Sitting of 24 June 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Pensioners (Telephone Bills)
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has made any estimate of the financial position of pensioners who receive social security pensions in the light of their expenditure patterns in relation to items such as telephones.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the increased prosperity of pensioners is reflected in the extent to which they now have access to important household items. For instance, 86 per cent. of pensioners had use of a telephone in 1989, compared with less than 50 per cent. in 1979. Those figures will be of considerable encouragement and comfort to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who has often raised the matter in parliamentary questions and who celebrates his 77th birthday today.
    Mr. Jessel: As it is so important for pensioners—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine)—to be able to telephone, and as this large and welcome increase has taken place because of the successful management of the economy by the Conservative Government, does my hon. Friend agree that such improvements could be placed at risk by the extravagant and foolish proposals of the Opposition?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The extravagant expenditure proposed by Opposition Members will not benefit pensioners who need it most, and neither will they target resources on the poorest pensioners—their plans will result merely in large rises in national insurance for everyone, including the lower paid.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: In regard specifically to disabled pensioners, will the Minister confirm that the local authority has a duty, under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to assess their need for a telephone; and that, as I was legally advised as Minister, for provision of a telephone to be withdrawn is unlawful without diminution in the need in any particular disabled pensioner's case?
    Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted the law on the responsibilities of local authorities. The Government are particularly concerned to channel extra help with telephones to elderly or infirm
    668
    people who depend on the telephone as a lifeline, as so many do. We have therefore ensured a better deal than ever before for elderly and infirm people, whereby in many cases rental prices will be halved and low users will receive 30 free call units every quarter.
    Sir Bernard Braine: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind reference to me. The trend towards more people acquiring personal pensions is welcome, but would it be possible at some stage to publish proposals to encourage people to make their pension arrangements at an earlier stage? Would that not be a marvellous step towards encouraging people to take responsibility for their own pension arrangements as I know that the Government wish to do?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that more than half the pensioners taking retirement, and a considerably larger proportion of all retired persons, have provision other than the state pension, of which personal pensions are one aspect. As the original question was about telephones, it may interest the House to know that the increase in pensioners' prosperity has been such that 70 per cent. now have central heating, compared with 43·2 per cent. under the last Labour Government, 96 per cent. have a fridge, 71 per cent. have a washing machine and 98 per cent. have a television.

    Savings
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he proposes to make any changes in the way income from savings is assessed for benefit purposes.
    Miss Widdecombe: The present capital rules give the greatest help to those with the lowest savings. The rules continue to be kept under review, but no further change is proposed at present. Substantial changes were made only last year to the amount of capital that a person can have and still receive income-related benefits.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise that most of the people claiming housing and poll tax benefit under the existing regulations believe that, in 1991, £3,000 is a fairly modest amount of savings? Should not the tariffed income basis, which takes 20·8 per cent. interest, be amended? When people begin to lose in that way, should not something be done to give them a better deal?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should do his sums again. He will find that there is a clawback of only 1·6 per cent. interest from those at the lower end of the income scale. The present system means that it is better to have a tariff than to take into account the actual income of those with low savings, because that is precisely the point at which the tariff benefits them. I know of nowhere else where interest would be assumed to be just 1·6 per cent.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government have no plans to introduce a tax on savings, as mooted by the Labour party?
    Miss Widdecombe: I assure my hon. Friend that we have no such plans. Our plans will encourage savings and, more important from the pensioner's point of view, protect savings—unlike what happened to pensioners' savings under the last Labour Government.

    Earnings Disregard
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to adjust the earnings disregard for single parents on income support.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We increased the earnings disregard for working lone parents on housing benefit and community charge benefit to £25 per week from last October, but we have no plans at present to change the corresponding £15 income support disregard, which is already £10 higher than that for most other claimants.
    Ms. Short: As there has been an enormous growth in the proportion of lone parents dependent on income support under the present Government, because various changes have increased the poverty trap, would it not be much better to increase the disregard for income support and maintenance payments so that lone parents can move off benefits into semi-independence and then into work, rather than do as the Government have done and push more and more of them on to benefits, which the Conservatives then bellyache about because of the much bigger poverty trap?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, despite her long-standing interest in these matters, has perhaps failed to focus on the fact that simply operating on income support earnings disregards works against the process that she wishes to advance of lone parents moving into what counts as full-time work. Much the more productive approach is to do what we have done, as I said in my first answer, and improve the earnings disregards for the in-work benefits. We shall build on that, in addition to the Child Support Bill proposals, by reducing the number of hours required to qualify a person for family credit and by introducing a maintenance disregard.
    Mr. Harris: I accept that my right hon. Friend said that and I pay tribute to what the Government have done, but two lone parents who came to see me on Friday at my surgery in Penzance made the point that if the earnings disregard were raised from £15 they would be able to earn more through part-time work and therefore be able to devote more of their income to their children—for example, through school uniforms and school trips. Will my right hon. Friend consider that matter sympathetically?
    Mr. Newton: To some extent, I am virtually driven to repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). Perhaps some of those people who went to see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) did not focus sufficiently on the proposed change that would reduce family credit hours—to use a form of shorthand—from 24 to 16, together with other changes that the Government have already made.
    Mr. Frank Field rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
    Mr. Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that his argument in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was inadequate? My hon. Friend merely asked the Government to continue a policy that they have already begun and to raise the disregard. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as
    670
    the disregard is increased, more single parents may find an opportunity to find part-time work—and, in the long run, a full-time job—and more single parents may be able to raise the cash to cover child care costs? If it was right in the past to raise the disregard, why is it wrong to raise it in the future?
    Mr. Newton: First, to advert to the warm murmurs of approval from the House, I should say how delighted we all are, regardless of party, at the hon. Gentleman's success in Birkenhead at the end of last week.
    If the hon. Gentleman examines what I said earlier, he will see that I have not ruled out further consideration of disregards in this respect, as in others, but for the past year or two I have thought it right to concentrate on disregards for in-work benefits and on the improvements to family credit to which I referred. Sixteen hours would, in many people's book, count as being closer to part-time than to full-time work, yet above that threshold people will now be able to qualify for family credit. One has only to consider the figures, which show a larger number of people—including lone parents—cm family credit to know how important a benefit it is proving to be.

    Family Credit
    Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total value of spending on family credit since its introduction.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): In the three years since the introduction of family credit, we have spent approximately £1·3 billion in cash terms, or 1·4 billion at 1990–91 prices, and by the end of the present financial year we expect to have spent £1·8 billion.
    Miss Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average expenditure on family credit per family is about £30 per week, whereas average expenditure in today's terms on Labour's family income supplement would have been £11 per week? Does my hon. Friend therefore believe, as I do, that the modern Labour party is utterly hypocritical in its supposed concern for the poor when its Front-Bench spokesmen said that Labour would allow family credit to wither on the vine?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's last point reminds me of the fact that whereas we have awarded family credit to 2 million people, the Labour party's policy for those on lower wages would mean the loss of 2 million jobs through the minimum wage proposals. My hon. Friend's figures for family credit are correct. In 1979 family income supplement was about £5·26, which is £13·50 in today's terms; 65 per cent. of people on family credit now get £20 per week or more, 30 per cent. get £40 per week, and 17 per cent. get £50 per week.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister say a word about the difficulties of the self-employed? As some of my case work substantiates, the bureaucratic application procedures are especially difficult for self-employed people such as farmers and fishermen. I know that the Government are turning their attention to academic studies, but will the Minister say something positive today?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman does his self-employed constituents much service in the way he has represented

    671
    them—especially the share fishermen—on the question of family credit. He will know, however, that nearly 45 per cent. of self-employed people receive £50 or more per week. The Government intend to take careful note of the research commissioned through the social policy research unit at York university, which is examining carefully the way in which family credit works for self-employed people, with a view to improving the delivery of the service to that group.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that family credit and other benefits repay detailed consideration, and that even though there are serious differences between, for instance, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Government, it is one of the issues to which Militant and the far left have nothing to contribute and where they have never shown much interest in the poor?
    Mr. Jack: As always, detail is an important element in social security. I made a detailed search of the Opposition's spending proposals for any changes that would benefit the people on family credit, but I could find none.
    Mr. Madden: As family credit is essentially a state subsidy for low pay, will the Minister say by how much family credit spending would have decreased if a national minimum wage had been in place for the past three years?
    Mr. Jack: I do not believe in answering hypothetical questions. The Conservative party has no intention of introducing such a ludicrous system. Family credit enables people to accept lower-paid work in order to get back to work, with the advantage of having their finances supplemented by family credit. That is something to be applauded.

    Pensioners' Incomes
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the value of the average pensioner's income from savings and occupational pensions; and what were the comparable figures in 1979.
    Miss Widdecombe: From 1979 to 1987, the average pensioner's net weekly income from savings increased from £9·10 to £20·90 and occupational pensions income increased from £13·20 to £23·30 at 1987 prices.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome those figures. Does my hon. Friend agree that inflation remains the greatest threat to the prosperity of pensioners? In those terms, is she satisfied that the retail prices index accurately reflects the costs borne by those pensioners who depend mainly on the old age pension, or does she think that some other index of costs for pensioners should be sought?
    Miss Widdecombe: At the moment, we have no plans to change the index by which we assess pensioners' incomes, but it is, of course, something which we always keep under review, and we shall continue to do so. From the figures that I gave my hon. Friend, however, it appears that our policies are working and are raising pensioners' overall incomes, which grew by a net 31 per cent. between 1979 and 1987—an average of 3·5 per cent. per year—whereas between 1974 and 1979, when inflation was rampant, the average increase was a mere 0·6 per cent. per year.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that all the figures that she has quoted are gross, and therefore conceal the enormous increase in the taxation of pensioners in the past 12 years? According to the figures that she herself produced in Hansard a fortnight ago, the poorest one fifth of pensioners paid 28 per cent. of their incomes in taxes in 1979 but now have to pay more than 40 per cent. How can she justify the fact that after 12 years of Toryism those pensioners are paying proportionately more in tax than was paid by the richest one fifth of households in 1979, when we were told that high taxes were driving the rich out of the country?
    Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman's arithmetic does not improve with each new statement that he makes. Those were, indeed, my statements, but the hon. Gentleman is persistent in either accidentally misunderstanding or deliberately misinterpreting such statements. I said clearly at the start that the figures that I gave were net.
    Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) has said, the best Government for pensioners is the Government who keep inflation firmly under control, as the Conservative Government have done for the past 12 years? In that respect, will she assure pensioners and the House that her Department will ensure that spending is prudent and does not get out of control, in contrast with the plans of the Labour party, which would unleash massive inflation and thus ruin the standard of living of all pensioners? Will my hon. Friend give the House that assurance?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, public opinion appears to be waking up to the dreadful implications of Labour's spending plans, as shown by the movements in opinion measured at the weekend. We shall, of course, pursue a prudent policy. We shall not promise what we cannot deliver, and we shall not promise to spend vast sums that will then have to be raised from the taxes and national insurance contributions of the less well off as well as from others.

    Students
    Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider making some special provision for students during the summer vacation who are unable to obtain temporary employment; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Financial support for full-time students is properly the responsibility of the education maintenance system, which has been considerably enhanced in the current financial year.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister has ignored my question, which was about the assistance available to students who cannot obtain casual employment during the vacation and who, with their families, will therefore face hardship. I am asking whether the Minister is prepared to give those students some assistance, either through income support or in some other way, when they find that the requests that they make to employers for casual employment are met

    673
    with the answer, "No, we cannot help you." Will those students be given some assistance for the summer vacation? Can we have a direct answer?
    Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman referred to students and their families. Those in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, student couples with children, and disabled students, will be entitled to access to the benefit system. The role for supporting other students lies with the access funds set up by the Department of Education and Science. To make provision also through the benefit system would be to make double provision. The institutions are aware that access funds should be available not only during term time but during vacations.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that many of his colleagues were students in the past? Is it not better to target the available money to the genuinely less well off in society rather than to students who, when they have completed their training, will have the opportunity to earn considerable sums of money as a result of their privileged opportunity to become highly qualified?
    Mr. Scott: I do not dissent from that for one moment. It must be recognised that provision for supporting students has been substantially improved during the current academic year and students in difficulty can fall back on access funds.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government's ending of all entitlement to benefit for 16 to 17-year-olds, and the imposition of a lower rate of benefit for 18 to 25-year-olds have pushed more young people, including students, into poverty than ever before? Is he aware that the link between poverty and inadequate diet, ill health and low educational achievement has been conclusively demonstrated in a series of research studies published in the past month? When will the Minister and his colleagues apologise to the House, not just for the fact that poverty has more than doubled in the past 12 years but for the fact that it is now conclusively shown that the main cause of the growth in poverty is the Government's policies?
    Mr. Scott: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in bringing 16 and 17-year-olds into an argument about full-time students, which manifestly they are not. Secondly, I deny absolutely that there has been a growth in poverty under this Government. Labour Members' tendentious use of statistics seeking to prove that case has been absolutely refuted by statistics which have been widely available for some time. We are monitoring carefully the impact of the changes on 16 and 17-year-olds, but I still believe that it was bad for society for youngsters to be leaving school and going directly on to benefit.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward regulations to restrict self-investment by pension funds.
    Miss Widdecombe: As my hon. Friend may be aware, draft regulations for restricting self-investment by pension funds have been referred to the Occupational Pensions Board for consideration. The board has consulted widely
    674
    on the proposals and will consider the responses at its next meeting, in July. We intend to bring forward draft regulations as soon as practicable after that.
    Mr. Cran: The draft regulations are undoubtedly a step in the right direction and will be widely welcomed. Does my hon. Friend accept that some financial institutions believe that any level of self-investment, other than for very small funds, is undesirable not only because of double jeopardy but because of conflicts of interest in take-over situations and problems with insider dealing legislation?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right. A body of opinion holds that no self-investment could be ideal. I hope that my hon. Friend will also appreciate that it would be impractical to try to move towards that when there has been a certain amount of self-investment in property. To insist on immediate disinvestment of that nature would mean that firms would be disposing of the very assets that they use on a day-to-day basis. Although I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that it will feature in the consultations, the position of certain companies is such that total disinvestment would be neither practical nor desirable.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not time that employees received far greater protection for their pension funds through legislation? The Government continually talk about involving parents in school decisions and about enabling doctors to opt out of the national health service, so how about allowing employees to make decisions about how their pension fund money is used? Those funds should be protected from predators such as Hanson, who was stopped in the courts last time but who considers taking over such companies with a view to using the money from pension funds for other purposes. The workers deserve protection. When will they get it?
    Miss Widdecombe: They already have protection to a large measure and the regulations that we are introducing are designed to improve it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that pension funds are already protected by requirements for the reserves kept, so they are far less easy to plunder than he suggests. Nevertheless, what he says is important and will not be overlooked. It has formed the basis of much that we are now trying to do.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when a Minister from his Department last visited the national family credit unit at North Fylde.
    Mr. Jack: I visited the family credit unit at Blackpool on 30 May 1991 and was delighted to be able to mark the 2 millionth award of family credit since the scheme started in 1988 and to put on record, as I do this afternoon, my appreciation to the staff for all their efforts in delivering this high-quality benefit.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average family in need now receives about £30 a week in family credit compared with about £11 a week under the old income supplement scheme? Is not that evidence of our ability to deliver to families in social need and does not it compare favourably with the wild and uncosted promises from the Labour party?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend adverts to the fact that Opposition Members have a policy of allowing family credit to wither on the vine. In putting the fertiliser on the roots, we have been able to ensure that the take-up of the benefit has grown to a record caseload of 328,000 people. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted about the awards made are entirely correct.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied with the speed with which applications are dealt, especially those concerning the self-employed? The procedures there seem to be so bureaucratic that many families are left on the breadline. There may be a back payment once a decision is reached, but that is no consolation to such families.
    Mr. Jack: The performance of the family credit unit is the subject of continual concern and of continual monitoring by the Benefits Agency. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that in March the performance target of dealing with all claims in about 18 days was exceeded, although subsequently some operational difficulties have caused a one-day delay. In general, the cases of the self-employed present particular complexities. That is what the research to which I referred a moment ago is designed to cure. I give the hon. Lady the assurance that we will do all that we can to deal with the problem to which she has rightly drawn my attention.
    Dr. Godman: Why has not the Minister linked the questions on family credit?
    The Minister talks about 2 million successful applications for family credit. What do those figures represent in percentage terms? Is it anywhere near the 80 per cent. claimed by Ministers three or four years ago? What are the Government doing to persuade more people to apply for family credit? What advertisements are being placed in local papers to attract those who are entitled to claim family credit because of their lousy wages?
    Mr. Jack: I chose not to link the questions because we give, I hope, service from the Dispatch Box and we like to respond to every question put to us by hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman shows the assiduity of his attendance in the House by the fact that he was unable to be in front of his television set during February and March. If he had, he would have seen our latest advertising campaign, which drew people's attention to a message printed in 6·8 million child benefit order books, or on the automatic credit transfer letter, giving to every family with children a detailed message about the family credit to which they might be entitled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the cost of that advertising campaign—£1·5 million to reach 6·87 million families—was damn good value for money.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families are expected to gain from the proposed reduction in the number of hours that must be worked in order to qualify for family credit.
    Mr. Jack: Our latest estimate is that there is potential for about 65,000 families where a parent is currently working between 16 and 24 hours to gain from the change in the hours rule. In addition, this should also encourage more people to take up employment and so improve their income with the help of family credit.
    Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What is the maximum that a lone parent with, say, two children
    676
    under the age of 11 can earn? Does he agree that the Government have eradicated the benefit precipice for lone parents and replaced it with the excellent bridge of family credit, thus encouraging more lone parents back to work?
    Mr. Jack: In my speech on the Second Reading of the Child Support Bill I referred to example 10 in the White Paper "Children Come First", which is a clear exposition of the benefits of our proposal. It shows that a lone parent with a child could be much better off in work with family credit and at the same time meet about £45 of in-work costs. Our proposals reduce a person's step-up from income support back into work and are a worthwhile development.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that it is misleading to say that there are 2 million recipients of family credit because each applicant has to apply every six months and many people are being counted three or four times? Is not it also highly misleading to quote the number of applications for family credit when there is a 42 per cent. turndown of applicants? Is not it equally misleading to draw a comparison with the previous family income supplement figures when many of the benefits under the previous regime were cut in the 1988 review? When will the Government give straight answers to straight questions?
    Mr. Jack: In about one second. I do not choose to mislead the House by one iota. I have made it abundantly clear that my answers are about the number of successful awards. Anybody who looks at those will see how the figures are constructed. This benefit has enabled us to put £1·4 billion to the benefit of people in low-income employment to help them to maintain their position in the workplace. I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's figure of 42 per cent. However, I recognise that 70 per cent. of present applicants for family credit are successful.

    Older Employees (Redundancies)
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider establishing intermediate supplementary assistance on a short-term basis to assist older employees suffering unexpected redundancies; and what information he has on the practice in other countries in respect of short-run social security help to complement conventional unemployment payments made from public funds for older members of the work force.
    Mr. Newton: A range of social security payments may be claimed by older workers who are made redundant in addition to redundancy payments from their employer, which are based on age and length of service.
    The Department regularly collects information about social security provisions in other countries. However, international comparisons are often misleading because of the wide range of factors, including provisions outside the social security system, which need to be taken into account.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. We all hope that the recession is beginning to abate and that there will soon be an upturn in the economy. However, there will be a time lag, which is particularly hard on the growing number of redundancies of people who are 50-plus, because such people experience difficulty getting other jobs. We all know of such cases in our constituencies. Will my right hon.

    677
    Friend consider some additional mechanism, bearing in mind the fact that it is Government policy to try to tailor some benefits to individual needs?
    Mr. Newton: The latest figures, which I think reflect the latest analysis in detail, show that the number of unemployed over the age of 50 fell by about 45,000 between April 1989 and April 1991. I do not intend to build too much on that, but it is an interesting point. Those who become unemployed and entitled to income support after the age of 60 are entitled to what in other circumstances would be called the pensioner premium. That may assuage some of my hon. Friend's concern.
    Mr. Allen: Does the Secretary of State accept that they are the very people who are facing an ever-diminishing state pension? They read about the massive profits announced by the electricity companies over the last week or so and hear of fat salaries being paid to the chairman and directors of British Gas. Will the Secretary of State give those people some hope for the future by restoring pensions to the levels at which they would have been if they had been index-linked in the way that they were under the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead anybody. The retirement pension has been index-linked to the retail prices index and its value has been fully and faithfully protected. The social reality reflected in the earlier answers from my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) is that this age group includes a growing number of people benefiting from the development of occupational and personal pensions.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Sayeed: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of current family credit applications are being approved.
    Mr. Jack: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the success rate for family credit claims in May 1991 was 74·1 per cent., the highest ever.
    Mr. Sayeed: May I say to my hon. Friend how welcome are the Government's effective efforts in increasing the take-up of this important benefit? Are not the two great advantages of the benefit that it provides an added incentive for people to work their way out of their difficulties, unlike the FIS system, and that this system pays 272 per cent. more for the average family?
    Mr. Jack: Earlier I alluded to the percentage of people on different levels of family credit. For many it is a stairway back into the world of work. The improvements that we shall make, with the reduction of hours, will introduce more people to the opportunities available and we shall be looking at further campaigns to ensure that the message continues to get through to those who need help.
    Mr. Winnick: Should not there be some concern about the many people whom employers are exploiting by paying them the lowest possible wage? I am glad about the take-up of benefit, because anything that increases the income of such people is to be welcomed, but we must remember that the main responsibility should be with the employer. Some poorly paid workers are bound to compare their plight with the position of the chairman of
    678
    British Gas, with his obscene increase of 66 per cent. Perhaps we can have some reflections from the Government about what happened last week.
    Mr. Jack: Sometimes Labour Members do not seem to be living in the real world. I should like to take the hon. Gentleman to a biscuit factory in my constituency, where many of the work force are able to obtain family credit. The employer puts on display in the entrance hall a copy of the family credit pack. Those people are on seasonal employment, making biscuits for the Christmas trade. Their hourly rate is quite reasonable, but the number of hours that they work each week is not sufficient to give them an adequate income for their families. However, their income is made adequate because they are able to claim family credit.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Urban Fund
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what was the number of commissioners at the last meeting of the Church Commissioners, (a) voting for and (b) voting against (i) the proposal to use £1 million of the Church Commissioners funds towards the church urban fund and (ii) the proposal to use £0·5 million of the Church Commissioners' funds towards the church urban fund; whether the Church Commissioners follow a policy of majority voting at their meetings; and when the Church Commissioners will implement the wishes of the commissioners on this subject as decided at their last meeting.
    Mr. Michael Alison: The hon. Gentleman refers to the last meeting of the commissioners' board of governors, on 23 May. It is not the commissioners' practice to disclose voting figures relating to the internal and confidential discussions, but all the board's decisions, including those to which I am about to refer, are made on a majority vote, after the expression of opinion by individual governors. The board was meeting to decide recommendations for the allocation of surplus income to the commissioners' annual general meeting, to be held on 26 June. In the light of financial problems caused by the recession, but with considerable reluctance, it decided that it was unable to recommend a further immediate grant to the church urban fund, but would review the position towards the end of this year.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that answer, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread anger and disbelief because it is widely known that the majority view of the board of governors was that the church urban fund should receive £1 million, or at least £500,000, in grant from the Church Commissioners? It expressed that view in a vote at its last meeting. Is the reality that the annual general meeting this Wednesday of the Church Commissioners has the power to continue to enact the policy of the Church and the new archbishop to give money to the church urban fund, or will the AGM be told that it is not in its power to deal with a recommendation by saying, "We do not accept the

    679
    recommendation. We believe that we should give money to the church urban fund"? A cut because of the recession may be acceptable, but a removal of all grant is not.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman is being a little alarmist about the church urban fund. The majority voting that he quoted—it has not been published—refers to the second review meeting later in the year. The majority voting reflected the preference of the majority of governors in relation to the subsequent meeting.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that, because of its substantial reserves, there will be no cuts this year in the grants paid by the church urban fund. If he reads the annual report of the fund, he will find that it received more income from investments last year than it disbursed in grants. There is nothing scandalous or undesirable going on in relation to the fund.
    Mr. William Powell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that much of the funding of the church urban fund comes from parishes through the payment of quota? Does he agree that over the years heroic sums have been raised by way of quota for the fund, often from small parishes that have been asked to carry a huge burden? The decision that my right hon. Friend announced today will not prejudice the moneys that are going into the fund and it will be greatly welcomed by the many thousands of fund-raisers in small parishes throughout the country.
    Mr. Alison: I endorse my hon. Friend's reference to the particular generosity of small parishes. I am sure, however, that he will bear in mind the fact that there is some potential buoyancy, to put it no higher, in the amounts contributed through parish collections. The average donation of church members is only £2 a week, which is about 2 per cent. of their average net personal disposable income. The average donation is not a gigantic sum.

    Redundant Churches
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many redundant churches have been sold or leased to churches which are not mainstream Christian denominations.
    Mr. Alison: Since 1969, 90 redundant churches have been acquired for worship by other Christian bodies. It is not for the commissioners to judge which of these are "mainstream", in the terms of the question, but I am letting the hon. Gentleman have a list of those which have been made available.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I welcome redundant churches being taken over by Sikhs and Muslims for their temples. I am concerned about some of the right-wing, fundamentalist, out-to-lunch religious groups, such as the Ronald Reagan holy jellybean church. I have a letter from a friendly cleric in the east end of London, in which he tells me that some loony churches are telling members of their congregations that to vote Labour will damn their eternal souls or that it would cause their bottoms to drop off. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would deprecate such wild statements being made. I hope that he will encourage the Church Commissioners to ensure that the loony fundamentalist churches do not get hold of redundant buildings.
    Mr. Alison: If the loony left in the London Labour party were to take to the Christian religion, I suspect that it would swing markedly to the right. The loony religious aspect to which the hon. Gentleman referred rarely finds expression in overt political dispositions, of either the right or the left. Where there is any doubt whether the church is mainstream in the Christian sense of the word, consultations are widely held locally. The hon. Gentleman will be invited to sit in judgment on whether a mainstream church is well represented by a loony fundamentalist church. I hope that when he meets some of the fundamentalist churches, especially from the Afro-Caribbean sector, he will discern how extremely desirable, honourable and religious—in the best sense of the word—they are.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Director of Works
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 10 May, Official Report, column 603, what evaluation he has made of the value for money of paying the sum referred to to Saxon Bampfylde as headhunters in order to select a new director of works for the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The Commission itself decided that management consultants should be used to assist in making an appointment to the important new post of director of works. The firm concerned was chosen from a list of six originally approached. The price charged was at the lower end of the tenders and I understand that the firm performed its duties very well. I expect an announcement of the name of the director of works to be made shortly.
    Mr. Dalyell: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have for using the words, "very well"? The firm having netted a cool £20,500 from the taxpayer, should not the House expect that in that which is done in its name a certain courtesy of confidence should be extended to candidates asked to apply by civil servants and permanent secretaries who have known them for a long time?
    Mr. Beith: There were more than 200 applicants for that post and the consultants did a great deal of work in looking at the applications. If the hon. Gentleman has come across an unsatisfactory communication of some kind, I should be happy to look into the matter.
    Mr. John Garrett: On recruitment, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave me on 14 May, when he would not tell me what the educational qualifications were for the Clerk's Department?
    Mr. Speaker: That is a bit wide of the question.
    Mr. Beith: I was going to point out, Mr. Speaker, that that supplementary did not arise from the original question.

    Refreshment Department
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is (a) the average wage per

    681
    hour of those working in the House of Commons Refreshment Department, (b) the average percentage of hours worked that is paid for at other than ordinary rates and (c) the average number of hours worked; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Beith: The average hourly wage of full-time industrial staff in the Refreshment Department is £4·67. The hourly rates from which that figure derives range from £7·32 to £4·18; it also compares with average hourly rates in the catering trade of £3·65 for men and £3·14 for women.
    It has not been possible to provide meaningful information on the other parts of my hon. Friend's question. The Commission is not satisfied with the form in which financial administration is currently available to the management and following the Ibbs report it will be one of the principal duties of the new director of finance and administration to review financial and management information systems.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his factual answer. Many of the people who work in the House live in my constituency and, as their representative, I must tell my hon. Friend that one of their great concerns is that their wages are not sufficient to enable them to stay here. The level of staff retention in the service Departments of the House is lower than it might be. Can we please consider the matter, as we want to hold on to good staff, whom the House values and would like to continue to employ?
    Mr. Beith: The Commission is constrained by the statutory duty to keep pay rates in line with those of the civil service. However, it seeks to retain staff and there are some remarkably loyal and long-serving staff in the Departments of the House. The Commission will do its best to ensure that they have a satisfactory career.

    Sittings
    Mr. Butler: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what are the estimated savings in running costs if the House of Commons retained its average length of sitting days but imposed a limit of midnight on all proceedings.
    Mr. Beith: The total savings possible as a result of the House deciding to alter its hours of sitting would depend upon a number of factors, such as the predictability of the duration of sittings, the terms of any renegotiated conditions of service that might be necessary and whether there was an overall reduction in sitting hours. Those factors would be difficult and costly to quantify. I do not think that the exercise could be justified unless the House was considering specific proposals.
    Mr. Butler: Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that such savings are likely to be considerable, because much money is spent in sustaining our acts of collective masochism? That money is not a good investment in our democracy.
    Mr. Beith: Yes, Sir, so long as there was an overall reduction in the hours during which the House sat and a great deal of work did not bunch up, to such an extent that additional staff had to be recruited to deal with it.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Select Committee on Scottish Affairs
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: To ask the Lord President of the Council what recent meetings he has held with opposition parties to discuss the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): None, recently.
    Mrs. Ewing: Surprise, surprise. Is not it appalling that given that there is much speculation that the House may review its procedures and mechanisms for working, it is still in breach of one of its Standing Orders through its failure to appoint a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs at a time when many issues in the Scottish economy and Scottish society need investigation? Is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman's Back Benchers from Scotland more important to him than the rights of the Scottish nation? Or has he just given up altogether?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, and I have been in Scotland all this weekend. The hon. Lady should not be surprised at my answer, because on 22 May in response to a question from her I said that I did not expect to add anything about a Scottish Select Committee after the recess and there has been no change in circumstances to warrant further meetings. The hon. Lady also asked me on that occasion about progress on the Scottish Grand Committee; I am pleased to be able to tell the House that progress has been made on that matter. The Committee met twice last week and will meet tomorrow and at least two more dates have been fixed.
    Mr. John Marshall: How many representations has my right hon. Friend received from the Scottish people on this issue?
    Mr. MacGregor: Personally, I have received none.
    Mr. McKelvey: Nevertheless, should not an answer be given to the question why we continue to be in breach of our Standing Orders? Is not this the mother of Parliaments? Why does the right hon. Gentleman continue not to do his duty and why is he sustaining a policy of neglect as regards Scotland?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no policy of neglect—I have just said that the Scottish Grand Committee has been meeting regularly—and nor is the House in breach of its Standing Orders. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the debate on 20 December 1988, the House recognised the inability of the Committee of Selection to nominate hon. Members to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee.

    Oral Questions
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what is his estimate of the average number of oral questions submitted each day; how many of these are committed to written status after failing to secure a place in the ballot for oral questions; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: The average number of oral questions submitted each day is approximately 170. It is estimated

    683
    that only about 1 per cent. are retabled by hon. Members as written questions after being unsuccessful in the shuffle for oral questions. The evidence suggests that the procedural change relating to the printing of questions has been a successful innovation and is widely accepted by the House.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Members have taken the trouble to table questions, they have done so for a particular purpose and that it would be valuable if those questions were answered? Does he therefore agree that questions that are not among the first 30 drawn in the ballot should automatically be tabled as written questions?
    Mr. MacGregor: That was neither recommended nor agreed and there is a good reason for that. It is open to any hon. Member who wishes to have his question answered to retable it as a written question and the fact that only 1 per cent. have done so suggests that many are satisfied. Moreover, the House has a duty to use taxpayers' money wisely and the change has saved several hundred thousand pounds in printing costs alone.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman include in that 1 per cent. my question to the Prime Minister, which I have tabled seven times, but which has remained unanswered seven times because I was not lucky in the shuffle, asking about information requested from the sequestrators of the National Union of Mineworkers? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, on a matter such as the appalling situation that has arisen in relation to the NUM and the lawyers, when a man has tabled a question five times, that question should at least be answered orally?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is no different from any other hon. Member; if his question is unsuccessful in the shuffle, it is not reached during oral questions.
    Mr. Barry Field: At risk of sounding like a long-playing gramophone record, may I again draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, if an oral question is not reached, an answer to it still appears on the board? Surely it would be sufficient just to print it in the record and it is not necessary to have a great paper chase when an oral question is not reached. Would not that save considerable resources and money?
    Mr. MacGregor: It is a different matter when an oral question is not reached because it is one that was likely to be answered. We are talking about circumstances in which a question is unsuccessful in the shuffle and is not retabled by the hon. Member in question. When that happens, the question is not answered; nor is an answer put on the board. I believe that that is right, because the practice involves considerable savings in civil servants' time and because the original practice has been proved not to be necessary.

    Sittings
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what further discussions he has had in relation to hours of work and procedures in the House of Commons; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been having a number of discussions and hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Skinner: Why cannot the Leader of the House make an announcement? Is it because he does not know how to deal with the request that has probably been made about the ending of the pairing system, another name for which is organised truancy, or has he got caught up in requests coming from the Common Market that all these MEPs and bureaucrats—federalists—should be allowed in here to crawl all over the place? Who is running the right hon. Gentleman's Department? Is it Jacques Delors?
    Mr. MacGregor: It has nothing to do with either point. The pairing system has nothing to do with our hours of work and procedures. The question of access to various parts of Parliament—of the building—by MEPs is being considered by the Services Committee, but that is an entirely different matter from the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend make a serious effort to produce the review of working hours? It has become a fetish or shibboleth for Ministers, and other right hon. and hon. Members with important responsibilities, to walk around like ashen-faced zombies through overwork late at night. There is no merit in that; it makes no sense and brings the House no credit outside. Will my right hon. Friend do something, fast?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there are any zombies here.
    In the past year or so we have changed our procedures on a number of issues, including private Members' Bills, ten-minute Bills, the tabling of oral questions and, in particular, the scrutiny of European legislation. The change involving European Standing Committees has already had a marked effect on the number of late sittings in the House. That is a considerable improvement and I think it important to make it work.
    As for the review, there is a wide variety of views in the House about what changes should be made. I consider it important to proceed on the basis of some agreement and that is what is currently in my mind.
    Dr. Cunningham: The Leader of the House will find a large measure of agreement and support for any proposal that he may present for a wide-ranging review of our practices and procedures, our sitting hours and related matters. May I urge him to present such a proposal, following his normal meticulous consultations? Will he also make an oral statement in the Chamber, so that the wide range of views can be expressed and we can have a genuine exchange here, rather than dealing with it by way of a written reply?
    Mr. McGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I share a number of views about the ways in which we can improve the workings of the House and I have always been extremely grateful for the co-operative manner in which he has approached such issues. This is very much a House of Commons matter. What has emerged from the many discussions in which I have participated is that wide variety of views. There is often a conflict of opinions, not between the two sides of the House but between hon. Members of all parties.

    685
    I noted the hon. Gentleman's point about speed. I shall certainly address that; as he knows, I am undertaking consultations. I also noted his request for an oral statement.

    Exterior Refurbishment
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on progress in refurbishing the exterior of the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be aware that the stonework repair and cleaning programme has now reached the Victoria Tower. Good progress is being made.
    Mr. Coombs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the general public are extremely pleased with the progress that
    686
    has been made in improving the exterior of the Palace? Are there any plans to continue the work in the interior courtyard to improve the view for the staff?
    Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The work has greatly enhanced this part of London and an historic building and it is widely appreciated. It is intensive work and must be undertaken at times that cause the least inconvenience to Members of both Houses.
    We intend to draw up plans and agree them with both Houses before the Victoria Tower work is completed, so that the work on the interior courtyards can follow without a break. It will be expensive and will involve a good deal of disruption, so it may take a considerable time.

Youth Treatment Centres
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the statement first; then I will call the hon. Members.
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the result of an independent inquiry into complaints made by a young person about her treatment at the St. Charles youth treatment centre at Brentwood, and about management changes that I am making there today.
St. Charles is one of two Department of Health youth treatment centres. The other is the Glenthorne centre at Erdington, Birmingham. Between them, they cater for up to 70 young people convicted of very grave criminal offences, or with the most serious behavioural difficulties, whose needs cannot be met elsewhere in the child care system.
In January this year, through the formal complaints procedure available to residents in the centres, a young person made serious allegations about her treatment at St. Charles youth treatment centre, Brentwood. On instructions from my hon. Friend the Minister of Health, my Department immediately commissioned an independent professional inquiry convened by Mrs. Marian Preston, a consultant clinical psychologist. I am grateful to Mrs. Preston and to her colleagues for their scrupulous investigation. They found evidence to substantiate three of the complaints—the injection of sedative drugs without consent, and on some occasions under restraint; prolonged, and on some occasions unjustified, use of separation; and exclusion of the young person from proper participation in reviews held about her case at the centre.
A management review of the St. Charles centre by the social services inspectorate, done at the same time as the independent professional inquiry, suggests that the practices about which the independent inquiry expressed concern were not isolated. It suggests also poor management control at the centre and an inadequate discharge of its reporting obligations to my Department.
I have placed summaries of both reports in the Vote Office. Some details are excluded on grounds of medical and personal confidentiality, but the findings and recommendations are given in full.
To check whether those problems were present in the other centre, Glenthorne, which adopts a different treatment approach, I asked the social services inspectorate to scrutinise the relevant aspects of practice at that centre too. The SSI's scrutiny revealed no comparable weaknesses at Glenthorne.
The complaints inquiry team also expressed concern about the extent to which my Department had followed up the findings of an earlier 1988 SSI inspection, published in May 1989. A great many of the SSI's recommendations have been implemented, but I am arranging an urgent review to make sure that the Department acted with proper vigour and judgment.
688
Responsibility for the two centres is laid clearly by law on the Secretary of State for Health. I much regret that a young person had grounds for serious complaint about her treatment at one of them. I am therefore taking immediate steps to bring this specialised but important area of my responsibilities under better control, and to introduce more reliable and more open scrutiny—and am making this statement so that the House may know of those measures at once.
The House will understand that I needed to act swiftly. Uncertainty or speculation about management change would have undermined control and care, in a facility where continuity in both is imperative. The steps that I am taking are as follows. First, the director of St. Charles centre, his deputy, and another member of staff have today been suspended from their duties on full pay, pending disciplinary investigation. They have been replaced by a new management team seconded from the Glenthorne centre in Birmingham. Their prime task is to ensure the safety and the welfare of the young people.
Secondly, to ensure properly independent and open scrutiny of the care provided in both centres, I am establishing a special advisory group, which will watch over their care practices with particular regard to children's rights. Mrs. Winifred Tumim, until recently chairman of the Independent Living Fund, has agreed to chair the group, and I shall publish its periodic reports.
Thirdly, the investigations reinforce the Government's view, made public last year, that the two centres would benefit from a new and integrated management structure. That will include the appointment of a sole chief professional manager; better arrangements for advising him or her on relevant developments in the main stream of child care in conditions of security; and more explicit and reliable procedures for accountability to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and me. That new management structure will be introduced from 1 April next year. I shall consult the new advisory group on its details, and will in due course give them to the House.
My first duty is the care of the young people in the centres, but I must consider also those directly responsible for providing that care. Their work is important and often very difficult. They must be given a stable environment in which to absorb those major changes. My hon. Friend the Minister and I therefore decided not to pursue for the time being the idea of amalgamating the two centres at the Birmingham site, even though from April next they will both be part of a unified youth treatment organisation, and both be subject to scrutiny by Mrs. Tumim's group, as soon as its other members are appointed.
I believe that the steps that I have taken represent a decisive response to problems uncovered initially by our own complaints procedure and by reports that the Department itself commissioned. I hope that they will be welcome to the House.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The Secretary of State's statement is wholly welcome. It is crucial that the young people at the centres and the staff who work there—and the families of the young people concerned—are confident that they are properly and effectively managed, and that that responsibility is scrupulously observed.
The 1988 report to which the Secretary of State referred made many criticisms of the St. Charles centre, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to order an urgent review of

689
each and every one of the report's recommendations, to establish what has and what has not been done—and why. We should like it published. If there has been any interference with the implementation of those recommendations, those responsible should be identified.
Clearly, the Secretary of State has confidence in the operation of Glenthorne and the work carried out there, and that is a welcome reassurance for its staff, the young people and their families.
The young person who made the allegations in January has been named in the press, but as the right hon. Gentleman did not name her, I certainly will not. Did she make the allegations while she was still at St. Charles, or after she had gone to Glenthorne? The House would be interested to know whether she had the confidence to use the compliants procedure while she was still at St. Charles. If she had not made the allegations, would there have been an inquiry? Other young people must be involved. We assume that a director and a deputy director would not be suspended because of one individual case—although that may have been so in this case, because the allegations that have been proved were very serious.
We wholly concur with the action that the Secretary of State has announced today. His first decision was clearly required on the basis of what has been made public. His second decision was crucial, as there must be some independent overview of the management of such centres. I use the word "independent"—although the right hon. Gentleman did not use it—because a special advisory group, whose reports will be published, will provide the necessary element of independence, something that hitherto has been missing.
The Secretary of State's third decision was that those centres—which have a combined total population of only 70 young people—should have the same management approach. It is not right that those two centres should operate from a different philosophical standpoint. To outsiders and lay people, it is almost as though the two bunches of experts have been using young people as guinea pigs to find different ways of treatment, whether success or failure. There should be a commonality of overview.
The Secretary of State was right to make his statement, and even more important was the fact that he made it orally to the House.
Mr. Waldegrave: Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has hit the nail exactly on the head. I am grateful for his welcome for my statement. As I have said, the further reports on whether or not there were failings within my Department involve the protection of individuals in case there are any disciplinary aspects, but they will be published.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has some knowledge about the Glenthorne unit, and I can confirm that it has not shown any signs of having the same sort of problems. Indeed, the inspectors' report cited examples of outstanding professional practice.
I cannot say that I would be certain that I would be standing here today if that young person had not made her allegations. However, I believe that, in the end, we would have realised that certain questions needed answers. The case is an example of the complaints procedure working. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, who makes a
690
fair point—this is reflected in the report—that the young person made her complaints at Glenthorne, not at St. Charles. That raises further questions that need answering.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the independent overview would be well conducted by Mrs. Tumim. Those who know her, know her to be a person of independent judgment. Her reports, and those of her board, will be published.
I agree strongly with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his questions. We cannot have closed worlds competing with one another with different philosophies. All that should be open to proper review by my Department and by the House. In the phrase of the hon. Gentleman, it is not a proper area for experiments.
Sir Robert McCrindle: While paying tribute to much of the work that has been done at St. Charles over the past 20 years, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that I commend and endorse his attitude, as outlined in his statement, and following the independent inquiry? He will be aware that there are some worrying aspects to the matter. Is he satisfied that, following the report, procedures for that most delicate of matters—the use of sedation against the will of the young person, sometimes under restraint—will not allow any repetition of that most disagreeable case at the St. Charles treatment centre?
Can the Secretary of State further confirm that, in future, all those young persons who will be detained at St. Charles will be made aware of their rights in the light of the fact that, it seems to me, the report implies: that the young person who complained was not made aware of her rights during the stay at St. Charles?
Finally to echo the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will my right hon. Friend confirm that the complaints procedure, no matter what the differences may have been in the past, is now precisely the same as between St. Charles and Glenthorne? It is significant, is it not, that the young person concerned felt unable, for whatever reason, to make that complaint while at St. Charles and, on the face of it, appears to have had to wait for transfer to Glenthorne before making it? Will my right hon. Friend give the House reassurance that, as of this moment and before the very desirable changes that he announced are implemented, there will be equality in terms of the complaints procedure at both St. Charles and Glenthorne?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, whose constituency includes St. Charles and who has paid close attention to these matters. Much good work has been done at St. Charles over the years. It is because of the prima facie evidence that things have been going wrong recently that I have taken decisive action swiftly today. The allegations are serious. It is also because my hon. Friend asked the question, and because it is clear from the report that we do not believe that the allegations were confined to this isolated case, that I have taken this action.
I am well aware that at St. Charles—I have the material with me—material was handed to the people going to that centre explaining what their rights were. However, it was for the new management there to make absolutely certain not only that the young people there had a formal right to complain but also that they had the capacity to do so and felt free to do so. Clearly they did at Glenthorne; in one sense, that is why I am standing here today.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for his response. Can the Secretary of State tell the House when and why the young person who made the complaint that has led to this report was transferred to Glenthorne? As Glenthorne is in my constituency, may I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that the practice, now properly condemned at St. Charles, has not formed and does not form any part of the regime at Glenthorne?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also undertake that the review at St. Charles—and, indeed, of his Department—will investigate why the reason for this apparent delay in implementing the recommendations of the social servicesinspectorate's report, published in September 1989? Finally, will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the staff at both Glenthorne and St. Charles for their skill and devotion in dealing with some of the most difficult children that we ask others to handle on our behalf?
Mr. Waldegrave: To start at the end of the hon. Gentleman's questions, I join him in paying that tribute. These children are not comparable to those in a normal children's home. I am happy to say that this is a small number out of a population of 56 million. We are talking of between 50 and 70 children, many of whom have committed appalling crimes, while others have very severe behavioural difficulties. These are the most difficult children of all: that is why considerable resources are made available. We are talking about children's centres that cost about £2,000 per week per child. The staff ratio to child is about 3:1. It was the doctrines and the processes of reporting that went wrong.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the person in question was transferred to Glenthorne because Glenthorne has an open unit as well as a closed unit. After discussion with the host local authority, it was thought right that she should be moved, as the next stage in what it is hoped will be her return to normality. That was in December, but it may have been late November, last year.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned unsatisfactory practices. Everything that I am saying is aimed at showing that we believe that Glenthorne rightly retains the confidence of the House, which is why we are transferring a management team from Glenthorne to St. Charles. The strict rules on sedation under restraint and separation, which existed at St. Charles but may not have been fully carried out—thereby hangs the problem—will be observed in future, and everything that I have said today is designed to produce a structure that will ensure no falling off from those standards.
Aspects of the original social services inspectorate report were not carried through properly. The delay and anxiety and the fact that recommendations were not carried through, despite instructions from the Department, have caused us the most concern. We must therefore ensure that communications were correct at both ends of the chain of command.
Mr. Tom Cox: The House will welcome the frankness with which the Secretary of State has made his statement, but he will be aware that the nature of the offences that these youngsters have committed, and, sadly,
692
their personal problems, sometimes mean that, although they are aware of complaints procedures, they do not always follow them. What independent involvement will there be with such homes to ensure that if, sadly, youngsters do not have the confidence to talk to staff, they can build up that confidence with someone independent of those who run the home?
Mr. Waldegrave: To achieve the legitimate objectives that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we should first look to the original local authority, which stands in loco parentis and has responsibility; secondly, as the report says, we should take steps to ensure that children have an independent visitor or adviser. That is what the hon. Gentleman is recommending, and I agree with him. We must consider that recommendation to ensure that it is effectively carried through.
Mr. Donald Thompson: Children from all our constituencies go to these schools and homes, and their parents will be reassured by the common-sense way in which those on the two Front Benches have approached this awful problem.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the skill and devotion of the schools' staff. Will my right hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, ensure that, in the next 18 months or two years, staff are not destabilised by the necessary physical alterations that have been made by the latest legislation?
Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. I have made the statement on the day when we are making the changes to ensure that there is not a long period of speculation and argument, which would be intensely destabilising not only for those involved in this difficult work but, perhaps more important, for the youngsters in their care. That is why we have acted rather swiftly today.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. These schools are subject to Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools and many of the staff have professional teaching backgrounds. Everything that I have said today and our work in the forthcoming weeks is aimed at maintaining the best possible continuity of care for the children concerned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a narrow statement. I shall call the Liberal Democrats' health spokesman, and then we must move on.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: In echoing the welcome that has been given to the statement by the Secretary of State and the decisions that will follow from it, may I ask him to confirm that the key issue for the new management and the new structure which he envisages will be the effectiveness of the appeal system. Its effectiveness has been greatly bolstered by his statement, but there is still a small question mark—to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded—over the likelihood that an individual will appeal when he is in an institution which he believes treats him extremely unfavourably.
I wish to underscore the welcome that many others have given to the appointment of Mrs. Winifred Tumim.

