two reasons: I am warmly devoted to them and have been watching them for years before I came to your Lordships' House, and they are my favourite wildlife. The name "badger" is also sometimes applied to collectors and inspectors of taxes, with whom I was so long associated in my professional life. Tesco decided that it could not be motivated by either of those aspects and therefore its badger is a symbol of good housekeeping. There we see what virtues a badger may have.
In all the circumstances, I believe that your Lordships will receive the Bill with approval and approach the Committee stage in the spirit of accommodation which is now prevalent among those interested in the provisions of the Bill. If we do that we will have carried much further the protection of the badger. We shall then all feel very happy that we have done a good job of work in rather a dismal fortnight of animal prominence.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
12.48 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, after the proceedings on this Bill, I shall formally move the Second Reading of the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill. The two measures before us today are the next valuable steps forward in the area of animal conservation in Britain. They extend the already unique degree of protection enjoyed by the badger to the badger's habitat and hamper the convicted criminal's ability to re-offend by removing his most vital tool, his dog.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in moving his Bill has covered the whole subject at slightly greater length than I intend to, but then he is far more eloquent and has, if I may say so, slightly more experience. Although his remarkable track record is longer and better proven than mine, I should like to assure him and the House that as a passionate fox-hunter my commitment to conservation and animal welfare is every bit as deep as his. Though I cannot guarantee that I shall be around to debate in your Lordships' House in the year 2057 —by which time I shall be the same age as the noble Lord is now —if I am, however, I can also assure your Lordships that I shall be present on November 1st at the opening meet of that season's fox-hunting.
The noble Lord has given the House much of the background and so it would be superfluous of me to repeat it. However, it is important to remember why this legislation is desirable. The badger is not an endangered species. Indeed, the population, estimated at about 250,000, is probably greater than it has ever been. Some West Country farmers might even suggest that there were too many badgers, but that is definitely a debate for another day.
Nor indeed is badger baiting the greatest threat to the badger. That dubious distinction is held by the motor car, which accounts for 45,000 badgers each year, and urban and road development, both of which destroy more badgers and badger habitats than anything else; they destroy more of the 47,000 main badger setts. But there is something especially repugnant about the practice of badger baiting that invites the condemnation of all Englishmen and particularly of field sportsmen. Too often the fox-hunting community has been blamed for delaying legislation aimed at protecting badgers. Today's debate will put paid to that notion for ever.
The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, replaces one sponsored by my honourable friend Sir Nicholas Bonsor, chairman of the British Field Sports Society, who is also a main supporter of my Bill. Indeed the British Field Sports Society and the Masters of Fox Hounds Association welcome both these measures, though of course the noble Lord's Bill will, as he said, require a little amending to make it more workable. Fox-hunters have long been the preservers of habitat, long before it became fashionable, and it is no coincidence that where fox-hunting is practised in the finest tradition and earth stopping is most intensive, there too the badger
866
concentration is greatest. Similarly, where there is little fox-hunting and little earth stopping in places like East Anglia, there are fewer badgers.
I am delighted that the sponsors of the noble Lord's Bill were able to recognise this by accepting the amendments tabled in another place to Clause 3 of the Bill. The Masters of Fox Hounds Association and the other organisations were extremely pleased that the voluntary code of practice on earth stopping is now to be enshrined in law, along with a register kept by the hunts, so that no badger baiter can ever again use the defence that he was in legitimate pursuit of foxes. For too long legitimate field sportsmen and farmers have been tarred with the same brush as the badger baiters. That brush can now be thrown away for ever and field sportsmen will be seen as the friend of the badger that they have always been.
The Bill put forward last year by Mr. Banks failed primarily because the promoter was unable to satisfy farming interests that they would be able to continue their legitimate and very necessary fox control. As the noble Lord said, the definition of a badger sett in Clause 5 has already been amended in another place. However, I think that we shall probably need to look at that again. Dr. Stephen Harris, in his excellent report for the Nature Conservancy Council, suggested that it was only desirable to protect main setts. After all, it cannot be Parliament's intentional desire to make sacred every hole in the ground. Further amending of this clause will undoubtedly be necessary at Committee stage. But whereas last year the many interested parties were so intransigent as to cause the Bill to fail, I detect a new air of compromise. There is every hope that agreement can be reached.
There will also need to be amendments to Clause 3 to allow fox-hunters to continue their sport according to their strict traditional rules, but those will be only technical amendments. There cannot be very much disagreement about them. There is one area, however, that gives cause for concern. I refer to Clause 4. There is a fear in the farming community that the proposed licensing procedures will not work. Farmers and others concerned with fox control need reassurance from the Government as to whom and in what circumstances licences will be issued. The proposers of the Bill likewise need to know who will not receive licences and in what circumstances. I wrote earlier to my noble friend Lady Trumpington but as yet have received no satisfactory reply.
Licensing plays a major part in the Bill. It is the Government's responsibility to reassure those involved that the licensing system will work. If the Bill were to fail because the Government had not reassured farmers on this point, the Government would not easily be forgiven. I implore my noble friend Lord Astor to make sure that the issue is resolved before we reach Committee stage. If these issues can be resolved —I believe they can —we shall be able to send the Bill on its way knowing that we have done much useful work and with the confidence that it can reach the statute book this Session.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill. It was introduced at a later stage in another place and has been closely supported by my

867
honourable friends Sir Nicholas Bonsor and Sir Charles Morrison and by Mr. Roy Hughes. It is, as are all things with which I am concerned, delightfully simple It prevents convicted badger baiters from owning or keeping a dog. If one does not have a dog, one cannot dig for a badger.