693
How long will it be before the right hon. Gentleman can say more about the composition of the advisory committee over which he will preside?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall give the names of the other members of the advisory committee as soon as we have them—perhaps in a written answer, if that is agreeable to the House. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to Mrs. Winifred Tumim, who is an independently minded person with relevant experience.
The efficacy of the complaints procedure has been demonstrated at Glenthorne, where this story came to light. I hope to be able to say to the House that I am equally confident that the procedure is operating properly at St. Charles. Requirements have been in place at St. Charles. One of the first requirements on the new management there will be to ensure that it is not just an empty right but that it is properly and practically exerciseable.

Points of Order
3.55 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help us with our inquiries into the whereabouts of the Secretary of State for Energy. We expected him to be in the House to make a statement about the pay greed of directors of British Gas and of the privatised electricity companies, who are lining their pockets at the expense of the rest of the country. The Secretary of State told me in a letter at the beginning of this month that this was a matter for the shareholders, but the Government are still a shareholder in every one of the electricity companies, and they are a 40 per cent. shareholder in National Power and PowerGen.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This is not a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. How can I determine whether it is a point of order when the Lady shouts in that extraordinary manner from a sedentary position? She should not do that.
Mr. Dobson: I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Secretary of State for Energy has asked for your agreement to come to the House to make a statement about whether he intends to exercise his right as a shareholder to object to this bare-faced greed. Will the right hon. Gentleman take action to support the Prime Minister's call for pay restraint, or are these pay increases what the right hon. Gentleman promised those bosses before privatisation? Are these increases the pay-off that follows the sell-off? If they are not, the House is entitled to know what the Government intend to do. We are entitled to a statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has made his point. I have no idea where the Secretary of State is. He has not asked to make a statement on this matter. The hon. Member's points will have been heard by Government Front Benchers with responsibility in such matters. No doubt the request could be raised through the usual channels.
Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: How can it be further to the point of order? It is not my responsibility.
Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is crucial that the House should exercise its remaining powers over these privatised industries. The only reason that we are not being given an opportunity to find out is that the Secretary of State for Energy is hiding away from the scrutiny of the House. We want him here. He is responsible. He has the power to block most of the pay increases, if that is what the Government want.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Robert Hayward: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Haynes first.
Mr. Haynes: I am trying to overcome the Conservative lot. Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You should find out where the Secretary of State for Energy is and drag him here by the scruff of his neck.
Mr. Speaker: That is not my function.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Conservative Members believe that Labour Members are playing for time because they were short of their spokesman for the next debate. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was not raising a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that nobody is playing for time, because this is a Supply day. I said that I would take a point of order from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order that I had intended to raise at the end of Question Time? The fact that hon. Members do not rise in their place during a statement does not necessarily mean that they do not wish to be called; they may wish to be called at the end, as I did.
I ask you, Sir, to reflect on what happened today. You will recall that, three weeks ago, there was a statement on pindown in Staffordshire, and that, during that statement, Labour councillors in Staffordshire were repeatedly attacked by a series of Conservative Members and, on one occasion, by a Minister. Will you contrast that with the reflective mood of my hon. Friends today, when, although there was clearly a Government responsibility, we did not seek to exploit it?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for the way in which hon. Members ask their questions. That is not a matter for me. It is only fair to the Chair for an hon. Member to show his interest in a particular statement by rising at the beginning. Today, the hon. Gentleman knew when we were coming to the end of Question Time; other Members began to rise, and he was one of them.
Mr. Barry Porter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, which you ruled was not a point of order.We have now spent nearly 10 minutes on a spurious matter. Can that time be added to this afternoon's debate? Clearly, the Opposition do not want it to take place, and they certainly do not want to listen to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields).
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On an issue that, tragically, might not be able to wait 48 hours until Foreign Office questions and on which I gave your office notice this morning—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to pursue that matter in this way. Conversations that he has had at the weekend outside the House with others—no matter how distinguished—alleging certain things cannot be raised as a point of order. There will be opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise
696
such issues during Foreign Office questions, as my office told him. He must not seek to evade my instructions by getting around them in this way.
Mr. Dalyell: It is not a matter of getting around them. In Kuwait, lives are at risk because of the actions being taken now by the Kuwaiti Government for whom we went to war. They are dumping stateless people at the mercy of those in southern Iraq, and they are doing so with the absolute certainty that those people might have their throats cut before Wednesday. It is a matter of considerable urgency that the people who built Kuwait are being taken—often at random—without anything that we would recognise as a trial, and dumped at the mercy of Saddam Hussein. Is it not up to the House to ask for at least a statement on what the United Nations or the British Government are doing about the people for whom we have at least some moral responsibility?
Mr. Speaker: It is one thing to ask for a statement, which the hon. Gentleman has now done, but it is another to use a point of order to seek an emergency debate.
Mr. Tony Banks: For the sake of the record, Mr. Speaker, will you make it publicly known that, should any ex-Prime Ministers wish to catch your eye in the debate on Wednesday, they will have no difficulty in doing so? I ask that because it seems that the Iron Maiden has yet to make her maiden speech as a Back Bencher.
Mr. Speaker: That is hypothetical. I call the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the hon. Gentleman's constituency at the weekend, so I will hear him. [Interruption.]
Mr. Haynes: I am not abusing the Chair, Mr. Speaker. That is not fair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for Energy holds shares on behalf of the nation. If we cannot have the Secretary of State here, will you organise a ballot in the House on behalf of the nation about the increase in salaries? Someone must decide, and it should be our responsibility to do so.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that there is any precedent for the Speaker organising such a ballot.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I will put together the next two motions on the Order Paper.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    HUMAN FERTILISATION
    That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Special Exemptions) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    NORTH HULL HOUSING ACTION TRUST
    That the draft North Hull Housing Action Trust (Area and Constitution) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Patnick.]
    Question agreed to.

Opposition Day
  15TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Government of Liverpool
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.5 pm
    Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised left wing administration in Liverpool, and have caused untold damage to the city and its people; calls for broadly based government in the city to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; and believes that such an administration should be given strong backing by Her Majesty's Government.
    Although the motion describes the consequences of 10 long years of destructive confrontational politics, it is also forward-looking in calling for a new partnership between local politicians in a broadly-based administration, and for partnerships between the private and public sectors and local and central Government.
    In the past few weeks the city of Liverpool has once again been the subject of close media attention, some of which has been a distorted media caricature. Although no one will pretend that Liverpool does not have serious problems, many of its own council's making, there are two tales to tell about the one city and I shall first say a word about Liverpool's success stories.
    Away from the industrial disputes and the antediluvian attitudes of some of the city's political dinosaurs, Liverpool has plenty of achievements. Last year, 23 million tonnes of cargo moved over the quays of Liverpool—an increase of 14 per cent., despite the fact that 1989–90 was a year of recession. In addition, 3,000 ships per year use our north docks and more than 12 new shipping services, handling containers, timber and other trades, have come to Liverpool since 1989. Last year, the port of Liverpool turned in profits of almost £11 million—its highest ever—and our free port, which handles £500 million worth of goods, is the most successful free port in the United Kingdom.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those very good figures are due to the slackening of the chains that had been imposed by the unions on the ports in Liverpool and to the removal of the dock labour scheme and, as a result, that Liverpool is now going great guns?
    Mr. Alton: If the hon. Lady follows my speech, she will realise that there are two tales to tell—one is of a city that is prosperous and vibrant with a great, outward-looking and confident face, while the other is of the politics that have dragged the city down. There are two tales to tell.
    The reality is a city where enterprise is confident and thriving. Strikes and poor performance at Liverpool's docks are a bitter memory, and the Mersey's strategic importance as a centre of national distribution is once again being recognised. The conventional wisdom is that Liverpool is strikebound, bankrupt, wasted and hopeless.
    698
    A national newspaper prints a photograph of a bedraggled, half-naked child and says, "This is Liverpool." That is about as fair as printing a photograph of the squalor to be found within a mile of the City of London and saying, "This is London." The truth is that 98 per cent. of all companies on Merseyside have not had strikes of any kind since 1982. Net output is now consistently higher on Merseyside than the national average.
    Mr. Robert Hayward: Is the hon. Gentleman surprised that, at the start of the debate on Liverpool, only half Liverpool's Members of Parliament are present and that two Labour Members who represent Liverpool are not even in the Chamber?
    Mr. Alton: I am not entirely surprised, because none of them was present for last week's Adjournment debate on empty housing, but I am glad that at least some of them are present today.
    There is a myth that companies are unhappy to come to Liverpool, but Ford invested £40 million in its Liverpool factory last year alone and British Aerospace has invested £19 million in Liverpool airport and is proposing a £2 billion expansion.
    It is true that 13·4 per cent. of our work force are unemployed, but 86 per cent. are in work. In excess of 100,000 of those people are employed in our city centre, with the new office developments at Mercury court, Moorfield, Matthew street, Albert dock and the refurbished Liver and India buildings adding to the total.
    I have been particularly involved in the development of Wavertree technology park, a 64 acre parkland development launched in 1989 through a joint private and public initiative to attract major manufacturing and commercial investment. Some 40 companies now operate in the park, employing nearly 1,500 people. That park and Liverpool free port demonstrate the dividends of a united political approach.
    A city stuffed with 2,500 listed buildings, boasting a fine orchestra, well-respected educational institutions and a thriving cultural life deserves better than the partial and subjective character assassination to which it has been subjected. The city council may be inefficient, but the city itself is not. The council should make itself worthy of the city that it governs. Anyone who visits the city—6 million people visited the Albert dock alone last year—will testify that the reality of Liverpool life belies the gross distortion.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment can take deserved credit from the knowledge that the 2 millionth visitor walked through the doors of the Tate gallery on 14 May. He knows the difference between the myths and the reality of Liverpool life and will agree that the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), in the House last Friday amount to a defamation of a community and do nothing to build confidence in Liverpool. Having spent a decade telling unemployed people to get on their bikes and leave Liverpool, it is grossly irresponsible for a Minister to describe Liverpudlians as living on the "Costa del Dole" and to suggest that they contribute disproportionately to drugs, crime and prostitution. The Minister knows that he would be prosecuted under the race relations legislation if he used such slander against traditional targets. It has

    699
    become all too easy to scapegoat Liverpool and to blame the victims. I hope that the Secretary of State will dissociate himself from that calumny.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was absent from our debate on Friday and that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made no comment on that subject at the time. I make no apology for drawing attention to the difficulties caused by the abject failure of Liverpool local authority, as Liverpudlians in Bournemouth said over the weekend. Obviously, I do not castigate the entire Liverpudlian community, as the hon. Gentleman will hear if he finds time to stay in the Chamber for the rest of the debate.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification. However, as he well knows, only one Liberal Democrat Member is ever called in a debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who also represents a Merseyside constituency, contributed to that debate. It is extraordinary that the Minister should have said:
    "I do not know whether that is true, but I have no reason to doubt that allegation."—[Official Report, 21 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 641]
    Before a Minister makes such a damaging remark in the Chamber, he should take the trouble to find out if it is true. I am glad that the Minister has had the honour to withdraw his remarks today.
    Those comments did nothing to help the city's image, but the city council has done a great deal to damage Liverpool in the past decade. Despite the exaggeration, there is no doubt that political excesses have impeded our development. Before anyone says, "Liverpool deserves what it gets—it voted for its council," I shall separate another fact from fiction.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: They kicked the Liberals out.
    Mr. Alton: Despite the inverventions of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the majority of people in Liverpool have never voted for those confrontational politics. In the local elections this year, 56,000 people voted for the Liberal Democrats, compared with only 52,000 people who voted Labour. Even at the height of its power, Militant-led Labour never won a majority of the city's votes. Yet despite the popular vote, at no time since 1971 have the Liberals had an overall majority on the city council. For 10 of the past 20 years, including the last eight, Labour has had an overall majority on the council. For 16 of the past 20 years, Labour has been the largest party on the council, although between 1979 and 1983 it refused to govern and plunged the city into chaos.
    Mr. Barry Porter: Is not the more important and significant point the fact that the vast majority of the citizens of Liverpool voted for no politician at all during that period, because they think so little of us?
    Mr. Alton: The number of people voting in local elections increased throughout many of the years to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so his point is not entirely accurate. The turnouts in parliamentary elections in Liverpool are identical to those in the Wirral and elsewhere.
    700
    Labour has belatedly recognised the character of those wasted times by expelling a handful of those who were responsible. Some courage is now being shown by many who were silent during what the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has called "the Stalinist years". None the less, that courage is to be commended.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: The point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make is that the entrepreneurial spirit of Liverpool is alive and well but that we are concerned about the problems connected with the council. Will he confirm that the debate is not unassociated with the Liverpool, Walton by-election? If we extrapolate from the results of the 2 May council elections, we find that Labour polled 12,491 votes in the Walton constituency and the hon. Gentleman's party 10,687, giving Labour a narrow lead. Militant stood in only one ward and polled 1,626 votes to take Anfield. A divided party is in control of Liverpool council. That is the major problem that Liverpool faces.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention, which makes my case—
    Mr. Skinner: It is a good job they did not have PR.
    Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Bolsover says that it was a good job that we did not have proportional representation. If we had had PR, Militant would never have been in control in the first place. If there had been a fair result, reflecting the will of the people of Liverpool in May, the city would not be in its present chaos.
    Mr. Skinner: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's second speech. I guess that there was a different speech before the Church leaders made their pronouncement at the weekend. That is why we hear this Worlock speech. If the hon. Gentleman is in favour of PR, why did he complain five minutes ago that the Liberal Democrats did not get overall control? As they had control along with somebody else several years ago, why did they make such a mess of things, and why did they get kicked out?
    Mr. Alton: My point is not that we demand overall control on a minority of votes. The point of the motion—the hon. Gentleman should read it—is that it seeks a broadly based partnership. That would probably not be with the hon. Member for Bolsover, I must admit, or with his part of the Labour party. I hope that there are members of the Labour party and members of the Conservative party who put the city's interests first who would be prepared to work with us. It would be fascinating to know which of the two candidates in the Walton by-election the hon. Member for Bolsover will support and campaign for.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for an answer that his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Sir. C. Smith) promised viewers on "North Westminster" yesterday? He promised an explanation why, on six or seven occasions the Liberal Democrat group on the council has voted against the majority Labour position on the budget, after having entered into an agreement. I hope that, as a Liverpool Member, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton)—and not his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale—will tell us why the Liberal Democrats have ducked out of the agreement.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point as it is a canard that has been thrown around over the past few days. If the hon. Gentleman studies what happened in Liverpool last week, he will see that the points that had been agreed in advance between the Liberal Democrat group and moderate Labour members were held to in the council meeting. The Labour group tried to push through a further 94 redundancies involving housing maintenance workers, which had not been agreed in advance and which were slipped in after a closed meeting which did not involve members of my own party. As a result, the second part of the motion was opposed by my colleagues. It was opposed in a Liberal Democrat amendment, for which four members of the so-called moderate group, members of the far left group and one of the two Conservatives voted. As a result the democratic will of the majority of council members was carried.
    Mr. David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman says that what he describes as the second budget decision arose directly from a decision that was encouraged by the Liberal group on Liverpool city council on 10 March to embark on a budget with £10 million of unspecified cuts. How does the hon. Gentleman square such cuts with not voting for them when the real position is known and decisions have to be taken?
    Mr. Alton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it had never been discussed at any stage. Given that 5,900 council-owned properties are empty in the city, the last group of workers that we thought should be reduced further were repair and maintenance staff. Last year, £4·5 million was lost in uncollected rents on those properties and that money would have come to the city coffers if the decision had not been implemented. Grievous bodily harm has been inflicted upon Liverpool as a direct result of decisions taken and the politics practised in the city over the past 20 years. I shall give some examples.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Alton: I shall give way towards the end of my speech.
    Graham Dean, a gardener in one of our excellent city parks, once described to me how he went from looking after one of the world's best orchid collections to picking up, as he put it, "last night's fish and chips", because he refused to join industrial action he was sent to a leper colony, a local form of Siberia. When the law found in his favour, the council sent in the bulldozers to demolish the Harthill greenhouses so that men could not return to work there. The council subsequently told its employees to go home because it could not protect them from the intimidation which followed. [Interruption.] The headline in this morning's Liverpool Daily Post reads:
    "Scab councillor faces death threat ordeal."
    That is today's headline—not one from 10 years ago.
    In addition to intimidation, planning laws have been used in a highly suspect way. An early-day motion which I tabled in 1986 called for a police inquiry into corruption and my colleague, Councillor Rosemary Cooper, called in the police to investigate the Finch lane planning application. In that case the council owned the freehold and the Merseyside passenger transport executive owned the leasehold. The council facilitated a multi-million-pound deal on the basis that planning permission would be
    702
    forthcoming, either from the council or on appeal. Land worth £7 million commercially would have been sold for about £250,000 if the police had not intervened.
    Payola planning still persists, and within the past month I have written to the Department of the Environment asking what it intends to do to separate the functions of property sales and planning. At present the burglar is far too closely identified with the watchdog and an independent mechanism is needed to examine applications where the council is the vendor. Nepotism has been combined with personal gain and bullying. Branch 5 of the GMB has become a byword for all the worst features of trade unionism.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about Mr. Heferon?
    Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that I raised that case in the first instance and, as a result, attempts were made to expel me—which is becoming quite common. As a result of my actions, that case was investigated and police action was taken.
    A national union leader has called this the unacceptable face of British trade unionism. Branch 5 convener Ian Lowes administers a levy which brings in £10,000 per week. It is supposedly voluntary, but anyone who refuses to pay is unlikely to get overtime or perks. Ultimately, those who refuse to pay will find themselves in the leper colony to which Graham Dean was sent. Frances Kidd, a Labour councillor who voted for the redundancies announced last week, also works for the GMB. Since voting for the cuts, she has had to be locked in her office to protect her from union stewards calling her "scab" and she says that she has had death threats at her home. Even schoolchildren have been threatened. Pickets tried to stop children entering the Broadgreen comprehensive school. The headmaster, Ian Andain, said:
    "It was thuggery masquerading as trade unionism."
    The Labour party criticised the Liberal administrations of the 1970s, but those were golden days compared with what was to follow. The Labour left has presided over all this. I vividly recall the bitter attacks made on me and others for speaking out and challenging abuses of power. This is not the stuff of history. Within the past 12 months, Labour, led by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), told Liverpool people to break the law and not to pay the poll tax. As a result, every citizen, rich or poor, has received an additional bill for £70·99.
    The Liverpool Echo, in an editorial last week, warned the leader of the Opposition that there still remain major questions to be confronted. For example, it asked:
    "What about the role of the Broadgreen MP? Whose side is he on after the open split between Labour and the Broad Left? Expelling Militant councillors from the Labour party is one thing, but Mr. Kinnock must realise that the credibility of his party is damaged by some of his MPs."
    Hon. Members may wonder what is the difference between Field and Fields. On Merseyside we have the answer. One constantly faces battles against deselection because he expounds moderate views and works with others across the political divide; the other sits with impunity within the parliamentary Labour party while espousing every cause of the Labour Militant Tendency.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's mention of the Labour leader calling for non-payment of poll tax. The hon. Gentleman should know that not only did the leader of the

    703
    Labour party express opposition to breaking the law, but his policy was confirmed by an overwhelming majority at the Labour party conference.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful for the explanation from the hon. Member for West Derby. I am sure that the House would like to hear from the hon. Member for Broadgreen or, if they were here, the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry).
    The hon. Member for Broadgreen and his friends told the people of Liverpool that they would give all available resources to build houses. Instead, over that period, not a penny was spent on two thirds of the city's housing stock. As a result, 5,900 council properties are standing vacant and 12,000—on which there remain outstanding debts of £23 million—have been demolished in the past 10 years. Under the "spend now, pay later" policies, the city debt has risen to £800 million, on which the repayment of interest charges costs Liverpool people £10,000 every hour or £240,000 every day, and the Japanese and Swiss money-lenders have been the only beneficiaries.
    The electorate were bribed with promises of £2 a week rent decreases that were never forthcoming, although rents were not increased for eight years. As a result, this year they have been increased by as much as £16 or £17 a week in some cases and on average by £8 a week. Meanwhile, rent arrears have reached £24 million.
    Liverpool deserves much better. What should be done? Last year, with my colleague the then leader of the Liberal group on the city council, Councillor Paul Clark, I presented a charter for Liverpool which called for political partnership. Although it was then rejected by Councillor Harry Rimmer and the Labour party, it could still provide the basis for a constructive, broadly based administration.
    The key points of the charter include recognition of the facts that it is disastrous for Liverpool to have a council in constant financial crisis, that population shift has led to serious under-funding by central Government; that, like Glasgow, we must make serious efforts to turn around our image; that empty properties must be better utilised; and that partnership at every level must be accelerated. The Liberal Democrats are prepared to play their part, on a formalised basis, in taking the difficult decisions and sharing the responsibility for the good government of the city, but not on the ad hoc take-it-or-leave-it basis offered by the city's minority leadership, which has recently led to informal relationships breaking down several times.
    We want a formalised power-sharing partnership and a greater role for central Government, which must ensure that never again should local taxation allow a citizen to be charged for someone else's debt. I hope that the Government will be able to offer Liverpool people relief and redress. Bills of £70·99 for other people's debts are intolerable.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am sure that every reasonable Member will be appalled by the story that the hon. Gentleman is telling us. He has made it clear, that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen Mr. Fields) is still a supporter of Militant. No doubt the hon. Member for Broadgreen will be supporting the Militant candidate in the Liverpool, Walton by-election. It will be up to the hon. Gentleman to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to confirm that.
    704
    Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) can tell us which Labour candidate the hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) are supporting. There have been suggestions in national and Liverpool newspapers that they will be supporting the Militant candidate. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that neither of those Members has suggested that he is ill or abroad and thus unable to be present this afternoon? I can assure them that, if there were a debate about the area that I represent in part, or another area which is represented by other hon. Members, we would damned well be in our places to participate in it.
    Mr. Alton: I find it extraordinary that the hon. Members for Garston and for Riverside are not here to speak in the debate. I have not been told that they are unable to attend, for whatever reason. No doubt other Labour Members will be able to explain who they will be supporting and why their two colleagues are not present.
    With regard to the role of central Government, when the new local tax is drawn up by the Secretary of State for the Environment I hope that he will ensure that within the tax is a right of redress and a right of relief for residents of cities such as Liverpool. The people of Liverpool feel extremely aggrieved that an additional burden has been placed upon them this year.
    Central Government should accept that under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 there is a need to organise contracts so that the backlog of uncollected refuse in Liverpool is cleared up and removed. Liverpool people are entitled to expect the basic services to be provided that they are called upon to fund. One of their fundamental complaints is that they are not getting value for money. The graphic photographs of Liverpool that have appeared in the press show hon. Members on both sides of the House what the people of Liverpool have to tolerate. I hope that a positive attempt will be made by the Secretary of State to assist the private company which is to be appointed to clear the debris.
    In the long term, if Liverpool is to be resurgent we shall need flagship projects such as the proposed Mersey barrage, airport development, Channel 5 and a refurbished St. George's hall. In addition, the Secretary of State could immediately approve the housing corporation's vacant properties initiative and recognise the need to stimulate further housing co-operatives by reviewing housing association funding, which in Liverpool has been static again this year.
    The present confrontational tactics—including rotting garbage, threats to close down cemeteries, redundancies which could have been achieved through natural wastage if policies of fiscal rectitude had been pursued, and the politics of Tammany hall—all combine to damage Liverpool. Instead of our city being used as a punchbag, as our bishops complained this weekend, it is entitled to expect from all its politicians a period of stable government and responsible leadership. That will require a formalised partnership based on good will and co-operation. Liverpool deserves fewer obituaries and a little help from its friends.
    4.33 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'reaffirms its belief in Liverpool as one of this country's great cities with a proud history and prospects for a secure future; condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised successive administrations in Liverpool over the past decade and have caused untold damage to the City and its people; calls for better Government in the City to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with central Government and private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; notes the steps taken by the present administration in response to the Government's compulsory competitive tendering legislation to put the interests of its residents first by contracting with a private sector firm for refuse collection; and commends the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for supporting the Conservative policy of fair and open competition in Liverpool, in the knowledge that it is right, but observes with dismay the Labour Party's opposition to it elsewhere in the country.'
    I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) had to say. I agree that the essence of the future of Liverpool requires an understanding of the significance of such a great provincial city, which is at the centre of a vital conurbation. It is perhaps the inheritor of one of our most dramatic pieces of municipal architecture and it is one of the most important cultural centres outside London. In my personal judgment, the Liverpool people are some of the most warm-hearted people to be found anywhere in the country. I say that after having spent many months—indeed, years—of my life associated with the city. There is a great deal of excellence and all too little of it features in the coverage that the city achieves.
    I was interested in the list of attainments that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill provided. They are recent and they are significant, and almost all of them are the result of the inspiration and the leadership of the Conservative Government.
    Despite the appalling circumstances that I will describe later, when the history of the 1980s is written, that will be seen as the point at which the revival of Liverpool's fortunes began.
    There are some very imaginative large-scale projects now under way which will come to fruition during the remainder of this century. The Mersey basin campaign is the first attempt to clean, from the source to the sea, one of Britain's great rivers. The consequences of that campaign—the benefits to the people who live there and to the industries that will invest there—are incalculable. The scheme was begun 10 years ago under a Conservative adminstration.
    The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to the 6 million people who visit Albert dock. That is a figure of some significance. When I first visited Liverpool, when the Liberals were in control, the docks were a stretch of mile after mile of rotting toxic waste. The Liberals did not have much of a solution for coping with that. The achievement of restoring the Albert docks and the Mersey banks was the responsibility of this Conservative Administration.
    When the urban development corporation took over those vast tracts of the inner city, I do not remember its being welcomed enthusiastically by the local Liberal leaders of the time, and I vividly remember our being
    706
    opposed hook and line by the Labour party whenever we suggested urban development corporations to clean things up.
    The concept of BOOM-business opportunities on Merseyside—is a manifestation of the partnership that the Government sought to achieve within Liverpool and the wider conurbation. Today industrialists, commercial figures, companies, local authorities and the voluntary sector talk together. Why? It is because we refused to continue to distribute urban programme money unless they achieved a more harmonious relationship among themselves?
    Painfully slowly, as a result of the reforms of the early 1980s, a new sense of confidence began to emerge. The hon. Member for Mossley Hill said that the Wavertree industrial park was launched in 1989, but he is about eight years behind the times. I launched that project in 1981 and without a shadow of doubt it is one of the most extraordinary—
    Mr. Alton: I meant phase 2.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman is right. The concept was born in 1981; the triumphs were of the 1980s. The hon Gentleman may have attended upon the phase 2 extension of what the Government set up, but the idea that he played any part in achieving it is a flight of fancy of the most extreme Liberal sort. When the Liberals ran Liverpool the site consisted of 60 acres of rotting land owned, I believe, by British Rail, on the verge of land owned by a company—Plessey. We bought them together with Government money and created the concept of the Wavertree industrial park. It is one of the finest examples of how our inner cities can be regenerated, and it has nothing to do with the Liberal party.
    Of course, we can look further. There are the remarkable co-operative endeavours associated with the Eldonians. I salute the men and women who have made the scheme possible. It was a pioneering example of a new approach to housing, born under a Conservative Administration.
    I am the first to say that the opportunities are as yet only half percieved. The city council is today preparing its bids for City Challenge. It is looking for ways to build on the experiences that the Conservatives made possible in the 1980s and to regenerate, as it intends and hopes, substantial parts of the wider, older heritage parts of the city. Such ideas would have been inconceivable 10 years ago under the Liberals or Labour.
    In essence, what has happened is that attitudes have changed because the Government were determined that there must be a new approach to urban renewal—a new context within which to manage a more successful capitalist economy.
    I was fascinated, as the whole House will have been, to hear the hon. Member for Mossley Hill refer to the docks. Of course they are better. Why are they better? It is because the dock labour scheme has gone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) pointed out. I do not remember the Liberals of Merseyside arguing that we should get rid of the dock labour scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "We voted for it."] Of course, the Liberal party voted for the Bill in question when we introduced it, but what did the Liberals do when they were in a position to influence such matters?

    707
    The further one looks, the greater the sense of excitement one discovers. It is true that British Aerospace has taken a £19 million stake in Liverpool airport and has plans for a £2 billion programme of expansion. What was British Aerospace when the Government were elected? It was a Government Department—nationalised and quite incapable of seizing opportunities to take a stake in airports anywhere, let alone on Merseyside. One step after another has led to the revival of an enterprise culture, which Liverpool, with every other great city in the country, is beginning to embrace.
    Mr. Alton: I am sure that, on grounds of fairness alone, the Secretary of State will concede that projects such as the Eldonians project—and, indeed, the whole concept of housing co-operatives—were conceived when I was chairman of the housing committee in Liverpool. The idea that no part was played by Liberals such as Sir Trevor Jones in many of the projects that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is preposterous. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, as leader of the city council, Sir Trevor co-operated fully with him in trying to make such projects happen. It is precisely because vie want to co-operate with the Government that I spoke in the terms that I did.
    Mr. Heseltine: Sir Trevor, whom I know well, was known as "Jones the Vote" in the context of his management of Liverpool because he was perceived to be favouring Liberal parts of the city by moving public resources in their direction. Consequently, significant parts of the Labour party became increasingly indignant, reacting to what was regarded as the Liberal manipulation of the city's finances. Moreover, if all these ideas were brought into existence when the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was chairman of the housing committee, it is surprising that it was the middle of the 1980s before I was able to go and see the projects happening. Times had moved on by then. The fact is that, effectively, the ideas came to fruition under a Conservative Administration.
    Sir Cyril Smith: I am bound to say to the Secretary of State that his speech does not do him justice. I am sorry to say that, but I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman would make a constructive contribution. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Conservative Government, and only the Conservative Government have done all these marvellous things for Liverpool. Can he tell me why the people of Liverpool do not believe him and why there are only two Conservative councillors in the whole of Liverpool?
    Mr. Heseltine: The Conservative party holds seats all round the conurbation because people have witnessed the remarkable efforts that we have made for Liverpool. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development holds her constituency of Wallasey can by no means be dissociated from the fact that the people there can see just how much we have done to help that area of Liverpool.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bristol, too, hundreds of acres have lain derelict and semi-derelict for 20-plus years and that, when a development corporation has come in to do something about that, the Labour and Liberal parties have fought the proposals tooth and nail?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The characteristic posture of Labour and Liberal authorities has been to resist until they see Conservative schemes work, yet Opposition Members then stand up in the House and try to suggest that they should have come faster. We had a classic example from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill today. There were no signs of significant revival in Liverpool when the Liberals ran the city.
    Matters got a lot worse under the Labour party, to which I shall come in a few minutes—I have never suggested that the Liberals were as bad as the Labour party. The Liberals are just halfway down the track, engaging in "me too-ism" and populism carried to extremes. As long as there is trouble to be made, the Liberals will make it, but if they think that there is gain to be had by appearing to support someone, they will do that instead.
    Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend referred to Trevor Jones. Would he be surprised to know that, just as Sir Trevor Jones was fighting for his very political existence on Liverpool city council against the Militants, the Liberal leader of Medina borough council was actively helping Militant Tendency on the Isle of Wight, whose members picketed my constituency association and my house? Today, that gentleman—who in 1987 helped the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) with his campaign—is the assistant to the chief executive of Liverpool city council.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend asked me in the simplest language whether I would be surprised to know. Of course I would not, because that is exactly what one expects to find in the Labour party. If the Militants are an asset and a help—if there is not too much of a spotlight on their activities—there is no attempt to stop them. The only time when Militants are unwelcome in the Labour party is when there is a spotlight on their activities. Otherwise, they are gathered in, encouraged, nominated and pushed up the ladder of preferment and their endeavours are thoroughly welcomed. It is only when the going gets rough and the spotlight of public opinion is focused on them that the Labour party tries to bury them under the carpet or push them on to the sidelines. It will not fool anyone listening to the debate today, any more than it will fool the country at large.
    The great argument behind which the hon. Member for Mossley Hill hid—I have not the slightest doubt that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will also seek to draw it to the attention of the House—is couched in the magic language of cuts. All the way through the 1980s, we heard that language. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been mentioned."] Perhaps not in today's debate, but in their general language, the Labour and Liberal parties in the city of Liverpool have implicitly argued for more money and asked, "Why are you cutting our resources?"
    It is interesting to examine that assertion. I do not know how anybody can tell me that there have been cuts, given that in 1979, when the Liberals were in charge of Liverpool the transport and construction department employed 2,262 people, whereas today it employs 2,421. That does not sound to me like much of a cut. I do not remember the hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioning any attempt that the Liberals had made to reduce the number of people directly employed by the council.
    Mr. Alton: As a result of the policies pursued by my colleagues during the years when they were in control, not a single person was made compulsorily redundant but the number of jobs was reduced by 5,000 by natural wastage.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman would need to substantiate his assertion that 5,000 fewer people were employed by the city of Liverpool as a result of decisions taken by the Liberal administration. I have the figures here, and they make interesting reading. For example, 1,401 people employed in recreation in 1979 became 2,044 people under the present administration. The figure for refuse collection was 640 in 1979 but is now up to 747. All the figures relate to a period during which the population of Liverpool fell by 14·6 per cent. The general reduction in overall manpower employed by the authority was only 5·6 per cent. The dramatic reductions and cutting about which we have heard so much have simply not taken place.
    The important point that has been revealed by the confrontation taking place in Liverpool is that there is another Conservative lesson to be learned. We said that cuts in service delivery were not necessary and that, by efficiency, it was possible to achieve the standards of service that were appropriate, and at a better price. We have said that year after year. When the contract for refuse collection was put out to tender the other day the outside private sector contract was for £3·9 million. The internal price quoted was £7·9 million. If one extrapolated from those figures across the equivalent departments within the city authority, something of the order of £10 million would be saved by putting the tasks out to the private sector. If the Liberals or Labour had done that in 1979, they would by now have saved the hapless citizens of Liverpool £50 million.
    Let me give an example of the approach that is adopted. In 1989, 30 per cent. of the ground maintenance work was put out to tender. A contractor put in a bid for £1·5 million; the in-house bid was £3 million. The city council, this time under Labour, wanted to award the contract to the in-house team. It took a Conservative Government to step in and say, "No; if we are to have value for money, the contract must go to the private sector." The process now involves competition.
    And so it goes on. If only Labour and the Liberals used the techniques that they admire occasionally and in retrospect, they would be able to make significant economies. Improvements could be made throughout the country: obvious advantages would be derived if some £2·5 billion-worth of work were put out to compulsory tender, as national economies amounting to perhaps £150 million could be made annually.
    Mr. Wareing: I have listened with interest to what the right Gentleman has said about past administrations. Is he not aware that for 110 years Liverpool was run by the Conservatives? Why did not the Conservative authority that was in charge between 1967 and 1972 do all those marvellous things?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware that the city council's employment figures were significantly lower in those days than they were later. Remorseless increases after that time led to the scale of overmanning that we are now discussing.
    Mr. Alton: I do not want the Secretary of State to mislead the House unwittingly. Is he aware that my
    710
    colleagues in Liverpool have consistently pursued a policy of allowing competitive tendering? A whole 10 years ago they sought to privatise the bin service; however, there was never a political majority. The electoral system that the right hon. Gentleman defends allowed a Militant administration to exercise power for a long time, although it had received a minority of the votes.
    Mr. Heseltine: It is the old Liberal story: "We always tried, but we always failed"—except in the last few days. At last, the Labour authority has decided to try to achieve the necessary economies. We now see the Liberals and the broad left in the same lobby, voting down the Labour majority. There is a deficit of more than £1 million in the city's account. The Liberal party is facing both ways, always trying to win, regardless of the argument. The attitude taken by Liberal Members today is indefensible.
    Mr. Chris Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the occasion when, on 6 July 1987, the Liberals opposed compulsory competitive tendering during our debate on the Local Government Bill? Have they forgotten that?
    Mr. Heseltine: I must be frank: I had forgotten it myself and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me. I am not at all surprised; that is exactly what I would expect the Liberals to do. We have heard today how they tried to get the bin men to behave differently and to introduce compulsory competitive tendering. They would have loved to have kept the bills down, they say. But, when the Tories introduce legislation, they vote against it. That is the Liberal party for you.
    I do not think that we need detain the House much longer by discussing the preposterous hypocrisy of the Liberal motion. Let me now say a word about the Labour party.
    There is no doubt that—within the disciplines that we have long urged and the constraints that financial rectitude has forced us to impose—some interesting schemes are emerging in Liverpool city council, based on Tory philosophy and experience. The Government will consider those schemes seriously, because they are a response to our initiatives. They are designed to help the citizens of Liverpool and to restore its morale. We are confident that they are capable of succeeding, because we proved throughout the 1980s—with earlier experiments—that that was possible.
    The Labour party's problem is historic: it is actually two separate parties, and always has been. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Margaret and Ted?"] Hon. Gentlemen may be talking about two different views on a specific issue. I am talking about a party that is split from top to bottom. On one side is what, on its better days, is called the moderate wing; on the other is the extremist wing. That problem is illustrated most clearly in Liverpool, where councillors, Members of Parliament and members of the trade union movement—in fact, the whole edifice of the left—are encapsulated in the current divisive, bitter row.
    Mr. David Winnick rose—
    Mr. Tony Banks rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I will not give way.
    All that was to the immense detriment of the citizens of Liverpool. Those people are not concerned with services,

    711
    or with the quality of life that Liverpool's citizens are entitled to expect; the row is about the power base of those who have secured within the structure of the Labour party —and no protests were made as they climbed the ladder of opportunity—the ability to hold a society to ransom.
    Every time that Labour secures power, that divide forces it to pay a price to its extreme wing. Everyone knows that, if the Labour party ever crossed the Floor of the House to sit on the Government Benches, there would be enough members of that extreme wing to extract the price that is now being extracted from the hapless citizens of Liverpool. It is because Liverpool has demonstrated that Labour is not fit to govern there, any more than it is fit to govern Lambeth or a dozen other authorities, that I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the amendment.
    4.54 pm
    Mr. David Blunkett: The Secretary of State, who proclaims his care and love for Liverpool, has made an amusing and combative speech, but has offered nothing to help the people of Liverpool in the years ahead. On what amounts to a tragic afternoon for Liverpool, the right hon. Gentleman has joined the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) in a knocking job—not lifting the morale of Liverpool or praising those who are tackling the real issues and problems, but engaging in a sordid and petty debate in which scoring points is much more important than putting the people of Liverpool first. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Sheffield?"] This is an own goal for the Liberals. It is a tragic afternoon for the people of Sheffield—[Laughter.] I mean the people of Liverpool. I was distracted by Conservative Members shouting, "What about Sheffield?".
    This is the difference between those baying Conservative Members and me: I have had to run a city and they have not. In Liverpool, we are supporting people who are trying to do their jobs. We are not criticising, carping and sniping from the sidelines; nor have we done what the hon. Member for Mossley Hill did—we have not raised the issue during The Prime Minister's Questions, enabling the Prime Minister to criticise the city and its leadership. We are trying to do something about the problems. The motion calls for the "broadly based government" that the Liberal party believes in. Liverpool had that between 1973 and 1983.
    Mr. Hayward: The hon. Gentleman has just quoted from the Liberal motion. If he is so certain that Labour has the solution to Liverpool's problems—and, after all, it is in control of the city—why did not the Labour party table a motion or an amendment?
    Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is traditional for the official Opposition not to table amendments in circumstances of this kind. He will see that if he looks at the record. The motion refers to the restoration of basic services. The only people who tried were members of the official Labour group leadership.
    I will enlighten the Secretary of State about the positive contribution made by his colleagues, by recalling the disgraceful statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for unemployment, who had the gall to call for legal action by Liverpool city council, knowing that the refuse collection workers were to meet this morning to consider
    712
    returning to work. That act was one of inept irresponsibility, and was typical of the way that the Government have performed in recent weeks. Not a word of support, help or encouragement, or any suggestion of financial aid—only sniping and criticism.
    Mr. Keith Mans: If the present so-called moderate Labour leadership of Liverpool city council is so responsible, why did it take three weeks to do something about the rubbish? Why did it do nothing about the piles of refuse that piled up in the streets in the first place?
    Mr. Blunkett: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about what is happening in Liverpool, he would know that invitations to tender for the refuse collection service went out, and tenders were received, but that last Wednesday was the earliest opportuntiy that the council had to consider them.
    Mr. Mans: That is not true.
    Mr. Blunkett: It is true. I hope that any right hon. or hon. Member who contributes to the debate, either from a sedentary position or while standing in their place, will address themselves accurately and with some understanding to the issues confronting Liverpool.
    The crisis faced by Liverpool is unprecedented in any major British or European urban area. Over the past 50 years, Liverpool has lost over half its population—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It appears that Conservative Members are not concerned about the quality of this debate or about any proper analysis, but only want to make carping, baying criticisms. That is not in the interests of the people of Liverpool, about whom the House should be concerned. Liverpool's population has dropped by over half in the past 50 years, due to a major decline in the commercial heart of the city and its trading position. We all know that.
    In view of the silly remarks that have been made, I am minded to comment that the one thing that Liverpool and the Tory party have in common is that they both face away from Europe. That has been Liverpool's problem. In facing away from Europe, Liverpool suffered more substantial damage than any other British city. The decline of the port, the 50,000 jobs lost over the last 10 years, and the fall of 450,000 in Liverpool's population over the past 50 years all contributed significantly to the city council's problems during the last two or three decades.
    The city bosses, for whom the Labour party does take responsibility, made their own contribution to that decline, because—as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)— throughout the 1950s and 1960s, they failed to notice what was happening and to take appropriate action.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it not interesting that the Secretary of State's empty rhetoric did not address the fact that there is not one Tory Liverpool Member of Parliament, and there has not been for some years? The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the Tory candidate in the Walton by-election will get only a derisory vote. If the Labour party in Liverpool is so wicked, why do the Tories do so badly there?
    Sir Cyril Smith: They have only two councillors out of 91.
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) chips in to point out that the Tories have only two councillors out of 91 in Liverpool, and my hon. Friend the

    713
    Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) reminds us that they have no Members of Parliament there. The public vote for those whom they believe can do the job—and the people of Liverpool have certainly reached the conclusion that the Conservative party cannot do the job.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Blunkett: I will in a moment, but I want to make progress. I was about to get round to the Liberal party, and I would hate the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) to intrude.
    Until this afternoon, I had judged that the one thing that Militant and the Liberal party did not have in common was their organisation and their behaviour. However, the hon. Member for Mossley Hill told the House this afternoon that he was threatened with expulsion from the Liberal party—and, by implication, that he was intimidated—for taking a particular stand on an issue that he thought was important to the integrity of his area. I commend him for that. However, Militant and the Liberal party have more than that in common.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: They supported similar policies.
    Mr. Blunkett: They did. They both practised populism, without winning, or having access to, the means to deliver the goods. They both failed to tackle the long-term problems of the restructuring of the city council, reorganisation of education, and the often inept management and industrial relations. They even failed to tackle refuse collection.
    Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, for the last eight years, Labour has enjoyed a majority on Liverpool city council, and that at no time during the past 20 years have the Liberals enjoyed a majority? At every turn, we have relied on co-operation—and the one thing that has never been on offer from the Labour group, which it rejected as recently as last year, is political partnership in the city. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he now commits the Labour party in Liverpool to working with the Liberal Democrats?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is very difficult to work with the Liberal Democrats on a positive basis, as we saw last Wednesday. The Secretary of State was right when he said that, on three separate occasions, in respect of major budgetary items, the Liberals decided not to go along with the reality of decisions for which they voted last March. It was not the first time, because, as I shall spell out in a moment, the Liberals' record when they had access to power does not bear close examination.
    Someone who has a greater knowledge of Liverpool than I do, Michael Parkinson, director of the centre for urban studies at Liverpool university, contributed substantially—as the Secretary of State knows—to chapter 4 of the Widdicombe report. Anyone interested in the history of Liverpool should read his evidence to the committee, because it is very enlightening. I spent a wonderful weekend re-reading it.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
    Mr. Blunkett: No, not at the moment.
    Mr. Parkinson stated:
    "The Liberals were never able to reorganise the inefficiency and poor management of the direct labour organisation … Similarly, the Liberals were unable to reorganise the expensive and inefficient refuse collection service."
    I admit that the Liberals tried privatisation at one point, but they failed to ensure—as other councils throughout the country, including my own, did ensure—that the quality and delivery of services was at the top of their agenda, and that, instead of a service being exploited by the private sector, it could be exploited for the benefit of the people for whom it was designed. That is the record of Labour in power.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman explained why his party cannot work with the Liberals. Is that why, previously, he has consistently been against expelling Militant members from the Labour party—because he finds them easier and more convenient to work with?
    Mr. Blunkett: Apart from the fact that the question is irrelevant, the hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong. I cannot be pilloried as the class traitor of the month in Labour Briefing, and then told that I have not expelled any Militants. I made a judgment according to the constitution of the Labour party and the evidence presented. In the case of Derek Hatton and Mr. Lowes, my view—it was not shared by everybody—was that they were members of Militant, so I voted to expel them from my party five and a half years ago. Next time that the hon. Gentleman feels like opening his mouth, I suggest that first he connects it to his brain.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman clearly said that I was making up my remarks about him being—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. That is a point of frustration, not a point of order.
    Mr. Blunkett: I have been diverted from the central feature of the afternoon, which is the comparison between the Liberal Democrats and Militant. Both engage in deficit budgeting. In 1983, it was the Liberals, in their last effort at budgeting before there was an overall Labour majority in Liverpool, who left a £6 million deficit with unspecified cuts—exactly the position that they refused to face last Wednesday when dealing with this year's budget for Liverpool.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady, like the widow's mite, is so persistent that I think I shall let her have her say.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that Liverpool would have far fewer problems if it did not just bother about its rubbish—a bad enough problem—but collected its rent arrears, which amount to 26 per cent.? Is it not obvious to the ordinary unbiased voter that Labour in Liverpool is bribing people to vote for it by putting them in council houses and then saying that it will not collect the rents?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am endeavouring to deal with the motion before us and the person who moved it—the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, a former chairman of housing in Liverpool. Between 1979 and 1983, the rent for a two-bedroomed high-rise flat rose by 130 per cent.—yet

    715
    the Liberals' only pledge was to dismantle council homes. They did not want to house people or to repair homes, as the hon. Gentleman earlier tried to pretend. The Liberals cut millions of pounds from the repair budget. They wanted to dismantle municipal housing and redistribute the social structure of Liverpool to gain votes for their party.
    Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman has made an extraordinary comment. Was it not the Labour party in Liverpool which, in 1972, built a council estate called Neverley and which, 12 years later—having created those terrible municipal bantustans, ripped the heart out of the city of Liverpool and shanghaied people to places where they did not want to go—was the party responsible for the demolition of that estate, with 48 years of debt charges still to be paid? Will not the the people of Liverpool be paying those charges almost into perpetuity because of the Labour party's mistake?
    Mr. Blunkett: I would be a great deal more sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's view if, when he was chairman of housing, he had genuinely tackled the disrepair, the decay and the legacy of earlier years—but he did not.
    Both Militant and the Liberal Democrats have one thing in common—their biggest and most important issue is not delivering services, but attacking the Labour party and its stand for honesty, decency, efficiency and quality of service for the people of Liverpool. That is what the Labour party is endeavouring to achieve.
    Mr. Sayeed: It has clearly been shown that, when direct labour organisations are abolished and private contractors brought in to do house and other repairs, those repairs are done more efficiently and cheaply. Why is the Labour party against compulsory competitive tendering?
    Mr. Blunkett: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Only 5 per cent. of public contracts won under competitive tendering have been challenged or have run into difficulties, whereas one in four private sector contracts have had major difficulties—including those in well-known left-wing boroughs such as Bromley and counties such as Norfolk, which have had to sack the private contractors cleaning schools because of their sheer incompetence.
    I want to put on record the fact that Onyx and private sector refuse collection are on trial in Liverpool. Onyx had better deliver the goods for the people of Liverpool, because we shall judge it just as the Secretary of State has tried to judge municipal services—by the incompetence of the organisation undertaking the refuse collection. A comparison can be made, and we will be able to see what the private sector can or cannot achieve. Anybody can provide a cheaper service, but it is a different matter when it comes to delivering quality of service for the money paid. That is why we want not to knock Liverpool today, but to examine why it has found itself in this position.
    Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the article in The Independent on 28 July last year, in which Councillor Keva Coombes, then leader of Liverpool council, said:
    "No one has ever been sacked for not doing their job properly, but nor do they get promoted for doing it well. If you come in as an 18-year-old housing clerk in a housing department, you will retire as one."
    716
    That has been the mentality in Liverpool. No one was promoted for doing a good job and, as a consequence, there was no incentive, so the service was rotten. That is what is wrong with Labour in Liverpool.
    Mr. Blunkett: I regret that Keva Coombes felt unable last Wednesday to support his official Labour colleagues in facing those difficulties. Jobs for life have applied under Conservative, Labour and Liberal authorities, and it is wrong that that was assumed to be right for the local people.
    I want to take the House back to the 1970s, and to the last time that the then Labour Government had the opportunity directly to help Liverpool city council. In 1975, Liverpool's rate support grant was increased by a staggering £21 million, the biggest—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members think for a moment about the actual spending power of that money at that time, they will appreciate my argument. It was the largest ever increase —admittedly, consequent to the Houghton commit tee report—and part of a £46 million increase in rate support grant for Liverpool under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979.
    That £21 million was squandered by the Liberal leadership. Instead of investing it in services, improved competence and efficiency, in helping to restructure a city under pressure, and in helping with its economy, education and training, the Liberals that year cut the rate by 1p in the pound. Subsequently, they voted against Labour budgets by cutting the proposed rate increase by a half in 1977–78 and by a third in 1978–79.
    Labour made only one budget between 1973 and 1983, and that was in 1980. It was a responsible budget but, ironically, an amendment was tabled to it and it was voted against by a councillor who was later to become infamous —a Mr. Derek Hatton. He and eight of his colleagues tabled an amendment for a deficit budget, a strategy that they pursued right up until 1985, when the Labour party took action against a policy to which it had never adhered. If the Labour party made a mistake, it was not to take action against him and his eight colleagues at the time for breaching Labour party policy.
    The significance of the period 1973 to 1979 under the Liberals is that the incoming Conservative Government—the Secretary of State knows all about this—used the 1978–79 budget year as the baseline for both capital and revenue expenditure in terms of how much the city of Liverpool and other councils were to get. The Liberals had reduced expenditure by more than any other authority in Britain. They concentrated on reducing the rates arid pushing up charges, but that was without the increases in efficiency which, we are told, are consequential when such measures are taken.
    The Liberals tell us with pride that 5,000 council jobs were cut during the 10 years that they were in power. Apart from the fact that Liverpool city council suffered from the baseline being so low and the enormous rates increase in 1980, that placed Militant Tendency in an ideal position to take advantage of the circumstances—which it duly did.
    Mr. Alton: The hon. Gentleman is again in danger of misleading the House, unless he admits that Liverpool has been controlled by the Labour party during the last eight years. It has had an absolute majority on the city council. If rents had been increased, instead of being kept down during the whole of that period, with ultimately disastrous

    717
    consequences, and if natural wastage—the policy that he criticised a few moments ago—had been pursued throughout those years, does he not agree that the council would not have had to make a single person compulsorily redundant?
    Mr. Blunkett: It is not a question of losing jobs but of using people effectively. To redeploy, retrain and redirect people, using their skills, is something that every hon. Member should be proud to do, instead of taking pride in cutting jobs. When facing necessity, one has no choice. To face reality—to have the courage to do things, if need be, that one does not wish to do—is exactly what the Labour party in Liverpool is doing. The hon. Gentleman attempts to divert my attention from what the Liberals did, and the fact that, in the 1980s, the city council faced that appalling situation.
    The Labour party's first budget was in 1984. After years of brinkmanship, when rates had not been set until the very edge of the financial year, the rates were not made in 1984 until well into the new financial year. No agreement on a budget could be reached by 25 April. On 17 May, well into the financial year, the Secretary of State agreed to meet the leaders of Liverpool city council. This is crucial as to who is right and who is wrong about the Liverpool legacy.
    Between 1973 and 1984, the Labour party prepared only one budget—in 1980—which was attacked by Militant Tendency. In 1984, the budget was eventually made in June, after agreement had been reached with the then Secretary of State for the Environment, after money had been allocated by the Department of the Environment for the housing and urban programme, after an investigation had taken place by civil servants into the city council's budget, and after the Department of the Environment had suggested a 37 to 71 per cent. rates increase. It was not a Militant budget. It was not even a Labour budget. It was an agreed Department of the Environment budget that saved the city from collapse in 1984.
    In 1985, much against its will because it was still adhering to a deficit budget, the city council was involved in that delayed rate-making policy. Not surprisingly, people felt that, as the Government had given way the previous year all the way through till June, there was just a chance that the Secretary of State would give way again, provide resources and back off rate capping in 1985. We were wrong. The Secretary of State did not give way again. The miners' dispute collapsed. Liverpool city council was left under Militant's directon throughout the autumn of 1985. At that point, the Labour party nationally took a hand and intervened.—[Interruption.] A Conservative Member shouts, "Which you opposed." I shall return to that point in a minute. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Terry Dicks: Given that Eric Heffer was, if nothing else, a man of socialist principle, will the hon. Gentleman explain why Eric Heller walked out of the Labour party conference when the leader of the Labour party was speaking? Was it because he believed that the Labour party in Liverpool—not Militant—was being badly treated by the present
    718
    leadership? Is that why that man of principle walked out when his leader was speaking at the Labour party conference?
    Mr. Blunkett: To refer to the actions of the former Member of Parliament for Liverpool, Walton is not in good taste; nor does it help this debate. We know why the former Member of Parliament for Walton did what he did —because he felt so upset about what was happening to his city.
    I want to end by taking head on the remark of the Conservative Member who said that the Labour party nationally intervened against my will in 1985. As was the case with the Secretary of State, I was a visitor to Liverpool. I knew what the situation was, and I examined its budget. The decision was taken to instruct the Labour party in Liverpool to balance the books. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and the then leader of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Sir John Layden, wrote to all members and enclosed a report that I had written, extracted from the Stonefrost committee's report.
    I looked it up this weekend. That is why I am so interested in the silly and inept intervention by that Conservative Member. I said:
    "A failure now to meet the responsibilities of the council to the people of Liverpool would not only be insane"—
    I appreciate that these are strong words—
    "but a deliberate sabotage of the whole Labour movement."
    I do not know where that Conservative Member got the idea that I had not supported that effort, but he may well have to eat his words.
    Last Thursday, an appeal was made by the three Church leaders in Liverpool—Archbishop Worlock, Bishop Sheppard and the Free Church Moderator, Dr. John Newton. They asked everyone to refrain from muck raking and pouring scorn on the people of Liverpool. They were asked on the Radio 4 "PM" programme whether they believed that they were saying "Support Labour". Archbishop Worlock said, "In this instance, it is one and the same thing." They were asked whether they were attacking the Prime Minister. Archbishop Worlock said, "Not just John Major, but Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal leader, who has been to Liverpool in the last few days and has done the same thing." They are sick and tired of people attacking their city. They want wholehearted support for those who are trying to sort out the city's problems. They want to promote the best interests of the people whom they serve.
    Everyone should want to do that—to achieve a better future for the city, to pull together, to have a quality commission that can work directly with the management and councillors of Liverpool so that everything can be put on an even keel, to see that more resources are placed at the disposal of the city to help with its restructuring and to support it in ensuring that its services are delivered effectively. There is only one party that, during the last few months, has been doing that job—the official Labour party. The victory that we shall achieve on 4 July in Walton will provide an important milestone on the way to Liverpool's recovery.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we make further progress, I must tell the House that there is much interest in the debate and that, unless hon. Members make brief speeches, 95 per cent. of them will be disappointed.
    5.29 pm
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: We have had a stimulating debate. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in devastating form. It was amusing to see how the Labour Benches rocked with laughter when he turned his fire on the Liberal Democrats, yet when the boot was on the other foot and he was equally devastating about the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats found that funny. His extremely effective speech was a breath of spring, and he scored a bull's eye.
    In the 1950s and 1960s, Liverpool was a great city. Like many of our sea ports, it had enormous atmosphere. Its buildings looked marvellous and were well maintained. Sadly, today, that once great city looks sad, dirty and neglected.
    Many of Liverpool's problems were caused by the decline in industries such as cotton and in transatlantic shipping traffic. However, other parts of the country suffered from the same problems but managed to attract new industries. For example, Glasgow is a west coast port which faces away from the Common Market, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) so disingenuously said of Liverpool. It has experienced the same problems, but it is now one of the jewels in the United Kingdom, showing what can be done if proper attitudes prevail.
    Liverpool's industrial relations record is not good. Many employers must say, "I would like to move to Merseyside or Liverpool, but I will be at the behest of the unions, I will not be able to do the things that I want to do and I will not be able to stimulate new jobs and prosperity."
    Contrary to what the hon. Member for Brightside suggested, Liverpool's failure is due entirely to the Labour council —
    Mr. Eddie Loyden rose—
    Mr. Montgomery: I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the debate.
    It is essential that local government tries to ensure value for money, because the more effective a local council is the better value local residents receive for the money that they contribute. Waste and inefficiency, wherever they occur, are the enemies of good housekeeping. The seal of approval for good housekeeping could not be bestowed on Liverpool city council today. Instead, it has had the misfortune of being called the worst city council in British history. What a commendation that is.
    For most of the past 20 years, Liverpool has been controlled by the Labour party. The Liberal Democrats have never had overall control and the Labour party has been in control. The period has been highlighted by mismanagement, chaos and, as one commentator said in a newspaper last week, corruption. Keva Coombes was leader of the council before being ousted last year by Harry Rimmer. My wife is active in housing circles in the north-west. She is chairman of a housing association, is on the housing corporation and has done much work and met
    720
    many people in Liverpool. She has a high regard for Mr. Rimmer. She said, "He is a decent man, one of the old Labour school."
    Mr. Rimmer has had a difficult time. I saw him on television recently in tears because he had been harassed and threatened by Militants. I wonder what he was doing while Militant flourished in Liverpool.
    Mr. Wareing: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Mr. Rimmer was not a Labour councillor until 1987; before then, he was deputy leader of Merseyside county council—and an excellent one, too.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Other people now in the Labour moderate section sat back and allowed the Militants to take over.
    Since his departure, Keva Coombes has made a series of devastating attacks on his comrades who now dominate Liverpool city council. In Local Government Chronicle on 27 July 1990, he said:
    "We are the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country. All the new building has taken place and been run by a central unit and all despite the housing department. It takes genius—voids gone up, rent arrears soared, [and] the breaking of the law on racial equality."
    In The Independent on 20 July—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) quoted from this article—Mr. Coombes said:
    "The Council's problems are not down to resources. it costs four times more to pick up a piece of litter in Liverpool than it does in other areas. What's more, the people doing these jobs aren't well paid. There's a cycle of low pay, lousy morale and poor productivity."
    On "Newsnight" on 10 August 1990, he said:
    "Tenants get an appalling service, and they know that. I think probably the fundamental cause is, frankly, we've put the interests of the providers of the service, the workforce, above the interests of the tenants."
    Mr. Coombes has also admitted that Liverpool has the highest proportion of empty council properties. I have a copy of the audited accounts for 1989–90, which show that there are almost 6,000 vacant council properties—9 per cent. of the total housing stock. What an indictment that is, and what a prospect for the people on the housing waiting list, most of whom are living in appalling conditions and are desperately anxious to get a home. Those 6,000 properties could be used to provide homes for those needy people. The accounts mention three key problems:
    "the repair work needed prior to reletting; Council policies restricting the number of eligible tenants for certain types of property"
    and the problems of letting certain "difficult to let" properties.
    Revenue is lost by those houses being empty. If tenants were paying rent, that would be extra money into the central fund. I do not suppose that that causes the people who run Liverpool to lose too much sleep, because, as of 9 September 1990, current rent arrears were £16·786 million.
    Mr. Dicks: This is not a Militant council, is it?
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: No.
    The hard-working, honest-to-God tenant will suffer, because the accounts say:
    "This level of arrears is amongst the worst of all local authorities in England and Wales. What is more any further worsening in the level of rent arrears would lead directly to the need for a further rent increase to balance the Housing Revenue Account. Those tenants who are paying would be made to subsidise those who are not."

    721
    Therefore, the hard-working, honest-to-God Liverpool tenant who is paying his dues and doing what is necessary will be penalised in order to bail out those who refuse to pay. In the spring recess, my wife and I went on a trip to Hong Kong—we paid our own way, through a package deal which appeared in the newspapers—whose Government are the largest landlord in the world. Their rent arrears account for 1 per cent. of the total rent due, which is a tremendous achievement. In Liverpool, the figure is 26 per cent. Perhaps Liverpool council should pay to send somebody to Hong Kong to discover the secret of its successful record. That would be money well spent.
    Wherever one looks in Liverpool, the message is the same. Liverpool council has the worst performance of any metropolitan council in collecting the community charge. Although it is in the top 10 for education expenditure per pupil, it is in the bottom 10 for GCSE results. The crunch has come with the dustmen's strike—rubbish has piled up in the streets, reminiscent of Britain in 1979 during the last days of the Labour Government's winter of discontent. It is disgraceful that the system which has operated in Liverpool has meant that job nominations were given to unions completely dominated by Militant. People were allocated jobs by a trade union—what a way to run a city.
    For the past four years, the so-called "moderate" Labour party has been running Liverpool. It left that corrupt system in place and did nothing about it. Is it any wonder that for the past 20 years Liverpool has been losing people at the rate of 10,000 per year? The hon. Member for Brightside referred to the drop in population, and I asked why it had occurred. The hon. Gentleman was scornful, but I believe that one reason for the drop is that people could not afford to stay in Liverpool. The cost of socialism was too much for many of them to endure, and the policies operated by the city administration were distasteful to them.
    Liverpool is a socialist showpiece—rubbish piled up on the streets and boarded-up windows. The honest, decent Liverpudlian must despair at the thought that a once-proud city has been reduced to this. It is a vivid illustration of socialism in action.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Terry Fields: I sat here throughout the introductory contributions. Despite provocation, I did not seek to intervene with questions to those who are not the protectors, but the assailants of Liverpool—the Captain Mainwarings, the ratbag Dad's Army on the Opposition Benches and the Conservative Members, whom we know and love. [Interruption.] I shall not give way. Others may make their speeches as time goes by.
    In the motion and the amendment we are asked to behave with reasonableness and light and to come together, as those who tabled them believe, in the interests of the people of Liverpool. As always, we can expect a sideshow from the Liberals, deflecting attention from the enormous embarrassment of the Government's economic and social policies—all their policies, laid bare before the electorate. Of course, the clowns on the Liberal Benches come along and put up a smokescreen, attacking Liverpool and its city council, which are well used to that.
    722
    We take on all corners, and I do not say that in a conceited way. Conservative Members say, "I taught in Liverpool," or "I went through Liverpool on a bus," but we have lived there all our lives and have seen the conditions of our constituents. We do not need lessons from Tories representing the ruling class and the pink shadows and the blue shadows on the Liberal Benches—the Benches of a party which is also the party of capital—to tell us what is in our best interests.
    Since 1983, in local and general elections, the people of Liverpool have consistently shown that the Tories have no place in Liverpool politics—that they are a back number and a dead letter. The Liberals cry out for proportional representation as a solution to the problems of Liverpool. They have no problems, as we have shown and seen in the past.
    We are asked to attack the trade unions in Liverpool. We are being asked on all sides to sack workers in a city which, on everyone's evaluation, has been impoverished over decades. That has not happened since 1983—it is nothing to do with Hatton, Tony Byrne or any of our comrades. The impoverishment goes back decades and is due to neglect and lack of investment by people represented on the Conservative Benches. That is the reality of Liverpool.
    Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. So that we may judge the quality of the debate, should not the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) make it absolutely clear which party he will support in the by-election?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. There has been no breach of Standing Orders.
    Mr. Fields: The so-called Liberals, so-called Democrats have made much of Labour being in control in Liverpool. Between 1974 and 1983, those people, in tandem with the Tories, were running the city, even though they did not have overall numerical control. There is no mistake about that. Today, the Liberals are crying out about the state of the streets and about the cleansing service. I shall deal in detail later with why the cleansing service is in such a state—[Interruption.]—because of the bizarre policies that they pursue.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fields: The shuddering protestations of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) about the cleansing service—
    Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fields: I said that I would not give way. I shall carry on with my speech.
    Mr. Nicholls rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) say that he will not give way. Perhaps we can now proceed with the debate.
    Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member's point of order is not one of frustration and

    723
    annoyance. If it is something with which the Chair can deal, I shall listen to it; if not, the hon. Member must keep his seat.
    Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear because of the noise. The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to "they". I need to know whether he is referring to the two Labour parties or to the Liberal party.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Broadgreen will make that clear.
    Mr. Fields: The man from the Liberal Democrats talks about the rubbish.
    Mr. Loyden: I realise your difficulties, Madam Deputy Speaker, in dealing with the unruly mob on the Conservative Benches. The debate is supposed to be about the situation in Liverpool. The people of Liverpool are watching what is going on here, and it will confirm our views about Conservative Members. They are treating this debate with discourtesy and a lack of interest. They are making a fun day out of this important issue. I realise your difficulties, Madam Deputy Speaker, but will you please say—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall ensure that whatever hon. Member is speaking, from whichever quarter, is heard. Mr. Terry Fields.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is less than three quarters of an hour to go before the wind-up speeches. I hope that the hon. Member will not waste the time of the House.
    Mr. MacKay: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I hope so.
    Mr. MacKay: Is it not the greatest discourtesy to the House that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) could not be bothered to turn up for the first part of the debate?
    Mr. Loyden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we should cool matters down and get on with the debate. Let us deal with policies rather than personalities.
    Mr. Loyden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was delayed in Liverpool because I was attending meetings there, which have proved to me that they are much more important than the debate here today in terms of searching for a solution to Liverpool's problems.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we may now make some progress.
    Mr. Fields: The collusion about which I spoke is a two-way process—the Tories are deflecting attention from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. They are screaming and shouting about the rubbish in the streets. Referring to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, on 28 November 1987
    The Observer reported:
    724
    "He threw himself into community action. David and his pals had this appalling old mattress which they'd dump in a jigger [a back alley], a fellow student, Mike Storey, recalls."
    Mike Storey is also a Liberal on Liverpool city council. Quoting him, the article continued:
    "'The residents would complain, and David would say, "We'll get on to the council for you." The council would remove the mattress, and the Liberals would get the credit. Then David would reclaim the mattress and dump it somewhere else.'"
    Those are the people who have the cheek and gall to raise this matter. They are the people who have been spoiling the city of Liverpool.
    Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Fields: The Liberals took effective control—
    Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Broadgreen has made it clear to the Chair that he would not give way.
    Mr. Alton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. So that the debate will not proceed further without this being pointed out, may I say that, if comments are made about an hon. Member that are certainly not true, it is normal for him to be given a chance at least to point that out?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: All hon. Members understand that, but it is up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way. I must make it clear that that has nothing to do with the Chair.
    Mr. Fields: I do not believe in being—[HON. MEMBERS: "Democratic."]—disrespectful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    This is an important debate about conditions in a city about which half the people here know nothing, although they created those conditions and the chaos. People in my city are trying to resolve the problems, but all that we get is a pantomime from Conservative Members who have no cognisance of the conditions of our people.
    The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke about the wonderful docks, but again that probably involved exploiting the working class in cities and the dockers. They do not know what they are talking about. My father was a docker; he lived and died on the docks. He worked like a horse and was treated like an animal in the pens by them and their class, so they should not tell us about the docks. They have starved the city of finance and they have created poverty, bad housing conditions and unemployment. Now, almost like voyeurs, they are coming back to the scene of the crime. At the weekend they castigated innocent Liverpool people who are leaving home to look for work in places such as Bournemouth because there is nothing for them in Liverpool.
    The Conservatives boast about investment in Liverpool, but they have crippled the city. That is choice coming from a Government who, only today, are condemned in the financial pages for their running or the economy and the country. The trade gap has widened and two thirds of the Confederation of British Industry is pessimistic about the future because of the Government's economic policies. We can hear them mumbling because it

    725
    is getting through to them. They understand that I know what they are about and which class interests they represent.
    I represent my class proudly, standing up to defend workers and the city of Liverpool. We have defended it against all corners. We fear none of you—you have done all you can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They have done all they can. I am sorry about the parliamentary courtesy, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to be disrespectful to you, but when I see my class enemy face to face, I sometimes lose my cool. I have no intention of insulting you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Investment is at an all-time low. Conservatives tell us that we should be pricing ourselves into jobs, but the very people who are dictating to us what we should be doing are getting 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. increases in their wages and yet they tell us that we are pricing ourselves out of jobs. Our Front Bench had better be listening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—because one of these days I shall perhaps give a key to the solution of the problems of the inflated people who are sponging off and exploiting the working class and creating the conditions experienced by my constituents.
    We live in a society in which, even today, 1 per cent. of the population owns 18 per cent. of the wealth, 10 per cent. of the population, represented by those people on the Conservative Benches, own 50 per cent. of the wealth, and 50 per cent. of the population, represented by members of the Opposition, own only 10 per cent. of the wealth. We shall not solve the problems of Liverpool in this bear garden or through the Liberals and Tories, but through a Labour Government implementing socialist policies with the same enthusiasm as the Prime Minister and his predecessor have represented their class, the money fellows in the City, the Saunderses and all those who are screwing my class. We shall never forgive you for it. [Interruption.] Not your class, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are on our side, I believe.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not involve the Chair in this debate.
    Mr. Fields: I do not seek to embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The decline in the economy has had adverse effects on the city of Liverpool. That has been mentioned time and again. Even my good comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said in Labour Briefing in 1984:
    "The difficulty with the Liverpool situation is that it is unique. Not simply in its financial position, taking over a Liberal budget with a Labour programme, having no reserves or back up funds to survive the coming year, but because Liverpool is a living tribute to private enterprise and Tory policy in the destruction of the economy and industry."
    He went on to say that we should be looking for ways to support the Liverpool councillors in their struggle against the Government as part of an on-going programme by other Labour-controlled authorities to assist and to stand with Liverpool against the Tories.
    I am glad to see that Tory Members are perhaps reading "Liverpool—A City that Dared to Fight", a wonderful example of what a city could do with £20 million from Patrick Jenkin, the then Secretary of State for
    726
    the Environment, to prolong our house-building programme when the Government were attacking every Labour-controlled authority and stopping house-building programmes, just as the Liberal Democrats did in Liverpool during their reign.
    The motion and the amendment attack the trade unions for holding the city to ransom. We live in a city where the council is the largest employer merely because there is no major industry. The docks may be tarted up, but one will not see many redundant dockers' launches lying there. It is the people who have benefited from the Government's economic policies—
    Mr. Robert Hayward: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have a point of order which I hope is genuine.
    Mr. Hayward: Will you confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Labour Whips are so determined to silence the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields)—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What the Whips do is nothing to do with the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the House's time.
    Mr. Fields: We are told that Liverpool is a debt-ridden city because of the policies of Militant and the extremists. That is not true. I take as my source the municipal year book, which compares 1980 and 1990. In fact, Liverpool's debt is less than Manchester's; it is almost equal to that of Leeds and is exceeded by Coventry's. Liverpool's debt is no more or less than that of the majority of local authorities. In an article in the press last week, it was explained clearly that the city treasury is not in hock to the banks—as some people would have us believe—any more than most other local authorities.
    If we are looking for criticism, we do not need the Tories to tell us how to run a sound economy in our city because they bankrupted the country and continue to do so with their economic policies. As comrades who have served on Sefton and other local authorities will confirm, debt is part and parcel of local authorities.
    Redundancies are a crisis for Liverpool. I do not believe that it is right—I say this publicly, as I have already said in Liverpool—that a Labour authority should make people redundant when there are jobs to be done for the council. The reality is that, in Liverpool, there are unfilled vacancies on the work list. Other vacancies are coming up because of natural wastage, and 500 jobs will be found because Liverpool has a licence for cable television and could employ those workers if it wanted to. Unfortunately, we are not getting those jobs—there is support for a programme of redundancies over and above those caused by privatisation of the cleansing services to which, I believe, the Labour party is wholly opposed.
    As I said initially, we are being attacked from all sides, but we shall certainly do our best to defend ourselves. The motion will do nothing to resolve Liverpool's problems. We need a Labour Government elected at the next general election—the sooner the better—as a starting point to regenerate inner-city areas. We must give notice to the incoming Labour Government not to follow the path of the Wilson or Callaghan Administrations, which had to face, on the one hand, the demand of big business and the

    727
    International Monetary Fund and, on the other, the hopes and aspirations of working people which had built up after 13 nightmarish years of Toryism.
    If we are to make any deals, they will not be with those in the City. Let us have our discussions with the working class, the disfranchised, the homeless, the poor, with those who are crippled by the mortgage interest rate and with those small business people who cannot afford to run their factories or to maintain innovative measures. Those people are our wonderful constituency, but we will not control what we do not own. Conservative Members understand that point.
    Our programme for the future is the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, with workers controlling the management and planning for need, not greed. That is the only solution to Liverpool's problems. It is the only solution to the problems of the working class. The clowns on the Conservative Benches have nothing to offer us that would help to solve our problems.
    6 pm
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: If anybody had been under the misapprehension that the Militant Tendency had been driven out of the Labour party, the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) has nailed that lie once and for all. The first thing that one noticed was that the hon. Gentleman did not bother to tell us which Labour candidate he supports in the Walton by-election. That is not surprising, because a whole chapter of the book, "Liverpool—A City that Dared to Fight", by Peter Taaffe and Tony Mulhearn, is devoted to a tribute to the hon. Gentleman. The book quotes the Liverpool Echo of 10 June 1983, which stated:
    "The election of Terry Fields is an embarrassment to members of Labour's National Executive who have tried for months to throw Militant supporters out of the party."
    People from outside Liverpool can learn from that book that the platform on which the hon. Gentleman stood in that election and which he has outlined to the House tonight is exactly the same political programme as is being used now by Lesley Mahmood, the Militant candidate in the by-election—so much so that the slogan that was used by the hon. Member for Broadgreen—"A workers' MP on a worker's wage"—is now being used by Lesley Mahmood on every piece of her campaign literature. It is therefore clear where the hon. Gentleman's sympathies lie and why he did not say who he is supporting.
    However, what is also clear now is why the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) reacted with such anger when I told him that he had previously been against Militants being thrown out of the Labour party. He may like to play the indiarubber man in this debate but, unfortunately for him, these things are on the public record. The Guardian of 2 January 1986 referred to an article that the hon. Gentleman wrote for Tribune, in which he stated:
    "wholesale purges will either destroy us all or suck a broad swathe of the party into a very authoritarian and rigid mould."
    The article continued by stating that Labour should
    "cease the purge mentality which is currently sweeping through the party."
    The hon. Member for Brightside may well have changed his mind, but when it counted—when Militant had to be faced up to—he would not do it, and that is why he was so angry—
    Mr. Blunkett rose—
    Mr. Hughes: I shall not do what I would normally do, Madam Deputy Speaker, and show the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of giving way to him, because he would not do that to me. [Interruption.] He can call names, but he cannot give way—and neither shall I.
    It is four years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] If name calling is not good enough for the hon. Member for Brightside, he should have given way when I asked him to do so.
    Mr. Blunkett: I did.
    Mr. Hughes: It is now four years since the openly avowed Militant Tendency Labour council in Liverpool was forced out—and what has changed? After 100 days, the Liverpool Echo carried out a survey of what had been achieved, concluding that, although there had been some progress, much work remained to be done. In 1989—in fact, almost exactly two years ago today—a report to the finance and strategy committee of Liverpool city council stated:
    "Every effort must be made to ensure committee budgets are contained within the estimates approved."
    It listed all the things that needed to be done to keep the budget under control.
    Four years later, so little has changed that we are still hearing the same rhetoric from the Labour party—"We will improve if you give us time." But what is the record? One thing about which there has been deep concern in Liverpool is the army of thugs known as "Hatton's private army". We have seen them on "GBH", which is not simply a piece of drama or rhetoric; it shows what actually happened. Has Hatton's private army been abolished? No, it has not. Admittedly, it is on strike, but it still exists in the city. City property is now unprotected, and £5 million-worth of property has either been stolen or destroyed as a consequence.
    As we have heard, Liverpool's debt burden has increased. The council has delayed and agonised over every decision facing it. When the gardening and parks contract was fiddled in an attempt to give it to the direct service organisation—although that would have cost £1 million more—what did the Labour party under Harry Rimmer do? Did it apologise and say, "We will not do this again"? No. It took a deputation to the Secretary of State for the Environment saying, "Can we do the same thing again next year? Can we give the contract to the direct service organisation?"
    Liverpool city council employs more workers per 1,000 population than the authorities in Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds, and, even under its present plans, it intends to continue that trend. The street cleaning contract is due to be reconsidered next January. A paper from the chief executive relating to the policy and resources meeting of 18 June this year stated:
    "The City Council needs to move away from a culture of short termism, crisis management and ad hocery".
    However, the street cleaning contract will have to go out to tender. In a report for a meeting this week, the council states:
    "To date, no formal report has been considered by a City Council Committee on the level of efficiency by the street cleansing DSO, and the likelihood of that DSO being able to successfully compete for its work." Considering the difficult ies that the council has encountered when putting the rubbish collecting contract out to tender and the agony and pain for

    729
    the people of Liverpool, one would have thought that, if the Labour party cared at all about the people of Liverpool, it would have started those discussions already.
    The city council has failed to claim Government grants. We have heard a lot from the hon. Member for Brightside about money that should have been given to the council, but if the council cared about such matters, why has it been so incompetent that it has failed to claim the grant that was available to the city? That is incompetence on a big scale.
    I should like to highlight one thing that I noticed when I visited Liverpool a week ago which shows the attitude of Liverpool's current Labour administration. I refer to the Merseyside trade union, community and unemployed resource centre at 24 Hardman street. It was initially set up by the Trades Union Congress, with TUC funds. However, when the city council—the post-Hatton council that the hon. Member for Brightside tells us is so responsible—had a £51 million deficit in December 1987, it decided to give that centre £0·25 million. The then finance committee chairman, Keith Hackett, an acolyte of Keva Coombes—they both voted last week against contracting out Liverpool's rubbish services—gave assurances that the money would not be used for party or propaganda purposes. The co-ordinator of the centre, Kevin Coyne, who is now a Kinnockite Labour councillor, said:
    "the centre is non party political".
    I invite the press who are covering the Walton by-election in large numbers to visit that centre. Anyone who does so can see that its main or probably sole purpose is the propagation of Labour party policy. It is a propaganda organ of the Labour party in Liverpool. Any visitor would know that, and I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has visited the centre.
    Its library is almost entirely devoted to Labour politics and includes a press cutting section entitled "Thatcher's demise". The language and content of the centre's newsletter, called "Dole Drums", are anti-Tory and pro-Labour. An article about the centre's resident theatre group, the Network, is headed "The Network acting for Socialism"—the centre is meant to be non-political and non-propaganda—and invites a response from
    "people who are talking your sort of politics, or would like to become actively involved in using theatre in the struggle for political change".
    The representatives of the city council on the management committee who approve of what is going on in the centre are Kinnockite Labour Councillors Concepcion and Edwards. The facilities at the centre, which is a large imposing building, are lavish. It has a conference room for 200, a family lounge, a well-equipped theatre and a bar entitled "The Flying Picket". The walls of the centre are covered in socialist memorabilia, including plaques thanking it for supplying pickets for strikes as far away as Dover, and huge displays of material from the miners' strike. A collection in a glass case, with a photograph of Arthur Scargill being arrested, is set out like a religious shrine. Political banners often hang outside. One said "Repeal the 1986 Social Security Act". However, a Conservative councillor—I accept that he was one of only two—put an enforcement order on it and had it removed.
    A job advertisement on one of the notice boards proves that the Labour party in Liverpool still likes to break the
    730
    law. It is for a part-time vacancy at a left-wing bookshop called "News from Nowhere" and advertises for a black woman. That offends against the Race Relations Act 1976, and the Labour party knows it.
    That centre for the unemployed is clearly part of the Labour party's organisation in Liverpool. It is clear throughout Merseyside that such centres are part of that organisation. In Wallasey, the Labour party's campaign at the last election was run from just such a centre.
    Not only Liverpool is infected by Militant, which is alive and thriving. Just two years ago, a £10,000 grant was given to the Anti-Poll Tax Union, a Militant front organisation, voted for by the Labour party. As we have already heard in this debate, there are Militant-supporting Labour Members of Parliament. The mayor of the Wirral was hounded out of the Labour group for supporting ordinary Labour party policy against that of Militant and socialist organisers. That is the so-called cleansed Labour party on Merseyside.
    LIverpool city council has recently made moves to act sensibly, as in the issuing of a rubbish collection contract last week. It issued that contract not because it believed in it, but because it was forced to do so by the district auditor in his damning letter to the council in January. The council has applied to become a housing action trust, which I welcome as it would bring extra resources to the people of Liverpool.
    However, as was confirmed this morning by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) speaking for the Labour candidate in Liverpool, Walton, the Labour party has promised to repeal all those laws. The district auditor's service of the audit commission, competitive tendering laws, housing action trusts—consistently opposed by the Labour party—would all be repealed by a Labour Government. So much for the cleansed Labour party in Liverpool. Labour Members do not mean what they say but simply want the heat to go away, so that Militant can rule again inside the Labour party in Liverpool.
    6.14 pm
    Mr. Robert M. Wareing: I am pleased to take part in this debate, because I am proud of the fact that I was born and bred in Liverpool. I am proud because Liverpool has been, is and will be in the future a great city.
    However, I am surprised at the temerity of the Liberal Democrats in tabling the motion. It is as though all Liverpool's problems stem from the so-called "Hatton period" of Liverpool city council. Liverpool's problems far predate that period.
    I have often referred to the period between 1973 and 1983 as Liverpool city council's sterile years. During those years, the Labour party could not pass a single budget without the support or abstention of one of the opposition parties. Although the Liberals did not have an absolute majority, in 1973, for example, they had 48 of the 99 seats—as near as damn it a majority on the council. The Labour party was in power for most of the time in which the Liberals dominated the city council. Between 1974 and 1979, the Labour Government increased the rate support grant from £63 million to £109 million. One would have expected an improvement and expansion in the services and an improvement in the maintenance of the housing

    731
    stock. Not a bit of it. The increase in rate support grant was used not to extend or even maintain services, but to keep down the rates.
    In 1975–76, when inflation was at 27 per cent., the Liberal party on the city council managed to introduce a 1 per cent. or 1p cut in the rates. What do hon. Members suppose would happen to services if inflation were running at 27 per cent. and revenue were cut by 1 per cent.? The answer is perfectly obvious—the services are held back or cut.
    For example, between 1974 and 1978 housing repairs and maintenance in the city of Liverpool were cut by £2·75 million. Grants to voluntary organisations were slashed. They were cut for the Childs Wooton adult education centre, which catered largely for the black population in Toxteth, and for the Vauxhall law centre. Liberals always tell us about community policies, but they cut the grant to the Neighbourhood Projects group in Liverpool. They closed the Croxteth Lodge old people's home, despite the fact that there was a long waiting list for such accommodation.
    To find the money, they introduced a £4 charge for pensioners' bus passes. Funnily enough, in their propaganda the Liberals said that they did not do that. The "Focus" pamphlet that was pushed through people's doors in the Tuebrook ward in the late 1970s said:
    "Bus pass disgrace. Liberals were horrified when they heard of the proposal to reduce the Rates Increase by asking our Senior Citizens to pay for their Bus Passes."
    They introduced the measure but were horrified. Another "Focus" leaflet that was pushed through people's doors stated:
    "David Alton kicks £4 pass into touch. Moves were recently made to charge pensioners for their bus passes. David Alton was against this move and persuaded Councillors to drop the idea."
    What it did not say was that the idea came from the Liberals on Liverpool city council.
    Mr. Alton: I hope that we are not about to rerun our debates during the Liverpool, Edge Hill by-election, when the hon. Gentleman was my opponent. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are times when we disagree with policies within our own party. Surely he should congratulate me on having been successful on that occasion.
    Mr. Wareing: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was in a minority of one or two in his party. The fact is that his party introduced the idea, and the Labour party and even the Tory party opposed it.
    Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wareing: No, because I have a lot more to say first.
    We have heard about the drop in population in Liverpool and people have made snide comments about people leaving Liverpool because they want to get away from the Labour-run council. Merseyside has a population of 1·25 million people. Many people live outside the boundaries of Liverpool city and are part of the overspill population in places such as Kirkby, Knowsley and Crosby. Some live on the other side of the River Mersey. In almost all the great cities there is a movement away from the centre to the outskirts.
    I am sorry that the Liberal Democrat party has sought to be party political about Liverpool. I am sure that if there were not a by-election in Liverpool, Walton, we should not have had this debate now and the Liberal
    732
    Democrats would not have chosen the same subject. The Archbishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of Liverpool have written to
    "encourage all our fellow-citizens, who have the good of Liverpool and its people at heart … to support the efforts of the City Council to put our house in order."
    They also say:
    "All political parties over the years have had a share in the long decline of Liverpool's prosperity."
    I do not disagree with them. We have all had some responsibility. Why do we not have the humility to accept that there is responsibility on all our shoulders? For God's sake, we must get away from the argument that it is one party's fault.
    The housing problems in Liverpool did not start in the 1980s. On 10 August 1978, when a Labour Government were in power and a Liberal administration ran the city, an article in the Liverpool Echo said:
    "Liverpool 'like a bomb zone' … An all-party delegation of Glasgow District Councillors is 'shocked and Horrified' at Liverpool's council housing."
    Who was chairman of Liverpool's housing committee at the time? None other than the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). For goodness' sake, let us get away from the idea that the Liberal Democrats have no responsibility.
    The hon. Member for Mossley Hill also talked about dismantling the municipal empire. Some 80,000 council houses were to be sold. That was referred to by Ian Craig in the Liverpool Echo as the "sale of the century". A stop was put to council house building in 1979. That was at a time when 16,000 people were on the housing waiting list and 13,000 other people were in inadquate housing in Liverpool. At that time, the Liberal council stopped building council houses. Most of those people were not rich; they were relatively poor and some were very poor. The Liberals stopped building council houses although they built houses for sale. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) referred to that earlier. The low expenditure levels were used by the Secretary of State for the Environment to hold down the assistance given to Liverpool later.
    The Liberal Democrats' hypocrisy continues. Time and again on the city council, they voted with Militant Tendency. Last Wednesday, having voted for Labour's budget, the Liberal Democrats moved a motion negating its proper implementation. They proposed to restore 94 jobs in the housing administration at a cost of £1·25 million, but they did not say how that would be paid for. As a result of Government policies, the housing revenue account is now ring-fenced and cannot be subsidised out of the poll tax. The motion went through on a combined Liberal Democrat and Militant vote. That is the real reason why we had difficulty last week on Liverpool city council.
    The Tories must not think that all was marvellous during Conservative periods of office. I refer to the open letter to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was then Prime Minister, in the Liverpool Daily Post of 11 February 1972. The letter concerned conditions in Liverpool during the last year in which the Tories had control of the city council.
    Mr. David Shaw: They did not have control.
    Mr. Wareing: Yes, they did. They were in the majority in 1972.