Under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954, courts have the power to disqualify persons convicted of cruelty to domestic or captive wild animals from having custody of any animal specified for arty period they think fit. Breach of the disqualification order results in a fine or up to three months' imprisonment, or both. This legislation clearly has the purpose of ensuring that a person who abuses animals is not only punished but is not given the opportunity to abuse them again. It is anomalous that offences under the Badgers Act 1973 are not covered by those provisions. At present a person convicted of baiting a badger can be barred from having custody of a dog only if he is also convicted of an offence of cruelty to the dog. Courts have powers to confiscate particular dogs used for baiting, but unless cruelty to the dog can be proved it is open to the defendant to acquire another dog at any time. Yet the general power of the courts to disqualify has existed since 1954.
The Badgers (Further Protection) Bill therefore extends the powers to disqualify to the most serious offences under Sections 1 and 2 of the Badgers Act 1973 —taking, injuring or killing badgers and offences of cruelty to badgers. It should be noted that if the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is passed, these powers will also extend to all offences of interfering with a sett where a dog has been used or is present at the commission of an offence. The Badgers (Further Protection) Bill goes further than equivalent legislation for domestic or captive wild animals by giving courts powers to order the destruction of a dog. While many of us hope that this will not be necessary, it is a useful new weapon in the courts' armoury to wield against the most evil and determined badger baiters. I hope that it will be a powerful deterrent.
These new powers will not only strengthen the ability of the courts to punish and deter offenders but will aid he prosecution of disqualified people who are found to have carried out cruelty to badgers again. The Bill is an important measure which I am sure will command widespread support in the House.
Perhaps I may go through the Bill quickly. It is basically a two-clause Bill, the main part being Clause 1. Subsection (1) grants courts new order-making powers where a dog has been used or is present at the commission of an offence under Section 1(1) or Section 2 of the Badgers Act 1973. In such cases courts may order the destruction or other disposal of a dog and/or the disqualification of the offender from having further custody of a dog for such period as the court thinks fit. Subsection (2) provides that the court may appoint a person to undertake the destruction or other disposal of a dog and require that the dog be delivered up for that purpose. It further makes the offender liable to pay the costs of destruction or disposal of the dog and of keeping it in the interim.
868
Subsection (3) provides that where the offender is not the owner of the dog, the owner may appeal to the Crown Court against a destruction or disposal order. Subsection (4) provides for a delay in the implementation of a destruction order pending notice of an appeal given to the Crown Court; and if such notice is given, until the appeal is determined or withdrawn. Subsection (5) allows for an application for the termination of a disqualification order after one year. Subsection (6) provides that, on application under subsection (5), the court may grant or refuse the application or order the applicant to pay all or any part of the costs involved. If the application is refused, no further application can be made for another year. Subsection (7) makes it an offence to have custody of a dog if disqualified or to refuse to deliver a dog up for destruction or other disposal. The maximum penalty is set at level 5 on the standard scale. Subsection (8) provides that an order for costs under subsection (2) (b) shall be recoverable as a civil debt. Subsection (9) refers to the application of these provisions to Scotland. Clause 2 is the Short Title, saving, commencement and extent. I do not think that I need go into that further.
In conclusion, the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill has received the whole-hearted support of the British Field Sports Society, the Masters of Fox Hounds Association, the National Farmers' Union and the entire badger coalition. It was supported unanimously in another place and reached your Lordships' House unamended.
Your Lordships' House is the revising Chamber. I cannot advise your Lordships otherwise than to give the Bill the closest scrutiny and the benefit of your undoubted expertise in this area. However, should any noble Lords see fit to press an amendment and return the Bill to another place, it would be most unlikely ever to reach the statute book. I think that that would be a great pity.
These two measures are vast leaps forward both, as I said, in the area of animal protection in our country and because all interests have come together to put them on the statute book. With the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I shall do my best to ensure that we come to an agreement on the details of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will —as, indeed, they usually do —play their part. I commend the Bill to the House.
1 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, having just listened to the speeches made by the two previous speakers, I find myself in a position where, even if I wanted to disagree with anything in this Bill, I should not dare to do so. The coalition which has been formed to ensure that these measures actually reach the statute book seems to me to be one of the most impressive that I have ever encountered. When field sports interests and conservation interests are prepared to get into bed together, I suggest that we should bless any issue from the union.
As regards the actual issue of badger-baiting, my only experience of it has been watching the odd piece of film on the subject. I thought that it was probably the most repugnant thing I have ever seen. Therefore,

869
anything which stops such a practice should be given full support. If we are to ensure that the measures work, we must make sure that all those concerned who have any legitimate worries over the steps which need to be taken to prevent badger-baiting are given as much help as is necessary, while still achieving the prevention of such practices.
I have read through the proposed compromises. I cannot pretend to have any expertise on the subject. They seem to me to be practical, straightforward and necessary. If such steps are taken, I suggest that we should fully support them. By the same standard, I believe that we should accept the fact that if any amendments need to be made to the Bills, they should be made quickly and with the least fuss possible. I hope that the two measures will go through properly. I shall give my personal support to any measures which are agreed and regarded as being necessary.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on his Bill. I believe that it cuts new ground and takes a very strong stance against the abuse of a domestic animal. That is effectively what we are talking about when we speak about using a dog for this type of activity. In its own way, his Bill is breaking even more important new ground. I hope that it will be used as a precedent for any further activity in the field. I say that because when a dog is encouraged —and it is mainly dogs that we are talking about —to fight either other dogs, other animals or even, undoubtedly, people, ultimately one has to prevent those people who have perverted the nature of the dog, or encouraged it to change its nature beyond what is normal, from owning a dog. Unfortunately, a dog which has been that warped often has to be destroyed.