    733
    Since 1979, £650 million has been cut from the revenue support grant to Liverpool. The housing investment programme is now far lower than the real value of HIP in 1979. The poll tax-capping threat is one of the immediate causes of the present budget crisis.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment has held the post before. When he talks about partnership, we must ask how much partnership we have had from the Tory Government. What on earth have we had? In 1981, the present Secretary of State came to Liverpool. Many people in Liverpool regard him rather more highly than they do the average Tory Minister, because he saw the city before and after the Toxteth riots. After the riots, he wrote a report for the Cabinet and because somebody said that it took a riot to get him to Toxteth, he entitled the report "It took a riot".
    Before one could say "Jack Robinson", the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the previous Prime Minister, arranged a meeting at which the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) was ordered to stop the report and to stop its implementation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman met the Secretary of State at a restaurant in Marsham street and "It took a riot" never saw the light of day. Instead, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East advised the Prime Minister that they should manage the decline of Liverpool. He called for a "managed decline" of Liverpool.
    It is wrong to say that no council in the Liverpool area was willing to do something. Merseyside county council was abolished by the Government because it had a Labour majority. Conservatives, Liberals and Labour members of the council opposed the abolition. The Merseyside chamber of commerce opposed the abolition. The bishop and the archbishop were opposed to the abolition. The Tory Government have been as extreme as the Hattons of this world. In the past 10 years, Liverpool has suffered from extremism. Thatcherite extremism and Hatton extremism are two sides of the same evil coin. Our city wants no more of it, and that will be the message from the people of Walton on 4 July.
    I deplore the speeches made in the House last Friday by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. How on earth can a Minister, using such prejudiced ideas and making such irrational statements, hold office? I have today written a letter of complaint to the Prime Minister because everyone in Liverpool—Tories, Socialists and Liberals—deplores what the Minister said. He simply regurgitated gossip. He is not fit to remain a Minister, and I have asked the Prime Minister to do what is right. It is disgraceful that a man who expresses such prejudices should be asked to adjudicate in a few days' time on Liverpool's bid. How can he be capable of reasoned thought about what Liverpool proposes when he holds such prejudices?
    Some of us share the responsibility for believing some people on the left wing of the Labour party who said that they were democratic socialists. People in Liverpool have suffered as a result of Militant using Hatton as a recruiting sergeant for its cause. I shed no tears for the beginning of the end of the static security force and the intimidation and problems faced by Liverpool's people.
    734
    Harry Rimmer was my agent when I was first elected in 1983. He is an honest, decent man, and the people who are trying to solve Liverpool's problems are genuine, good people. Heaven knows, they are courageous. They have more guts in their little fingers than the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and the hon. Member for Stroud have in their entire being. The people of Liverpool are in the front line of the battle against extremism.
    Tories tell us that we should get rid of our extremists, but they should take action against the extremists who have determined their policies. The right hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who is now earning her living from making speeches in the United States rather than in the House, are extremists.
    Liverpool has had many achievements to its name over the past few years. I agreed with the first part of the speech by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. However, the improvement at the port predates the abolition of the dock labour scheme. The Mersey barrage started life as an idea when I entered the county council and became chairman of the economic development committee. One of my first actions was to tell my officers that I wanted to see some action on the Dee barrage. They said that that could be difficult because two other county councils were involved. The result was the Mersey barrage.
    Liverpool is proud of itself and it disowns both Thatcherite and Hatton extremists. It has certainly got rid of the Thatcherite extremists because not a single Tory Member represents a Liverpool constituency—nor is there likely to be one. The Hatton period has gone for ever, as the people of Walton will demonstrate on 4 July. If the Tory candidate in Walton wants to save his deposit he must dissociate himself from the speech on Friday by the hon. Member for Salisbury.
    6.33 pm
    Sir Cyril Smith: We have had some good speeches in an interesting debate, which was opened superbly by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who for many years has been the only hon. Member in Liverpool fighting against Militant Tendency. I welcome the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), but it has taken him 20 years to come to them. He made a constructive speech, about which I shall shortly say more. My hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill, who lives in Liverpool, has been tabling motions and has been subjected to phone calls and all sorts of pressure. He has shown great courage in standing up for the people of Liverpool when people in the Labour party were not prepared to do so.
    Mr. Hind: It is important to remember that Militant came to power in Liverpool council via the Labour party. In the autumn of 1985, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) prepared a report dictating what should be done, but it has taken Labour six years to come to its senses and do anything about that. It is to the credit of other parties rather than Labour itself that Labour Members have been brought to their senses.
    Sir Cyril Smith: There is a great deal in what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Many of the quotes used by the hon. Member for West Derby were from the 1970s. When the Government turn

    735
    on the official Opposition, Labour Members say that they have not been in power since 1979 and cannot be blamed for what is happening. However, in arguing against the Liberal Democrats, Labour Members have quoted what happened 19 or 20 years ago.
    I urge the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) to play a full part in the Walton by-election. He will have problems about the part that he should play and deciding which candidate to support. Yesterday, in a television programme in which I took part, an Opposition Member said that any Labour Member who did not support the official Labour candidate would be expelled and dealt with by the national executive. The people of Broadgreen will have to look for another candidate if the hon. Member for Broadgreen does not avoid the cameras that are in place throughout Walton to photograph Labour people who are assisting the wrong candidates so that evidence can be produced at the right time. He will have to shove his leaflets through doors at midnight if he is to survive the pre-selection process.
    I shall not say much about the speech by the hon. Member for Brightside, because there is not much to say about it. It was blurred, and was certainly not the best speech that he has made in the House. The same applies to the disappointing speech by the Secretary of State, much of which dealt with the past. He told us that Tories were marvellous, but failed to say that only Governments have the power to initiative legislation. He asked why we did not introduce legislation, but for years we have not been in a position to do that. His speech did not rise to the occasion.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale delivered a superb, constructive and helpful speech. Undoubtedly, housing, the main point with which my hon. Friend dealt, is a major problem on Merseyside. Perhaps that will allow me to say a word on the vote that took place last Wednesday, about which there has been so much comment.
    The first point that I must make clear is that the 94 jobs involved were not included in the budget agreed with the Liberal Democrat councillors on 10 March. The redundancies were added to the programme at a private meeting attended by five Labour Members, and the two Liberal Democrat members objected to them.
    Are we seriously to he criticised for objecting to the fact that the 94 jobs that were to go included 15 bricklayers, 10 plasterers, 30 plumbers, 24 electricians and 15 painters, at a time when there are 5,000 empty houses in Liverpool, many of which are waiting for repairs? The solution dreamed up by the Labour party was the sacking of the 94 people employed to repair them, most of whom were skilled craftsmen. What sense is there in that?
    It may then be said that that takes £1 million from the budget, but if one quarter of the empty houses in Liverpool were let as a result of the repairs being done, the council would be able to collect in rent the £1 million that would be needed to pay the craftsmen. So I believe that the Liberal Democrat councillors were right on Wednesday. That is why they were supported by the Conservative councillors and by four moderate councillors, as well as by the Militant Tendency.
    The debate has shown the rottenness not only of Militant but of the voting system. I shall not make a long speech about proportional representation, but let me repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill said earlier. In 1991, 56,000 people voted for the Liberal
    736
    Democrats in Liverpool, and 52,000 voted for Labour. As with central Government, the council has been elected on a minority vote, and the consequence is plain for all to see.
    What is the consequence? Never mind 1970 or 1980, what about 1991? What about those kids—I gather in he constituency of the hon. Member for West Derby—
    Mr. Wareing: Not in my constituency.
    Sir Cyril Smith: All right, not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but in Liverpool, these kids were barred from school by glue being put on the gates. Six bully boys were outside trying to stop them going to school. What about the report in this morning's paper about a Labour councillor in Liverpool whose job and person were threatened and who had to lock herself in her office, simply because she voted with the moderate Labour group? All these things happened not in 1973 or 1983 but in 1991.
    We want to know what the Labour group in Liverpool and the Labour party nationally are going to do. What will the trade union movement do? What action will trade union national officers take about situations in which people, under the guise of responsible trade unionists, can threaten people's jobs and try to stop children going to school by putting glue on gates?
    Let me tell the House something else about 1991. It was not the Liberals who borrowed £800 million and are now paying interest charges to Japan, Switzerland and other countries. That was done by Labour councillors, while the national party sat and never said a flipping word to stop it. That is what is wrong with Liverpool today.
    When hon. Members asked my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill about housing, they said nothing, although the Secretary of State did, about the 35,000 houses in Liverpool that were repaired through general improvement grants while the Liberals had some influence in the city. It may be true that we built more houses for sale than for rent but we gave priority to sitting council tenants, and we paid removal expenses and solicitors fees. While it may be true that we did not build as many as we would have liked, it is equally true that, instead of demolishing houses, as your lot were constantly doing, we repaired them—35,000 of them.
    Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you were not responsible for what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) was talking about. I wish that he would refer to real cases.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith) was not referring to me.
    Sir C. Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said "the hon. Member for West Derby". I realise that he is smarting because he never got over my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill licking him in the by-election in Edge Hill.
    There is rottenness in the city of Liverpool. The cancer is still eating away at it. We desperately need a new approach. If the Archbishop and the bishops and the people of the country are as concerned about the city as I believe they are, they should know that the average person in Liverpool is a good, decent, honest hard-working person, who is fed up to the back teeth. If parliamentary conventions did not preclude it, Iwould tell the House what was said to me when I knocked on the door of a house in Walton [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I will go this

    737
    far. The man who answered my knock told me that he had always voted Labour. I asked him. "What do you think about what is happening in Liverpool today?" and he said, "I'm something off." The word began with "P". Actually, it meant that as well. That is indicative of the attitude of the people of Liverpool: they want peace and progress.
    I hope that the archbishop, the bishops, the moderate Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Confederation of British Industry, the trade union leaders and many others in Liverpool can come together around a table to try to get a consensus of opinion on how to make progress. It behoves the Government to encourage that initiative and financially to induce it. That is the only way forward in the long term, as it is the only way that Militant will be defeated, as it deserves to be.
    6.48 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Sir C. Smith), not least because of his lightness of touch and depth of experience, which have added a dimension that would otherwise have been lacking in the debate. I found this a deeply depressing debate. It is not just that it has been an intrusion on private grief, on the squabble between the Liberal and Labour parties. It is far more important than that. We have seen exhibited tonight a deep malaise in the body politic of Liverpool.
    It is my duty and privilege to spend a great deal of time with inner-city communities—communities which represent the rich multiplicity of culture, aspirations and frustrations. I meet many people who have street cred in their communities. They tell me that they know their communities, and they do. They tell me that they represent the views of their communities, and so they do, if sometimes partially. What most of those good people have in common is that they do not belong to political parties and they are not elected councillors. It is the tragedy of many of our inner cities and part of the tragedy of Liverpool.
    In the many years during which I have been involved in politics, and long before I became a Member of this place—certainly when I was fighting the constituency of Holborn and St. Pancras, as it is now described, against the hon. Member who now represents that constituency—I have never been accused by anyone, as far as I am aware, of prejudice. I accept that I have been accused of many other things. That being so, I shall respond to some of the comments that were taken up in the debate last Friday. What a pity that it was such a thinly attended debate.
    If anyone reads my speech in Hansard rather than relying on other sources, he or she might have taken a different view of my remarks. I have responded already to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), but I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House of the words of a Liverpudlian who is living in Bournemouth, as reported in The Daily Mail. Apparently, he said:
    "A hell of a lot more people would live in Liverpool if it hadn't been for the Militant council."
    I accept that that is true. Someone else said:
    "Liverpool is the Third World of England. Who wants to live in a place like that?"
    738
    I believe that the person who said that is entirely wrong. I believe that Liverpool, like so many other great northern cities, has turned the corner. I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, when the history of the 1980s is written, it will be seen to be the decade of turning for Liverpool.
    It is our ambition in government, in partnership with responsible councils, to ensure, through education, training, jobs and quality of life that people do not want to leave our inner cities, and that those who have left them want to return, especially in the north of England. We hope that many others will be attracted to join us and others in building a bright new future for the ancient communities of the inner cities.
    Mr. Wareing: How can the comments that the Minister made during a long speech last Friday help the aim of attracting more investment to Liverpool and more people to live in an extremely good city?
    Mr. Key: As the hon. Gentleman says, my comments were made during a long and serious debate. I was drawing attention to the dismal failure of a council in Liverpool—what I am about to say has been borne out by a quote from the Daily Mail—which has led to people feeling that they were driven out of the city.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have read my hon. Friend's speech. He said categorically in column 639 that Liverpool is "still a great city". What is wrong with that?
    Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is not such a partial observer as Opposition Members.
    I have not enjoyed the nauseous piety of the Liberal Democrats this afternoon and evening. I accept, of course, that the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill reflect long experience of Liverpool, but I believe that the Liberal Democrats are a big part of the problem in the city. It is no good the hon. Member for Mossley Hill blaming everything on the Labour party when we remember the period when the Liberal party, as it then was, was in control of the city, when little happened for so long.
    I welcome the words of Archbishop Worlock, Bishop Sheppard and Dr. Newton. I think that they expressed what was genuinely meant, and that the Churches in Liverpool are playing an extremely positive role in seeking to bring communities together. I hope that the people of Liverpool will respond to the words of the Church leaders.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that Liverpool has been offered no help or hope and has received nothing but carping and baying criticism. He talked of the problem caused by lack of money. I wish to tackle some of the hon. Gentleman's allegations, but first, it must be said that if the Labour party is preparing for government, the hon. Gentleman's defence from the Opposition Front Bench demonstrated what we might expect from a Labour Administration. What a tragedy. It was the worst defence by an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman of the Labour party in opposition that I have witnessed.
    The claim that Liverpool has been starved of resources is a bit thin. The city has received almost £2 billion of support in the past 13 years. During the same period Manchester has received £1·5 billion. That is a city with a

    739
    slightly smaller population. Birmingham, with a population almost twice that of Liverpool's, has received support of about £3 billion over the same period. Proportionately, Liverpool has received a very good deal.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) made a remarkable speech, and I am grateful to him. He put into perspective many of Liverpool's problems. He was, however, partial in quoting Liverpool's problems. He failed to mention the arrears of rates, including business rates, which amount to £37 million. If we add community charge arrears, we reach a grand total of £65 million of arrears. That is entirely due to inefficiency. Think what the grand total of arrears could have achieved, if collected, in helping to regenerate Liverpool.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) made a brave speech. It was the sort of speech that I heard when I was a parliamentary candidate and came to the House to listen to debates. I suppose that, 10 years ago, many speeches were made of the sort that the hon. Gentleman delivered today. I only hope that it falls on stony ground in Liverpool in coming years. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's approach is any longer appropriate, if it ever was, to the politics of a free society.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) took us down the harsh road of the reality of politics in Liverpool. I am grateful to him for his robust contribution. Rent arrears, which have been referred to by several hon. Members, increased the community charge by about £30. That is the consequence if rents are not efficiently collected.
    Housing has featured prominently in the debate. I was pleased to hear that Liverpool city council's housing committee has agreed to the recommendations that appear in two reports. Its acceptance this morning of those recommendations gives us real hope for the future. First, it has agreed that the council's multi-storey tower blocks are potentially suitable for a housing action trust. Who would have thought two years ago that Liverpool would be talking about an HAT? A more detailed feasibility study that includes tenant consultation should now begin. Secondly, it has been agreed that a joint report on identifying the scope for disposal of empty council stock to housing associations and house builders should go forward to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. I understand that the city council and the chairman of the housing corporation will be processing this development. That is good news on the housing front.
    As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, many of the achievements that we have seen in Liverpool are due almost entirely to the Government's policies. Liverpool is one of 15 authorities that have been invited to bid for City Challenge. It has sketched out its initial proposals to my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will be visiting Liverpool in the coming weeks to take that further.
    The government of Liverpool is crucial to the future success of the city. It has been through a long period of decline, but that is coming to an end. The initiatives that were launched at the beginning of the 1980s by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show how success can come to the city. For example, Albert dock attracts over 6 million visitors a year. There has been the creation of the Wavertree technology park and the developments round the Anglican cathedral, which I have seen for myself.
    740
    Despite the successes, progress in rebuilding is not recognised by those outside Liverpool. The city has not yet been able to take advantage of the substantial investments that have been made by the Government.
    The people of Liverpool should look to their history. I tell them this: "You have a great history but you can also have a great future. Your city voted overwhelmingly Conservative in its heyday. What have you gained from years of socialist rule, whether it has been Liberal, Labour or Militant by name? What have you gained but depression and decline over all those years?" All that has gone wrong must be laid at the doors of successive Labour and Liberal administrations. In sharp contrast, so much of what has gone right has been generated by this Conservative Government. Labour is still in hock to the Militants. It is still the party of protest, not the party of government.
    About once a quarter, the Leader of the Opposition stamps his foot. He then tells us that Liverpool is under control. Why should we believe him this time? His party in Liverpool has told us where it stands. The hon. Members for Broadgreen, Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) are too busy to campaign for the official Labour candidate. They are totally united—solid for socialism, mummers for Militant.
    The people of Liverpool are doing a good job. The teachers of Liverpool—
    Mr. James Wallace rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 210.

    Division No. 185]

    [6.59 pm

    AYES

    Alton, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Beith, A. J.

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Bellotti, David

    Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Carr, Michael

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Fearn, Ronald

    Howells, Geraint

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Mr. James Wallace and

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Allason, Rupert

    Bottomley, Peter

    Amess, David

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Amos, Alan

    Bowis, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brazier, Julian

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Bright, Graham

    Ashby, David

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

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Atkins, Robert

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Butler, Chris

    Baldry, Tony

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Carrington, Matthew

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Benyon, W.

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    741

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Cran, James

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Cryer, Bob

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Curry, David

    Mills, Iain

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

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Day, Stephen

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Devlin, Tim

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Dicks, Terry

    Moate, Roger

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Dover, Den

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Dunn, Bob

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Eggar, Tim

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Evennett, David

    Mudd, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

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

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Forman, Nigel

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Forth, Eric

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Norris, Steve

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Freeman, Roger

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    French, Douglas

    Page, Richard

    Fry, Peter

    Paice, James

    Gale, Roger

    Patnick, Irvine

    Gill, Christopher

    Pawsey, James

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Price, Sir David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Raffan, Keith

    Gregory, Conal

    Redwood, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Hague, William

    Riddick, Graham

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Hannam, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Harris, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Hayward, Robert

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Shersby, Michael

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hind, Kenneth

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Speller, Tony

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Squire, Robin

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Irvine, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Jack, Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Jackson, Robert

    Stevens, Lewis

    Janman, Tim

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Jessel, Toby

    Sumberg, David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Summerson, Hugo

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Key, Robert

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Thorne, Neil

    Latham, Michael

    Thurnham, Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Trotter, Neville

    Loyden, Eddie

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Waller, Gary

    Maclean, David

    Watts, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Wells, Bowen

    Madden, Max

    Whitney, Ray

    Mans, Keith

    Widdecombe, Ann

    742

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Yeo, Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Wilshire, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. David Davis.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 23.

    Division No. 186]

    [7.12 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Amess, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Amos, Alan

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Gregory, Conal

    Ashby, David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Hague, William

    Atkins, Robert

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Batiste, Spencer

    Hannam, John

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

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

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Harris, David

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Bottomley, Peter

    Hayward, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Brazier, Julian

    Hind, Kenneth

    Bright, Graham

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

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

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Irvine, Michael

    Burt, Alistair

    Jack, Michael

    Butler, Chris

    Jackson, Robert

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Janman, Tim

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Jessel, Toby

    Carrington, Matthew

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Carttiss, Michael

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Key, Robert

    Chapman, Sydney

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Latham, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Cran, James

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Curry, David

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

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

    Maclean, David

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Day, Stephen

    Mans, Keith

    Devlin, Tim

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Dicks, Terry

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dover, Den

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Dykes, Hugh

    Mills, Iain

    Eggar, Tim

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Moate, Roger

    Evennett, David

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Fallon, Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Forman, Nigel

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Forth, Eric

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Moss, Malcolm

    Freeman, Roger

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    French, Douglas

    Mudd, David

    Fry, Peter

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Gale, Roger

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Nicholls, Patrick

    743

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Stern, Michael

    Norris, Steve

    Stevens, Lewis

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Sumberg, David

    Page, Richard

    Summerson, Hugo

    Paice, James

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Thorne, Neil

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Price, Sir David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Raffan, Keith

    Trotter, Neville

    Redwood, John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Riddick, Graham

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Waller, Gary

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Watts, John

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wells, Bowen

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Whitney, Ray

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wilshire, David

    Shersby, Michael

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wood, Timothy

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Speller, Tony

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Mr. Tim Boswell and

    Squire, Robin

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Steen, Anthony

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Madden, Max

    Beith, A. J.

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Bellotti, David

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Smith, Sir Cyril (Rochdale)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Carr, Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Wallace, James

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

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Howells, Geraint

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Mr. Bob Cryer.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House reaffirms its belief in Liverpool as one of this country's great cities with a proud history and prospects for a secure future; condemns the incompetence, intimidation, waste and subservience to trade union dictation which have characterised successive administrations in Liverpool over the past decade and have caused untold damage to the City and its people; calls for better Government in the City to restore basic services and to pursue policies of fiscal rectitude, decentralised administration, partnership with central Government and private enterprise and consultation with the people of Liverpool; notes the steps taken by the present administration in response to the Government's compulsory competitive tendering legislation to put the interests of its residents first by contracting with a private sector firm for refuse collection; and commends the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for supporting the Conservative policy of fair and open competition in Liverpool, in the knowledge that it is right, but observes with dismay the Labour Party's opposition to it elsewhere in the country.

London Underground Bill
Order read for consideration of Bill, as amended.
Question, That the Bill be now considered, put and agreed to.

London Underground Bill
  New clause 1

    FOR PROTECTION OF JUBILEE GARDENS
    'For the protection of the local community, the tourist industry, the wider community and the public interest the following provisions shall apply and have effect—

    (1) In this section—

    "Jubilee Gardens" means so much of the lands adjoining the River Thames and known as Jubilee Gardens as is shown as part of the land numbered 6 in the London Borough of Lambeth on the deposited plans and shown edged green on the signed plan;

    "the London Residuary Body" means the London Residuary Body established under the provisions of section 57 of the Local Government Act 1985 and includes its successors in title;

    "The Queen's Walk" means so much of the embankment walkway of the River Thames as is shown as part of the land numbered 6 in the London Borough of Lambeth on the deposited plans and shown edged blue on the signed plan;

    "the riverside building" means the building situated on the land shown edged yellow on the signed plan; and

    "the signed plan" means the plan of which five copies were signed by Sir Michael Nuebert, the Chairman of the committee of the House of Commons to whom the Bill for this Act was referred, and deposited respectively—

    (a) in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments, House of Lords;

    (b) in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons;

    (c) at the registered office of the Company;

    (d) at the registered office of the Corporation; and

    (e) with the proper officer of the council of the London Borough of Lambeth.

    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 25 (Temporary possession of land) of this Act the Company shall only enter upon or take possession of that part of Jubilee Gardens hatched black on the signed plan with the exception of that part of Jubilee Gardens hatched black on the signed plan which forms part of the central grass area denoted as Jubilee Gardens and surrounded by a dashed line on the signed plan.

    (3) If theLondon Residuary Body shall at any time have disposed of Jubilee Gardens or any part thereof, the Queen's Walk or any part thereof or the riverside building or any part thereof the expression "successors in title" shall, for the purposes of this section, mean the owner for the time being of the Queen's Walk or any such part thereof and the owner for the time being of the riverside building or any such part thereof.

    (4) In exercising the powers conferred upon them by this Act the Company shall keep to a minimum the extent and period of their possession and use of the remaining part of Jubilee Gardens and shall not in any event, without the consent of the London Residuary Body (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld), remain in possession of Jubilee Gardens for longer than 54 months.

    (5) Before entering upon and taking possession temporarily of Jubilee Gardens the Company shall at their own expense remove all structures thereon (including all architectural, aesthetic and recreational features) to such alternative locations as the London Residuary Body may reasonably require and shall before relinquishing possession of Jubilee Gardens at their own expense ensure that the sarne items are returned to Jubilee Gardens and reinstated to the London Residuary Body's reasonable satisfaction.

    745

    (6) The Company's reinstatement of Jubilee Gardens shall be carried out to a similar standard to that existing prior to their possession of it, subject to the London Residuary Body's specification and their reasonable direction and approval.

    (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 25 (Temporary possession of land) of this Act, the Company shall not enter upon or take possession of any part of the Queen's Walk except so much of the airspace over the Queen's Walk as may be required for the provision of an overhead conveyor.

    (8) Any difference arising between the Company and the London Residuary Body under this section (other than a difference as to the meaning or construction of this section) shall be referred to and settled by arbitration.'. [Miss Hoey.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.24 pm
    Miss Kate Hoey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take amendment No. 2: in page 22, line 18, leave out clause 33.
    Miss Hoey: Let me apologise in advance: I shall probably have to speak for slightly longer than I am accustomed to. Normally, I make a point of speaking briefly, but I feel that the case should be put as fully as possible and placed on record, so that the House of Lords considers the Bill seriously.
    A few things have changed since Second Reading last October. I said then that some of the most significant opposition to the Jubilee line extension was coming from the Waterloo area. As I made clear, however, despite the principled objections that some people advanced to the priority given to that line, a Bill to introduce it had already been decided on, and it was therefore necessary to support the construction of the extension—and to require the construction to take place as quickly as possible, for the benefit of all Londoners.
    I do not think that anyone living in the Waterloo area opposes the Bill as such. What no one seems to have taken into account—although some, including London Underground, have given it more consideration than others—is the effect on the Waterloo area and, in particular, the loss of a unique and special open space in Jubilee gardens.
    Since last October, Jubilee gardens has been declared metropolitan open land—which means, in effect, that it is a green belt. That status will come into effect when the new borough plan is approved next year. It was supported by the London Planning Advisory Committee—a statutory body—by the Royal Fine Art Commission and by a number of other bodies.
    I may not always be regarded as especially knowledgeable about the arts, but I quote from the Royal Fine Art Commission, which says in its letter:
    "the Commission also wishes to encourage London Underground to move the work site required for the Jubilee Line extension back to the southern end of the site."
    I shall explain the details in a moment.
    There has been another change. The Queen's Walk Park Society now has planning permission for the creation of an extended park. That, too, has been supported by the Royal Fine Art Commission, which wrote to the London borough of Lambeth suggesting that this should happen.
    The Department of the Environment's own planning guidance note asked boroughs to identify areas of open
    746
    space with a view to designating them metropolitan open land. The note clearly stated the necessary criteria. First, the area should
    "contribute to the physical structure or character of London by providing attractive breaks in the built up area".
    Surely Jubilee gardens, which is just across the river, falls precisely within that definition.
    Secondly, the area should
    "include open air facilities (especially for leisure, recreation and sport) for the people of the whole or part of London".
    The area marks the end point of the London marathon. Unfortunately, since the London residuary body assumed responsibility, it has been less and less involved in the many riverside events in which thousands of Londoners have been able to participate in the past.
    Thirdly, the area should
    "contain features or landscape of historic, recreational, nature conservation or scientific interest worthy of protection on account of their value nationally or to the whole or part of London. The presumption against development in the Green Belt applies equally to metropolitan open land."
    Jubilee gardens has now been defined as metropolitan open land, following the Department's expressed wish that we should identify such sites.
    I am sorry that the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities is not present. I am not accusing him of staying away deliberately, but I feel that the problem of Jubilee gardens, Waterloo and the underground system is very much in the hands of the Department of the Environment. At this stage, I am not blaming the Department, which wants to see the line built as quickly as possible. The argument of those who want to protect Jubilee gardens is that that can be done without ruining the gardens.
    7.30 pm
    It is not a case of Waterloo residents taking a NIMBY attitude and not wanting any development—they have already seen enormous changes in Waterloo in the form of developments that have affected the whole area, and which have not necessarily been beneficial. One of the arguments made for the Bill, to placate the people of Waterloo, is that it will benefit them—that the new local tube station to be built at Southwark would provide them with a more convenient alternative to Waterloo station. However, many residents already use Waterloo. That facility already exists.
    In common with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who supports me on this issue, I do not oppose the extension or the station at Southwark, but the people of Waterloo have already seen the channel tunnel terminus steamrollered through. No matter how hard British Rail tried to minimise the chaos that work brought to the area, that was difficult to achieve. Work on the Waterloo viaduct has also affected local residents, and the construction of Southwark station will affect the residents of Roupell street and Hatfields.
    Earlier this year, I received this letter from one of my constituents:
    "I live in a street that has been designated as forming the route of the Channel tunnel into Waterloo station. My street has become a building site with holes and heavy machinery everywhere. The pavement on both sides of the road is being dug up, so that my wife and two children have to walk down the middle of an increasingly busy road. This is a disgrace. British Rail have managed to get my narrow street, normally one-way traffic, designated two-way to suit their purposes, and I am genuinely frightened for the safety of my and other local children."

    747
    At least that resident and others have somewhere relatively near—Jubilee gardens—where their children can play, and where their families can have some respite from the chaos in that area. But that alternative will no longer be available if London Underground uses that site.
    A sequence of planning decisions in the Waterloo area have gradually eroded the area of free space while increasing traffic and the other problems that confront an inner city area when large new office blocks are built. The threatened development of the south bank may look very pretty on the drawing board, but it will create huge problems for residents during its construction. There are also new office blocks planned for Waterloo road, Hercules road and Baylis road. Every road in the Waterloo area is being affected in one way or another. Residents now risk their last piece of green space by the river being turned into what can only be described as an urban slag heap for six years—perhaps less—and that is something that they will fight to the very end.
    From the plan—it is a pity that right hon. and hon. Members cannot all have a copy—it is clear that London Underground wanted to take the spoil from the site that we want it to have. There is no disagreement between me and other hon. Members who support the clause and London Underground over that point. The project manager, Russell Black, may hate to be quoted again, but he clearly said that, if the development of county hall did not go ahead, London Underground would prefer that site, which would be in the public interest. None of the calculations has been challenged, and they show that it would cost London Underground £1 million less to use that site. Such a saving may be tiny in comparison with the overall budget, but it would be another advantage of locating the spoil site right up against county hall.
    That site, which is currently used as a small car park, takes only a tiny part of Jubilee gardens. The London residuary body did not want that site to be used because it wished to protect its development plans, at the time when the County Hall Development Group was presenting grandiose proposals to build a hotel, offices, and houses with private gardens—which would also have encroached on Jubilee gardens. That scheme went the rounds of public consultation, but eventually the development company went into liquidation. That is the current terminology, but perhaps "bankruptcy" would be a better word.
    Unless any right hon. or hon. Member has more up-to-date information, my understanding is that no one has put in another bid for county hall, and that it is owned only by the LRB, which is a public body. I understand also that no planning permission has been granted because the last public inquiry has not yet reported. I presume that the inspector's report is now with the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    It was clear from the public inquiry that people did not want the county hall site to be developed into a hotel. Also, my own party and the Liberal Democrats want county hall to be returned to public use at some time—and that commitment will be realised when there is next a Labour Government.
    Meanwhile, if the Secretary of State sees fit to grant planning permission for such a horrendous development, could he not do so on condition that for the first five years the developers allow London Underground access to the site? That seems perfectly reasonable. I hope that the inspector put that option to the Secretary of State for the Environment, and, if so, that will be considered.
    748
    The London residuary body managed to get a protection clause accepted at Committee stage. It not only says, "No way will anyone be allowed near our little bit of county hall, because we want that for our development," but it fails to protect the well-designed playground in the middle of Jubilee gardens—which, despite London Underground's willingness to relocate it, would otherwise be lost. That is why I am keen to see that protection clause deleted—if not today, when the Bill is considered in another place. As soon as the LRB sells the site, the new owner will have the right to get rid of the playground. We need to insert clauses into the Bill to bind a future developer, should there be one, to allowing London Underground access to the site.
    The key to the whole issue is money. London Underground would save £1 million by moving to the site next to county hall. The LRB says that if it is not allowed access to the site for five years it cannot sell county hall for as much money and it would therefore sue London Underground—it said it would take London Underground to the cleaners—for between £50 million and £100 million.
    The building is on sale for £150 million. The LRB is saying that it has a £1 billion scheme, and that if it does not have access to that site it cannot build a car park for 100 cars. I remind the House that at present there is no buyer for county hall. Even if all went well—putting aside questions of a general election, planning permission, the economy and the fact that there are not many developers wanting to buy county hall—no one could live in that riverside building for at least five years. Indeed, the original developers said that no one could live there for at least four years from the day they had access to the site.
    That time scale would fit very neatly with the time scale envisaged in the Bill—which is likely to receive Royal Assent early next year—of four and a half years. Indeed, with no prospective buyers, the redevelopment of county hall may be some time away, if it ever happens. As no developer is currently interested in county hall, none of the original agreements, such as access to Jubilee gardens, can be upheld.
    The question of compensation needs careful consideration. I do not believe the figures suggested by the LRB; it has not done its homework. Indeed, it appears that the Department of the Environment has not really considered the matter. I may be naive, but I feel that as the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and the LRB are public bodies, we are merely talking about the passing of money from one public body to another. It is the LRB's argument that, under our proposal, it would obtain less money for county hall, which would be a cost to the public purse. I do not think that that cost, which is only a book-keeping exercise, would be as high as the LRB maintains—but in any case, we must weigh up that cost against the cost of the loss of a valuable amenity.
    I have already stressed the difficulties for the people of Waterloo, but it goes further than that. Jubilee gardens is one of the last remaining green riverside sites in London. The loss of such a valuable amenity has not been properly considered—and that is without taking into account the saving of £1 million for London Underground. We must remember that it was Londoners who paid for county hall and Jubilee gardens. If there is to be a small loss to the

    749
    public purse so that Jubilee gardens can be kept in public use for six years, I consider that price to be well worth paying.
    7.45 pm
    There were two inquiries into the future of county hall, and I remind the House that the proposed developers at that time no longer exist. Of course, the LRB says that whoever buys county hall will have to adhere exactly to the plans of the original developer. I have not met many developers, but I have yet to meet one—or even an architect—who takes over a project and does not want to make changes. At the inquiries, it was stated that the housing aspect of the county hall development was not financially essential to the scheme. That shows that the LRB, if it gets planning permission, could go ahead with the hotel and the office projects, and not lose any money.
    Everyone involved in the issue—London Underground, the Department of Transport, the people of Waterloo, the Waterloo community development group, the River Thames Society, the Open Spaces Society, the London River Authority and the Ramblers Association —have bent over backwards to be helpful. The only body to come out of the mess really badly is the LRB—yet it is a public body which is supposed to be acting in the interests of Londoners. It is appalling even to think of allowing Jubilee gardens to be bulldozed simply because Government bodies cannot get together to find a solution.
    I am grateful to the Minister for coming recently to look at the site that we support and I am sure that he would agree that all logic and sense point to that being the best site for London Underground. Hon. Members are meant to be working for the interests of the public, and if we cannot find a solution to the problem we will not meet the expectations of those who elected us. I remember a debate when hon. Members on both sides of the House spent hours complaining that their working conditions and other aspects of their lives at Westminster would not be acceptable if the Bill were passed in its original form because of the works in Westminster. London Underground found a way to ensure that the interests of Members of Parliament were not jeopardised, but the people of Waterloo do not have the same ability as Members of Parliament to lobby, pester and throw power punches.
    I urge hon. Members to save Jubilee gardens and thus allow the Bill to proceed as quickly as possible. I have great faith in what will happen in the other place. It will examine wider issues than were considered in the Committee. The Bill will return here in a different form. I hope that this House will adopt a sensible way forward so that petitions will not have to be submitted again. I hope, too, that the Minister will say that he intends to sort something out with the Department of the Environment so that the London residuary body cannot threaten us with a form of blackmail. Public money is involved and the London residuary body is a public body.
    I shall listen to what the Minister has to say before deciding whether to press the new clause to a Division. The House has the opportunity to prevent a repetition of some of the appalling things that have happened in the Waterloo area. We must preserve this green space for Londoners and show that Members of Parliament can make a difference when common sense and reality demonstrate what is the right use for the site.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), who represents the bulk of the Waterloo area. I have an interest in only a small part of it—Southwark and Bermondsey.
    I have two simple and straightforward points to make. First—this is a paradox—the Government believe that it is important for the people of London to walk alongside the river in central London. Tomorrow morning, the Secretary of State for the Environment is coming to my constituency to unveil a plaque to commemorate another part of the Jubilee walkway in London bridge city, just by Tower bridge. Part of the Jubilee walkway passes through Jubilee gardens and goes along that part of the Thames which provides the largest amount of currently available green space adjacent to the river.
    In central London—unlike many other European cities —there is very little green space immediately adjacent to the river. One of the great joys of urban life is the conjunction of green space, open space and water. That is why the Serpentine in Hyde park is so popular. Parks are fine, but parks with water are better. A river is wonderful, but a river with adjacent space where it can be enjoyed at leisure is even better.
    It would be ridiculous if, due to a set of public policy decisions, the people of London had to suffer an intrusion into the largest pocket of remaining green space in central London that is available for the public to enjoy. To suffer that intrusion for a limited period—although for several years—while the work is done and then to be unable to make the maximum use of that space would be madness. If it is impossible, with all the brains, intelligence, public finance and commitment to the railway line, to reconcile the proper interests of the line and public transport, which I support, with the equally proper interests of the environment for those who live, work and wish to spend their leisure time by the river on the Lambeth-Southwark boundary, just opposite the Palace of Westminster, there is something wrong with this nation's decision-making process.
    My second point is linked to the first. In recent years, we have experienced a ridiculous set of events connected with the conjunction of timing of decisions. No better evidence can be found than at Waterloo. We are debating in this House, after which it will go to another place, the timetable for building the Jubilee line—digging holes, taking out the spoil, and so on. At the same time, the London residuary body, which took over the functions of the Greater London council after the Conservative Government decided to abolish it, is planning for the future of county hall. Opposition Members do not agree with its plans.
    As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, we believe that county hall should be retained for the government of London. We are convinced that, sooner or later, there will be government of London at regional level. In the meantime, however, another public body has charge of that building. It has tried to obtain approval for a development plan. However, the ridiculous illogicality is that the developer has gone. Therefore this public body is seeking planning approval for a plan for a developer who has disappeared.
    Even if we accept the bizarre nature of there being a planning application on behalf of a non-existent developer, what is even more illogical is that we are having a debate about Jubilee gardens into which is intruding the

    751
    concern of a non-elected body—the London residuary body—at a time when we do not know what decision will be taken about LRB's planning application for that building. That is madness, too. It is mad that the House of Commons should have to decide what powers to give the promoters—London Underground—when we do not know what the success or failure will be of the latest planning application in relation to LRB's plans for county hall.
    I do not know when the Secretary of State will make his decision. A different Secretary of State—the Secretary of State for the Environment—is in charge. What a way to proceed. It is complete nonsense that the planning of London's transport, its use of open space, its buildings and architecture and its public land use cannot be joined together so that logical decisions can be taken. It will be even bigger nonsense if, despite our efforts, decisions about the Jubilee line and Jubilee gardens have to be taken before we know the outcome of the planning application that has gone for decision, after public inquiry, to the Secretary of State in relation to county hall.
    We in this House may be unable to alter the fact that we shall have to make a decision before the result of the planning application is known. I suspect that any other option is no longer available to us. However, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall rightly said, hon. Members, who are democratically elected to represent people with very real concerns, look now—another paradox of the system—to the unelected members in the other place to protect them. In the meantime, we must just hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will be able to make his decision about county hall in a way that coincides with the decision-making process in relation to the Jubilee line Bill.
    As the hon. Lady said, she and I, her council in Lambeth and mine in Southwark are the representatives of the communities in those boroughs. We want an underground line, but we do not want one if the current proposal means that a muddle will still have to be sorted out. The job of this House is to flag the remaining issues that are still in a muddle and to say to the promoters and to the Government, "For heaven's sake, while trying to regenerate south London by building this useful new line, please do not ruin many other things along its route." One of the most precious things is Jubilee gardens. We must make sure that we do not mess it up for this and future generations.
    Mr. Tom Cox: I support the new clause that has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). Both she and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made the point that all of us with London constituencies—certainly those who represent constituencies in south London, as I do—know how much pleasure Jubilee gardens brings to our constituents and their families. It is a very pleasant area, both during the day and in the evening. We need to preserve such areas. Hon. Members who have been in the House for a while know that, unless we begin to voice our concerns and to receive guarantees about the future of Jubilee gardens, things may happen that neither we nor the people of London would want or support.
    8 pm
    My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall is to be congratulated on moving new clause 1. Subsection (4)—my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr.
    752
    Thorne) may develop this later—refers to Jubilee gardens not remaining in the possession of, I assume, the developers for "longer than 54 months". That is four and a half years, which is a long time. We are entitled to be told the extent of disruption in the area for four and a half years. Are we right in assuming that workings will continue for seven days a week and, if not on a 24-hour, day-by-day basis, will begin early in the morning and continue until late evening?
    What would be the result of such disruption in the area? We already know that Waterloo is a busy area; there is much traffic in the rush hour and throughout the day. How much further disruption would there be as heavy lorries moved the spoil and as other lorries delivered supplies?
    There are a number of shops in the area. What will happen to people who are trying to run a business? Have they been consulted and asked for their views? I remember speaking in the House months ago on the development of Victoria station. Hon. Members asked how much consultation there had been, and it became clear that there had been little. People had not been made aware that workings would continue for a long time, which would disrupt business in the area.
    I should like to know a little more about the cost of the development. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to county hall. I realise that this is not the time to discuss county hall, but the way in which that proposed development has been handled has been a disgrace, and it has fizzled out into nothing. As my hon. Friend said, the Department of the Environment is more involved in the future of county hall than the Department of Transport, but it is time that Members of Parliament, especially those representing London constituencies, were informed of the position and were allowed, in Government time, to make their views known on the future development of county hall.
    I should be interested to hear, if not from the sponsor possibly from the Minister, about the cost not only of compensating prospective developers of county hall but of all the works. Will the costs be borne solely by London Transport, by London Transport and a percentage grant from the Department of Transport or, as we see so often, by a little bit of each, with increased fares that commuters must pay? We are entitled to know something about that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall was right to move the new clause. As she said, she spoke not only for her constituents and people living in the area adjacent to Waterloo but for the people of London, who have enjoyed and who wish to continue to enjoy Jubilee gardens. I am delighted to have the opportunity to support her.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on eloquently putting the case for Jubilee gardens on behalf of her constituents. We are all concerned about open space in London, and the majority of us sympathise with people who must live near the centre and therefore suffer from continuous building works. I know a little about that because, living over the road during the week, I find that, as soon as scaffolding is taken down, more is erected, and banging and crashing starts at 8 am.
    We are concerned to ensure, first, that constituents are not inconvenienced any more than necessary and, secondly, that open space is protected. We particularly appreciate the point that the hon. Lady made about metropolitan open land.

    753
    The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked about the cost. She rightly said that it would be cheaper for the promoters to use the working space that is closer to county hall. She also said that they would run the risk of incurring considerable extra costs in compensation for the subsequent development of county hall. She said that the cost of that could be between £50 million and £100 million. I have also heard that figure, which I believe to be true. That was one of the main reasons why the Committee that considered the Bill was concerned about the possible additional cost to the project.
    The Committee required an undertaking that the area close to county hall be grassed for as long as that land was not required. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, that may be for the duration of the contract—54 months—and the promoters have given the London residuary body an undertaking that the children's playground will be retained. Everybody appreciates the value of that playground and the open space. The hon. Lady's point is taken.
    Ms. Joan Ruddock: I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to move on quite so quickly, so I hope that he will accept this brief intervention. I do not think that, in the circumstances that he described, he meant to imply that the London residuary body was obliged to sue. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that there is no reason to believe that the costs of £50 million or £100 million would accrue.
    We are talking about several public authorities. Surely we are trying to balance the interests of the public and the convenience of Londoners and their recreational facilities with the other interests. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he foresees an absolute risk of this happening, or whether, as my hon. Friend suggested, it could be set aside by the LRB?
    Mr. Thorne: If I may, I shall leave that point for the moment, but I promise to return to it.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that this matter should not be considered before the future of county hall has been determined. The Committee considered that aspect in detail. Most hon. Members would welcome the construction of the Jubilee line, and it would be wrong to delay the work unnecessarily by insisting that no progress was made until a final decison was taken.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to imply that I argued that we should not wait for a decision. I tried to say clearly that, because the Bill has to go to the other place and because we are waiting for a decision by the Secretary of State on another matter, a decision on the planning matter and consideration in detail in the other place could coincide. Before the Bill completes its passage, those two aspects may coincide, and there may be some logic in planning for Jubilee gardens and Waterloo.
    Mr. Thorne: That matter is not in my hands. I do not want to imply that the promoters would be happy if the Department did not make a decision before the Bill reached the other place and if work was therefore held up.
    754
    I accept that it would be to everyone's advantge to know about the future of county hall before a final decision was taken, but I am afraid that no undertaking can be given.
    The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) voiced concern about the future of Jubilee gardens. We want Jubilee gardens to return as quickly as possible to the important role that it now plays. It has a reputation as an excellent space in the centre of the metropolis, and we all regret the need to disturb it. The Committee listened carefully to the arguments and to the proposed alternatives, but in the circumstances we must look forward to the work being carried out as quickly as possible.
    The work will go on around the clock, for five and a half days a week. According to the latest figures, the total cost of the project will be about £1·3 billion. Part of the funding will come from some of those who will benefit from the stations constructed along the route. Negotiations are still taking place. It is difficult to tell the hon. Member for Tooting precisely what the ultimate figure will be, but I assure him that the public Exchequer will do its best to ensure that those who benefit from their property will pay their full share towards the total cost of the project.
    I fully accept that county hall is owned by the public at large. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall that, because it is owned by the public, we can play fast and loose with the funds. I am sure that the hon. Lady did not mean to imply that that is what we should do. It is important to try to keep the public cost as low as possible. If we can sensibly arrange construction by preserving for the public as much of their investment as possible, we should do so.
    There is no requirement on the LRB to demand between £50 million and £100 million, but we must appreciate that it would be fully entitled to do so and that many people would consider that it was its responsibility to do so if the money were owned by the wider public rather than the passengers who will use that section of the route. The residuary body would have that responsibility, and therefore may be pressed to exercise it.
    Miss Hoey: Is not LRB under an obligation to dispose of county hall at what is quoted as the best price that may be "practicably" obtained? I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the question of who does the cost-benefit analysis? Who is weighing up the costs of the loss of Jubilee gardens over that period?
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Thorne: The total costs involved in the project were taken into account over three days by the Committee. Arguments were made, and the Committee went into the matter in great detail. It unanimously agreed that the right solution was that which had been proposed, with an undertaking that the promoters should do their best to provide an alternative to Jubilee gardens for the benefit of the local community. The costings and the detailed cost-benefit analysis were considered in detail over three days. It was an in-depth study. It would not be right for us again to go over the ground that the Committee covered, with the benefit of counsel's opinion. For that reason, the promoters hope that they can rely on the House to maintain the Committee's opinion and to reject the new clause.
    Ms. Ruddock: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. There is a legalistic argument about how, theoretically, the LRB may forgo some moneys because of these works which may, theoretically, affect some sale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss. Hoey) said, there is no sale—there is no buyer, and no planning permission has been given. It is a theoretical and legalistic argument.
    It will be clear to Londoners and to those who are used to using Jubilee gardens, walking by the river and enjoying those amenities, what the loss will be if plans go ahead. One is not comparing like with like. The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the public at large own the area. They will quickly and directly see the loss they will suffer if they lose those amenities. I do not believe that they see the loss that they "may" theoretically suffer by forgoing the moneys that "may" be made on the site if it "were" sold to a developer, who does not exist.
    Mr. Thorne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, but she is misguided in believing that the residents in the area will not have the benefit of their riverside walk. They will still have a riverside walk on the remaining land, although it will not be as large a piece. Whichever half is taken, they will still have the same problem—they will still have less than they have now. They will still, nevertheless, have a garden which has a similar proximity to the river as the present area. On that basis, the House should allow the promoters to go ahead.
    Miss Hoey: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. It is not fair or right to talk about halves. We are talking about a much smaller part of the area that is predominantly not grassed over, which is seen by London Underground as offering the most sensible use of the land. The other part that London Underground will be forced to use by the non-elected LRB is a substantial chunk which takes the heart out of Jubilee gardens. I should be happy for the promoter of the Bill to walk around the gardens with me next week as the Minister did, because we are talking about the heart of Jubilee gardens, not half.
    Mr. Thorne: I am sorry, but I am looking at the map, and the hatched area is larger than that which is left unhatched. Therefore, I do not understand the hon. Lady's argument. Moreover, neither of the areas go down to the river frontage, so I do not understand the argument about people being unable to gain access to the river. Neither of the areas goes right up to the river wall; both are set back, at about 20m, I would guess. Therefore, uninhibited passage along the river frontage will still be available. In Committee, the promoters gave an undertaking that they would grass the area if it was not required, so I do not understand the problem.
    The Committee discussed the issue in detail, so I ask the House to reject the new clause and to accept the Committee's proposals.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I shall make one or two points on behalf of the Departments of the Environment and of Transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has again ably and comprehensively sought to answer the issues that have been raised, and what I have to say is in addition to his comments.
    I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) will support the Bill. This is not a party
    756
    political issue, and there is a broad consensus among all parties, including the Liberal Democrats, that the Bill will be good for London. I appreciate that there will be inconvenience to the residents of Vauxhall. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said, there is no question but that there will be four and a half years of inconvenience—as fairly sketched by the hon. Member for Vauxhall—on the northern part of the site and possibly another two years on the southern portion of the site if a car park is dug. Either way, there is inconvenience and that is part of the loss of amenity which the hon. Lady said should be weighed. I shall seek to answer that point on behalf of the Government.
    As part of the loss my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South fairly cited the £1 million additional cost of tunnelling from a site further away than the running tunnel. In addition, there would be some loss of amenity.
    On the gain side, there is clearly a risk that, if county hall is sold for a use that involves a car park, the potential loss to London Regional Transport could be substantial. The risks have been set out in Committee, and it cannot be denied that there is a risk that the taxpayer would have to find a substantial sum of money. That is the distinction. The taxpayer funds London Regional Transport and the underground, but the charge payer—as my hon. Friend rightly said—is the beneficiary from the sale of county hall by the London residuary body. Therefore, although both are part of the public sector—I say this as the Minister accountable to the House for the funding of London Regional Transport—the taxpayer would end up compensating the charge payers of London for the loss of receipts because the car park could not be constructed.
    The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned two issues on which I can perhaps reassure her on behalf of the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for inner cities and I have a joint responsibility for ensuring that two things happen, and I give the hon. Lady these assurances. First, I have seen the children's playground, and I assure her that the Government will ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to move the playground and to find a new site and that the cost of so moving it will be met so that that amenity will not be lost.
    Secondly, on removal of soil, the London Residuary Body and London Regional Transport will work together to ensure that the streets of Vauxhall and of south London in general will, if at all possible, not be burdened with heavy goods vehicles transporting soil from the excavation for the car park and that the soil will be disposed of by barge using the same system as London Regional Transport. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept those assurances in the spirit in which they are offered.
    Miss Hoey: I welcome the assurances about the children's playground. To be fair to London Underground, it has been extremely helpful in discussing the spoil and how to minimise it. However, I am disappointed that the Minister has been unable to give me the feeling that anyone has been sent to find a way around the financial difficulty of two public bodies, given that the Minister accepts—although he did not say so, it would have been nice if he had—that the best site was that which we wanted. I should have liked the Minister to say that he would sit around a table with officials from the

    757
    Department of the Environment to find a way around the problem. The cost-benefit analysis has not been carried out satisfactorily.
    The sponsor of the Bill talked a lot about the Committee. I spent some time in that Committee and I genuinely wish—perhaps I should not say this—that the detail and depth mentioned by the sponsor had in fact emerged. However, I do not feel that I could honestly say to my constituents that the members of the Committee —I intend no insult to them—examined the cost as I should have liked them to.
    The legal opinion given to the Waterloo Community Development Group was exactly the opposite of that given by the Committee. More work needs to be done in the House of Lords or "another place", as I believe that it is called. In view of the Minister's assurance on the other issue I shall not press the motion to a vote now, but I hope that, when the Bill returns from another place, we shall have found a way forward which will be in the interests of the people of London as a whole, not just those of my constituents. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  New clause 2

    CONTROL OF NOISE
    'In the execution of any works, the Company shall ensure that noise levels associated with construction during the period from dawn until dusk do not exceed 35 decibels, and that outside this time noise levels do not exceed 30 decibels.'. —[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    We are moving gradually along the track. The new clause is principally about noise. If there is one issue that concerns all my constituents—I remind the House if it will be tolerant that Southwark and Bermondsey contains the largest portion of the line, so many of my constituents are affected—it is the prospect of the noise that the construction works especially will produce. There is the secondary issue of the noise when the trains run.
    This is an admission that Back-Benchers often have to make, but I accept that the new clause could have been better drafted and I apologise to the House. It deals expressly with construction, although other issues could have been covered to make it clear that my constituents are also concerned about the operational noise once the line has been built.
    The new clause seeks to minimise the noise to 35 decibels between dawn and dusk. I propose a lower level at night time, when noise is heard more clearly. The argument for a lower limit at night is generally accepted. The House has had an unusual year in that we have had two debates about the problems of noise, arising on a private Member's motion and as an Adjournment debate. I say with gratitude that it is good to know that the Government take this issue seriously. There are many forms of noise nuisance and noise pollution. When I spoke briefly during the general debate on a private Member's motion, among other things I alluded to the noise caused by railways, and especially by underground railways, as a sort of trailer to today's debate.
    758
    8.30 pm
    I should like to make some general points first and then site-specify them, because it is the site-specific concerns that have prompted the new clause. I shall be grateful for two responses; the first being for the promoters and the Government to say, "We understand your concerns and will seek to ensure that they are allayed." The second response should highlight the most vulnerable parts of the line in terms of where people will be most affected—
    Ms. Mildred Gordon: Although my constituents welcome the fact that the Jubilee line will run through the constituency with a station at Canary Wharf, we are concerned because we have had so much disturbance, noise pollution and discomfort already. I hope that while the works are in progress the lives of the people in the neighbourhood will not deteriorate further. I refer not only to the future noise of underground trains and to the noise of the building works and to the lorries that will take away the spoil. The interests of the community must be taken into account. It has suffered enough.
    Mr. Hughes: I agree with the hon. Lady. I know that part of her constituency well. No area has been uprooted, built upon, rumbled over and diverted in recent years to the same extent. To be fair to the hon. Lady's constituents, I believe that they have had an even worse experience than my constituents. Those of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have been in the same predicament. Our constituents need protection against a further six years of noise, dust, dirt, disruption and traffic diversions. I am sure that that is understood.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that all of us support the idea of the line. However, during the early stages of the Bill's passage, it appeared that the House was concentrating more on the disruption to Parliament square, where nobody lives, than on that in the areas of London where many people live, such as Southwark, Bermondsey, the Isle of Dogs and Newham. We should have been most concerned about those areas. However, be that as it may, it is water under the bridge—or it might be more appropriate to say that it is water underground.
    I turn now to the Government's White Paper on the environment. I appreciate that that is not the responsibility of the Minister for Public Transport, but my questions are relevant to this debate. I should be grateful to know whether two of the proposals in the White Paper will come to the aid of the people. My first point relates to page 25 of the summary document, which refers to the proposal
    "to extend noise insulation schemes to limit exposure to noise from new rail lines."
    I hope that, where appropriate, such schemes will be extended to those suffering noise pollution from underground railway lines.
    Secondly, I refer to the proposal to make it easier for local authorities to set up noise control zones and to encourage consistent local authority practice on noise. Progress on both proposals would be welcome and helpful.
    I understand that, in general terms, the remedy—in so far as there is one—can be found in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, although I have been advised by the Library that there is no precedent. Local authorities can serve notices on how works can be carried out in the best and most practicable manner to minimise noise. I know that my local authority of Southwark, and others, are conscious of their responsibilities and that they have been

    759
    working hard to ensure that the interests of their residents are looked after. As on previous occasions, I pay tribute to those in the development division of Southwark council who have been assiduous in looking after the interests of my constituents.
    I trust that the British standard code of practice will be adhered to. I understand that in the worst circumstances there is also the remote opportunity of selling one's property and thus, in a sense, getting some compensation. However, most people do not want to sell their property. They want to stay in it and live there and to have their environment improved instead of being forced out because of the noise pollution.
    On the site-specific details, I am talking principally about the area from London bridge to the river at the end of Surrey docks downtown, beyond the Canada Water estate, by Durands wharf, although the first sector that directly concerns my constituency is that from Waterloo to London bridge. I am grateful for the fact that the problem has been recognised. Page 14 of the environmental assessment states:
    "Many properties close to the proposed sites already experience day time average noise levels in the 70 to 75 decibel range but special noise problems could arise close to the sites"—
    which are then identified as Joan street, the Cut, Newer street, Old Jamaica road, Major road, John Roll way, Canada Water and Durands Wharf, and one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), at Blackwall way—
    "because of the need for 24 hour working. Special precautions may be needed at these sites to prevent night-time disturbance."
    On advice, I have five proposals about the best ways of meeting the concerns that have been raised. The first is that there should be more stringent noise and vibration standards at the many work sites that are located in sensitive residential areas. The environmental assessment makes quite a good read if one is interested in the detailed topography, population breakdown and history of south London. The assessment is helpful and sets out the risk areas in terms of the noise and vibration that will result from the post-construction operation.
    Just to show how proper it is that we are concerned about this matter, I shall summarise what the assessment states about the first area. Approximately 120 residential buildings have been estimated to lie within the corridor in this section, including Roupell street and Ospringe house, Wootton street in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Scoresby street, Union street, Whites Ground estate and Druid street in Southwark. One church will also be affected—the Most Precious Blood—as will part of Guy's hospital.
    The environmental assessment then makes it clear that
    "in view of the potential for noise dsisturbance above the tunnel, it is recommended that a programme be set up to design a resilient track form to reduce noise to acceptable levels."
    The promoters have therefore identified the fact that action needs to be taken and have given a list of the exact locations.
    I turn now to the next section and repeat that I am dealing with operational noise, not with the noise before the works have been completed. It is estimated that approximately 300 residential buildings, some of which will house many people, lie within that corridor, including those in Druid street, Sweeney crescent, the Arnold estate, Old Jamaica road, Marine street, Keetons road, Perryn
    760
    road, Drummond road, the Kirby estate, Neptune street and Renforth street. St. James's church will also be affected. It has recently been beautifully restored with the help of English Heritage and the London Docklands development corporation. The proposal will also involve St. James's school in Bermondsey, of which I have just become a governor, and St. Olave's hospital, which is the subject of a redevelopment proposal. It suffered an arson attack last night, although happily nobody was injured and the fire was put out by the local fire brigade. Again, it is proposed that a programme should be set up to design a resilient track form to reduce noise to acceptable levels.
    Many people are affected. The Minister for Public Transport has been assiduous in acquainting himself with the details of the area and he knows that we are talking about blocks of council flats, pubs, schools and play areas. The report says:
    "Background daytime noise levels at Old Jamaica Road are currently about 51 dB(A). During construction, noise levels at Giles House will be typically 62–71 dB(A), possibly reaching 77 d(B)A. This is expected to cause annoyance in comparison with existing conditions and mitigation measures to reduce construction noise will be required to prevent both daytime and night-time disturbance. Noise levels at St. James's School will also result in disturbance unless such measures are taken."
    The report makes similar comments about Canada Water and the Canada estate, Ben Smith way—it says that night-time working should be avoided, if possible—and Southwark park, here mentioning Rotherhithe Free Church.
    I apologise to the House for setting out those areas, but I want to ensure that the places where people will be affected are noted. At the Surrey Docks end of the line, 55 buildings within the corridor—Holyoak court, Rotherhithe street, Timbrell road and Downtown road —will be affected. The report says that in Durands wharf
    "current daytime noise levels in the area are relatively low … construction noise levels of 64–72 dB(A), possibly reaching 79 dB(A) …would cause annoyance at the nearest dwellings. Special measures may therefore be required to reduce noise, particularly at night and during piling."
    The prospective consequences are substantial and therefore the most stringent noise and vibration standards are required at the work site. It appears—I may be wrong and I am simply being inquisitive—that undertakings were given by the promoters in November last year that the code of construction would be based on local circumstances after background noise surveys, which would determine the noise abatement activity. I understand that there will now be uniform standards rather than better and tighter standards in the areas that I have identified as having problems. If that is so, it is not good enough. Where people live and work, and where there are schools and churches, close to the site standards must be tougher. All those areas should be protected during the work, and resilient track should be laid.
    Working hours must respect local sensitivities. No work should be done except between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm on weekdays. I heard the reply of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) when he said that five and a half days a week would be worked. In some ways, Saturday mornings are acceptable, because it is better to have the work concentrated for a shorter time. However, we do not want a repetition of the problems caused when

    761
    construction work on Surrey quays was carried out around the clock and those living nearby were permanently aggravated.
    The criteria for London Underground's providing double glazing to protect residents from noise must not be set so high that they never qualify. The Minister for Public Transport replied to a debate on the Channel tunnel recently when the Planning and Compensation Bill was being debated and the triggering of the protection of the law in terms of compensation was discussed. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and other colleagues have had a persistent interest in that subject. We must ensure that we are not creating exceptional opportunities for double glazing, of which no one can avail themselves. If people are to be blighted by noise that could be mitigated or removed by double glazing, they must be entitled to it. I wish to know on behalf of my constituents on the Canada estate that they will be protected. They have been disrupted enough already.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. John Bowis: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that his new clause was defective because it did not deal with both the operation and the construction of the line. His comments on double glazing appear to apply to the effects on the neighbourhood of the line once it is built. I understand that, but will the hon. Gentleman also explain the decibel levels in the new clause, because they seem quite low? I do not see how the same decibels can apply to construction as to operation.
    Mr. Hughes: I was about to deal with decibel levels, so the hon. Gentleman's intervention was timely. I apologise to the House, but the new clause is a probing rather than a concrete one. A better defined new clause could have dealt separately with construction and operation noise. Those living in local blocks, will suffer a higher level of noise during construction than during operation. The real debate among accoustic engineers is between the 40 decibel lobby and the 35 decibel lobby. It is accepted—not only in this country but elsewhere—that the lowest decibel level acceptable is 35.
    I am no expert, but if environmental protection officers or experts aware of the debate in London Underground were here, I guess they would tell us that the present ambient noise level in the Chamber is now about 50 or 55 decibels. Decibel noises are quite high and low decibel levels require extremely quiet periods. The 35 to 40 decibel apply to operation noise once the line is built and the difference is between noticeable noise—noises that one hears at night when the world is relatively quiet—and the noise that one does not hear.
    We should have the best standards that are achievable as we have the technology to achieve them. We must reduce noise levels to 35 decibels when the track will be under people's homes, churches and other buildings. It is accepted that there will be 35 decibel limits under sensitive buildings. I accept that resilient track is more expensive, but it will benefit not only buildings like Henry Wood hall in Trinity Church square in my constituency, where there is a rehearsal and recording studio, or the laboratories in Guy's hospital, which have sensitive equipment, but
    762
    equally residential accommodation. I do not argue that noise should be reduced below a level at which people do not notice it anyway, but only where that noise constitutes a problem. Although 35 decibels is quiet, it is noticeable, so that should be the operational limit.
    The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is right to say that the limit for construction is higher and the environmental assessment made that clear. In that case, the site-specific protection measures should include the ability to have double glazing as early as possible because it will be more useful to protect against the noise of construction than of operation. Double glazing will be needed in places such as the Isle of Dogs, the Royal docks or Surrey docks to stop not only the dust but the noise of the piling, the cranes and the lorries taking away the loads. Therefore, I hope that double glazing will be installed this winter or next spring rather than in six years' time.
    There was evidence in Committee that what is called "floating slab track" would substantially reduce the noise. That track is far more noise-resilient, and could be used in sensitive locations. I hope that, as with my plea for double glazing, the definition of where such track will be used is not so limited as to be hardly ever used and that it can be used more frequently.
    In terms of noise, it is better environmentally to have top-down construction than bottom-up construction. The original idea was to use the cut-and-cover technique, by which the hole is dug and then covered over. I understand that the preferred method of construction—and it is logical—is to build the top and then to work underneath so that the noise does not then rise up through an empty space. I hope that there will be top-down construction for all the works at Canada Water station. The greatest concern expressed to me and, no doubt, to hon. Members who were members of the Committee, was by the residents of the Canada estate. They have had a hard time already. They are right on the edge of the proposal for large works. Above all, they hope that construction can be done in a way that minimises the noise disturbance to them.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to set out various concerns. Noise will be the principal concern of people living along the route in Southwark and Bermondsey. They are concerned about dust and other matters as well, but if we could ensure that they are not affected by noise or if we keep the noise to a minimum, the line will run into far less trouble as it is being built. If they are not given that protection, sadly, I anticipate that those responsible for building the line will face a hard time from equally noisy constituents and residents—and deservedly noisy ones, because their environment must be looked after once the line is built.
    Mr. Cox: It is a pleasure to speak in support of the new clause. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cited the levels of noise as 35 decibels from dawn to dusk and as 30 decibels outside those hours. In reply to questions by myself and other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) properly told us that the project would involve round-the-clock working —24 hours a day—for five and a half days a week. That means construction work in all forms—not only the work on site, but the movements involved in supplying materials and in the removal of soil and other material from the site.
    At present, a development is taking place on the south side of Vauxhall bridge. I travel along that road every day as I come to the House. I repeatedly see huge lorries either

    763
    entering or leaving the site, either delivering or having delivered materials. That causes the most enormous traffic hold-ups.
    I make that point because the Minister said that he hoped that as much as possible of the site working movements, whether including spoil from the site or the supply of materials, would be by barge. I welcome that. However, in the case of the development on the south side of Vauxhall bridge, one sees few barge movements. I agree that that is a smaller development than the one proposed in the Bill, but hon. Members, and especially those whom we try to represent, would have greater confidence if the Minister or the hon. Member for Ilford, South, the sponsor of the Bill, were able to say that the provisions of the new clause would be incorporated into any contracts awarded.
    We know that, with all the good will in the world, the contracts between London Transport and the building companies—from what we have heard this evening, some movement for the development could be done by barge along the River Thames—will lead to a great volume of lorries. We have not been told about the estimated number of lorries travelling to and from the site in the course of the round-the-clock working. One can assume only that the number of lorries would be substantial and would bring increasing noise. We all know that the lorries would be the largest that are allowed to use our roads and that there would not be one or two, but 100 or more a day. They would travel through residential areas, adding to the noise and pollution, and causing great environmental damage.
    I am sure that all of us warmly welcome the Minister's comments on barges, but many of us would like the assurance that, for those awarded the contracts, there should he written into the contract a clear obligation that they should have to—not just be expected to—keep to the suggested noise levels in the course of the contract. If that happened, the problem would be eased.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has outlined the problems that would exist in the form of continual noise for many of the residents who live in the area. As Members of Parliament for London, we have the right to use this opportunity to bring home forcefully to the Minister and to the sponsor the issues that must be considered and agreed on now. Later on, it will be far too late. That is why action should be taken now.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that his suggestion could be taken one step further? My hon. Friend and the promoters have spoken about the removal of spoil by barge, which is an historic method in the construction of London tubes. In the construction of Canary wharf, a wharf was set aside, downstream from which suppliers collected materials and took them to the site by barge. The construction of an underground railway calls for large quantities of cement and sections of tunnel, and even in the cause of economy the promoters might care to consider that sort of arrangement.
    Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point. I hope that the Minister and the promoters will act upon it.
    The work will last for four and a half years. If we do not seek to include in the contract the arrangements that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr.
    764
    Spearing) have suggested, people living in the vicinity of the work will suffer anguish for a long time. Our duty is to try to see that such suffering is avoided.
    9 pm
    Mr. Thorne: All hon. Members share the concern about noise expressed by the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Noise is one of the problems that people have to face nowadays, but frequently we are asked to put up with far too much of it. It is right that we should do all that we can to mitigate the problem.
    If the amendment is accepted, we shall have no Jubilee line at all, because the proposal that the work should generate fewer than 35 decibels during the day and fewer than 30 at night would mean that no work at all could be carried out. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey seems to have been badly advised on his figures. He may be confusing the noise levels in his amendment with the levels that are acceptable on the surface from underground working.
    The hon. Gentleman said that his amendment was intended to be probing and that it provided an opportunity to discuss the matter of noise. The noise level experienced in a residential street in inner London is about 50 decibels, while in Parliament square the level reaches 70 decibels. Those are logarithmic scales, from which it will be realised that 70 decibels is a much higher noise level than double 35 decibels. A noise level of 35 decibels is what someone standing in the middle of Hyde park late at night would expect to hear from traffic some distance away.
    The amendment must be seen purely and simply as a probing amendment and not one that the hon. Gentleman would wish to press to a vote, because, if accepted, it would not allow the railway to be constructed, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants that. I think that he is quite enthusiastic about the railway. The normal expectation is a limit of 75 decibels during the day, 65 in the evening and 55 at night.
    The hon. Member for Tooting spoke about the duration of the work. This is a major construction, and if work were limited to 12 hours a day from 8 am to 8 pm over five and a half days a week, the project would take much longer than four and a half years to complete and, of course, that would have its disadvantages. A vast amount of the work will take place underground. The underground work in extending the docklands light railway from Tower gateway to Bank has not been causing annoyance and disturbance to people on the surface, and that work has been continuing day and night.
    The construction near the surface of, for example, Canada Water station would be carried out over six days a week from 7 am to 7 pm. Work would not be carried out for 24 hours a day, although such a programme would be used for the tunnels. Clearly, that is a different operation and would take much longer. Double glazing has been mentioned.
    Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the hours of work and the noise bans within those hours. Will he define what he means by daytime, evening and night-time? He has said that there would be different noise levels, but he has not said at what point one would move from one level to the next.
    Mr. Thorne: The daytime workings at Canada Water will be between 7 am and 7 pm. I am not absolutely certain, but I would assume that night-time surface working would be in the hours outside those hours. I would have to take further advice on what is meant by evening working, and I will let the hon. Lady know the answer.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I think that I am right in saying that the proposal that the Canada Water works be carried out on a six-day rather than a five-and-a-half-day week has not been accepted or agreed, local residents, their representatives or the local authority. I doubt whether they would find acceptable the proposal that the work immediately adjacent to the Canada estate be done on that timetable. I hope that that will be reconsidered.
    Mr. Thorne: To the best of my knowledge, these are the hours that were given in Committee, but I am sure that this will be further explored in another place when it goes through the Committee there. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific points to make, I am sure that they will be taken account of there.
    There is a universal policy for double glazing, based on decibel requirement, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said. He was concerned that a high decibel count had to be achieved, but each site will be taken on its merits, and there will be some grounds for negotiations. The further consideration of the Bill in the other place will be the right time to raise that point, particularly where it concerns residential properties. Further information can be obtained on that matter at that time.
    Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman cannot deal with my next point now, perhaps he will deal with it in another way. As I understood it, the original intention was that the site-specific areas—the areas with the greatest risk of noise nuisance—would have higher standards imposed during construction, but as I understand it now, a general standard will be imposed along the route. Has there been a resiling from the original position? If so, will that too be considered, so that we can get back to the original proposal that the more work, the better the protection?
    Mr. Thorne: I do not believe that there has been any resiling, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point so that, before the Bill reaches the other place, he will be fully aware of the situation.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extra cost involved in reducing the decibel level of noise from underground from 35 to 30 decibels. Such a reduction is already required in sensitive areas. We have to be reasonable and acknowledge that it is twice as expensive to construct track that reduces the decibel level to 30 from 35. Therefore, it is not appropriate to do this in all places. Noise is not considered to be a difficult problem generally and in many places, the depth of the tunnels will solve the problem anyway.
    Mr. Hughes: I am sorry to intervene again, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal with all these points. I asked about cut-and-cover as opposed to top-down construction of stations. If the hon. Gentleman can answer now, I shall be grateful, but if not, I should like to know that the construction of stations such as Bermondsey or Canada Water will be by top-down rather than cut-and-cover, as that is environmentally accepted to be the far quieter option.
    Mr. Thorne: I accept that it is quieter. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer, but I will write to him.
    The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) asked about the number of vehicles that are likely to go around. There will be 50 a day at the Parliament street site, which is not as many as the hon. Gentleman feared. As that is the largest and most difficult of the sites, it seems that any problems should be scaled down considerably.
    I trust that the new clause can be regarded as a probing motion and that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey will withdraw it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The new clause has suffered from being compacted, and I take full responsibility for that. Construction should have been separate from noise levels in the course of operation. The decibel levels in the new clause are operational options and do not relate to construction. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) is right: even in a perfect world, it would not be possible to relate the decibels that are set out in the clause to construction. None the less, the issue is germane, and the debate has been useful. I am sure that its importance will have been registered and that those in another place will take up the matter.
    Originally, we were told that there would be disruption on site for a year. We are told now that there will be disruption for four years. That is four years at Ben Smith way, four years at Downtown road and four years at Culling road. Given the number of decibels, that is a long time. The issue needs to be considered, and in the hope that it will be, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 4

    POWER TO MAKE WORKS
    Mr. Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 22, at end insert—
    '(3A) Before completion of Work No. 3A, the promoters shall ensure that any station which may be constructed at Canning Town shall provide the most convenient interchange obtainable between the Jubilee Line and the existing lines of the Docklands Light Railway and the British Railways Board.'.
    The words "existing lines" are technically correct now because the lines have been laid, but no docklands light railway trains yet run.
    Probing amendments are in fashion this evening, and this is no exception. Amendment No. 4 has not been selected, but I think that it would be in order to quote it as it expands the intention behind amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 4 states that the station
    "shall provide optimum convenience of interchange for passengers, as may be obtained within the physical and statutory limitations of the work, and which may incorporate necessary arrangements or agreements for sharing, leasing or exchange of land, track or other facilities".
    I put that on the record because it could conceivably add a solution to a somewhat knotty problem.
    I do not expect the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) to reach a verdict on the proposition that I am putting before the House or to respond in detail this evening, except on matters of fact and preliminary comment. I merely ask him to consider the case that I shall make on behalf of the people of Newham and Beckton especially, as well as on behalf of future travellers on any of the three lines involved. I say that, too, to the Minister

    767
    for Public Transport who is gracing our proceedings this evening. In answer to a question, he stated that he was not yet persuaded of the need for extra expenditure for an interchange at Canning Town. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy. His reply shows that his mind is still open. I must thank the hon. Gentleman also for his courtesy in visiting several sites. He must think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) and I have been haunting him for the past few weeks. As he will know, however, many transport investments in the areas we represent are causing concern.
    Canning Town is a nodal part of east London, and it is no accident that that is so. It is the lowest bridging point of the River Lea. On the east-west alignment we have the continuation of the well-known artery of Commercial road, the A13, which bifurcates at Canning Town, one route proceeding to Barking while the other is a dual carriageway to Tilbury. North and south there is a 19th-century railway that once had four tracks but is now to be used by the Jubilee line, too. Ten years ago there was no electrification there, but now, fortunately, the British Rail lines have been electrified, thanks to a grant from the Greater London council before that body was terminated. The docklands light railway and the Jubilee line come that way, too, so we shall have three high-capacity urban railway lines as well as important bus interchanges, with a bus station planned next to those important stations.
    9.15 pm
    Ironically, the instruction to the Committee about the regeneration of the area happens to be relevant to the site of the proposed station. The station will be next to the Thames ironworks, where the well-known warship Warrior—now, happily, preserved at Portsmouth—was built, as were dreadnoughts at the turn of the century.
    Unfortunately, some of the new buildings such as the booking office and the adjacent bus station will require the demolition of one of the last remaining engineering works in the area—Messrs. J. and J. Downey. I place it on the record that the defects in our procedures led to Mr. Downey's being presented with an estimate of £70,000 for pursuing a petition that he had laid at the Committee stage—I have seen the letter. I pointed out to him that the work could be done for less—but who, for the sake of preserving his business, would not want what he considered the best representation available?
    I realise that proposals before the House for changing our procedures on private Bills might mean public inquiries for railway Bills. That would be an improvement, provided that Parliament had the last word. I am not keen on giving any Secretary of State, even the most enlightened, the final power of decision on matters that, as tonight's debate shows, could be discussed and in the end decided by a Committee of one of the Houses of Parliament.
    Canning Town station is not only a nodal point—for the first few years at least it will be an important interchange serving the royal docks area. That area will be served by the British Rail line that I mentioned—the north London link to north Woolwich—and the docklands light railway to Beckton, which will serve a large area of housing as well as the north sides of the Victoria and Albert docks.
    If people are coming to that area from the Jubilee line, as many of them will, they will have to change at Canning Town. Unlike the well-known arrangements for changing
    768
    trains at Mile End, for instance, where one can walk across the platform to catch another train going in the same direction, the dominant flows at Canning Town station —at least in the early stages—will mean catching a train going in the opposite direction. As well as that unusual feature, the restraints caused by the physical nature of the area mean that the ideal solution—a transposition of the tracks—would be very expensive, if not impossible.
    Unfortunately, in my view and in that of the London borough of Newham, the promoters' plans for the station are defective. The British Rail station would be left about 300 m north of the proposed docklands light railway and Jubilee line station, and the two stations would be connected by a subway running under not only a flyover but slip roads some eight traffic lanes wide. No subway is to the liking of interchange passengers, and this one is especially disliked. The journey will not only involve going along a narrow subway—even if it were widened a little, it would still be narrow—but going up or down a number of stairways. In other words, for most people, it will be a human assault course.
    Ms. Gordon: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the subway. As he may realise, many women are very much afraid of using such subways, especially given the poor manning of railway stations that we are witnessing these days. Some years ago, I taught in a school on Hendon way—right on the dual carriageway. There was an underpass leading to the school, which was certainly much shorter than the proposed tunnel, but there were a number of cases of muggings, flashers and so on. In the end, the police came to the school and warned parents and children to go considerably further down the road to the traffic lights—a long walk with small children—and not to use the underpass because it was unsafe and a policeman could not be stationed there all the time. The safety of passengers using such underpasses should be taken into account before any such proposal is envisaged.
    Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has given a graphic example of what many London women know. For such an underpass to be incorporated afresh into what is to be virtually a new station—new, if we have our way as to where the platforms will be—would be a retrograde step on which hon. Members who might otherwise support the provisions should consult their wives and families.
    We are talking not only about gender but about people who are disabled or elderly, people with luggage, and women with young children and pushchairs. I am riot saying that we can do without steps and escalators altogether, as the House will see. Nevertheless, one wishes to minimise such difficulties where that is physically possible. In relation to the position of the two stations in question, such disadvantages will be built in. That is certainly not good enough for Canning Town, and. I imagine that it will not be tolerated in Westminster in relation to one or two other stations that are to be built.
    The problem is compounded because, at present, the joint docklands light railway and Jubilee line platforms will be alongside each other, with no crossing of the tracks. If the platforms were built on a double deck, instead of going up and down two stairways or two escalators, one would have to negotiate only one stairway or one escalator at the dominant interchanges.