Not only are we dealing with a very difficult problem here; I hope that we are also taking steps towards future control and action to safeguard domestic animals. This can be seen as a step towards future developments in the area. I take on board the point that, no matter how savage we have been about badger-baiting in the past, it is urban development and the way we live in the modern world which is ultimately the greatest threat to wild life. It is to be hoped that that is something of which we shall not lose sight once we have passed this or any similar legislation. It is modern farming and development, not systematic hunting, that has put paid to the existence of many animals which have inhabited this island. If you destroy the environment in which something lives, you will ultimately destroy it far more surely than you would by shooting it or by exercising any other form of control. Having said that, I wish both measures well.
1.5 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, unlike the honourable member for Romsey and Waterside who spoke in another place for one hour and 19 minutes on the Second Reading of the Badger Bill, I shall be extremely brief. In supporting the two Bills, I speak as a landowner in South Wales, where, until recently,
870
there were reports of badger digging and baiting in the area. Thanks to the vigilant work of the local Badger Watch Society, this has been halted.
Although it has been accepted that many of the statistics on badgers are inaccurate, I feel that it is noteworthy —and this point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft —that badgers are not an endangered animal. Indeed, there are an estimated 250,000 adult badgers in about 43,000 clan groups in Britain. Moreover, almost 105,000 cubs are born per annum. However, the deaths of badgers are most worrying. Figures have been quoted which show that deaths by digging and badger-baiting are in the region of 9,000 to 10,000 per annum.
It is also worth mentioning that up to four times that number —that is, up to 45,000 badgers —are killed on the roads each year. I am concerned by the fact that 700 badgers, nearly all in the South West, are trapped and shot each year by agricultural ministry veterinary officers to prevent the suspected spread of TB to cattle. I have used the word "suspected" and I shall return to it later. Other figures claim that almost 15 per cent. of active main setts have had some holes artificially blocked.
I support the Bill's amendments in its endeavours to stop the loophole in the 1973 Act by specifically dealing with badger setts. However, I accept that there is validity to the criticism that there needs to be a clearer definition of "badger sett" in Clause 5, even though this point has been clarified since the Second Reading in another place. Clearly, there are many vacant, unoccupied setts. It has been pointed out that vacant badger setts are often occupied by foxes and rabbits, which obviously harm crops. Although Clause 4 provides for the granting of licences to remove foxes from badger setts, farmers need to be assured that such licences will, within reason, be swiftly granted.
There has been much speculation on the extent to which badgers are a probable source of bovine tuberculosis in cattle herds. To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to prove that badgers are carriers of bovine tuberculosis to cattle. It has been suggested by several sources that the cause of tuberculosis in dairy cattle could well lie in modern farming methods.
Central in my view to the objectives of the 1973 Act and the Bills before us, is the fact that the penalties imposed for those found guilty of infringing the law should be harsh. I welcome the inclusion in the Criminal Justice Act of the provision that those found guilty of badger offences can be sentenced to up to six months' imprisonment and that level 5 fines can be increased from £2,000 to £5,000. I also support the penalties included in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for further protection.
In conclusion, I hope that during the course of the passage of these Bills a workable solution can be reached between the badger coalition wildlife campaigners, the farmers and the British Field Sports Society. Clearly these Bills are not designed to give badgers unique protection; more specifically, they are designed to protect them from cruelty. It is my hope

871
and belief that with the tightening of the legislation and more stringent penalties, badger baiting and digging will be substantially wiped out.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, I wish to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said with my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Mancroft on the excellence of his Bill. It has my unreserved support, I have no reservations about it and I hope that we shall see it on the statute book.
However, I have some worries about the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I am confident that if we put these worries on the record today, the spirit that he has shown of compromise and agreement will prevail and we shall be able to find a solution to the problems at the Committee stage. However, it is important that we should have these reservations listed and recorded as a result of the debate.
I support the principal aim of the Bill, which is further 10 protect badgers against digging. I accept that there is a case for extending the new protection to badger setts, provided —and this is the main proviso —that farming, field sports and pest control activities are not restricted. Some of these anxieties were met in another place, but not all.
The Bill will still make some normal agricultural operations unlawful. It will severely hinder the ability of hunts farmers and gamekeepers to control foxes and —more important than that —to control rabbits. I am one of those people stupid enough to believe that England is an excellent place when there are plenty of rabbits. I know that that is an old-fashioned view, but rabbiting is a cheap and plentiful sport which many people can enjoy. Rabbits give the farmers and foresters a legitimate reason for complaining. They give our wives a legitimate reason for being belligerent when they get into our gardens. They ensure that the foxes are well fed. However, we must realise that the rabbit population in this country is once again expanding. I do not know of a single case where a vacant badger sett is not immediately occupied by rabbits.
As has been said, badgers are not rare animals. The badger population, particularly in the West Country, is exploding, and rabbits are prolific. Badgers already receive unique protection under the Badgers Act 1973, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, agreed. Nevertheless, we must admit that the 1973 Act unfortunately has a loophole and there is a case for extending the protection still further, in order to tackle badger digging, which is a continuing problem.
On the other hand, the Bill proposes a level of protection for badger setts which is in excess of the protection given to the habitats of other rare animals. I refer in particular to the protection of the otter and its holts under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Therefore as badger setts are now so numerous, it is important that we should have a defence to allow normal countryside activities. At present, the badger is protected, its sett is not. It will be an offence under the
872
Bill for a person who recklessly or intentionally damages, destroys, obstructs the entrances of, disturbs a badger in or allows a terrier to enter, a badger sett.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said during the Committee stage in another place, the promoters accepted that it would be legitimate for hunts to stop setts and for packs of hounds to mark at a sett where a fox had gone to ground, provided they were removed from the scene as quickly as possible. I agree that the stopping problem has been dealt with. I see no mention of the problem of stinking. It is no good just stopping foxes into setts, one has to stink them out 24 hours before one wants to hunt the country. I hope that in the negotiations the problem of stinking out will be covered, because it is just as important as stopping.