    769
    It is clear that there is no ideal solution in respect of the proposed site, but there is certainly a better solution than the one proposed—namely, a double-decker station, with one of the lines above the other, and with escalators between the platforms to give the maximum facility for interchange. If the British Rail line were alongside, with the island platform lay-out, we should avoid the long trek to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar and I have referred.
    That was recognised on day 16 of the Committee's sittings. Mr. Bayliss, a renowned transport planner, was brought in to give evidence for the promoters. I have known Mr. Bayliss for many years. He was with the GLC for many years and we are glad to see that, in the last birthday honours list, he received the OBE. He admitted that the arrangements proposed by the promoters were less than perfect and agreed that the borough's proposals would be "easier for passengers".
    What I did not realise until relatively recently was the agreed volume of passengers involved. We all know from our own experience that the number of people using subways and crossing from platform to platform at integrated stations is considerable. I understand that the promoters and the borough of Newham have arrived at an agreed estimate of the likely number of passengers interchanging between the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line—about 6,000 per hour at peak periods, I am told.
    I suspect that that figure may be what is envisaged for the turn of the century or a bit later. But we must bear in mind the fact that we are building not just for the beginning of the century but well beyond. I suspect that the figure may therefore increase. The figure relating to the interchange between the British Rail line and one of the other two lines is at present much lower, but it, too, could increase considerably if the docklands development goes ahead. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) will probably agree with the general estimate that the interchange could involve up to 10,250 boarding movements per hour.
    I understand that the promoters and the petitioner—the London borough of Newham—have gone further in their agreement. Those of us who have observed road construction, and transport planning and economics, know something of cost benefit analysis. I confess that I have been critical of cost benefit analysis in the past, and I still do not adopt such methods. The idea is that, if progress is X mph faster or there are so many more cars on the road, a certain amount of time is deemed to have been saved. The next step is to cost the figures; eventually, a sum is arrived at that favours the construction of the road. The process is ingenious and, up to a point, legitimate.
    I understand that that process has been applied to the subway that we are discussing, and to the two sets of stairs. Apparently, an agreement between the promoters and the petitioners provides that, over a period, the time saved by the borough's plans—as opposed to those of the promoters—will lead to a saving of £1·8 million. Capitalised, that will apparently amount to £20 million over the borrowing period, or whatever period is usually used for such calculations.
    I stress that I do not use such calculations myself; but, if they are to be adopted by the promoters and the
    770
    borough, so be it. A strong case seems to have been advanced from the borough's point of view. The extra cost, for a proper station, will be about £8·2 million more than the existing estimates. I say "about" because it could be a bit less, and I suppose that it could be a bit more.
    That sounds a huge sum, and indeed it is; but it is additional to the £31 million cost of the construction of the length of railway reaching from the end of the tunnel—where it comes up from the Greenwich peninsula under the Thames—some way towards West Ham to the north. We are talking about an increase of roughly 25 per cent. in the cost of the whole length, including that of the probably quite complex civil engineering works that will be necessary to construct the new subway under the elevated station.
    That is a fairly strong case in itself. Given that the work is part of a huge project, the mind boggles at the additional sums that will be spent in Parliament square on, for instance, the engineering works that will be needed for the Waterloo interchange involving the existing railways. I asked the promoters whether they could give me an idea of the cost of other stations, but, understandably, they were unable to do so. I do not complain about that, because I know that contracts and commercial confidentiality are involved.
    Hon. Members may not know about the other investment being put into other modes of transport. I do not underestimate the importance of the station that we are discussing. I do not vouch for the correctness of this information, although I believe that it is more or less correct: I understand that, when it is completed, the capacity of the docklands light railway will be about 10,000 people per hour. The capacity of the Jubilee line, at its maximum, will be about 20,000, and that of British Rail will be 2,500, or perhaps a bit more with luck. That means that up to 30,000 people an hour could be passing through the station, perhaps more in the next century.
    Once the trains are running, it will not be possible—or, at any rate, it will be very expensive—to make changes which might be considered urgent in 50 years' time. I refer to the kind of complaints made about the Central line and others that were built around the turn of the century.
    Interchange is not the sole prerogative of public transport although we always think in those terms. Every time we jump into a car and reach a major intersection or roundabout, we are at an interchange. That is true whether one is on two feet, four tyres, or two tyres.
    9.30 pm
    I mentioned earlier the other investment being made in the area. Within one mile of the site of the Canning Town underground station and bus interchange, a number of remarkable works are under way. On the A13, there is the intersection with Prince Regent's lane, where, happily, there is at last to be an underpass. Consultations have improved the design and perhaps the construction of that development, which I understand will cost around £45 million.
    The Canning Town flyover is to be widened, and the works associated with that important river crossing, according to a borough estimate—I understand that we do not yet have a final figure from the Department, probably because surveys are still being made—will cost at least £20 million. That work is immediately adjacent to the station. The Leamouth interchange with Abbots road and Leamouth road, which is currently the location of interim

    771
    works, will eventually cost £8 million. That work will comprise just a few slip roads and other roads close to the new station.
    Also under construction is a new tunnel and underpass bang through the middle of what was the East India dock. A feature of that work is a listed wall, which will remain above the tunnel—and the cost of that will be around £35 million. A little further to the west there is the Preston road flyover, costing £10 million. Those works together will cost in the region of £117 million.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) may ask about the lower Lea crossing. That will provide a duplicate for the A13. I have not included it in the figure of £117 million, for it will cost just a modest £25 million. Therefore, in and around the location of the new station, investment in roads of about £120 million is to be made. Expenditure of £8 million, more or less, to provide a decent station must be viewed in relation to that figure.
    The docklands light railway will serve my constituency, other parts of Newham, the Beckton area, the custom house area, and, if some people have their way, it might even extend across the river to Thamesmead, which would be sensible. Even without an extension to Thamesmead or Barking, the importance of the interchange with the Jubilee line and with Canning Town cannot be doubted. The same is true of the interchange with the north London link towards Highbury, Islington, and all stations to Watford and further north.
    I only ask that the promoters have further discussions with the borough about the facts that I have mentioned, all of which I hope are correct, and will give an undertaking to consider those matters further. Although I have suggested two amendments, it may be that none is required.
    My understanding is that undertakings will be given and agreements reached that will enable the matter to proceed without any formal petitioning, questioning or long days before a Committee in the other place. That would be a happy solution. Despite some aspects of the Bill's introduction and purpose, about which some of us have reservations, I do not think that anybody would wish it to be delayed. Therefore, those undertakings could contribute to the speed of its passage. It is in that spirit that I commend my thoughts to the promoter and to the Government.
    Mr. Ron Leighton: I wish briefly to support the eloquent case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I hope that the Minister, with what was described as his open mind, will have found my hon. Friend's case as persuasive as I did.
    Historically, the east end of London has always had second best. It has always been the poor relation. It has been what I might describe as the backside of London. It was the place where London put its sewage works, gas works, chemical works and noxious industries. It has always had the sticky end of the stick. Whether in housing, health, educational achievement, leisure facilities, employment, income, life opportunities or transport, the east end has always had the worst of the deal.
    I view my job as one of trying to even up the position between the east end and the west end, and of ensuring that people in the east end have opportunities and choices as good as those available to people in the west end. It is now
    772
    becoming possible, perhaps for the first time, to make some progress. London's centre of gravity is now moving towards the east. The proposed new railway line is an example of that. I say "new", but the idea of the railway line is not new. It was first proposed a long time ago, and then again by the Greater London council. There was a time when it was called the Fleet line. We have been waiting for it for a long time.
    What is new is the influence that the developers have brought to bear. They built Canary wharf and other developments, but then found that there was no transport infrastructure and no planning, so no one could gel to their developments. They brought great pressure to bear—perhaps much more than Members of Parliament representing the east end could bring to bear. They also brought their cheque books to bear—perhaps only to a limited extent, but it helped.
    I and my hon. Friends welcome the new line; it is better late than never. We are interested in what happens to the line when it goes past Canary wharf and in particular when it reaches Canning Town. As my hon. Friend explained, that is the junction of three lines—British Rail, the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line. It also has several important roads.
    There are a large number of designs for that very important station—I believe in excess of 20. The Minister will remember that the designs were laid on the table before us when I was sitting in his office. There were about 20 separate designs for the station, ranging from the good to the bad. Which of those 20 splendid designs have we got? We have got the bad one, the inferior one. Why, yet again, has east London got the inferior one? It comes down to money, to the cost.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said that a proper, decent station would cost £8·2 million extra. The Minister will remember that this was discussed recently at Question Time. He told me that I was wrong when I said that it would cost £8 million. He said it would cost £7 million. My hon. Friend was overdoing it, therefore, when he said that it would cost £8·2 million to build a decent station. According to the Minister, it would cost only £7 million.
    The cost of the line will be £1·2 billion, or thereabouts. I always distrust nice, round figures such as 1·2 billion. It will cost not £1·2 billion but thereabouts—give or take £7 million or £8 million, or £70 million or £80 million, or £100 million or £200 million. My mathematics is not very good. I cannot work out what, in percentage terms, £7 million is of £1·2 billion, but it must be an infinitesimal decimal— recurring, I should have thought. We are talking peanuts —of small change, in terms of this project, in order to give the east end of London a decent station.
    This is a green field site. We are building something new for the next century, for the next millenium. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said that the British Rail line has been in existence for well over a century. This station will be there for well over a century —indeed, for much longer. When the centre of gravity of London has moved to the east, that station will be used by millions of people, especially after 1992 and all the developments that will take place.
    To move from the Jubilee line to the docklands light railway, we shall have to go through that awful, long tunnel. Why on earth is a bad station going to be built when we have the opportunity to build a decent one, of which we could all be proud? We shall be spending £1·2

    773
    billion, but we are jibbing at spending £7 million to give the people of the east end, at this extremely important junction of three lines, a decent station.
    It is not only Newham borough council that says that. The Leamouth group of private business men also says it. These are people with substantial interests in the private sector. They carried out enormous developments in the Leamouth area on the understanding that they would get the Jubilee line. That was contained in the first proposal that came before the House.
    However, that decision was changed. The route is now not on the northern side of the river but to the south of the river. It goes to the Greenwich peninsula. Those business men were told, "Never mind; you expected to get the Jubilee line and you invested many hundreds of millions of pounds in your developments. We snatched the line away, but never mind; you're going to get the docklands light railway." If that is all that they are to get, they will be very interested in the interchange between the Jubilee line and the docklands light railway which is to serve their area. To reach their area from the Jubilee line, people will have to change at Canning Town.
    The Minister knows that the developers there want a decent station. Big people in the private sector are pleading for a decent, proper, world-class station at Canning Town. The truth is that nobody is satisfied with the proposed station at Canning Town. I do not think that London Underground believes that it is the best option, but it is hampered by the financial constraints imposed by the Government. The private sector and local authorities are not satisfied. We ask the Minister, for whom many of us have much respect and who has shown in answers to our questions that he has an open mind, to consider the proposal carefully and not to build an inferior station. We are building for the future, so let us build something of which we can be proud.
    We made many mistakes by allowing development on the Isle of Dogs before the transport infrastructure was in place. I want the Jubilee line to be run into the Royals, but London Underground is making the mistake of providing only a template junction. We want not a template junction but the railway to run into the Royals—we should place that on record—and a decent, world-class station at Canning Town.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) was kind enough to say that amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment. I take his remarks in that spirit.
    It is clear that the station at Canning Town would be better if we were starting from scratch, but that is not so. We must take into account the cost, and I strongly dispute the point that the east end gets the worst of everything. We are debating a Bill under which £1,300 million will be spent on providing a facility essentially for the east end. That shows that hon. Members believe that it is an important part of the metropolis. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said, the centre of gravity of the metropolis is moving east. Many of us welcome that, especially given the excellent work that has been carried out by the London Docklands development corporation and others.
    774
    I know the Canning Town area quite well, because I attended school with a boy whose father was the resident engineer at Silvertown Lubricants, which had a large storage depot in Canning Town way. I frequently visited him during the school holidays, and from our travels on our bicycles we got to know the area extremely well. I have much sympathy for the people of the area, but we must accept that there are certain constraints and we must achieve value for money.
    Insufficient emphasis has been placed this evening on the alternative connections. There is a perfectly good British Rail-Jubilee line connection at West Ham station, which is a short distance up the line, and the docklands light railway has a good connection at Custom House. We are not saying that people are deprived because they must change trains at this junction. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) mentioned ladies naturally not wanting to use subways late at night, but they can easily change nearby on the same line.
    The question is, does the House want to spend £7 million or £8 million on a facility that will not increase revenue in any way? We must get the best value for money in our transport infrastructure. We must consider other schemes—for example, the cross-rail project—where we want to spend money but where we cannot if we spend unnecessarily in a particular part of London.
    The Committee went into the matter in considerable detail. Its job was to listen to counsel and to consider the cases put forward by the London borough of Newham, LRT and others. At the end of its detailed consideration, it concluded that the promoters' proposal was right and proper. I therefore ask the House to support the promoters in rejecting the amendment, unless the hon. Member for Newham, South withdraws it.
    Mr. Freeman: I suspect that the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) think that I am the villain of the piece, in the sense that Government controls on the total cost of the line forced London Regional Transport, correctly, to ensure that maximum value for money was obtained from the funds available. If money were no object, there is no question but that there would be an interchange of all three lines. There would be a double-deck interchange between the docklands light railway and the Jubilee line and a north London interchange, so that passengers could move freely from one platform to another. But money is an object.
    I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Newham, South would agree that the argument that that money has been spent already in the east end is not logical and rational. One must still justify an additional £7 million in relation to the total expenditure on the Jubilee line. The argument of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that this is a small proportion of the total cost—under I per cent.—is not intellectually justifiable. Every item of expenditure must be justified.
    I conclude by offering two positive comments which are outwith the responsibility of LRT, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) speaks. If the subway is taken over by LRT to maintain its security, and it therefore must be closed at certain times of the night, I assure hon. Members that, in terms of providing alternative access 24 hours a day above or across the road, the Department of Transport will work closely

    775
    with the London borough of Newham in ensuring that adequate re-provision is made. It is accepted that adequate re-provision must be made.
    The Royals extension is not the subject of the Bill, but I assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that I share his view. In the long run, we want the Jubilee line extended to the Royals to permit the future development of those docks in the same way as the docks on the Isle of Dogs have benefited from the development and provision of transport infrastructure. There is nothing in the Bill that is inconsistent with what I believe, and what I suspect the hon. Gentleman believes, will happen—an extension and development of the Jubilee line.
    Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) exceeded the terms of my request. He did not say that he would consider the case; in effect, he considered it and rejected it. The hon. Gentleman has every right to do that. I am sorry that he reached that conclusion, although I understand some of his reasons.
    We must question what is necessary. I am not convinced that this arrangement would occur in "a particular part of London" if it were in the west end. To take up the important theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), if it is not satisfactory for the west end it is not satisfactory for the east end either. As a born and bred Londoner, I make that constituency point very strongly, and I am sorry that it has not been sufficiently recognised.
    Of course, money is important but, as I said, we do not know what extraordinary expenditure might be needed underground in other parts of London, not least in the underground station serving the interchange of the District line very close to where we stand. Therefore, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ilford, South responded in the way that he did although he has a right to do so because he represents the promoters of the Bill.
    I agree with the Minister that a lot of money has been spent, but the point of my illustration was that it has been spent on another model of transport. Therefore, if more were spent on the rail mode it would not be out of kilter with what it has already been agreed to spend on roadways close to the station. There are other road routes even further away to which I did not refer. Nevertheless, this exchange of views has been useful and I am glad that it has taken place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
    Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signed—
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Mr. Thorne: The House will recall that the Bill if enacted would permit the construction of a nine-mile or 15-km extension to London Underground's Jubilee line, from Green park in the west end to Stratford in the east. This project originates from the east London rail study.
    The railway will pass through Westminster, Waterloo, London bridge, docklands and West Ham. It will bring transport benefits by serving areas hitherto not on the main tube network and development benefits in helping to sustain and extend the regeneration of the docklands urban development area. This is a matter set down by the House at Second Reading as a specific instruction to the committee. The Bill has been amended, following
    776
    exhaustive examination during 22 days in Committee. The Committee found that the case for the preamble to the Bill had been proved, and considered six issues on which it wished to place specific requirements on the promoters.
    The Committee endorsed London Underground's proposal to route the line through the north Greenwich redevelopment site, rather than on the opposite side of the river through Brunswick, as certain petitioners had requested. It stressed the importance of the fullest possible access for the disabled consistent with general safety. It also requested an amendment to the effect that Nos. I and 2 Bridge street, opposite the House, should not be demolished until, by resolution, the House has approved a design for the new parliamentary building, and following full and close consultation with English Heritage.
    The Bill is to be amended to remove any possibility of surface works in Parliament square. A protective clause is to be added so that the work site in Jubilee gardens is to be kept some distance from county hall. A full structural survey of the tower blocks on Canada Water estate in the London borough of Southwark is to be carried out. All these requirements were unreservedly accepted by the promoters, and the Bill has been accordingly amended.
    I know that some hon. Members have particular concerns, and perhaps the most general is the matter of disapplying the listed buildings controls. Members of both Houses have expressed their disquiet at such powers being incorporated in other Bills for major public works. What the Committee on this Bill has accepted is that such powers should be exercised only as a last resort, and in relation to a schedule of specific properties and to no others. Only one listed building required demolition, and that is remarkable for a project of this magnitude going through the heart of historic central and inner London. Others are included in the schedule as requiring possible alteration, but detailed design work should make it possible to delete some of them from the schedule.
    Of particular interest to hon. Members will be the proposals as they now affect the immediate area around Parliament. When the Bill was last before the House as a whole, it involved substantial works in Parliament square itself, as well as on the existing Westminster Circle and District line station. Following detailed review, and close co-operation with the New Building Sub-Committee, I am happy to say that a design has now been evolved which completely avoids the square, and which should dovetail well with Parliament's own needs for new space.
    The same architect—Mr. Michael Hopkins—will be responsible for both station design and our own new building. The promoters' proposals require demolition of 1 and 2 Bridge street, but I believe this loss will be heavily outweighed by the advantages, in terms of a satisfactory resolution of the complex needs of the two projects which have to be integrated on this important site. I understand that the Treasury has now agreed to Mr. Hopkins being instructed to design the new parliamentary building.
    I know that a number of other matters have concerned some hon. Members—
    It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
    Ordered,
    That, at this day's sitting, the London Underground Bill and the Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    Question again proposed.
    Mr. Thorne: I am sure that the House will none the less wish to give the Bill its Third reading so that it can move to another place.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the Bill receiving its Third Reading. It is nearly a year since it began its Second Reading and it has juddered a bit in the year in between, both upstairs—
    Mr. Freeman indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minisster seems to be saying that there was never even a vibration. If he thinks that that is the case, I am happy that it should be so.
    It has always been clear that the line was needed and that substantial benefits will accrue to London, west and east, when it is built. Earlier today I reflected on the line's most immediate benefits. It will be possible to travel easily from Green Park or Westminster to Waterloo and London Bridge, both main line termini, which is not possible at present. It will also be possible to travel easily from Waterloo to London Bridge, which it is not possible to do at present. Furthermore, the traffic travelling by road between those two places will be reduced.
    There will therefore be practical transport and decongestion benefits as a result of the Bill and the building of the line. There will also be a reduction in the general level of pollution caused by traffic congestion. I hope that there will be great benefits in terms of increased accessibility to parts of London for people such as my constituents, who have been plagued with lousy public transport and being "the gap on the map".
    I hope also that the line will mean new job opportunities and that it will be part of a network of improvements for which the Minister and the Government will evidence their support in November—such as the east London line extension, which will bring into the public transport system and network many parts of London which hitherto have not been part of it.
    The great difference between today's debate and the Second Reading debate is that today we have been talking about transport, whereas on Second Reading we spent most of our time talking about Parliament square and the parliamentary buildings. Clearly, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) was right to say that those problems have been dealt with because no hon. Member has sought to argue today that our heritage is being destroyed—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Grave discourtesy is being shown to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor. There are too many conversations taking place. I should like to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
    Mr. Hughes: You are very kind, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Today we have been debating transport and construction issues—and that, in itself, is progress.
    Having reflected on the last year, I find that the Bill is proof that the proposals first advanced are never the last word. There has been some flexibility, and I pay tribute to the promoters and to all who have brought about some changes of heart. I say without reservation that Russell Black and his team in the Jubilee line project office have co-operated in all respects and at all times have facilitated answers to inquiries and dealt helpfully with my questions. I could not have asked for better co-operation. It has
    778
    helped to put a little political and parliamentary pressure on them as well as pressure from constituents at public meetings and from local authorities. We have been able to make changes to the benefit of the project and I hope that more changes will be made in the other place.
    The Minister for Public Transport has been kind enough to tell me that the assurance that I sought on the Southwark and Bermondsey stations is as firm now as it was last autumn. I place that on the record, because it is important to dispel people's fear that in a recession or time of economic difficulty some of the stations along the line might be removed. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that statement. Now that we have a commitment to all the stations, Southwark and Bermondsey must also remain.
    Those interested in the Bill will remember that in the Committee and elsewhere there has been much debate about the alignment of the line in the Canada Water area. Constituents of mine have petitioned—with only partial success—for one of the two alternative routes to be adopted in that area to avoid disturbing residential communities in and around the Canada estate, near the mouth of the Rotherhithe tunnel. Those constituents, the local authority and I are still not happy with the current alignment and the location of the works. They were disappointed that their views were not upheld by the Committee and others, too, were surprised that the Committee did not uphold their argument.
    I hope that a way will be found in another place to accommodate their concern. I understand that petitions will be presented and it may be possible, even at this late stage, to find a way to realign that part of the route so as to avoid disrupting that community. A way must be found to minimise the disturbance to them and it will be up to the other place to work out the best way. I hope that that is not regarded as a finished issue and that the other place will note that work remains to be done. The bus interchange links at Canada Water are still under debate and that, too, must be ordered in a way which minimises disruption.
    When we debated the listed buildings in Parliament square, the main issue was the effect on our heritage in this place. There is still concern that the architectural work along the line should be compatible with some of the important lists and that the quality of the London Underground buildings must be of the highest standard, reflecting the local built environment and local history—for example, the station on Jamaica road in Bermondsey. I understand that we are awaiting a decision on the architect for the parliamentary phase 2 buildings. It would be helpful if the Minister could make that announcement tonight, as I gather that the decision has been made but not announced. Work could then proceed in that context, too.
    I hope that, if the Bill receives its Third Reading tonight, is successful in another place and becomes law some time later this year, the provision of this additional underground line will not be to the detriment of other underground routes in London. There is occasionally a veiled threat that once we have a new line we may not need all the stations on the other lines. In the past, the east London line through Southwark has been something of a line in the corner, but it need not be so if we link it with an east London line extension down to Peckham, New Cross and Lewisham. We do not want stations to be closed just because a new line is opened. Stations such as Rotherhithe and Surrey docks must remain open.

    779
    There is a prospect of our having a new line. We have been vigilant to ensure that there is no environmental disruption while it is built, but residents still have enormous concerns. I hope that the debate on the new clauses and amendments will have made the agenda clear and that all those responsible will respond in an even more constructive way in the days ahead.
    10.9 pm
    Miss Hoey: On Third Reading, I must say that I hope that the move towards recognising the need for transport, especially in south London, is the beginning of what is needed. I hope, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, that this is not the end of other tube lines, but the beginning of new development and money going into public transport in south London.
    I place on record on Third Reading, too, the concern that I, with other Opposition Members and many Conservative Members, still have that we are wholly ignoring the important green open space of Jubilee gardens beside the river. It is not acceptable that the Bill should be given its Third Reading when so little assurance has been given on how that area can be preserved.
    Given the way in which it was possible for things to be changed in order to protect Parliament square, it will be disgraceful if the Bill comes back from the House of Lords without our having satisfied the wishes and needs of the Waterloo area and Jubilee gardens. I know that many hon. Members want to get on to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, but we are talking about heritage here, too. We are talking about a piece of London which is unique. It is disgraceful that we have not been able to find a way to protect that site in dealing with that most unco-operative and unimaginative body—the London residuary body.
    I express my thanks to those concerned with the London Underground Bill, especially to Russell Black, and I echo all the thanks for their work in trying to do what they can. I and other Opposition Members know that they have been tied by the way in which the London residuary body—a public body—has behaved on the issue.
    The issue will not go away. The Bill will receive its Third Reading tonight and I will not oppose that, but I have great faith that the House of Lords will show far more sense on the issue than the House of Commons has, and that we shall indeed preserve Jubilee gardens for the future of Londoners.
    10.12 pm
    Mr. Bowis: Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the Third Reading debate, I very much welcome the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), I congratulate the promoters and especially the sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne), who has steered the Bill through the House and who has listened to many points.
    Like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I will raise an issue for consideration in another place, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South can convince me on the point this evening. In dealing with private Bills, we need to look carefully at what is being slipped through. On occasion, Bills have slipped through the removal of the need to go through certain planning procedures. In the Bill, we have the removal of the need to
    780
    go through certain consultative procedures. I refer especially to clause 35, which removes the need to consult on the removal of a stretch of existing underground line once the new line is opened.
    It may be right to remove such a piece of underground line—I do not dispute that today. My purpose is to say that it should have been a matter for consultation, as are all other such line closures under legislation. In 1984, the House set up the London Regional Passengers Committee. It changed the name of the old Transport Users Consultative Committee for London and, in so doing, removed the word "consultative". However, it strengthened the rights of consultation for the people of London through the LRPC.
    Under the London Regional Transport Act 1984, the LRPC is given the right to be the vehicle to receive objections from users of London Transport. There is a requirement for a notice to be published and users can submit objections to the LRPC which then considers them and makes recommendations to the Minister. The Minister considers the recommendations, any other matters relating to the economy, and the social implications of the decision. He may, if he thinks fit, add conditions to the Bill requiring the interests of passengers to be taken into account.
    London Regional Transport has asked passengers to submit views in writing, which have been taken into account. The Bill in its present form bypasses the rights of the consumer because one of its clauses removes the need to fulfil the obligations of Acts of Parliament in relation to closing the stretch of line between works IA and 1B, which we know as Green Park and Charing Cross. I hope that that is not setting a precedent and that we shall retain the right of London Transport passengers to be consulted. I hope there that there will be more time in the other place to consider that further, so that we can wholeheartedly and, unanimously welcome the Bill.
    10.16 pm
    Mr. Freeman: I add my congratulations to those that have been expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne). My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) spoke about the procedure in relation to Charing Cross. That will not set a precedent, and parliamentary procedure has dealt fairly with the issue of the closure of the Green Park to Charing Cross lines. There is no change in relation to Southwark and Bermondsey stations. I outlined that on Second Reading about a year ago.
    The commission to design the new parliamentary building at the site of Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street is being let by the Department of the Environment to Michael Hopkins and Partners. That is the first step in the design of the new building which, I hope, will facilitate the construction of the Jubilee line. The Government strongly support the Bill and hope that the other place will give it speedy passage so that the line can bring benefits to all parts of London.
    10.17 pm
    Ms. Ruddock: I shall be brief, because the House has made good progress. The Committee did a good job and it has not been necessary to raise too many issues on Third Reading. The Opposition support the extension of the Jubilee line and welcome the Bill. We are critical of

    781
    Government priorities and the lack of co-ordination in the Government's transport policy for London. However, the extension of the line will provide new and useful access for many people, especially those in south London, to the underground system.
    Some of the difficulties encountered in Committee have not been resolved and it is apparent from what has been said, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) in connection with Jubilee gardens and Canning Town, that there will be a need for further debate in the other place. From what the Minister said it is clear that finance is preventing the resolution of some of the difficulties. We regret that, because the amounts are relatively small in relation to the task in hand.
    New underground projects take the best part of a decade to complete and will be in use for many decades. To curtail small additional expenditure at this stage and, for example, to forgo the possibility of some money for Jubilee gardens because of the attitude of the London residuary body is unjustified. We hope that when those matters are further pursued in the other place there will be a different and more positive resolution.
    Despite those small outstanding matters, we are happy to agree to Third Reading. I should like to place on record our thanks to the Jubilee extension team for its considerable co-operation, its supply of briefings, its assistance and its answers to our questions.
    However, we regret that the powers of the London Regional Passengers Committee have been reduced in the way that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) outlined. Although the Minister has assured us that that does not create a precedent, we feel that it is both regrettable and unnecessary to have removed from the Committee the opportunity for proper consultation. However, I welcome the Bill and wish it well in its passage through the other place.
    10.20 pm
    Mr. Thorne: With the leave of the House, I thank the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for their support for the Bill. I am sure that we all wish it a speedy passage through the other place. I do not wish to repeat anything that my hon. Friend the Minister has already said, but I emphasise one point. The branch line from Green Park to Charing Cross will remain open and available for special occasions. It will not be completely closed, but there will not be a regular service on it.
    I must take issue with the hon. Member for Deptford on costs. If we were to spend unnecessarily between £50 million and £100 million on this project, it would put in jeopardy other important measures that will benefit the transport-using public in London. We have to take account of the overall cost, which is not as little as has been suggested. One hon. Member said that £7 million was chickenfeed, but I do not agree. It is an important sum of money, for which we must have good value.
    I hope that the House will speed the Bill on its way. The Jubilee team of London Regional Transport has done a splendid job. It has been at considerable pains to ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had their queries and concerns answered. That is of great importance when dealing with private Bills. I hope that it keeps up that good work, because if it does, the Bill will soon receive Royal Assent.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day
  Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Lords amendments considered.
  Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    Clause 5

      DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OR SCHEMES
      The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 3 to leave out lines I to 8 but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
      Lords amendment No. 1 , in page 3, leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert:
      ("(4) Where SNH has prepared a proposal for a development project or scheme for any area which involves the compulsory acquisition of land under subsection (6)(a) below, a compulsory purchase order for that purpose shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure in any case where an objection has been duly made by the owner of the land and has not been withdrawn.
      (5) In subsection (4) above "owner" shall have the same meaning as in the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947.")
      10.22 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment proposed in lieu of the Commons amendment.
      The original Commons amendment was, in my view, acceptable in so far as it removed the right of appeal against development schemes or projects. For the reasons that I gave in Committee, such a right of appeal is unnecessary, because a development cannot be affected without the owner's approval. However, after much careful reflection, we considered that, in addition to removing this right of appeal, it was appropriate to take steps to meet the several concerns that have been expressed about the scope of Scottish Natural Heritage's compulsory purchase power under clause 5.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish to develop my point first, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
      As I have stressed throughout the passage of the Bill, it is of the utmost importance that Scottish Natural Heritage should be able to develop positive and co-operative relations with all those involved in land use, and this extra safeguard, which we are applying to the compulsory purchase powers in the clause, will be most helpful in that regard.
      Mr. Dalyell: As the Minister has said that much careful thought has been given to these matters, are we to believe Mr. Charles Clover, the well-respected correspondent of The Daily Telegraph? He writes in this morning's edition of that newspaper, among other things, that Professor Sir Fred Holliday, chairman of the standards committee for the United Kingdom, was not consulted. Was Sir Fred consulted or was he not?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On this particular matter?
      Mr. Dalyell: Yes.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot confirm that he was. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that compulsory purchase order powers exist for a range of issues—for example, where SNH is satisfied that it is in the national interest that land should be managed as a nature reserve but is unable to conclude an agreement on reasonable terms. There are various other grounds that I can specify if the hon. Gentleman so wishes.
      Mr. Dalyell: I do wish it.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All right, I shall spell them out. If the hon. Gentleman is anxious to have all the details, I shall give them to him.
      Compulsory purchase would be possible where agreement for management of a nature reserve is breached in a way which prevents or impairs the satisfactory management of the land. The other compulsory purchase order that is available to SNH is in relation to public access to open country if it is impracticable to obtain such access by agreement or order.
      The amendment provides that compulsory purchase orders made by the Secretary of State under clause 5 should be subject to special parliamentary procedure. Hon. Members may know that, under that procedure, a CPO does not come into effect until it has been laid before Parliament and has been brought into operation in accordance with the special procedure Acts. Petitions may be presented against the CPO and either House may resolve that the order should be annulled.
      The most notable use of the procedure at present is to safeguard National Trust land. The definition of "owner" which we have used includes tenants under a lease with more than three years to run. This means that, where such a tenant objects to the compulsory purchase, special parliamentary procedure would come into operation. Hon. Members will appreciate that this provides the same safeguard for a small tenant farmer as for a large landowner. I am sure that the House will be rightly pleased about that.
      Overall, the practical effect of the amendment would be that even if the Secretary of State agreed with SNH that a CPO should be made, Parliament's approval would be required via these procedures. I remind those who feel that we may have gone too far with the amendment, and effectively neutralised the compulsory purchase power, of the nature and scope of clause 5. That clause is essentially a re-enactment of a provision that exists in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. In most instances where the Countryside Commission for Scotland has used the power, the agreement of the landowner has been very easy to obtain. That is because the land concerned has generally been of little value and not in gainful use. We expect that pattern to continue. It is unlikely that SNH would wish to pursue a project where the landowner did not consent. It is therefore unlikely that SNH would ever wish to use its compulsory purchase powers, and the Countryside Commission for Scotland has made no use of them for 20 years. Resort to compulsory purchase in such instances would go against the entire basis of co-operation and partnership that we wish to see SNH establish.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked me earlier whether Professor Sir Fred Holliday was consulted on CPOs. The answer is no. That is because the Joint Committee of the Councils for Mature Conservation has no statutory responsibility for the powers that are set

      785
      out in clause 5. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to an amendment that will be dealt with later. I know that he will be especially interested in that amendment.
      Mr. Gavin Strang: The Minister said that compulsory purchase powers rest with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. It would seem that the existence of those powers did not prevent a constructive dialogue between the commission and landowners in the community generally. The existence of the powers, although they are never used, surely puts the commission in a position of some strength when discussions take place. Does he not accept that, by weakening the relevant provisions, he is undermining Scottish Natural Heritage?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have never before heard criticism of the involvement of Parliament in such matters. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the powers have been of assistance to the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Let me give an obvious example. Suppose that nobody knows who is the owner of a piece of land. That person may have emigrated 50 years ago. He may not have any descendants, and he may be impossible to trace. I can envisage a compulsory purchase order being entirely reasonable in such circumstances. But the involvement of Parliament is a safeguard in contentious cases.
      10.30 pm
      Hon. Members will recall that we had a debate in Committee on the availability of compulsory purchase orders, in response to an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). As I explained on that occasion, I feel that, in many ways, the fact that the equivalent existing power has never been used by the Countryside Commission for Scotland is rather a good reason for retaining the power for Scottish Natural Heritage, as it shows that it is very much a power of last resort, the exercise of which would not be entered into lightly.
      Given the concerns of all involved in land use as to the scope of compulsory purchase powers, I am confident that the amendment will allow the clause to strike a proper balance between their interests and the powers of Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to development projects. With that in mind, I trust that the House will support the amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: We want to get on to the new clause 11, but I ask the Minister one question. He referred to the land being "of little value". In whose judgment is it of little value? Who has made the value judgment that it is of little value in this instance?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All land is of particular value to the person who owns it; that goes without saying. What I meant was that, in monetary terms, it was of relatively little value. Perhaps I should have been more specific in the language that I used.
      Mr. Dalyell: My final comment is that I wonder how well thought out the provision is, and why we did not hear much about this in Committee. Frankly, the Government and their advisers might have thought of it a good deal earlier.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not recall that the criticisms that were made in Committee related to the notion of having compulsory purchase orders in the first place. Those criticisms were made from a very different angle from those being made by the hon. Gentleman tonight. But the involvement of Parliament is a safeguard in contentious cases, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is a great parliamentarian, should criticise the fact that we are seeking to involve Parliament in such matters.
      Question put and agreed to.
      The Lords agree to the following amendment made by the Commons:
      After clause 5, insert the following new clause—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: On the consequences of designation, there is a detailed procedure, and I should be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a summary of what it would mean. The management of an area would be set out in a management statement and that would eventually have to go to the Secretary of State for approval at the time of designation. He could approve it in whole or in part or not approve it, depending on how good the case was. One of the effects of designation would be that priority would be given by Scottish Natural Heritage with regard to management and access agreements. Certainly, priority would be given to the areas of research and of course the flow country, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, might be a prime candidate for consideration in this category. I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman further information should he wish me to do so.
      Question put and agreed to.
      The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons to leave out clause 11, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
      Lords amendment: No. 3, to leave out clause 11 and insert the following new clause—
      (7) SNH shall not confirm a notification to which subsection (5) above applies or come to a decision on representations to which subsection (6) above applies without having received and considered the advice of the Committee on the matter; and in any case where a matter has been referred to the Committee SNH shall send a copy of the Committee's advice to any owner or occupier who has made objections or representations at the time when it notifies the owner or occupier of the confirmation of a notification or, as the case may be, its decision on the matter.
      (8) Where representations are made to SNH in respect of a notification relating to any land in circumstances other than those mentioned in subsection (5) or (6) above, SNH shall refer the representations to the Committee where not less than 10 years have elapsed from whichever is the later of the date of the notification or the date of any earlier representations made in respect of the notification."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we may take the following amendments: (d), in line 3, at end insert—

      '(a) giving advice to SNH in relation to objections or representations made in respect of an application for a sea bed lease for aquaculture within or affecting an SSSI as specified in subsections (4A) and (4B) below; and

      (b)'.

      (e), in line 17, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where an application has been made to lease part of the sea bed (including the bed of a sea loch) within or affecting an SSSI for the purposes of establishing a fin-fish or shell-fish farm, or extending an existing fish farm, and objections and representations have been made to the leasing authority and, within six months of such representations having been made, they have not been withdrawn, the matter shall be referred to the Committee.
      (4B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (4A) above where any objections or representations made in respect to a sea bed lease granted for the purposes of aquaculture, and where—

      (a) not less than 10 years have elapsed since the date of granting such a lease, or

      (b) a sea bed lease was granted prior to October 1986, or

      (c) a sea bed lease was granted prior to the coming into effect of the Environmental Assessment (Salmon Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1988,

      the matter shall be referred to the Committee.'.

      (a), in line 27, to leave out subsection (6).

      (b), in line 45, to leave out from 'applies' to 'without' in line 46.

      (c), in line 53, to leave out subsection (8).

      I should inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment proposed in lieu of the Commons amendment.
      I think that it will be for the convenience of the House if I take account of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald).
      As the House will know, the former clause 11 of the Bill has had a somewhat turbulent history. There were a number of reasons why we considered it unacceptable. In the first place, it would have placed an onerous burden on SNH. It would also have involved so much time and effort that it is doubtful whether SNH could have devoted much effort to any of its other duties during its first five years of existence. Apart from these practical objections, there was, of course, a matter of principle at stake. That led us to oppose both the former clause 11 and the amendments moved in Committee.
      The clause and the amendments established a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. That would have been a fundamental departure from the provisions of sections 28
      790
      and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and could have resulted in the erosion of the scientific basis of the designation. As that legislation not only embodies the SSSI procedures, but gives effect to our commitment to nature conservation under both international treaties and EC directives, any departure from that legislation on a purely Scottish basis would have called into question our commitment to those obligations and could have led to the risk of challenge in, for example, the European Court of Justice.
      Mr. Dalyell: Has the Minister seen what was said by Charles Clover in The Daily Telegraph this morning? Was Sir Fred Holliday consulted? Is it or is it not true that the Department of the Environment has said that the procedure will not be imposed in England? What has the Secretary of State for the Environment to say about that?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I cannot say whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been consulted, although I have little doubt that he will be aware of the matter because of public reporting of it. As for the other matter, the criteria for SSSIs will remain exactly the same throughout Britain. It is for the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to decide about structures in specific parts of the United Kingdom.
      Let me remind the House about the way in which SSSI procedures have been operated. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) was so concerned about the issue that she raised it in her maiden speech. She said:
      "We must seek a proper balance between nature conservation and the interests of the people who live and work in the area. To that end, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will urgently consider the establishment of a Scottish nature conservancy council. … The people of Islay are deeply upset and angry. They fear that in the end 65 per cent. of the land area of Islay will become eligible for designation, and, if that happens, depopulation could occur on a scale not seen since the infamous clearances.—[Official Report, 13 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 717.]
      During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill, the hon. Member for Western Isles made strong representations over the way in which the Nature Conservancy Council had operated the SSSI system in his constituency. He stated:
      "Too often, I am sorry to say, the southern-based environmental lobby, including the NCC, has been seen by ordinary highlanders as alien, aloof, insensitive, remote, and sadly devoid of any appreciation of the special history and culture of the Highlands and Islands."—[Official Report, 15 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 81.]
      I have a high regard for NCC members and for the work that they do, but both hon. Members have a point in believing that the NCC needed to become more responsive to local circumstances.