Despite the Commons amendment to the definition of "sett", in my opinion it is still far too wide. The definition in the Bill means that a sett is described as any place which shows signs of use, and it will have to be protected. It is not just the big badger sett at the end of the garden of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, it is any drain that is used by a badger or any wood pile occupied by a badger. There are masses of those throughout southern England as a result of the gales. Any of those drains, wood piles or other warrens which show signs of badger occupation will be totally protected.
Badgers rarely abandon a sett. It may become vacant, but it is never totally abandoned. During the time when it is vacant and is taken over by rabbits or foxes it will, as I understand it at the moment, still be an offence to put a terrier in to bolt a fox or to dig the sett in order to get the rabbits out, even though the sett is not being used by the badger community at the time.
I shall certainly press an amendment at the Committee stage to insist that protection is given only to those setts which show signs of current occupation by a badger. In this House, we all realise that current occupation by a badger is one of the easiest things to prove because, of all the British mammals, none has a more distinct pad mark than a badger, quite apart from his habit of having his local lavatory nearby. It is extremely easy to see whether or not a sett is vacant.
The tightening up of the law in 1985 reversed the question of guilt of an offence at a badger sett. It also tightened up the loophole by making it an offence to cause a dog to enter a badger's sett. I believe that we must ensure that hunt terriers are allowed into badger setts, because the use of terriers is essential for fox control.
Perhaps we may take the example of the hill farming areas and consider those which are subject to the less favoured area payments in the extremities of the realm —England, Wales and Scotland. What is the position? It is quite simply that no fox will stump breed, the weather is too bad. For years and years, throughout the hill farming areas, fox earths have been well known. They have been looked after because they are extremely valuable. We know perfectly well that by March the resident vixen will take up her territory and occupy one of the well known setts.

873
There will probably be a vixen, who has been squeezed out, living round the outside. She will not come because she has no house, no earth to which to go.
What happens to cause the trouble is that those valuable fox earths, about which we all know and which are worked over every year before lambing, are taken over by the badgers. This disturbs the fox population, pushing it out in many cases to rabbit holes and other places which are not generally known. It increases the work of finding and destroying them before the lambing season starts.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft pressed the noble Viscount to comment when he winds up on the point that the Ministry of Agriculture will issue an open general licence for people to put terriers into fox earths that may be occupied by badgers. I am not absolutely certain that the noble Viscount can give this undertaking because any form of licensing will require expenditure. I believe that we shall find ourselves putting down an amendment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, knows, will be classed by another place as a privilege amendment. There is no certainty that such an amendment will be accepted. It would not even have to be debated. It would be sent back to this Chamber as a provision that has not been included in the Bill because it involves expenditure. The provision would increase the expenditure of the Ministry of Agriculture and therefore the House of Commons would not have to provide a reason for rejecting it. An amendment on licensing could be removed from the Bill as it would be considered a matter of privilege and the Bill would then be returned to this House. I shall take a lot of convincing that a licensing system would work, would be implemented and will be added to the Bill. However, if there is no prospect of some form of licensing system, I shall have grave difficulty in agreeing to give the Bill a Second Reading.
We have dealt with the stopping of badger setts. I am disturbed by the fact that the Bill imposes conditions on earth stopping. Some of those conditions are reasonable and are in line with the code of practice laid down by the Masters of Foxhounds Association —for example the prohibition on the use of foreign objects. However, that does not deal with the problem of all the unregistered packs. After all the writ of the Masters of Foxhounds Association does not extend to the whole of Wales and it certainly does not extend to the whole of Scotland. The writ of that association does not recognise the many gun packs that exist in Wales. That is another serious problem. We must consider who will license or control the recognised diggers. I seek an assurance from my noble friend Lord Mancroft that he is aware of this problem and that it will be considered in Committee.
I believe this Bill, as presented by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is absolutely fair. It is well intentioned but I regret to say that it is poorly targeted. Legislation should be directed at badger diggers and badger baiters, who cause appalling cruelty to badgers. It should also be directed at those who interfere with setts in a way that can harm badgers. The Bill has in some ways already been
874
approved before it left another place. I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships today that I shall seek further amendments in Committee. Unless legitimate countryside activities can be protected, I shall have the greatest difficulty in agreeing to give the Bill a Second Reading. In its present form the Bill is not acceptable to many of the interests involved in this matter.
1.23 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, it is customary in this House to make some comment on the speeches of the preceding speakers. I have listened to all the speeches made so far in the debate and I have no intention of referring in great detail to any amendments that may be proposed for the Committee stage. Those will be considered in Committee. My comments will be of a general tenor. I hope noble Lords will bear in mind the fact that this Bill has come to us from another place and it is quite obvious from the Hansard records of the debate in another place that great consideration has been given to all the issues involved. Another place took a constructive attitude towards the Bill in the hope that noble Lords will also consider the Bill in a constructive fashion.
I hope both Houses will consider this issue fairly. I also hope that both Houses will be willing to reach a compromise on certain issues, if necessary, and will not be too rigid about any of the measures in the Bill. I am a consultant to the charity, Care for the Wild. The name of the charity is an apt description of the work it carries out. The driving force behind the trustees of the charity is William Jordan, who directs the charity's activities. Care for the Wild has shown great interest in the establishment of a national federation of badger groups. Care for the Wild has given financial support to those groups. That support is justified by the universal acceptance of the fact that badgers need to be protected from cruelty. William Jordan is also a member of a national commission which is considering the international implementation of rules on whaling. Therefore he is an expert in animal matters. He is also a fully qualified veterinary surgeon. He has great experience of the cruelty suffered by badgers over the years and he is very concerned about the present situation.
William Jordan is greatly interested in reducing the incidence of cruelty to badgers. He hopes that the Bill will receive careful consideration in this Chamber and that we shall come to an understanding on this matter. I hope that we shall produce a Bill that will improve the situation in general.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, the Bill in its present form causes considerable worry to those who live and make their livelihoods by working in the countryside. Of course, we are all against badger baiters and for the badger, but this Bill protects badger setts to an unnecessary extent. Among those who have promoted this Bill are many worthy people who believe that it is wrong to kill or exploit any animal and who carry that principle to its logical conclusion and become vegetarians or vegans. If such views were to gain general acceptance, the sheep and cattle rearing

875
uplands, particularly in Wales, where I come from, would totally devastated. The farming community, and indeed a whole culture, would be destroyed. I realise that to ask such people to consider the difficulties that this Bill will cause to farmers and forester; making a hard and precarious living in the Welsh countryside, is likely to be a waste of time, and I must address my arguments to the very many other noble Lords who are attracted to the objectives of this Bill, but who do not hold such extreme views.
Let me take first the situation of the sheep farmer. During the Bill's consideration in another place, my honourable friend the Member for Montgomery listed many losses of lambs caused by foxes that his constituents had suffered this spring. A similar pattern is followed all over Wales. Farmers who are losing lambs to foxes call the local hunt or fox destruction society, which comes to their fields in the very early morning and follows the scent to the fox's earth, which, in very many cases, is shared with a badger. The fox is dealt with without damage to, and with very little inconvenience to, the badger.
I have records going back to 1905 of this happening in badger setts which are still in full and active use today. If such help is not available to the farmer or it becomes unlawful under this Bill, he may use snares, which will not differentiate between foxes or badgers. He may even, heaven forbid, use poison. That is an occasional and illegal practice which has caused much concern to the RSPB, and indeed to all concerned with the conservation and the well-being of the countryside. These hunts and fox destruction societies do not consist of the toffs who so irritate the anti-hunting lobby; they consist of farmers and their friends following an age-old method of pest control under which the badger continues to thrive, and under which, I am bound to admit, the fox also is doing pretty well. However, by lambing time the fox population is smaller than would otherwise be the case.
The farmers regard this matter as of great importance, as can be affirmed by the Farmers' Union of Wale., and National Farmers' Union representatives for the area. Perhaps I may quote extracts from some of I he many letters which I have received on this subject.
Mr. Jones of Llanfyllin, Secretary of the Dolanog and District Fox Control Society, writes:
"I write on behalf of the above-mentioned Society, asking for your support in your good office in the House of Lords, to get some issues in the Bill amended.
As a Society, we are a responsible organisation whose aim is to protect livestock which is the farmers livelihood. So whilst we appreciate the spirit of the Bill, we feel that special dispensation is needed for organised fox hunts, which will not require the badger setts to be blocked, and another issue which needs to be solved is whether the terriers should be allowed to capture foxes from within if they take refuge in badger setts. During the last fortnight of March and the beginning of April, members were having losses from foxes killing lambs, so we organised four hunts in those areas where the losses occurred and accounted for another seventeen foxes".
Mr. Edwards, Chairman of the Llanarmon Dyffryn Ceiriog Foxhounds, wrote:
"With regard to the Bill, shortly to be presented before Parliament, which if passed would prohibit the digging of fox earths, this would have a devastating effect upon the economy
876
of this rural area. We operate a pack of hounds in the Berwyn Mountain area and accounted for 172 foxes this past season… This is mainly a sheep farming area and this pack of hounds is supported and maintained mainly by sheep farmers in order to reduce lamb losses. During April and May we answer about two lamb calls per week and find that the majority go to ground and have to be dug out. We are anxious that terrier work should not be restricted at all in this mountainous sort of area. We consider that our method of fox control …. is by far the most effective and humane method of containing these predators".
Mr. Iolo Owen of Llanbrynmair said:
"As Secretary of Llanbrynmair Foxhounds Society I wish to inform you that we are not happy about the arrangement taken regarding the protection of badger setts".
The hunt deals with a large number of foxes.
Mr. Evans, of the Upper Banwy Foxhounds, wrote:
"As a working man amidst the Welsh hills, I very much regret the recent turn of events affecting the digging of foxes. For some twenty-five years I have been responsible for the Upper Banwy Foxhounds. This has been mainly due to repeated requests by local farmers to help subdue the relentless attack by foxes on their lamb crop. As Ron Davies of Caerphilly will tell you the technique of employing hounds to drive foxes into a line of guns is found to be acceptable to him, however there are sometimes occasions when we are denied a kill due to the fox having 'gone to earth' and due to the big increase in the badger population, 60% of the foxes go to ground in badger setts. Our normal hunting season … and some 15 lambing calls results in the humane despatch of around 130 foxes. This is the feeling among local farmers that the loss of this facility would seriously reduce their already meagre difficult income".
I have also received a letter from the Farmers' Union of Wales and perhaps I may read a small portion of it.
"the pressure is still with us to protect the lawful and legitimate hunt and terrier men who are truly after foxes in order to control vermin which cause so much havoc and losses to the livestock farmer. What one must try to do is to strike a balance between the needs of the farmers and those who want to protect the badgers.
As I have already made it quite clear the Farmers' Union of Wales and its policy is totally against badger baiting but one cannot allow those unlawful people to destroy the livelihood of farmers who become victims of political issues. If farmers and alike are denied the control already experienced alternative methods will far likely cause more trouble for the badger and its protection".
The Welsh countryside abounds with holes which a badger may use, all of which are classed as badger setts by this Bill as currently drafted. An offence will have been committed if any one of them is damaged by the lawful acts of farming or forestry operations if such damage could reasonably have been avoided, even when no harm is caused to a badger.
Badger baiting is illegal, and so it should be. So is burglary and rape, yet unfortunately those offences continue to be committed and some offenders go undetected. Yet we do not impose a curfew on sexually active men or make it illegal to ring a doorbell to see if someone is at home. It may well be right that we provide the badger's home with greater protection than we give to our own homes, but I ask your Lordships to pass those sensible amendments which I hope will be brought forward in Committee, particularly in relation to the definition of badger setts and licensing arrangements — and I join the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his request to the Government to clarify their intentions and their

877
arrangements for licensing—which will enable those of us who live in the countryside to continue to live in harmony with the badger.
1.34 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships' House is grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and to my noble friend Lord Mancroft, not only for the introduction of these important measures but also for the considerable work which has gone on in the corridors of power in order to achieve a broad measure of agreement.
I support the Bill, as a keen but albeit not very accurate shot and as one who ran a shoot for many years. Certain problems are posed in the running of a shoot.
We have to face the fact that badgers are not at risk. They are not only the largest British native carnivore and have no natural enemies but they are great survivors. They are extremely durable animals. Not only are their setts sometimes extremely ancient but also their routes of passage.
Indeed, during the construction some years ago of the M.4 motorway the contractors were unwise enough to build their motorway, a comparatively new method of transportation, immediately across the route that had been taken by badgers for many thousands of years. Notwithstanding the earthworks and concrete, within a matter of weeks, before the construction of the motorway was complete, the badgers had reopened the route. After repeated efforts, the construction company was finally obliged to provide a special tunnel in order for the badgers to continue in the same immemorial fashion.
I have a more personal anecdote of their persistence and durability. My keeper was riding home on his bicycle along a narrow lane one evening when he noticed a badger ahead of him. He speeded up; the badger speeded up. They went faster and faster. Suddenly, without any warning, the badger turned round and grabbed the front wheel of the bicycle in its jaws. The bicycle stopped dead, the keeper flew over the handlebars. Brock walked up to him, sniffed twice, grunted and disappeared into the night.
Badgers are prolific builders and prolific miners. They move accommodation frequently and like many prolific builders, including the ancestors of a number of your Lordships, they build more accommodation than they need at any one time. One of the problems that we face in Clause 1 of Lord Houghton's Bill is that the accommodation that they construct is not specified in any way. Badgers rest up in drains, in disused buildings and even in disused farm implements. Are we to say that a disused farm implement which shows some evidence of having housed a badger for an afternoon's sleep or for part of a night's rest is to become a sett and therefore the farmer is unable to move that piece of machinery?
Farmers, keepers and small-holders must be allowed to stop up empty and unused setts, particularly what one might call the dower house setts, while leaving the main seat of residence inviolate. There is the possibility that unwittingly a dower house
878
sett which is occupied may be stopped up. That will not stop the badger. She will dig her way out in a matter of moments. The badger's ability to move earth would do credit to many of the great construction companies of our country.
Finally, the point which has been raised by many of your Lordships is that without one or two discreet, subtle and I believe important amendments the Bill runs the risk of confronting many of the traditional practices of agriculture, small-holding, shooting and hunting. It runs the risk of bringing the Government into direct opposition with those groups within the countryside community which the Government most need to support.
I am happy that they will be debated in Committee and I am sure that a consensus will be reached. I am therefore happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft and I welcome this significant measure on animal conservation which I commend to your Lordships.
1.40 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, all those involved in country matters will welcome the two Bills before your Lordships' House today. Although badgers are protected under the Badgers Act 1973, as we have heard, there are still many cases of abject and appalling cruelty to those harmless animals. At my home in Staffordshire I have a large group of setts —dower house, hall and everything—inhabited by badgers, foxes and rabbits. It was only two years ago that I found evidence of illegal digging at the entrance to one of those setts. Happily, I have had no more problems since then. I have been more vigilant and so have my staff at home and the situation has not since arisen. Badger-baiting is a vile and immoral practice and everyone will welcome the moves being addressed by both noble Lords further to protect the badger.
However, although I broadly welcome the Badgers Bill and agree that setts should be protected, there are some aspects that give me considerable cause for concern. For instance, the Bill states that setts will be protected until they are abandoned. That is impractical. As we have heard many times today, badgers use many holes—drains, fox earths and suchlike—and thus the definition of a sett is wide-ranging and certainly needs amendment. The impracticality is that such protection of all setts until abandonment would make it difficult effectively to control foxes as to do so often means the use of terriers. It is an efficient way of control and infinitely more preferable than the use of snares, which sadly often end up around a badger's neck in error. I can assure your Lordships that it takes a brave person to release a badger from a snare.
Living in the countryside as I do and having a small farm with a breeding flock of sheep, I know that the fox population is expanding rapidly; indeed, it is exploding in my part of the world. There is also the problem that we have at home with urban foxes being taken live in towns and then released into rural areas. That compounds and aggravates the situation, which is already difficult. Contrary to beliefs in certain quarters of the animal protection organisations, foxes

879
are a serious menace to outdoor lambing ewes. I have had first-hand experience of lambs being taken by foxes, nit only shortly after birth but a few days later when they are larger. The control of foxes is essential. The wording of the Bill regarding setts therefore certainly requires amendment and will need to be addressed in Committee, as will licensing by the Ministry of Agriculture, with which I am not altogether happy.
I should like to give my warm congratulations to both the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft on bringing forward these Bills today for Second Reading. They are good Bills. Although the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, needs amendment, I support it provided that we can amend it in this House. My noble friend's Bill is essential and has my full support.
1.44 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I must first make it clear that, although I speak from the Dispatch Box, as these are Private Members' Bills, I speak on my own account and not on behalf of my colleagues. However, a number of my colleagues support both Bills wholeheartedly.
I congratulate both noble Lords on the clear way in which they have introduced their Bills, not leaving us in any doubt about what they intend. Before I deal with the Bills themselves, perhaps I may comment on one point made by the noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord Kimball, and by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, that the badger is not an endangered animal. Indeed, it is not, although badgers are scarce in East Anglia and I have not seen one for a long time. Under the Berne Convention, which the United Kingdom ratified, we are required to take measures to maintain the population of flora and fauna at, or adapt it to, a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements. That means that the species does not have to be in danger before we take action to protect it.
With regard to international legislation, it is likely that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, anticipates the directive on habitats which is about to come forward. I believe that yet another draft is available in the Printed Paper Office. We may well need to implement that directive, but this measure may steal a march on it.
We have heard about the backing by many organisations of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in particular. I understand that it is not opposed by the National Farmers' Union or the Country Landowners Association, both of which see it as a useful Bill to reduce the number of people who enter illegally onto private land in order to commit damage. That is another positive aspect from the farmers' and landowners' point of view.
In Northern Ireland badger setts have been protected since the 1987 Act. Although there is a lively fox-hunting community there, I understand that there has been little difficulty between the fox-hunters and the badger protectors. As we heard, the amendments already made to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord
880
Houghton, indicate the willingness of those supporting it to recognise the legitimate needs of those who live and work in the countryside, and that is as it should be. My noble friend appears willing to accommodate some of the remaining difficulties and I understand the main difficulty that has been outlined about the definition of what constitutes a badger sett. However, we must not amend the Bill too much, not only because we may weaken it but because its life might be in great danger if we send it back to the Commons. As your Lordships know, even the smallest amendment means that it will have to go back to the Commons, whereas the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, which no one appears to want to amend, will go straight from here to become law.
The Masters of Foxhounds Association issued a code in October 1987, to which a number of noble Lords referred, which gave advice on methods of earth stopping and damage to setts. If that code of practice had been followed, there would be no need for the legislation with which we have to deal today, or the need for it would at least have been lessened. As we heard, the Bill gives statutory backing to that code and I understand that it is welcomed on that account. The British Field Sports Society opposes my noble friend's Bill in its present form, but the Society, inter alia, represents working terrier clubs, which are no doubt affected by some of the provisions. However, the need to close the loopholes in the existing law is widely recognised, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and it is supported. I am hopeful that the law-abiding members of the Field Sports Society will wish to be seen on the side of having clear and effective legislation.
An estimated 9,000 badgers are killed by illegal methods each year. We have heard the horrendous figures for the other methods of killing. The Bill is necessary and I wish it well.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, which introduces greater powers of punishment for those caught in illegal badger-digging. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about its importance and I hope that it will pass speedily from your Lordships' House. I support in particular the clause which bans such offenders from keeping dogs in the future, but there is a great deal of popular support in the country at the moment for ensuring that all dog owners are responsible. This is yet another aspect of that issue.
My only reservation about the Bill is that, without a national dog registration scheme, it will be almost impossible to implement. The principle is good and I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says in summing up about whether he believes that it is possible to make it work without the backing of a national registration scheme. It will be extremely difficult to prevent an owner who has lost a dog from obtaining another dog to take its place unless he is on a register and we can clearly follow his progress. With those few remarks, I reiterate that I support both Bills and wish them well.
1.50 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we have before us two Bills, one of which the Government are happy to support while, on the other, we are neutral. Perhaps I may take the Badgers Bill first.
The Government have, of course, for a long time taken a neutral stance towards legislation which might affect traditional field sports. They believe that such issues should be decided by Members according to their own beliefs and consciences. In accordance with that practice, therefore, the Government will be taking a neutral stance towards the Bill. That is not to say, of course, that the Government are neutral as regards the protection of badgers. It is a sad fact that that beautiful creature, the sight of which gives pleasure to so many people, is also the target of brutal abuse and degradation. That is why the Government are giving wholehearted support to the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill, which in my view is a valuable measure which will help in the fight against the badger digger. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Mancroft for the lucid way in which he described the Bill.
Badger baiting is illegal under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Indeed that Act makes the baiting of any animal an offence and the maximum penalty is a fine at level 5, currently £2,000, or six months' imprisonment, or both. Under the Criminal Justice Bill, it is proposed that level 5 fines should be increased to a maximum of £5,000. Badger digging is an offence under the Badgers Act 1973, which also makes it an offence to kill, injure, take or in any other way ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so, except under licence or in certain particular circumstances defined in the Act. The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. That Act has been strengthened by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 under which the burden of proof has been reversed so that a defendant is presumed to have committed an offence unless he can show otherwise.
The badger is also protected by the general prohibition in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the taking or killing of any wild animal by certain specified methods. That offence also attracts a maximum penalty of a level 5 fine. That means that badgers already receive considerable protection in law. Indeed, the extent of such protection is probably unique for an unendangered animal. Additionally, the Government have announced their decision to increase penalties under the Badgers Act. Any offence under Sections 1 or 2 of the Badgers Act 1973, for taking, injuring or killing badgers or causing cruelty to or digging for badgers, will be punishable with a maximum sentence of up to six months' imprisonment as well as a level 5 fine. That will bring maximum penalties under the 1973 Act in line with those which can be awarded under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 for other offences of cruelty to animals.
However, despite the wealth of legislation aimed at protecting the badger, offences against badgers continue. The Government are aware of the concern which is felt about that and it will be seen that the law has been significantly strengthened in recent years to enhance the protection afforded to those animals.
882
However, there is one area in which the law might be said to be deficient at present, and that is the subject of the Badgers (Further Protection) Bill. Although the law currently allows courts to disqualify convicted badger baiters from having further custody of a dog or, indeed, of any animal, there is a significant lack of such a power in the case of convicted badger diggers and other offenders under the Badgers Act 1973. That is because the Protection of Animals Act 1911, under which badger baiting is an offence, already provides for the making of a disqualification order against offenders. The proposal contained in this Bill will bring the Badgers Act 1973 into line with the 1911 Act in that respect.
It is well known that the main tool of the badger persecutor is his dog. Badger diggers send their terriers into setts to locate the badger and, having dug it out, may bait the poor creature there and then with their dogs or sell it or arrange for it to be sold to others to bait. Taking away the right to have a dog is a key step in tackling that problem and it will allow action to be taken against a disqualified person in whose custody a dog is found, whether he is actually engaged in further offences against badgers at that time or not.
The Bill also allows courts to order the destruction or other disposal of a dog which is used in the commission of an offence and to appoint a person to undertake that. In such cases the offender will be liable for the costs involved in that destruction and of keeping the dog in the meantime. That is in line with legislation currently in place regarding dangerous dogs in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989.
This is a relatively small Bill, but because it is so accurately focused on its target, its value will, I am sure, outweigh its size. Badger digging is such a pernicious activity and the ill-treatment of badgers still goes on despite the weight of legislation against it. The Government accept that it is right for further action to be taken and we have been impressed by the wide support for the proposed measure. We are therefore happy to give it our full and unqualified support.
I shall turn to some of the points raised in the debate. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft are in agreement and, as the noble Lord said, in partnership over the Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out that his supporters were two badgers. I have also to point out, with some trepidation, that my two supporters are a North American Indian and a North American fur trapper; each habited, accoutred, and holding in the exterior hand a rifle, all proper. I can assure your Lordships that that will in no way affect my view or the Government's view of the Bill.
My noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Kimball talked about licences. We recognise the problems that individual farmers can face with losses of lambs to foxes. However, the Bill provides for licences to be issued where control of foxes is necessary. We do not issue general licences for badger control under existing provisions and see no justification for granting general licences. With regard to the length of time taken before licences are issued,

883
the Government are happy to look at any particular instances of delay, and, if it appears necessary, to consider how the process can be accelerated.
I am happy to commend to the House the Bill moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft on what, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will recognise is another good day for animals.
1.57 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, and much appreciate the friendly spirit in which my Bill has been received. It was much more friendly than on previous occasions when we have gone to this length to try to give the badger greater protection. I hope that we have taken the point fully —I believe that we have—that the Bill is designed to make it more difficult to harm, ill treat and kill a badger by the unlawful interference with its habitat or way of life.
The Bill is not aimed at the hunt. The hunt comes into it only because with the closer definition of the crime we define more carefully what immunity from the law is afforded to those who had a non-statutory right to enable them to continue their practices. I say nothing against the hunt in that respect, because I want to retain its goodwill. It is up to the hunt to decide whether what it does is necessary or desirable in the interests of the sport. Stopping is done merely to maximise the sport in the field. It is designed to stop foxes darting down badgers' setts with which they are familiar and find to be nice, big and open. They can dart into the badger sett and disappear. It will be unlawful to dig them out but not to stop up the sett to prevent them going down it. All right, let the hunt carry on. I am a countryman. I know all about hunting. Some estimable people hunt. The most difficult thing to do is to accommodate the extraordinary sentiment about the badger that exists and has grown up with the public. Television programmes have done enormous good in enlightening people about wildlife all over the world. I am sure that we have all enjoyed programmes by David Attenborough, for example, who is well informed on the subject.
I have in my hand 45 letters from children from a school in Stanmore in Middlesex beseeching us to pass the Bill. They are not stereotyped letters; the children, aged abut 13 or 14 years, have written them individually. They have an interest in the subject. I wonder how many of those children have seen a live badger; I did not see one until I was about 40 years of age. One can go for a long time without seeing a live badger even though there are plenty of badgers. Although most people have never seen one, there is sentiment for the badger. It is part of the mythology and sentiment of human beings in their natural environment. That is estimable. We want to support such sentiment.
Conservation is part of that concern. Happily, the badger is not an endangered species; otherwise measures for protection would be greater still. However the badger needs the amount of protection that the Bill provides. We can make whatever
884
adjustments are reasonable to the definitions in relation to the interests of the hunt, and of a badger sett. That applies for general purposes as well as to the hunt aspect.
Finally, in recent years there has been an enormous increase in county badger protection societies. In Surrey I am patron of such a society which is vigilant and active. It obtains all information about planning applications and planning provisions, and generally keeps an eye on the welfare of the badgers in the area. That is part of enforcement measures.
A development is now taking place which increases the need for vigilance. My planning authority has notified that it has six applications for new golf courses. With the set-aside of agricultural land, and the search for alternative uses that are acceptable in the countryside, golf courses are not a bad idea. Indeed, most golf clubs are very expensive to join and more courses would probably beautify the country. However, badger setts occur on golf courses and have to be attended to.
I am much obliged to all noble Lords who have spoken. I look forward to Committee stage when we shall be able to dispose of outstanding matters and pass on to more controversial matters. I am sure that in this field of animal welfare they will arise.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Badgers (Further Protection) Bill
2.3 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may take a moment to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. In particular perhaps I may remind the House of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, about the farmers' problems relating to fox control and about the licence.
I heard what my noble friend on the Front Bench said on the matter. I was not enormously encouraged by it. I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture will have to go much further to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. It is not good enough simply to say that general licences will not be given. The House will need to know what licences will be given. The proposers of the Bill will equally need to know to whom licences will not be given. That is very important.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for her kind words and the support of her noble friends for the Bill.
I remind your Lordships that, although my Bill may be a little less controversial than that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, it is a desirable measure. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should follow mine on the statute book. I hope that we shall be able to make the necessary changes to allow that to occur.
I thank noble Lords for their support for my Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes past two o'clock.