      791
      The Scottish Crofters Union, in its representations for the paper, "Scotland's Natural Heritage", stated:
      "Crofters in general are very dissatisfied with the way these SSSIs are designated, and especially with the wording of the statutes that regulate them. The NCC has done little to address this problem."
      Similarly, the Borders Farming and Forestry and Wildlife Advisory Group stated:
      "In many cases, the way in which the Special Interest of SSSIs have been communicated to farmers and land owners leaves much to be desired. A less abrasive procedure would achieve better co-operation."
      We produced the new clause to balance the legitimate concerns expressed by owners, crofters, and occupiers of land about the role of Scottish Natural Heritage in SSSI notification with our fundamental commitment to the SSSI system, as set out in sections 28 and 19 of the 1981 Act.
      The new clause was approved by an overwhelming majority in another place, where it had the general support of Opposition peers. The Opposition's Front-Bench spokesman for Scotland in another place had a briefing meeting with my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde and with officials on the morning of the debate on our new clause. I am sure that, as a result, he fully understood its purpose and effect—contrary to reports that appeared in the media.
      The new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to appoint a committee of people of relevant scientific qualifications and expertise, whose independence from SNH is guaranteed by the provision in subsection (2), which excludes the appointment to the committee of any member of SNH, or a member of any committee appointed by SNH.
      The committee's remit covers only the scientific validity of the notification of new and existing SSSIs. In relation to new SSSIs, subsection (5) provides in effect that if any owner or occupier objects to notification and SNH cannot persuade him to withdraw his objection, SNH has a duty to refer the matter to the committee for advice.
      Mr. Maclennan: I read subsection (2) with considerable care, but it is highly ambiguous. I take it that the Minister intends that members of the advisory committee should have scientific experience, but the clause could equally well be interpreted as excluding those who have scientific qualifications and experience. As a matter of statutory construction, I am far from convinced that the Government have got that subsection right. It seems possible that scientists would be excluded from membership of the committee.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member asks a question that I asked a short time ago. Advisory committee members must have scientific qualifications, but it is important that they should not also serve as members of boards of Scottish Natural Heritage. However, if a person came off one of those boards, there is no reason why his or her eligibility for the advisory committee should not be considered. However, a person could not serve on both simultaneously.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is proper that the Minister, as a lawyer, should have asked that question. May I ask him in turn of whom he asked that question, and what was the reply?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have what I regard as extremely good legal advice in the Scottish Office, whose officials act as a team. I assure the House that they would not make
      792
      proposals unless they had been carefully checked by Scottish Office lawyers—and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Bills are drafted by lawyers.
      10.45 pm
      Subsection (6) deals with existing SSSIs, which in general are subject to a somewhat different procedure. Scottish Natural Heritage is given six months to try to persuade the owner or occupier to withdraw his objection. If the representations have not been withdrawn within six months, SNH must refer the matter to the advisory committee. The subsection distinguishes two different categories of existing SSSI. In cases where objections or representations were made at the time of the original notification, the owner or occupier can ask SNH to refer the case to the committee as soon as the Bill comes into operation. For other cases—that is, where no objections were expressed in the first place—SNH does not need to refer the matter to the committee unless 10 years have elapsed from the date of notification. In relation to both new and existing SSSIs, the objections must relate to the scientific interest of the site.
      Subsection (7) makes it clear that SNH cannot reach a decision until it has received and considered the committee's advice. A copy of that advice must also be sent to the objector when SNH notifies its final decision on the case. Subsection (8) introduces a 10-year cycle for objections for all SSSIs, once they have been dealt with under the provisions of subsection (5) or (6).
      That is an essential feature of the new clause, as SNH could otherwise be asked to refer the same SSSI to the committee almost continuously. Ten years seems a reasonable period, especially when it is borne in mind that SNH will constantly monitor the scientific interest of the site during that period under the general workings of the 1981 Act.
      Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves the review procedure, can he explain why that socialist newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, quoted Mr. Magnus Magnusson—the chairman-designate of Scottish Natural Heritage—as saying that he was
      "'deeply unhappy' about the review procedure which he believes could overburden his new-born quango and lead to the reconsideration of any of Scotland's 1,300 SSSIs"?
      If it is all such plain sailing, why has SNH's own chairman not been carried with it?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: When I saw—
      Mr. Dalyell: Answer the question.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I intend to answer the question; the hon. Gentleman must give me the opportunity to do so.
      When I saw Mr. Magnus Magnusson, he made it clear that he would approach the subject in a very positive frame of mind. I have nothing but confidence in his chairmanship. I think that he is outstanding. The hon. Gentleman asks a valid question. He wants to know how much pressure could be put on SNH in, for example, the number of cases that could be generated—
      Mr. Dalyell: I want to know why Mr. Magnusson is not happy.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has asked a question and I shall answer him. There is concern about how many cases would be generated. The

      793
      hon. Gentleman may not be interested in that, but Mr. Magnusson certainly is. I shall set out what I believe to be the position. The number of cases going to the advisory committee will depend on a number of factors. First, it is for owners, crofters and occupiers to decide whether they wish to make representations on scientific grounds. Secondly, SNH and the crofters, owners and occupiers will have an opportunity to resolve any differences over a six-month period. Any figures that may be put forward are, therefore, purely guesswork. It is impossible to estimate the figure.
      Mr. Calum Macdonald: Is the Minister disputing Magnus Magnusson's estimate that the new procedure will cost about £1 million or £1·5 million per year to operate?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Mr. Magnusson has never mentioned those figures to me. I expect the figure to be relatively small, but we shall take full account of it in the annual public expenditure survey round and ensure that adequate resources are made available.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: The Minister started with a flurry of confidence, saying that he would give us the latest up-to-date position on the impact of the new arrangements on Scottish Natural Heritage. I expected him to say something about the number of appeals that the Scottish Office estimates there will be. Rumours are going around among the various environmental bodies that several hundred cases are already in the queue. The Minister signally failed to live up to the beginning of his speech, because he ended up saying that he had no idea what the answer was. Is the Scottish Office setting up the new procedure without any idea of the impact that appeals will have on the workload?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can give the hon. Gentleman some information, from which he may be able to make an estimate. Of the 541 SSSIs approved for confirmation by the Nature Conservancy Council committee under the new procedure since 1985, 153 were the subject of objections. That is some 28 per cent. of the total.
      Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I have answered the point that he made in his earlier intervention.
      Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister give way on this point?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I do so reluctantly, because I want to get on.
      Mr. Macdonald: The Minister said that he had seen no estimate by Magnus Magnusson of the magnitude that I described. In today's edition of The Daily Telegraph Mr. Charles Clover states:
      "Mr. Magnus Magnusson … has told Mr. Lang, Scottish Secretary, in a letter seen by conservancy council staff, that the new scientific appeals committee could cost Scottish Natural Heritage … up to £1·5 million a year."
      794
      Has the Minister seen the letter that Magnus Magnusson wrote to the Secretary of State? If he has not seen it, why not? If he has seen it, can he deny that Magnus Magnusson gave that estimate of £1·5 million?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will check up on that and make absolutely certain that, if any such letter has been sent, I will see it as quickly as possible. I can only repeat what I have already said on the subject of resources —that this will be considered with the greatest of care in the autumn, during the public expenditure round, to make certain that the resources awarded are adequate for the purpose.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
      This would be a convenient place—
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House of Commons is turning into a fiasco. May we not, through you, appeal to the duty Whip to ask either the Lord President of the Council or the Government Whip to come to the House to see what is happening and then, for the sake of Scotland and the heritage in general, to return and clarify the Government's understanding of their own Bill?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I suggest that we get on with the debate, which may well produce clarification.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This will be a convenient place to deal with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Western Isles. As the House will appreciate, the SSSI system does not and cannot extend below the low water mark and, therefore, does not directly have an impact on marine fish farming. The amendment can therefore only refer to leases for marine fish farms affecting SSSIs. There can be no sea bed leases within a site of special scientific interest.
      The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be aware of the existing arrangements for dealing with applications to the Crown Estate for sea bed leases where there is an objection to the proposals from one of the statutory bodies—local authorities, river purification authorities, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission for Scotland and, in due course, Scottish Natural Heritage. Where there is an objection that cannot be resolved, the case is referred by the Crown Estate to an advisory committee appointed by the Secretary of State. The committee is purely advisory and deals only with individual cases. The Crown Estate should take account of the committee's advice in determining the location for a lease.
      The advisory committee on SSSIs, as proposed in the Government amendment, has the same relationship to Scottish Natural Heritage as the fish farming advisory committee to the Crown Estate. The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Western Isles would, therefore, result in a bureaucratic procedure. There would be a four-tier chain from the SSSI advisory committee to Scottish Natural Heritage, from Scottish Natural Heritage to the fish farming advisory committee, and from that committee to the Crown Estate. I am sure that the hon. Member will recognise that that would be an administratively inefficient and cumbersome procedure.
      Mr. Macdonald: I do not want to create extra bureaucracy. Why not get rid of the advisory committee to the Crown Estate and have a single advisory committee, if one is necessary, comprising scientists from both quangos, to advise on disputes?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The advisory committee on fish farming has an important role to fulfil and will do so with great efficiency; many of its members are experts.
      The hon. Member for Western Isles wishes to modify the clause by exempting existing SSSIs from its provisions. That is unacceptable. It is regrettable but true that much of the criticism of the SSSI system in recent years has stemmed from the way in which notification was handled by the former Nature Conservancy Council, as the hon. Member said in debates on the Environmental Protection Bill.
      Subsection (6) of the new clause 11 is a response to that criticism. It gives Scottish Natural Heritage a chance to ask the advisory committee to reconsider a matter where an owner or occupier can make a case on scientific grounds for having a particular SSSI referred to the committee.
      I note that the hon. Member for Western Isles would like to remove subsection (8). In relation to new SSSIs, that would mean that, once the committee had considered a case referred to it under subsection (5) there would be no requirement on Scottish Natural Heritage to refer further representations to the committee.
      I should make it clear that subsection (8) fulfils a dual function. For new SSSIs, it gives owners and occupiers a chance every 10 years to make further representations to SNH, on which the committee's advice must be obtained. For existing SSSIs, it prevents an owner or occupier from constantly challenging the scientific validity of the site. That seems to be essential protection for Scottish Natural Heritage.
      The purpose of subsection (8) is to establish a 10-year cycle for reference to the committee in respect of all SSSIs. In our view, it is only right and proper that owners and occupiers should be able to activate the advisory committee procedure again, as in the course of 10 years there could be considerable changes in the scientific interest of the site. In every case, the owner or occupier would need to make a case on scientific grounds for having the matter referred to the committee. A 10-year cycle would not be unduly burdensome.
      I suspect that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) may be concerned about subsection (8) because he believes that it allows for representations on matters other than the scientific justification for notification. I can assure him that it allows no such thing. Taken on its own, it is possible to interpret it as referring to representations of any kind made in any circumstances, but the subsection must be interpreted in the context of the clause as a whole and what it is intended to achieve. The clause is designed to provide the opportunity for owners or occupiers to ask for reassessment of the scientific basis and the scientific basis alone, of the SSSI notification. To that end, it provides for referral of representations to a committee of persons with scientific qualifications.
      Subsection (8) is not free-standing and does not allow representations on other matters to be considered, first, because it starts by referring back to subsections (5) and (6) and, secondly, because to read the subsection on its
      796
      own would be to deny the closing words on the 10-year time scale much of their meaning. Those words fix the starting point of the 10-year period by reference to the date on which representations about the scientific basis of the site were last made. There seems no point in using this formula if the intention was to allow representations on non-scientific matters to be referred to the committee.
      Mr. James Wallace: In response to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Minister said what he expected the work load to be as a result of the earlier clauses. Has the Scottish Office or Scottish Natural Heritage made an estimate of how many representations they expect to receive under what might be described as the retrospective provisions of the Lords amendment? How many officials and paid staff will be required to deal with them? In the light of the representations that have been received, within what time scale do they expect the matter to be resolved, and what will be the cost to the public purse and Scottish Natural Heritage as a result?
      11 pm
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As I said earlier, about 28 per cent. objected. I imagine that virtually all those who did not object will not wish to object in future, because the circumstances will not have changed.
      The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Western Isles from The Daily Telegraph today are merely mooted in the letter from Mr. Magnusson to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The whole thrust of the clause is to enable owners and occupiers to ask SNH to think again about the scientific reasons justifying the notification of an SSSI and to have the opportunity of a second opinion. That is clearly the purpose behind subsections (5) and (6), which are the main operative provisions of the clause. Subsection (8) is ancillary to those provisions. Subsections (5) and (6) provide, in appropriate cases, the first opportunity after the coming into operation of the Bill for owners and occupiers to implement the new procedure. Subsection (8) deals with all cases thereafter, by placing them on a 10-year cycle.
      There is the further point that, if subsection (8) has as wide a meaning as may be inferred, what would be the point of referring representations about matters of a non-scientific nature to a committee composed entirely of people with specific scientific qualifications?
      There has been some speculation as to what would happen if SNH chose to ignore the advisory committee's advice. Would the committee have any recourse to the Secretary of State? The answer is that the committee will have no statutory recourse to the Secretary of State. That would be quite contrary to our commitment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, under which the final say on SSSI notification remains with SNH as successor to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. The committee could not be stopped from making representations to the Secretary of State, but in relation to an individual case there would be no action that the Secretary of State could take. His power of direction under the clause is limited to procedural matters, and his power of direction under clause 11 is disapplied to SNH's conservation functions under the 1981 Act.
      The final decision, as I said, is for SNH. It is not accurate to speak of SNH ignoring the committee's advice. It is perfectly clear from subsection (7) that, where a case

      797
      is referred to the committee, SNH cannot take a decision unless it has received and considered the committee's advice. That point is of considerable importance in relation to the question whether objectors would have any right to make a legal appeal against SNH's decision. There is no such right in the new clause, nor does the new clause affect the position regarding judicial review. There has always been a right of judicial review of the decisions of the former NCC or of the present NCCS. SNH will be in the same position.
      Mr. Maclennan: What happens if an application for judicial review is made and the advisory committee has given advice that is contrary to the advice leading to the disputed decision? Is there not a much greater prospect of success for the appellant than would otherwise exist? Normally, judges would be unlikely to substitute their discretion for that of the body whose decision is challenged. If there is a counter-opinion by an expert body, the issue is much more open.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The only statutory obligation on SNH is to consider the committee's advice. It is not under an obligation to follow that advice. If it is shown that a person has considered the advisory committee's advice and has not acted unreasonably, the decision is safe from legal challenge.
      Questions have also been asked about the situation in which SNH's acceptance of the advisory committee's advice leads to the denotification of an SSSI. Would the owner or occupier be able to claim compensation? There can therefore be no basis for a claim for compensation simply because land has been denotified. This is the case at present and will continue to be the case once the advisory committee has been established. If an SSSI is denotified or the area of a site is reduced in a case where a management agreement is in force, the question whether any sums paid under the agreement would be recoverable by SNH or whether any further sums would still be payable to the owner or occupier would be determined by the agreement itself.
      Mr. Dalyell rose—
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in a moment. I wish to get on.
      Some concern has been expressed as to how, in the case of new SSSIs, the deliberations of the advisory committee will fit into the nine-month period from notification laid down in section 28(4)(a) of the 1981 Act. That is a matter of legitimate concern, especially because, if SNH did not receive the committee's advice within the nine-month period, it would need to withdraw the notification, which would then fall.
      I assure the House that we were aware of that problem when drafting the clause. That is the main reason why we included subsection (4). In the case of new SSSIs, it may well be necessary and desirable for the matter to be referred to the advisory committee at the same time as it is being considered by the relevant regional board of SNH and the Scientific Research and Development Board. There is nothing in the clause to suggest that the advisory committee's deliberations should be fitted in at the end of the process. In fact, the clause requires SNH to receive and consider the committee's advice before reaching its own
      798
      decision. We believe that the flexibility gained by leaving those details out of the clause will be of great benefit to the committee on procedural matters. We envisage that there will be a core of about five members, but we would expect them to be supplemented by experts.
      As for the committee's procedures, we would expect them to be kept as simple as possible, especially given the time constraints that I have discussed. I could say a lot about the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and resources, but I should prefer to hear what hon. Members have to say first. The opportunity for independent appraisal and the scientific case for notification meets many requests for action on that point.
      I should also make it clear that nothing in the new clause would override the statutory duty of SNH to notify sites under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
      Mr. Sam Galbraith: Having listened to the Minister, I and my colleagues are no clearer about the general reason for and thrust of clause 11 or about the specific detail, and nor do we think that the Minister is clear about them. For the Minister to allow the reintroduction of the clause was to act in a fairly despicable manner and to betray pledges made to the House. We shall remain opposed to clause 11. The case against the clause is basically a scientific one, and I shall develop that point later; but first there are two other serious issues that I shall consider.
      In supporting the reintroduction of the clause, the Government have bowed unashamedly to the vested interests of the landowners. This is once again an example of the fact that, in forming legislation to suit vested interests, this Government are second to none. It is much to their discredit that they have allowed themselves to be bulldozed by the landowning community.
      A more serious charge against the Government is that, by allowing the reintroduction of clause 11, they have broken pledges given in the House and in another place. By breaking those pledges, the Government have broken the all-party consensus on the Bill, which is not in the interests of Scottish Natural Heritage or of the Scottish environment.
      In Committee in another place, Lord Strathclyde said on 5 December:
      "The Government have repeatedly stated, especially during the course of debates in this House and during the progress of the Environmental Protection Act, that they are not prepared to contemplate any change to the statutory procedures for site notification."
      Yet that is what the reintroduction of clause 11 specifically does and it also breaks that pledge.
      The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had predicted that the reorganisation of the Nature Conservancy Council would lead to differing standards of conservation in Great Britain. Ministers had assured Parliament that that would not be the case. I again cite Lord Strathclyde:
      "the Government cannot change the provisions for SSSIs laid down in the 1981 Act in a Scottish Bill as these are Great Britain measures."
      However, the reintroduction of clause 11 does just that, because, by referring objections to an independent committee, the Government are seeking to overrule SNH's statutory duty to notify SSSIs.
      Lord Strathclyde also said in Committee in December:

      799
      "The Secretary of State cannot overrule the statutory duty of SNH to notify an SSSI under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 3 December 1990; Vol. 524, c. 55–56.]
      In February this year, The Secretary of State said in a Scottish Office press release:
      "This decision underlines the Government's continued commitment to the SSSI system, as the essential mechanism for ensuring the protection of areas that are unique of representative sites of scientific interest for plants, animals and earth science features.
      It follows that I do not intend to support the case for a statutory right of appeal."
      Yet that is what the Government are doing by accepting the reintroduction of clause 11.
      The Government will deal in semantics and say that it is not a right of appeal but merely a second guess, but that is not the case. By reintroducing clause 11, we are establishing an appeals procedure for the system of notification which breaks all the pledges that the Government have given the House and the country. Why have the Government done that? As I have said, they have bowed to the landowning fraternity, but not to all of it.
      The main protagonist behind clause 11 is Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who is no friend of the SNH, which he seems to see as a communist plot. Writing in The Field of May 1991, which is my natural reading, he showed a mixture of paranoia and ignorance about SNH, stating that the Bill was
      "being driven through the Commons by an ambitious and interventionist Department of the Environment."
      That must come as a surprise to the Scottish Office. I know that it is rarely in charge of its own briefs, but to suggest that the Bill comes from the Department of the Environment, not the Scottish Office, is nonsense.
      Lord Pearson went on:
      "Ministers who do not understand the countryside are executing briefs written by a new brand of civil servant … based largely in Bristol."
      Again, that must come as a surprise to the Scottish Office and, indeed, to the many civil servants there who have been working on this Bill. Can someone please tell Lord Pearson that this is, indeed, a Scottish Office Bill?
      Lord Pearson continued—he is the main protagonist—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is quoting a noble Lord who is not a Minister, in which case he should paraphrase.
      Mr. Galbraith: The noble Lord continued—I paraphrase, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the provisions reflected the worst instincts of the component parts of the new constitution, which were socialist control—from the Countryside Commission—and narrow-minded science—from the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.
      Those seem to be the words of a bigot. The suggestion that the Countryside Commission for Scotland is under socialist control is ridiculous, and must come as some surprise to the chairman, Roger Carr, and his staff.
      I shall finish with another paraphrased quote from the noble Lord, who said that, when the British Communist party disbanded at the end of last year, it advised its members to continue the fight from within the green movement, adding that the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill is an important test case. Green can be quite red.
      I have dealt at some length with his Lordship, to explain the background of the opinions and personality of the
      800
      main protagonist of the reintroduction of clause 11. The supporters of clause 11 are opposed not just to the SSSIs, but to the whole concept of Scottish Natural Heritage. Clause 11 is a wrecking clause that has been inserted to kill off SNH before it gets off the ground. Why, oh why, have the Government responded to the likes of Lord Pearson, who does not speak for all the landowners?
      Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, the convener of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, is a man for whom I am developing increasing respect, especially since I have read some of what he has written. When writing in The Field, which I read every month, he felt moved to rebuke Lord Pearson. He said that Lord Pearson was his friend and he understood his view of past happenings. He said, however, that if private ownership was to survive in Scotland, his patrician attitude, reminiscent of the 19th century, was not helpful.
      Gordon-Duff-Pennington went on to say that the setting up of the well balanced regional boards would do much to defuse the past criticisms of NCCs, and that it was suicidal to condemn them at that stage. He said:
      "We asked for the repatriation of the NCC to Scotland. Now that we have it, it is up to us to make it work without the unifying force of antipathy of anything English! We have won the war. It is now up to the people of Scotland to win the peace, and that includes Lord Pearson‡ Long may he survive in Rannoch, but if his attitudes persist it will make the job of my successor that much more difficult".
      I agree with Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington. Let the noble Lord Pearson not just survive in Rannoch but also look after his SSSIs there too. Let us do away with that patrician attitude reminiscent of the 19th century.
      11.15 pm
      Clause 11 will have a serious detrimental effect on conservation in this country. Scottish Natural Heritage will take the best possible advice on whether a site is of special scientific interest. Why, therefore, set up another committee to second-guess the Nature Conservancy Council? It is impractical, unworkable, divisive and inflammatory.
      As a result of clause 11, which was originally inserted in the House of Lords, Magnus Magnusson, chairman of the NCC in Scotland, reviewed its internal procedures and announced new arrangements for notifying SSSIs in Scotland. The revised procedure will enable disputes over SSSIs to be referred to the NCC's regional board. If the dispute remains unresolved, it will then go before the full NCC council, who would seek the advice of its new scientific committee. That was welcomed by the Government and all those involved and was considered to be an excellent way forward.
      Suddenly, however, that has all been thrown aside, and, without consultation with the NCC or Magnus Magnusson, clause 11 has been reintroduced. No wonder he is furious. Why threaten his attempt to base the SSSI system on trust and co-operation by reintroducing the clause? There is no need for an appeals system because, unlike a planning application, SSSIs is simply a notification.
      On that matter, I agree once again with the noble Lord Strathclyde, who said, on Report stage of the Bill in another place:
      "Those who would argue that the SSSI procedures are unfair and undemocratic seem to me to be missing the point; that is, that notification of a SSSI in itself places no restriction on the use to which the owner or occupier put the land. All that is required is for any changes to the use of that land to

      801
      be agreed with SNH. The system is a voluntary one. SNH will not be able to impose a particular land use on an unwilling owner."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 1990; Vol. 524, c. 776.]
      I accept that the designation of an SSSI is a matter of opinion and not a scientific fact. There will be scientific facts about the site, but whether they are sufficient to make them of special scientific interest is a matter of opinion, and that is what the dispute is all about. However, we must agree that it is not like a planning application, which can prohibit certain actions. SSSIs are simply a scientific designation.
      A list of potentially damaging operations is given to the owners of sites, and if they wish to undertake any of them they are under a duty to inform Scottish Natural Heritage. However, in the last resort they can ignore them and proceed to do whatever they wish with their land. That is why we do not need an appeals procedure.
      Mr. Maclennan: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's general remarks. He must also be aware, however, that the designation can have a pecuniary impact if a grant for afforestation is withheld because the ground has been designated.
      Mr. Galbraith: I remember the hon. Gentleman making that point before. I accept his point, but I do not see why, if a site is of scientific interest, we should give taxpayers' money for it to be developed. If people wish to develop it through their own resources, that is open to them, but we should not make taxpayers' money available to them to do so.
      Subsection (5) is bad enough, in that it concerns objections to new SSSI notifications which challenge the scientific case, but subsection (6) goes even further and requires any scientific objections to existing SSSIs to be referred to the new committee. I know that the Minister was reticent about what impact that would have, but a strong rumour is going round conservation circles and bodies that there are already 200 objections lined up for the committee to take on. That will paralyse Scottish Natural Heritage from the outset. Surely the Government cannot stand that.
      The proposal invites appeals on a 10-year cycle, and acts as a focus for growing anti-SSSI campaigns among the landowners. That cannot be in the interests of the SSSI system or of Scottish Natural Heritage. The position is now ridiculous. SNH designates a site of special scientific interest, an objection is raised and goes to an appeal committee, which then second-guesses SNH—and it may have its own internal appeals procedure. It goes on through the regional committees and the scientific committee. There is nothing factual; we should simply have another opinion and be no further forward. For those reasons, we should not accept the amendment.
      What of the cost? The Minister was again reluctant to say what it would be. Will it cost £1·5 million to set up the new system? The committee will have only a skeleton staff. It will have to use SNH's scientific advice, officers and information. What will the cost be? Is the Minister saying that the new committee has been set up by the Government without their having any idea of the cost implications with regard to SSSIs? Can we have a straight answer from the Minister? He says that £1·5 million is a speculative assessment. By whom? Have the Government made any speculative assessment? Does the Minister deny that it will cost that much?
      802
      The proposal will also undermine the basis on which SSSIs are identified, whatever the Minister may say. We were given assurances under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that there would be strict equality among the countries of this kingdom in the notification of SSSIs. That has gone with the reintroduction of clause 11. The idea is not accepted by any relevant body in any of the countries. The proposal will also lead to a breach of international obligations under the Berne convention, the Ramsar convention and the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds. Are we willing to accept that?
      SNH is a bold new step in conservation in this country. It merges the body mostly concerned with access and recreation, the Countryside Commission, with the environmental protection board, the Nature Conservancy Council. I, my party and other Opposition Members think that SNH should be given a fair wind. Instead, by accepting the reintroduction of clause 11, the Government have thrown a ball and chain round both feet of SNH. It will have to drag its way through a decade. The Government should move the impediment. I trust that we shall gain support in opposing the amendment.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the noble Lord Pearson, who introduced the clause in the Lords. They probably listened to fairly lengthy speeches—and I will not make a lengthy speech tonight, such as I made in Committee. We are moving into areas of fundamental importance. It is all very well to get involved in the legal niceties; the important point is that, if people are affected by decisions, it is only right that Parliament should recognise that the experts giving the advice to the new body are not the only experts. I congratulate the Government on accepting the view that I put in Committee that there are other experts.
      Mr. George Foulkes: Like you.
      Mr. Walker: I am not an expert in these matters; I know little about them. However, I know that I ran into the same problems in aviation matters. It is nonsense to say that because someone is not a member of an august body at some given time that he is not an expert. As the Minister said, someone who has been a member of Scottish Natural Heritage could leave it and retain his expertise, which would be available to the advisory committee.
      It is wise to have second opinions in matters as sensitive as these. Within the past few weeks, one of my landowners was visited by a person who wanted to set about producing an SSSI. That visit was much more conciliatory than some previous visits in my constituency. Our debates are obviously having an impact, because the report that I received from the landowner was favourable. The new body could be much more willing to listen and to care for the interests of those who live on and work the land.
      I am astonished that Opposition Members think that an appeal against a decision by a quango is wrong. The Secretary of State is accountable to the House and has to answer our questions. He will set up the committee and while he cannot intervene we will be able to question him. Without new clause 11 that will not be the case. I congratulate the Government on listening to the will of Parliament.
      Mr. Macdonald: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he support my amendments, which are

      803
      designed to raise the Crown Estate commissioners advisory committee to the level of the Government's proposed advisory committee? Does he agree that it would be desirable to be able to ask questions about sea bed leases as well as the type of question that the hon. Gentleman mentions?
      Mr. Walker: As a matter of principle, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, on matters of principle, I rarely deviate. The only time that I deviate is when my children are involved, at which time I face conflicting interests. I understand what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's amendments. However, his hon. Friends on the Front Bench argued against his amendments by saying that he wants to extend the area of influence in the same way as the new clause. His hon. Friends know little about the countryside, unlike the hon. Gentleman. We all acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's extensive knowledge of crofting, and he carries the House with him when he speaks about such matters.
      I am very happy to support the new clause.
      Mr. Macdonald: I hope to see yet another somersault by the Minister and the Government on this issue, as that would be a fitting end to the acrobatics that we have witnessed during the passage of the Bill. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will adopt a wise course and withdraw the new clause. I do not think that he will do that, so I have tabled fallback amendments which would limit the damage that the new clause will wreak upon Scottish Natural Heritage. The Minister should seriously consider the options that I have suggested, especially in amendments (a) and (c).
      The amendments are designed to prevent the new advisory committee having to dig up stuff that has already been thoroughly worked over by the Nature Conservancy Council which carried out a comprehensive review of SSSIs over 10 years at a cost of £50 million. In view of all that, we surely do not want to see the advisory committee getting bogged down in going over the designations again. That would be a waste of taxpayers' money. If the Minister is determined to set up the advisory committee, he should at least give it a clean slate, rather than having it go over the innumerable SSSIs that have already been investigated.
      11.30 pm
      I ask the Minister to think carefully about this. If my request is too much for him, I suggest that he uses the powers available to him in subsection (3), which says:
      "The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed upon such terms and for such periods as the Secretary of State may … determine".
      Therefore, he has the power to forbear from setting up the advisory committee immediately. He can give the successor to the NCC, Scottish Natural Heritage, the opportunity to work itself into its responsibilities and to get its organisation up and running before it is landed with having to go over the notifications. One or two years' pause would be advisable. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the Government feel that the setting up of the advisory committee should be the first priority. I hope that he will see the case for letting the matter rest for a while, allowing Scottish Natural Heritage to work itself in.
      The importance of the amendments is such that we need to discuss them in some detail. Labour Members are disappointed that the Government and the Minister have,
      804
      at the very end, after the many debates on the Floor of the House and in Committee, when we thought that we had come to a cross-party consensus on the matter, turned somersaults and gone back on their commitment. It is not good enough for the Minister to use the comments that I made in debates on the Environmental Protection Act or during passage of this Bill about my dissatisfaction with the state of the NCC.
      Yes, I thought that the NCC was aloof, and that it should work more closely with crofters in the highlands and islands, but the advisory committee has nothing to do with that. It will not make Scottish Natural Heritage any less aloof. It is no answer to the problem, and it does hot begin to tackle such issues as integrating environmental needs with the many kinds of land use that are appropriate to the highlands and islands.
      The new clause goes against common sense, the rules of administration and what the Government have repeatedly assured us that they would do. It was not five years ago, not a year ago, but in recent months, during consideration of the Bill in this place, that the Government assured us that they would not be taking such an amendment on board.
      First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, SSSIs do not prohibit or prevent anything taking place, so the amendment is unnecessary from that point of view. Secondly, it would lead to inefficiency. It would mean a duplication of work and an increase in bureaucracy and procedure. Thirdly, it would lead to a gross waste of taxpayers' money. I am amazed that the Minister was not aware of the estimate made by Magnus Magnusson, who said that it would cost £1·5 million to set up the new advisory committee. That estimate was contained in a letter to the Secretary of State. I do not know the system that operates in the Scottish Office, but surely the letter should have crossed the desk of the Under-Secretary of State.
      As I have said, SSSIs do not prohibit or prevent anything from taking place. In theory, they are designed to trigger discussion and lead to agreement between SNH or the NCC and the land manager or occupier. The procedure is well enough known, but it is worth setting it out once again. Although it is well known, it is clear that it is too little understood.
      Before a designation of an SSSI is made, owners or occupiers of land are given notice of the designation that is about to be made. They have nine months to make submissions in objecting to, or trying to modify, the designation. If there have been instances where owners or occupiers have not been so notified, that is a problem which comes within the bureaucracy of the NCC and one that can be resolved administratively. It is not a problem that could be solved by the advisory committee. It is worth emphasising yet again, even after my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden has set this out, that even after the notification is made the only restriction is a requirement to consult SNH before certain listed damaging operations take place.
      The outcome of the consultation can be either a management agreement—that is, an agreement between SNH and the owner or occupier about what can be done with the land—or the owner or occupier ignoring the strictures of the SNH and doing whatever he wishes with the land. There is no prohibition on the owner or occupier—if there were a final prohibition, as there should be, the NCC would not need to make payments of £500,000 to

      805
      persuade individuals not to act as they propose to do. Such payments are not the subject of tales of old or of legend and Lord Thurso. There are disturbing instances of such gross payments being made recently. For example, £568,000 was paid to Mr. John Cameron, a farmer, who did not plant trees that he had some putative plans to plant. Surely such payments are a gross waste of taxpayers' money.
      I would draw the Minister's attention to a story in The Scotsman of 11 June, which describes the test case. The writer of the article in question makes a point very relevant to the debate:
      "Technically"—
      even after being offered £568,000 not to participate—
      "Mr. Cameron can decide to ignore this and the restrictions it imposes, refuse the money, give the NCC four months notice and go ahead and farm the area in the way he wants to.
      There is no prohibition. There is nothing to prevent him from acting in the way that he wishes with his land. Why do we need an elaborate advisory committee to second-guess something that is not prohibited in the first place?
      I said that the advisory committee would lead to an inefficient duplication of bureaucracy and procedures. Scottish Natural Heritage and the NCC for Scotland already have a scientific committee in the form of the Science Research and Development Board, whose members are already appointed directly by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what will be the difference between the criteria used by the Secretary of State to appoint the scientists who sit on the Science Research and Development Board—advising the practising scientists in SNH as to the general criteria for designating SSSIs—and those used to appoint scientists to the new advisory committee? There must be some kind of difference, or we should not need two different committees.
      Of course, as well as already having the science committee, SNH will have a whole structure of regional boards designed specifically to address the problem of aloofness—to get SNH close to the ground and to allow local input of objections, problems, worries and concerns into the decision-making procedures of SNH. That network of regional boards will cost SNH £500,000 a year to operate. Surely with that extensive network of regional committees, with the existing science committee and with the on-going review of notifications that SNH carries out in any case, there is no need whatever for the new committees, which would simply duplicate the work already done and lead to further bureaucracy.
      In a statement issued on the day when the amendment was moved in the other place, Sir Magnus Magnusson said:
      "It betokens a sad lack of Government faith in its own legislation"—
      the setting up of the advisory boards and the science committee
      "and my own repeated assurances about the manner in which NCCS (and later SNH) will operate its statutory duties regarding the notification of SSIs. It is also a vote of no confidence in the Science Research and Development Board which NCCS has appointed. Part if its remit was to provide, if required, an independent review of the scientific criteria on which SSSIs were being selected by NCCS."
      That is a damning indictment of the Government's concession to the other place by the person whom the Government themselves have chosen to lead the new Scottish Natural Heritage agency.
      806
      I have already made the point about the cost of the new advisory committee.
      The Minister referred to speculation about the £1·5 million figure. Yet again, he showed little faith in the person appointed by the Government to head Scottish Natural Heritage, who suggested that that was what the operation of the new advisory committee would cost per year. What better information has the Minister to allow him to second-guess Sir Magnus Magnusson? Has he any other facts or statistics? If not, why does he not accept Sir Magnus's estimate? If he does accept that estimate, does he really think that taxpayers will get good value for money? Is he willing to allow that amount to be spent on the committee?
      11.45 pm
      The Minister has said that the committee will have about five members. Has he any idea of the administrative costs—the basic costs, regardless of the number of reviews undertaken? What staff will be provided—or will the committee be wholly reliant on SNH for staff purposes?
      My other amendments deal with such matters as sea-bed leases. If the Government insist that an advisory committee be set up, why did they first tackle the supposed problem of complaints and objections to the operations of the new SNH, rather than considering the many serious objections to the decisions of the Crown Estate commissioners? The alacrity with which the Government have responded to the complaints expressed by Lord Pearson contrasts starkly with the deaf ear that they have repeatedly turned to crofters, fish farmers and shellfish farmers who have protested about the commissioners' lack of accountability.
      The Minister suggested that the new committee was on a par with the advisory committee for the Crown Estate commissioners. Surely nothing could be further from the truth. First, the commissioners' advisory committee is not independent. Its members are not appointed directly by the Secretary of State; the committee is set up by the commissioners, albeit with a little gentle arm-twisting from the Secretary of State behind the scenes. Secondly, the commissioners' committee has no statutory basis: it is included in no legislation. Thirdly, it has no scientific resources on which to draw. Finally, it has no financial resources either.
      The contrast between the two committees could not be starker, and could not demonstrate more clearly the Government's attitude of favouritism towards the pleas of the land-owning lobby and the deaf ear that they turn to the ordinary people of the highlands and islands.
      Sir Hector Monro: It is a pity that we must hold such an important debate so late at night. Many of us are interested in the subject, but, given the time, we must all try to be brief.
      Over the past couple of weeks I have felt disappointed about the Lords amendment, but I feel a bit less disappointed after listening to what the Minister said. It seemed that the new committee would be so anodyne and inconsequential that its existence might not be very important. As was said by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), we were assured that there would be no changes to the notification procedure under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or to the ground rules affecting conservation. That is why all members of the Committee welcomed the

      807
      Government's removal at high speed of the then clause 11, whose demise was unanimously agreed upon in a good-natured debate.
      Implicit in our debate was that the new procedures offered a welcome new way forward that would be responsive to local needs, and that the new regional committees would offer a catalyst for a different type of consultation from that offered by the Nature Conservancy Council in the past. I was hopeful that the close liaison between the regional chairmen and the site owners would be harmonious and would help to remove friction, and, more importantly, would allow from the start proper explanation of what potentially damaging operations meant-—so that they would not be nearly as fearsome as many people believed.
      I have always firmly believed that a decision on an SSSI should be taken strictly on scientific values, and should not take into account broader issues—as the landowner might wish. However, having heard my hon. Friend the Minister tonight, I am not sure that there is any change in that respect, for it seems that the committee will be strictly limited to an alternative scientific view. That is nothing that one could criticise, except in terms of cost.
      In Committee on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I explained, in replying to an excellent debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), that the owner of an SSSI had a right of appeal in respect of planning, conservation orders and compulsory purchase orders and that it was not all one-way traffic against landowners who, in many cases, were fortunate to own an SSSI.
      As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will remember, we took enormous trouble to ensure the correctness of the scientific procedures set out in sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It was not the legislation that was wrong but its application. That must be a criticism of the Nature Conservancy Council—for which I, as a member of it for many years, must take a share of the blame.
      I frequently told the council that I found it hard to believe that SSSIs of 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 acres or larger were justified, and argued that at the end of the day that practice would rebound—as it has in the flow country and at Killin, at a cost of £560,000, and at Inverlochlarig near Balquhidder, where an SSSI of such enormity has been created that the landowner will inevitably seek a management agreement, which may cost another £500,000.
      Will any future awards come out of the SNH's annual funding, or will they be funded additionally by the Treasury? If there are half a dozen or more awards, that will deplete the money that has been put aside for conservation. It will be a serious loss to Scottish Natural Heritage.
      We must consider the size of future, present and past SSSIs—the advisory committee will deal with that under retrospective legislation—and bear in mind the thrust of sections 28 and 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It was intended that, in general, SSSIs would be relatively small, with tremendous emphasis placed on the high quality of the scientific area recommended for notification. Some large areas of the Pennines have been designated as SSSIs. Those blanket areas lie at the heart of the controversy. If we had stuck to the original concept, we would not now be introducing new legislation or paying
      808
      out huge sums of money either on management agreements or to prevent an owner from carrying out what he believes to be his rights on his land.
      Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman has experience both of the Scottish position and of the Department of the Environment, in which he served as a Minister. Is he surprised that the Department of the Environment is taking a very different view of these matters? Now that we are approaching midnight, and in the light of what has been said, would not it be sensible for the Government: to report progress and give further consideration to the matter? If they did that, we could then deal with the Bill in a much shorter time than I fear might be the case tonight. If the Government will not give way, some of us might be tempted to say a great deal, and it will be light before we finish.
      Sir Hector Monro: That is a rather difficult question. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not carry out his threat of a long sitting. On the first point, obviously there will now be different standards for SSSIs in England, without any form of appeals system similar to that for Scotland. In some ways, such a difference is unfortunate.
      I do not want to add time to the debate. I have expressed my concern that we have over-reacted to what another place viewed essentially as the rights of an owner of an SSSI. We could have got away with allowing the new system to percolate through Scotland and ensuring that SNH had a new, harmonious approach to the whole issue of SSSIs. That could have been achieved without additional legislation.
      I shall listen with interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I simply feel that we have gone a step further than is necessary.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), in a measured way, has traced the history of the debate. I have no doubt that he is right in his judgment that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, for which he had such an important responsibility, developed in its application by the Nature Conservancy Council very differently from the way in which its progenitors imagined. If it had been used in the way he would have had it used, we should not be debating the new clause. Alas, the language of the law is of importance. That is why this debate is important.
      Whatever the Minister may have said in his opening remarks—it was very interesting, though delivered with a brio and at a speed that was untypical of him—when it comes to construing the Act the words that he used tonight will not be quoted in court. That is why I asked, in an intervention, about the composition of the committee. I remain unconvinced that the language provides for a committee of scientists. As I read it, the language provides for a committee from which scientists are excluded. Whatever the Minister's intention may be, the matter will have to be decided in the courts, if the Bill is passed as drafted.
      12 midnight
      Having inquired about the meaning of the Bill, the Minister perhaps recognises that there is an ambiguity, which is testimony to the speed with which the new clause was drafted to take account of considerations in another place and in a Committee of this House. I do not believe that that is the right way to legislate on a matter of such

      809
      importance. There was widespread dissatisfaction—which was not confined to the landowning classes, as the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) seems to think—about the fact that designations of vast tracts of Scotland could lead to changes in land use being inhibited and about the community interest being perceived by those centrally empowered to take decisions about the heritage in a way very different from those who will be affected by such decisions.
      I acknowledge what has been said about section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 being simply a requirement to notify—that it is a requirement that has no binding legal force—but in practice, as it affected farmers and small farmers who wanted to engage in a small afforestation scheme, or just to plant a shelter belt for the benefit of their livestock, it had a practical impact not only on the economy of the individuals affected but on the economy of highland communities in particular.
      That is why there was such an outcry over the way in which the powers were exercised by the English-based body in Peterborough. That is why, in her maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) spoke so passionately about what had been done in Argyll and why I felt moved to speak about the preposterous language used by the former chairman, Sir William Wilkinson, who described the flow country of Caithness as a wonder of the world, comparable with the great buildings of the Moguls in India.
      The reality is that the Government had to move to satisfy Scottish opinion that what was being done in the national United Kingdom Bill was suitable for Scotland. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I welcomed the decision to establish the new Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland—to become Scottish Natural Heritage. However, the Minister has played ducks and drakes with the reputation of the new organisation because of the way in which he has handled the appeals issue.
      The case for an appeal rested not on the need to second-guess the scientific judgment of the newly appointed body, but on considering whether the scientific judgment should be displaced by economic, social and development considerations and, if it were to be displaced, whether it should be displaced by someone with democratic authority so to do. That was why my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute moved an important new clause in Committee that would have required the Secretary of State for Scotland to confirm a designation.
      Before that new clause was tabled, I took the trouble to speak to Mr. Magnus Magnusson about the approach to a demand for an appeal. He made it quite plain to my colleagues and I that he had no objection in principle to what I was suggesting. He saw, as I saw, that that power would rarely be exercised, and only in a clear-cut case where the community interest in not designating was so strong as to displace the scientific judgment of those whose job it was to designate. He said that he would not campaign against it and would not raise his voice against it. He has, however, raised his voice against the Government's proposal—and not surprisingly. It is proposed that the experts who have been employed by the Nature Conservancy Council to judge whether land is of scientific importance have got it right, yet not only are they to be second-guessed and therefore, in a sense,
      810
      downgraded as experts, but their whole procedural operation is to be implemented by the creation of a new committee of scientists.
      Mr. Dalyell: Is it not legitimate to speculate that, had Mr. Magnusson known that the Government would behave like this on clause 11, he would not have taken the job in the first place? No self-respecting busy man in his position would have undertaken the task that was offered to him on those conditions. It is clear that Lord Cranbrook would have nothing to do with it whatsoever.
      Mr. Maclennan: I believe that Mr. Magnusson is a public-spirited citizen and that he will balance considerations such as those that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned with the possibility of continuing to play an effective role in the preservation of our natural heritage in Scotland. His reservations about this new lateral committee, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, were justified. The committee has the power of delay and of second-guessing, but ultimately it is not an appellate committee that can directly strike down the judgment of the Nature Conservancy Council.
      I take issue with the Minister if he does not accept that the proposal will strengthen the possibility of judicial review being successfully pursued by someone whose land has been designated and who does not accept that designation. It will be much easier to obtain judicial review and successfully to challenge the discretion of the Nature Conservancy Council.
      I do not wholly go along with the view of the hon. Member for Dumfries that the committee could be so anodyne that its incorporation in the structure would be of no importance. That remains to be seen, and some aggrieved landowners—we have seen some of them in another place—will be ready to put it to the test of judicial review fairly promptly if they receive some support from the lateral committee.
      I do not think that the Minister has done justice to the issue, to the men and women whom he has asked to carry out this difficult and sensitive job or to the purpose of separating the Scottish administration of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 from that being exercised in Peterborough.
      The House has been called upon to deal with an amendment which, on the face of it, is designed to tackle a legitimate worry. Its purpose is to provide a stop—the Minister spoke of a "second opinion". In so far as it provides for a second opinion, it may indeed offer some stop for the benefit of those who are worried.
      For the benefit of the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), I repeat that crofters have been concerned. Mrs. Julia Crowe, a Caithness constituent who speaks for the crofting interests within the National Famers Union for Scotland, made a powerful plea on behalf of the crofters for some form of appeal, a form of second-guessing, an opportunity to slow the designation process so that the legitimate concerns of those affected by designation could be taken on a board before a final decision was made. That was a reasonable action to take, and I understand and support the reasons behind it.
      I understand also why the Government wanted to go some way towards meeting those grievances. Unfortunately, they have not chosen the right way—the way that we advocated in Standing Committee, the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute

      811
      recommended that we should go and the way that we shall have to go when we review the operations of the Wildlife and Countryside Act if we find that disputes continually arise from the designation process.
      I hope that disputes will not arise from the process. I take great comfort from the fact that Mr. Magnus Magnusson has established in Scotland a new organisation which is close to the ground, with committees comprising people who are drawn from the affected communities and are knowledgeable about their interests. That will make it less likely that the conflicts of the past will recur.
      The scientific basis upon which these judgments are made is another important point. The scientists who are to be employed by the NCC must be of the highest quality and must be seen to be independent. When the decision was made to split the NCC, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others were afraid that that scientific base of authority would be dispersed. It has been said—although I do not know on what authority—that the NCC intends to scatter parts of the scientific base around different academic institutions in Scotland. I must warn against that, for it would run the risk of leading to precisely the sort of dispersal, loss of identity and loss of a clear voice to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow rightly drew attention.
      There must be a coherent, constructive group that works together and is identifiable and separate from the interests of any other academic institution. That is the reason for the move to have the organisation established not under the umbrella of a university but in an area of great scientific interest, in the highlands. But I would stray beyond the ambit of the amendment if I went further down that route.
      It is important to recognise that the amendment could damage the scientific standing of the people upon whose advice the NCC must act. Who are the others who are to second-guess them? If they are drawn from the same university to which the NCC teams are attached, there will not be much evidence of separation or of different points of view, and the procedure could be ludicrously bureaucratic, satisfying no one. Although I understand what the Minister has done, I cannot approve of or support it and nor can my right hon. and hon. Friends. We think that he has tried to improve the Bill, but failed in the attempt.
      12.15 pm
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has set out clearly some of the difficulties posed for the chairman and members of Scottish Natural Heritage, and I hope that the Government will heed his words.
      We all wish SNH to succeed, but the clause would hamper rather help the new organisation as it settles to its operations and tries to do its important work for the environment of Scotland. The Government are on shaky ground. They support the proposal, which is different from their earlier attitude, but they have not yet justified the enormous somersault in attitude. I should like an explanation of why they have performed such a somersault in opinion. I opposed clause 11 at the start of the proceedings on the Bill and I remain opposed to this variation of it.
      The other place has forced a replay of the debate for all the wrong reasons. The proposal will undermine the
      812
      relationship between SNH and the landowners. We have heard from Mr. Magnus Magnusson how he wishes to build bridges between the SNH and the landowners, to create trust and to overcome some of the previous problems and ill feeling. Mr. Magnusson should be encouraged in that task, but the proposal would have the opposite effect. It would undermine his efforts and might well set landowners against SNH and cause disputes between it and the landowners with whom Mr. Magnusson wishes to engage in dialogue and to create trust. The Government are mistaken to support the proposal because it will undermine the important work to be undertaken by SNH.
      I also believe that the proposal will duplicate the SNH's work, for example, through the Science Research and Development Board by second-guessing decisions already taken and by second-guessing arguments and analyses already made. The Government will merely add to bureaucracy and overload the system instead of streamlining it.
      The new organisation must be given time to settle down, to establish its modus vivendi and to show what it can contribute to the Scottish environment. The proposal will hamper rather than help that process. An extra appeals system added to what is a purely voluntary system is merely a recipe for delay and conflict. The Government seem to be inviting conflict and dispute and encouraging people to tackle SNH rather than encouraging it to build bridges and confidence with its clientele, which is what the landowners are.
      The proposal will turn SNH in on itself and tie it in knots because of the extra workload. Have the Government any estimate of the case load that the amendment will produce for SNH? The number of potential appeals is open-ended. The greater the number of SSSI appeals, the greater the financial and bureaucratic burden on SNH resources. We have still not received an answer. We deserve something better than what we have heard so far. I am concerned that the clause could merely siphon off scarce and valuable resources from the main work of SNH.
      What are the Minister's estimates of the effects of the new committee on SNH resources? When asked how many cases he estimated that the new appeals committee would handle, he said that it depended on a number of factors. That is scarcely enlightening. He said that it would be guess work and that he expected the figure to be small, but on what estimation is that based? If I heard him correctly, he said that of the 541 SSSIs established since 1985, 153 were subject to objections—that is 28 per cent. I imagine that 28 per cent. would be the minimum that we could expect to go to appeal, but if nearly 30 per cent. of cases went to appeal that would be an enormous burden on the new committee and, more importantly, on SNH.
      Will there be 10, 50 or 100 such cases? We must ask the Minister to put a figure on it as until we have that estimate we can have no idea about the costs or the extra staff that will be required by the new committee, which will have to be met by SNH's existing budget. That is not a good or a fair way to treat the new organisation as it settles into its important work.
      The Government's role has been disgraceful. Earlier in the passage of the Bill, the Minister gave clear undertakings against this, but there has since been a somersault. The Minister should have some reason to justify such a fundamental change, but I have not yet

      813
      heard one. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will tell us why the Government have totally changed their opinions and are now backing this idea. All that we now have is a version of the original rejected clause. What the Minister has said so far has been inadequate, but he now has the chance to tell us what has changed to bring about such a fundamental change of opinion.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman, like me, sat through the Committee stage. Did he have any inkling then that this was in the Government's mind or does he agree that during all the hours that we spent upstairs in Committee Room 11 or 12 we had no idea that the Government thought this?
      Mr. Welsh: It was amazingly well disguised. The Minister owes those hon. Members who served on the Committee and, indeed, the whole House an explanation for this immense somersault. Is it really a Government capitulation to a small group of landowners in another place? I knew that the Government were out of touch, but I did not realise that they were so out of touch. The provisions are a landowners' mini-charter to meddle and prevaricate in the important work of the new SNH, amounting to a power to delay, to stall and to detract from SNH's real work. I appeal to the Minister to give SNH every opportunity to settle in and to achieve its own style and not to lay this massive potential burden on its shoulders, which could only deflect it from the real and important work that I hope it will undertake for Scotland.
      Mr. Dalyell: I start by appealing to the Minister where the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) left off. If House of Commons debates are conducted on a party basis of yah-boo on the central issues, that is all well and good, and we understand that Governments should not give way. However, in different circumstances, and where the objections that have been made are not on traditional party lines, and especially where one of the Minister's right hon. Friends, a former Minister and a member of the Nature Conservancy Council for a number of years takes a very different attitude to that of the Government, should not we at least have the opportunity to pause and think?
      If a Whip were present, I would offer a bargain. If the Government were to report progress, I should make only a short speech when we returned to the issue after a week or 10 days, because we would at least know that there had been a chance to consider the matter, to take it back and to talk to the civil servants. Heaven knows, anybody can be wrong, but it is ridiculous to get into a fixed position simply because there has been a hijack in the House of Lords.
      I am not in the business of trying to keep hon. Members out of their beds late at night for the hell of it. However, they should understand that this problem was not apparent during all those hours in Committee. Quite bluntly—if this is a parliamentary word—many of us feel that we have been double-crossed. It may not have been deceit on the part of the Minister, but that is the effect of what has happened. No Opposition Member would dissent from the fact that we have been double crossed. That is how many interested people in Scotland, including some Conservative Members, feel.
      In those circumstances, I wish that the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip were here—
      814
      incidentally, it is strange that they are not—to make a decision. They should be rung up and told of the prospect that I may continue speaking for a long time. The problem could be simply solved by saying, "Let's pause and think about this. We have a problem. Things have gone wrong." Things went wrong for the Government in the House of Lords, where there were probably misunderstandings. Some Labour peers must have been out of their minds to vote as they did. Would it not be better for the Government Whips to send their colleagues home to think about the matter?
      I am a man of my word, and if that happened I would not delay the proceedings but would make a short speech. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I do not think that they would delay the proceedings either. If the Government Whips do not accept my offer, so be it. Our proceedings will be longer than necessary.
      There are currently some 1,300 sites of special scientific interest in Scotland, covering 750,000 hectares. The Scottish SSSIs are among the best places for wildlife.
      The Government's new clause 11 will create an independent committee to advise SNH on SSSIs. The amendment will allow SSSI owners to make retrospective appeals against existing SSSIs and to appeal every 10 years. Subsection (8) of the new clause is constructed in a way that enables owners to make objections on non-scientific grounds. That is the background to the position, and no one will contradict it.
      Do I detect movement from the Government Whips? If so, it will be good news for those who want to go to their beds, but if they decline my offer and hon. Members are kept out of their beds, the Whips will be to blame.
      Hon. Members could easily go home if the Government Whips would see sense. All I ask is that they agree with the Daily Telegraph. Its well-respected environmental correspondent, Mr. Charles Clover, put the matter in a nutshell in today's edition of that newspaper:
      "Mr. Magnus Magnusson, the chairman designate of SNH has said he is 'deeply unhappy'".
      That is the Government's own man who is deeply unhappy about the review procedure, which he believes could
      "overburden his newborn quango and lead to the reconsideration of any of Scotland's 1,300 SSSIs."
      Their own guy is complaining and saying that he is deeply unhappy; it is not some opponent.
      12.30 am
      The article continues:
      "Professor Sir Fred Holliday, the chairman of the committee responsible for co-ordinating standards of nature conservation throughout Britain said he was never consulted."
      Will the Minister tell me whether that is true? Is it true that Sir Fred Holliday was not consulted? It is either true or not.
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked a parliamentary question? The answer stated:
      "the advisory committee can deal only with individual cases within the site guidelines overseen by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and there will be no overlap in membership, it was not necessary to consult the JNCC chairman."
      Mr. Dalyell: That reveals the lack of good will. The Minister says that it was not necessary to consult the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. If that is the attitude,

      815
      why should a man who has been vice-chancellor of Durham and many other things stay on in that position? The Government are fundamentally changing the legislation. To say that it is not necessary to consult someone whom they have appointed as chairman of the JNCC is not only extremely unwise, but exceedingly bad manners. Do the Government wonder that he is deeply insulted? It is appalling bad manners for the Government not to consult their own chairman of the JNCC. If the Government do not think it worth consulting him when they fundamentally alter the terms of reference on which he is to operate that is not a mature, adult way in which to go about things. It is not how British Governments normally went about things.
      Does the Minister not understand the enormity of his bad manners? He sits there silently. The truth is that he did not understand the brief. He read out the brief, but who thinks that he understood much of it? He gabbled through it. That is preposterous. I am sorry to say that we will go on long into the night. [Interruption.] if the hon. Member for Wycomb (Mr. Whitney) is wondering what this is all about, he should read page 12 of The Daily Telegraph. If he missed it, I will read it for him.
      Charles Clover
      "explains how a Scottish crusade against restrictions on land usage could have nationwide repercussions. A dispute on whether cows may safely graze on Rannoch Moor in the Highlands of Scotland has brought the House of Commons today a measure which many conservationists fear could wreck Britain's system of nature protection enshrined in the 10-year-old Wildlife and Countryside Act."
      Many of us care about that. Like the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), I spent 100 hours in Committee on the Act. Much thought and care went into the Act and we do not want to see it wrecked. The Daily Telegraph is saying that it is wrecked. [Interruption.] If the Minister of State for Defence Procurement wonders what this is all about, I will tell him that, in alliance with The Daily Telegraph, I am explaining, in the words of its well-known correspondent, Mr. Charles Clover, why we are so angry. As a senior member of the Government, he should know.
      The article continues:
      "The government amendment to the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill which comes to the Commons for approval today generates strong feelings on both sides. Conservationists believe that it could open the door to the de-notification of hundreds of the most important nature conservation sites in Britain, protected over the past 10 years, such as the great wild bog-landscape of the Flow Country of Caithness and Sutherland, or parts of the Cairngorms or the Western Isles."
      This week we had an Adjournment debate on the Cairngorms and the issue of Mar Lodge is becoming increasingly known to many hon. Members.
      The article goes on:
      "Many landowners in Scotland, from absentee landlords of sporting estates to smaller farmers and crofters, believe that the measure provides a democratic appeal mechanism for the first time against an intensive bureaucracy—the Nature Conservancy Council (the devolved version of which north of the Border, now carries the tag 'for Scotland'.
      Who is right? The truth lies, as ever, somewhere in the middle. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, piloted through Parliament by Michael Heseltine in 1981".
      Any designation of world heritage sites, which Mar Lodge should be, is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Environment. He has distanced himself from all this legislation, and the chairman of the 1922 Committee
      816
      knows from experience that it is the Government as a whole rather than the Scottish Office going off at a tangent who make such policy.
      Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend regard it as odd that he is addressing himself to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and not to a Minister from the Department of the Environment? As the Scottish Office did not consult the chairman of the joint committee, perhaps it did not consult the Department of the Environment. The legislation has implications for SSSIs not just in Scotland but in England and goes against the assurances that such designations would be common throughout the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Minister has heard my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald). Was the Department of the Environment consulted?
      Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Of course.
      Mr. Dalyell: What did it say?
      The Daily Telegraph continues:
      "So far Mr. Heseltine, Environment Secretary, one of the architects of the 1981 Act and therefore of the SSSI system, has not become involved."
      He never did become involved in anything that he did not want to become involved in.
      "The Department of the Environment has said the procedure will not be imposed on England."
      If it is such a good procedure, why is it not being imposed on England? There may be differences. Could we be told the difference? I am waiting. There is a long way to go. I have a substantial speech to make, and if hon. Members wish to go to their beds, all they have to do is put pressure on their Whips.
      I give a public undertaking that, if we adjourn the debate now, the next time round I will not talk for more than 10 minutes. I am dead serious about this, because there are large issues at stake. Once before, I have kept the House of Commons up, all night, and that was over retrospective sanctions on Iran. It was the first U-turn that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) ever agreed to.
      Mr. Strang: I remember it well.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am sure that my hon. Friend does. After 1 have finished, other hon. Members will speak.
      The Daily Telegraph goes on:
      "The system has never been particularly popular with landowners. Notable flare-ups took place in the Somerset Levels in 1984, when effigies of Patrick Jenkin, then Environment Secretary, and the head of the NCC were burnt, and Orkney where similar events occurred."
      I am not sure that we want effigies of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) burnt, but that is what it is coming to.
      The article continues:
      "The disadvantage of the SSSI system is that it imposes upon the landowner a list of 90-odd 'potentially damaging operations' which he must not carry out. The Nature Conservancy Council and its successors pay compensation to the landowner for the earnings forgone. Imposed upon the landowner of a small fragment of English ancient woodland, this does not cause much hardship. The designation of large areas of the Highlands of Scotland—which constitute much of Europe's remaining unspoilt land—potentially threatens livings on a politically explosive scale."
      The Opposition Chief Whip has now arrived. I will have to explain to him what has occurred. Without any sign in the Committee that this would happen, the

      817
      Government have totally changed the basis on which the Bill operates. It is not a minor change. It is a geological change in the nature of the Bill. That is no exaggeration. An offer has been made three times. Although the Opposition Chief Whip is in the House, I do not know where the Government Chief Whip is.
      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: He is in the House.
      Mr. Dalyell: If he is in the House, it would be in the interests of hon. Members if they asked him to come to the Chamber with the Leader of the House.
      I will repeat my offer. I will not speak for more than 10 minutes if a motion to report progress is moved, with the advantage that the Government can go back, reflect on what has happened in the House of Lords, on what has been said by Opposition Members and, above all, on the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries, who is a member of the NCC and the Minister who did most of the work on the 1981 Act, and we may then come to a compromise.
      It is no good the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) looking sour about this. He may be chewing a Smartie, but he does not look very pleased. I am not asking for an apology. I am merely saying that some concern should be expressed about the muck-up that surrounds the heritage bodies that have been set up by the Government. If the hon. Members who have recently entered the Chamber are unconvinced, I repeat yet again that the chairman who has been chosen by the Government, Magnus Magnusson, is deeply unhappy.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Given the hon. Gentleman's interest in scientific matters, does he dispute that it is possible to obtain different views on scientific priorities and that it is therefore important that the scientific priorities that are listed by anyone should be questioned?
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: It is important that we understand that the system can work perfectly well by means of negotiations. If those in the heritage organisations and the NCC officials become more flexible and a bit softer in the negotiations after designation, that is one thing. If, however, we are to have provisions built into the system that undermine the legislation that has been devised, that is an entirely different thing.
      The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was a conscientious attender of the sittings of the Committee that considered the Bill. Even in the light of the amendments that he introduced, did he have any inkling that the structure that we are presented with this evening would be introduced? If so, he did not let the Committee know that that would happen. He did not tell the members of the Committee that the structure would go anything like as far as that which is before us. The truth is that the structure was spatchcocked into the Bill in another place.
      Mr. Strang: In a sense, the issue goes even further than that. When the announcement was made that foreshadowed the Bill, when we were told that the NCC would be split and that there would be an amalgamation with the Countryside Commission for Scotland, there were many who suspected that that reflected a strategic change in the Government's approach and that the landowners' views
      818
      and interests would prevail much more frequently over the views and wishes of the environmentalists and, dare I say, the wider community.
      There are many who find it disturbing that the amendment is a confirmation of the suspicions that followed the Government's announcement. I am not certain wherther my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) articulated precisely suspicions about a strategic change, but I know that he was uneasy about the decision to split the NCC, given his knowledge of the body. It is fair to say that the general body of opinion in Scotland, including the Opposition, was that the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt. How on earth can we do that, however, when they show themselves so willing to give way to the lobby of the Scottish lairds in the other place?
      Mr. Dalyell: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. Those concerned knew what they were up to, and they acted to further their own interests. I cannot put the issue more succinctly or eloquently than my hon. Friend. I should like to know what the Minister has to say about my hon. Friend's intervention. I am not playing games. My hon. Friend is an agricultural scientist and he has advanced a valid argument. What is the Minister's comment on his comment? There is no point in becoming bad-tempered, because it so happens that, when we start lifting stones in this place, we find that all sorts of creepy-crawly things come out from under them.
      The more we examine it, the more flawed the scheme appears. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is absolutely right that the present proposal was not in the prospectus. It is something very different from what was agreed on Second Reading and in Committee. Had we known about it in the first place, it is doubtful whether the Government could have got their proposals through as easily as they have, and with all the good will that accrued to them—from most of my colleagues, although not necessarily from me. I was against the break-up of Peterborough but had become reconciled to the proposal—as John Francis and Magnus Magnusson know—after our meeting at Hope terrace. The present proposal, however, is totally different from that which was agreed.
      Clover goes on to say:
      "Dissatisfaction with SSIs in Scotland, and mistrust of the Peterborough-based NCC led Mr. Rifkind, then Scottish Secretary, and Mr. Ridley, then Environment Secretary, to devolve the latter in 1989 into three country agencies. Then the row began."
      That was the beginning of the matter. Clover continues:
      "The latest flare-up has come out of the Bill setting up the successor body to the NCC in Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage … Lord Pearson of Rannoch and other Scottish peers such as Lord Grimond, have pressed the Government into a last-minute amendment to establishing a new independent scientific committee which will second guess all SSSIs set up by SNH."
      I ask the Minister a direct question: does he agree with The Daily Telegraph that what is involved is second-guessing? I do not call the Minister a dumb Minister; I would merely say that he is a Minister who has been struck dumb. It would be very much easier if some answers were given to these questions.
      We are talking not just about a few Members of Parliament—let alone a few difficult Opposition Members —but about The Daily Telegraph, representing the views of many people in Scotland who have been outraged at

      819
      what has happened. In order to truncate my speech, I shall leave out the quotations from Magnus Magnusson and Sir Fred Holliday. Thereafter, the article continues:
      "There is clearly a problem to be solved, though whether this procedure is the best way to do so remains to be seen. Lord Pearson, himself an absentee landowner"—
      that is not my description, but that of The Daily Telegraph—
      "told the Lords of his unresolved dispute with the NCC over a 250-acre SSSI on his estate. He says he was told categorically by the local NCC officer that he was not allowed to graze cattle on rough molinia grass on his SSSI, he could only use sheep or deer. Like many other landowners who believe they have done nothing wrong, for Lord Pearson, a point of principle had become a crusade."
      So the proposed change in the Bill is all about a row over 250 acres owned by a pretty new peer—described by one of his colleagues as an upstart peer—who suddenly appeared in the House of Lords with the amendment and took with him a number of people who did not fully understand what is at stake. The laws of the country, as discussed by this House, are being changed by the personal circumstances of one peer.
      The House of Commons gives short shrift to those who go on and on about their personal circumstances. The only Member of Parliament who did that with aplomb was Robert Maxwell. The House has little time for any hon. Member who makes great public statements, and tries to alter law, on the basis of his own circumstances. Clearly, however, that has been done on this occasion: this debate is all about the personal gripes of some very well-off people. On that basis, should the Government really change their mind? Should they alter what was considered opinion when the Bill went into Committee?
      The trouble is that the Government secured the Bill's Second Reading on pretty false pretences. It is an open question whether they would have done so had the full display been made. I do not know how the hon. Member for Dumfries could have voted in favour of Second Reading had he known that all this was in the shop window. The hon. Member can, of course, speak for himself; but he does not dissent from what I have said, and I suspect that I am right.
      Lord Pearson said:
      "If they treat me like this, just think what they do to the crofters in Orkney".
      He added:
      "I cannot see why the establishment of a scientific committee which will second guess the scientific reasons for choosing a site as an SSSI would weaken the legislation. Surely it will strengthen it."
      Mr. Bill Walker: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have not the scientific knowledge to substantiate what I am going to say. May I present a hypothetical example? Let us assume that an SSSI is designated because it is the habitat of a certain type of frog, and that tree felling is not allowed there. There may also be a need to enhance the area's salmon production, and tree felling may be beneficial in that regard. In such circumstances, is it not advisable to obtain a second opinion?
      Mr. Dalyell: That can be dealt with by means of negotiation. Given the rows and the alleged tactlessness, Sir William Wilkinson may well have a different side of the story to tell. I admit that what happened in regard to the flow country was unfortunate; but the answer is not to undermine the whole system as it is now proposed, but to employ a rather gentler form of negotiation. Given that
      820
      the flow country is at the centre of all this, the lion. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) may be able to tell us whether the new style of the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council would deal with the various doubts that he felt.
      Mr. Maclennan: I think that I made my views clear earlier. In previous debates the hon. Gentleman and I were not entirely on the same wavelength; I felt that, on some occasions, the scientific judgment should not be the ruling judgment. In such instances, the economic and community judgment should, in my view, be final, and that can be exercised democratically only by a Minister of the Crown —the Secretary of State. I still firmly believe that such a genuine appeal would have been an appropriate way in which to deal with the problem. The article refers to it very fairly, although it may give slightly the wrong impression by implying that this is all about landowning.
      Mr. Dalyell: Look at what the Government have done: they have put the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and me on to the same wavelength. That really is an historic achievement.
      I am glad to see in the Chamber the Environment Whip, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), because he knows a lot about the issues. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if there is progress, and if there is a chance that the Government will reconsider in the cold light of day, his colleagues could be spared a great deal of inconvenience. As the Environment Whip has only just arrived, he must be told that this could be a very long speech.
      Mr. Dunnachie: Tell him the whole story.
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that I should tell the Environment Whip the whole story, and who am I to do otherwise?
      Mr. Dunnachie: The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security has also just arrived.
      1 am
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) would be better in her bed. [Laughter.] I will tell her how she can go to her bed. She can use the same tactics that she employed with such strength, Friday after Friday, on a subject that I will not mention, and tell her Whips that they can stop all this—there is a great deal more to come—if they will only take time to reflect, and to consider the monstrosity that has been perpetrated in the other place. They would be sensible to listen. Even if they get rid of me at 4 o'clock in the morning, there are others to come. The sun will be shining. All this could be avoided.
      The Daily Telegraph article continues:
      "It is not only major absentee landowners such as Lord Pearson who have complaints, however. Dr. Neil Duncan, a zoologist by training, has had problems with the NCC on his 4,500 acres on the north of West Loch Tarbert, Argyll. The NCC designated an SSSI on his land in 1985 without telling about it, he claims.
      The SSSI in question is a 600-acre birch and oak wood, a number of non-indigenous beech, sycamore and Scots pine planted last century. The NCC opposed his plans to replant parts of the wood with native species and to start a deer farm on his land. He prevailed, by the unusual procedure of writing to all the members of the NCC Scottish committee and asking them personally to come to see his land.
      `They could have stopped me from making a living. It was all rather silly. I'm an ecologist by training, so I know it was silly,' he says. 'If someone else has an opinion, the NCC do not know how to handle it.'

      821
      Conservationists such as Simon Pepper of the World Wide Fund for Nature in Scotland are the first to say that there must be a mechanism to settle cases of potential hardship."
      I spoke to Mr. Pepper in Aberfeldy by telephone tonight, to make sure that he stuck by the opinions that The Daily Telegraph reported him as having, when it reported him as saying:
      "the Lords and the Government have gone for the wrong target, the SSSI designation itself, when what is needed is a fairer way for a farmer to negotiate over what he is allowed to do on his land once it has been established as of importance in nature conservation."
      What is the Minister's view of Pepper's statement? Does he have a view? Does he think that Pepper has offered him a way out? Mr. Pepper has many members in his organisation.
      The article continued:
      "This, he and others had assumed, would be brought about through the new landowner-friendly regional bodies of SNH.
      'The Government simply hasn't thought through the implications of what it has created', Pepper said. 'This review system provides an opportunity for mass dissent. It could form the basis for a campaign against the SSSI system which could lead to mass de-notification of sites like the Flow Country. You can see the whole system haemorrhaging and falling apart.—
      The Minister is making notes. Would he do us the courtesy of telling us what they are? I am trying to extract his thoughts.
      I note that we have just been joined by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He is a man of great force in the Government. He should tell the Whips that all this could be easily brought to an end if the Government would just take a breathing space and go back to the drawing board. In this case, the drawing board is the Bill that went through Committee with a great deal of good will; the other place should not have been allowed to alter it at the last moment. If the hon. Gentleman told the Government that, he could quickly get to his bed.
      The Daily Telegraph continued:
      "Frantic letters have been flowing to and fro between Magnus Magnusson and Scottish Office ministers trying to set out exactly how the new review panel will operate and what powers they will have."
      I could be wrong, but I do not think that the Minister made any reference to those letters in his speech. Why was the House told not about that correspondence? It is incredible that the Government's own man should create such dissatisfaction. If the Government appoint a chairman of an organisation, and then have correspondence about his dissent, do they not feel that they are under an obligation to tell the House about the gist of that correspondence?
      Mr. Maclennan: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question about an important point, to which I referred in my speech. I genuinely want to hear his opinion—he has told us of the opinions of others—on whether the independence of the scientific advisers in Scotland is an issue for our debate tonight.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is an issue. In Committee and previously, I had a great deal of contact with Dr. Derek Ratcliffe, who for many years was senior scientific adviser to the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government can contact him at 43 Thornton close, Cambridge, to find out his opinion. His successor, a man called Peter Bridgewater,
      822
      was also a friend of mine. He returned from Australia to take the job, but then found that it was not what he thought it would be, and he returned to Australia, where he has an important job with the federal Government. It was their opinion that the science base was threatened. That was the basis of my objection to what happened in the first place, but I had had to become reconciled to it until clause 11 came along.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: The House is in a difficulty that I hope my hon. Friend will consider. As he knows, I am a great protector of the occupant of the Chair. I understand that there are no other Deputy Speakers in the House. All hon. Members can come and go as they wish, but poor Mr. Deputy Speaker is trapped in the Chair. Does my hon. Friend agree, while he is having his drink of water, that it would not be a bad idea for Mr. Deputy Speaker, from his own point of view, to adjourn the sitting for half an hour?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that Deputy Speakers appear rapidly from nowhere.
      Mr. Dalyell: If Deputy Speakers can appear rapidly from nowhere, can Speakers appear rapidly from nowhere —or at least rapidly from upstairs? It would be a very good plan if Mr. Speaker were to acquaint himself with the fiasco with which the House of Commons is now faced. [Interruption.] Government Whips and Leaders of the House can, presumably, be telephoned, or contacted. They are able to be asked for a decision.
      Frantic letters have been written. It would be helpful if we could be told of their contents. The article also said:
      "So far Mr. Heseltine, Environment Secretary, one of the architects of the 1981 Act and therefore of the SSSI system, has not become involved. The Department of the Environment has said the procedure will not be imposed in England.
      Others believe that it can be only a matter of time before there is pressure for a review of disputed SSSIs south of the border. Conservationists say MPs who doubt that a measure created in Scotland is likely to affect England and Wales should remember"—
      remember what?—
      "the poll tax."
      That is just the first part of my speech. There is a great deal of substance to come. It would be greatly to the advantage of the Whips if they were to call close of play for the day, go back—
      Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Gentleman knows that I served with him on the Committee that created the SSSIs. I recall that at that time he was not at all happy with the format for England, in that it left too much to the political process and the Secretary of State. He referred at great length to the need for scientific suport and back-up, and he cited in particular Edinburgh university. The hon. Gentleman seems to have changed his position somewhat.
      Mr. Dalyell: No. I have been more consistent than anybody else. It was precisely the case for scientific back-up and the break-up of scientific unity that led me to say what I did. Whatever one thought of it, Peterborough was a coherent whole and owed very much to the expert opinion of Dr. Derek Ratcliffe, Mr. Peter Bridgewater and others—those in the midst of it. The break-up had very few friends among those who worked for the Nature Conservancy Council, not least among those who worked

      823
      for the NCC in Scotland in the scientific departments. It did not want that either, for the simple reason that, apart from the cost, which is considerable, many of the tasks that it fulfilled will not be fulfilled when it is divided into three.
      Mr. Strang: The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) may not have been present for our earlier deliberations. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) mentioned scientific advice and seemed to imply that there can be a range of scientific opinion on an issue—people may make a scientific judgment, but that is not an experiment where something can be tested and proved—but that does not devalue the importance of scientific advice and does not mean that one can ignore economic and commercial considerations.
      That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—he will correct me if I do him an injustice—keeps referring to negotiation. In a sense, there is informal negotation, whether it be with a land user, a tenant or a crofter. That does not detract from the importance of objective independent scientific advice on environmental issues.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: Answer.
      1.15 am
      Mr. Dalyell: There is no answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East has made a valid point of substance. The comment must be made by the Minister.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I endorse what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said. A second body of scientific opinion could evaluate the different approaches. A second opinion may not be necessary if we achieve the flexibility that we hope for, but the existence of that second opinion will make it easier to reach agreement.
      Mr. Dalyell: There is some confusion about these opinions. The first opinion is on the scientific fact and the second is on the interpretation of policy on a site, which are wholly different. There can be little argument about the first, but there can be much argument about the second. However, bluntly, it is a matter not of scientific opinion but of general landowners' interests. I do not dismiss the landowners' interest as of no consequence, but, whatever else it is, it is not just the guts of scientific opinion as such.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is not getting into too much trouble for having intervened because he made an important point. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) is telling his colleague to be quiet, he is misguided. He should be telephoning the Chief Whip and telling him that he could easily bring this to an end. He should discuss the matter with the Department of the Environment, where he has contacts, and ask why it is not following the example of the Scottish Office.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: My hon. Friend is being a bit too generous in appealing for proceedings to be brought abruptly to an end. Having listened to his speech, I observe that the longer the debate goes on, the more political damage it is doing the Conservative party in Scotland. I therefore appeal to him to continue, because, when reports of this appear tomorrow, it will cause tremendous political embarrassment in Scotland. It is to our advantage that he keeps going.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am not concerned about the politics of this matter. The central issue is not politics but what is likely to happen in Scotland. I eschew any idea of party politics. The most powerful case against the Government has come from the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Conservative Member who knows most about this subject, having been a member of the Nature Conservancy Council. The Government should have said, "We should listen to the words of the former Minister who piloted the Bill through the House. We should reflect and go back to the House."
      Dr. Norman A Godman: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has acknowledged that this is not a dispute between environmentalists and landowners. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested, it may be a dispute between environmentalists' interests and economic interests.
      As the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) will remember, about four years ago, the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) was deeply aggrieved because the environmentalists in his constituency were arguing against setting up a fish farm on a small loch there. The environmentalists argued that a valuable area of oligotrophic mosses 150 ft below the loch's surface should be protected and that the mosses would be destroyed if a fish farm were established. I had great sympathy for the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, because 50 or 60 new jobs were involved.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is right to stress that it is not just a conflict between environmentalists and landowners.
      Mr. Dalyell: Let us encapsulate that by saying that the Minister must address the oligotrophic moss question. We want an answer.
      The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the World Wide Fund for Nature and others are deeply concerned that the proposed measure will radically change the way in which sites are designated in Scotland and present a serious threat to the conservation of some of Britain's best wildlife sites. Many recent conservation successes, including the opposition to peat extraction at Duich Moss and the refusal to allow skiing facilities at Lurchers Gully, would not have been possible if the sites in question were stripped of their SSSI status.
      Mr. Macdonald: Is my my hon. Friend aware that the Government, in their embarrassment, are thinking of moving a closure motion? If that happens, our many questions to the Minister will remain unanswered. As the Government have turned somersault after somersault on the Bill and have gone back innumerable times on their commitments, does my hon. Friend agree that, if they terminate the debate, it will be a disgrace which will embarrass them in in tomorrow's newspapers?
      Mr. Dalyell: If the Government decide to move a closure we shall, of course, oppose it. Instead of suffering the embarrassment of a closure, it would be much simpler if the Government listened to all parties—and it is all parties that are involved because, apart from the hon. Member for Tayside, North, the Government have been friendless tonight. Only the hon. Member for Tayside, North was their friend, and he was a qualified friend. When that happens on what is not strictly a party issue

      825
      —it should be a Commons versus Lords issue in the light of what has happened—it is no disgrace for the Government to say that perchance they should think again.
      Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has raised an enormously important issue. The Government should respond properly to the arguments that have been deployed so cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and others, but the problem goes deeper. there was a Scottish consensus behind this legislation. It was supported by the House as a whole, despite the fact that the initial decision was controversial, for reasons that we have already mentioned. If the Government move the closure to halt debate on major Scottish legislation, that will devalue the legislation in the eyes of many Scottish people, and it will be enacted against the votes of the Labour Members who constitute the majority of Scottish Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Dalyell: If the consensus had not been shattered in this way, I should not have had the brass neck to speak for more than 10 minutes. The Whips and my colleagues would have told me to shut up. They are not saying that, because we believe that we have been deceived and double-crossed.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. There is no question but that the issue of appeals was raised in Committee not only by me but by others. It is wrong to tell the House that we were happy with the decisions in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman cares to re-read the record of the Committee's proceedings, he will see that I withdrew my amendment on the basis that we could return to it.
      Mr. Dalyell: There is a difference between appeals and the whole system that is now being built in, which is organised second-guessing. The organisation set up by the Government has been undermined. Who says that, but the chairman, Magnus Magnusson, and Frank Holliday, who was not consulted. That is part of the trouble. When the people who are supposed to be in charge are among the most dissatisfied, there is time to think again.
      There is a danger that the amendment will cause many battles over SSSI designation and land use to be reopened. Will the Minister explain how planners and developers will know whether a site is sensitive to development or change in use if the SSSI label is removed? That is an important question—how will planners and developers now whether a site is sensitive to development or change in use if the SSSI label is removed?
      Designation—[Interruption.] Let me explain to the Government Chief Whip what has happened. This would never have occurred if there had not been a complete and dramatic change in that which we thought had been agreed. The truth is that, because of Lord Pearson and his 250 acres, that relatively new peer persuaded the Lords not only to change the Bill but to do so fundamentally so that the very nature of the creature is altered. I repeat that I should not have been allowed, or had the brass neck, to raise—
      1.30 am
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put—
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Strang(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take it after the Division, when I can hear it properly.
      The House having divided: Ayes 118, Noes 41.

      Division No. 187]

      [1.30 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Amess, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Maclean, David

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Mills, Iain

      Benyon, W.

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Boswell, Tim

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Bottomley, Peter

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Bowis, John

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Brazier, Julian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Bright, Graham

      Neubert, Sir Michael

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

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Burt, Alistair

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Norris, Steve

      Chapman, Sydney

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Page, Richard

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Paice, James

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Raffan, Keith

      Cran, James

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Day, Stephen

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Dover, Den

      Shersby, Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Fallon, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Stern, Michael

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Franks, Cecil

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Freeman, Roger

      Sumberg, David

      Gale, Roger

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Gill, Christopher

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Hague, William

      Trotter, Neville

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Hannam, John

      Waller, Gary

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

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Harris, David

      Watts, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Whitney, Ray

      Hind, Kenneth

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Irvine, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Jack, Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Jackson, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Mr. Irvine Patnick and

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Mr. Neil Hamilton.

      827

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      McKelvey, William

      Canavan, Dennis

      Maclennan, Robert

      Cryer, Bob

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Dewar, Donald

      Nellist, Dave

      Dixon, Don

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Eadie, Alexander

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Strang, Gavin

      Foster, Derek

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Foulkes, George

      Wallace, James

      Fyfe, Maria

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Galloway, George

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Worthington, Tony

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kennedy, Charles

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Mr. Frank Doran.

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Strang(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order immediately after the Division, and he will not then need to be covered.
      Mr. Strang(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the black hat is to enable one to raise a point of order in the middle of a Division?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will take his point of order as soon as the Division is complete. [Interruption.]
      The House having divided: Ayes 115, Noes 36.

      Division No. 188]

      [1.42 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Dover, Den

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Amess, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fallon, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Franks, Cecil

      Benyon, W.

      Freeman, Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Gale, Roger

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gill, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Bottomley, Peter

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bowis, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brazier, Julian

      Gregory, Conal

      Bright, Graham

      Hague, William

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

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hannam, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

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

      Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hayward, Robert

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cran, James

      Hind, Kenneth

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

      Irvine, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jack, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Janman, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jessel, Toby

      828

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shersby, Michael

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stevens, Lewis

      Maclean, David

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Sumberg, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mills, Iain

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Thurnham, Peter

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Trotter, Neville

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Watts, John

      Norris, Steve

      Wells, Bowen

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Whitney, Ray

      Page, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Paice, James

      Wilshire, David

      Raffan, Keith

      Wood, Timothy

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Yeo, Tim

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. Nicholas Baker and

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Mr. Irvine Patnick.

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Cryer, Bob

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Dewar, Donald

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dixon, Don

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Doran, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alexander

      Strang, Gavin

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Foster, Derek

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Foulkes, George

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Worthington, Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

      Galloway, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mr. Allan McKay and

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take your hat off."] What is the point of the hat, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member is asking me why I did not take his point of order during the Division. That must be a matter of judgment for the Chair. I put it to the House as a matter of common sense that it is extremely difficult when hon. Members are moving about the Chamber, including moving between the Chair and the hon. Member who is trying to put the point of order, for the point of order to be made in a satisfactory manner or for the Chair to hear it properly. I decided that, in the circumstances, it would be better for the hon. Member, for the occupant of the Chair and for the House as a whole if the point of order was made when the House was quiet. I now invite the hon. Gentleman to put his point of order to me.
      Mr. Strang: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the Division on the closure, this is the

      829
      second Division. I do not think that many hon. Members in the Chamber are unaware that during the previous Division a Member was seated and covered and his point of order was not taken. That should be put on record. If we are to use the hat for the purpose of raising points of order during Divisions, surely they should be taken by the Chair, especially when they relate to closures. Surely Divisions on closure motions are the most important Divisions. Only recently a closure motion was carried—I shall come to my point of order in a minute, but perhaps—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If a closure motion is carried on a Division, that instructs the occupant of the Chair to put the Question immediately. The two Questions are really part of the same Question. That is the answer to the hon. Member's point of order. That having been said, I shall now gladly listen to his point of order.
      Mr. Strang: Clearly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should have preferred to raise my point of order before the closure was voted on and carried. Nevertheless, I maintain that there is an important issue at stake. Fundamentally, we are talking about a disagreement between this House and the other place. Clause 11 was removed from the Bill last time it was considered by the House of Commons. A variant of that clause was then reinserted in the Bill by the other place —and we are all very conscious of the way in which the debate in the other place was conducted.
      We have found tonight that, although the House of Lords has clearly sought to contradict a decision of the House of Commons, we have not been allowed to deploy our case. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will agree with me that there are many powerful and important points which have not been raised—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot continue the debate, but I shall certainly hear his point of order for the Chair.
      2 am
      Mr. Strang: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. I think that hon. Members are aware of what is at stake here. Only two weeks ago, almost £500,000 was granted to a landlord on the basis of the issues arising out of the Bill. Without wishing to make the speech that the size of the Government's majority prevented me from making, as an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency—from making—and I may say that a few other hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were also denied the opportunity to put their case-1 ask you, Sir, whether the size of the Government's majority has now prevented all further discussion of a decision by the House of Lords to contradict—indeed, overrule—the House of Commons decision.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only deal with the point of order addressed to the Chair. It is obviously a matter of judgment for the occupant of the Chair whether to accept a closure motion. It is a difficult judgment. A balance has to be struck after the occupant of the Chair has listened to the debate. Nevertheless, it is, of course, for the House to decide whether to accept the closure. I exercised my judgment in this case to the best of my ability.
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that precedent on these matters is passed from one occupant of the Chair to the next? Is it not also a fact that, in this case, the factors relating to the debate—an apparent reversal by the House of Lords of an earlier view taken by the House of Commons—places the occupant of the Chair in a different sort of position, if a closure is claimed, than that which one might expect in a normal debate? If that is so, Sir, cannot this matter either be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure or be considered in some other way? Are you not faced with a different set of factors than would normally be the case?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that different sets of factors are involved. The fact is that the occupant of the Chair has to exercise a judgment in the individual circumstances—and circumstances almost always vary to some degree. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure, he is, of course, free to do so.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where's Cryer?"] He's gone with the hat. In the 21 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, the occupant of the Chair has always heard points of order raised during a Division. I am told that in this quaint little place one puts on the hat so that one can be distinguished from all those milling around during a Division. At least, that is one argument—there have been others as well.
      Only a few years ago the House debated a set of rules. We decided, among other things, to keep the hat. Some hon. Members wanted to get rid of this strange custom but, following a Division, it was agreed that it should be kept—for the very good reason that it was important for it to be worn during Divisions.
      I should like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the precedent that you have set tonight will be perpetuated by future Speakers and Deputy Speakers. The Clerks who sit at the Table are supposed to advise on Standing Orders and so forth; I am surprised that they did not tell you, that a point of order during a Division is automatically granted. I have never known this to happen before, so I should like to know the circumstances in which you have reached your decision. We do not want it to be repeated; if we have to troop through the Lobbies to keep the hat, the Chair should observe the custom when hon. Members put the hat on their heads.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: No precedent has been created. I dealt with the point in what I hope was a reasonable manner; there is nothing more that I can add.
      Mr. Dave Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have never been one of those hon. Members who are enthusiastic about the hat; it may make my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) look a bit like Frankie Vaughan, but it does not do the same for me.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, however, the hat is there for the distinct purpose of differentiating between those who wish to raise a point of order during a Division and those who wish to vote. Can you give us a fuller ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker —later, if not now—on whether the Chair's entitlement to decide whether to take a point of order during a Division

      831
      hearing that point of order has created a precedent? I understood that the Chair could rule that a point of order was valid, or bogus, once it had been made, but surely if the point of order has not even been accepted, there is no way in which the Chair can judge whether it is valid.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, no precedent has been created. If hon. Members read what I said when Hansard appears, they will realise that mine was a common-sense judgment.
      Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There appears to be a delay in the Division Lobbies. Will the Serjeant at Arms please investigate?
      The House having divided: Ayes 36, Noes 109.

      Division No. 189]

      [2.7 am

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Cryer, Bob

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dalyell, Tam

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Dewar, Donald

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dixon, Don

      Ruddock, Joan

      Doran, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alexander

      Strang, Gavin

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Foster, Derek

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Foulkes, George

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Worthington, Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

      Galloway, George

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mr. Allen McKay.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Freeman, Roger

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Amess, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Arbuthnot, James

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Gregory, Conal

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hague, William

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boswell, Tim

      Hannam, John

      Bottomley, Peter

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

      Bowis, John

      Harris, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayward, Robert

      Bright, Graham

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

      Hind, Kenneth

      Burt, Aiistair

      Irvine, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Jack, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jackson, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Janman, Tim

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Cran, James

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

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

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Day, Stephen

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Maclean, David

      Dover, Den

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dunn, Bob

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Mills, Iain

      Fallon, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Franks, Cecil

      Monro, Sir Hector

      832

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Stern, Michael

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stevens, Lewis

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Sumberg, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Norris, Steve

      Thurnham, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Page, Richard

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Paice, James

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waller, Gary

      Raffan, Keith

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Wells, Bowen

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilshire, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Yeo, Tim

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Shersby, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Mr. Tom Sackville and

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mr. Neil Hamilton.

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Strang: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I simply wish to register the fact that this will be the final vote on a clause that was rejected by the House but has been inserted by the Lords. There will be no further opportunity to vote on it. Therefore, sadly, Parliament is enacting a Bill that is fundamentally flawed.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the amendment in lieu.
      The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 36.

      Division No. 190]

      [2.28 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Amess, David

      Hannam, John

      Arbuthnot, James

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

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Harris, David

      Arnold, Sir Thomas

      Hayward, Robert

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Hind, Kenneth

      Boswell, Tim

      Irvine, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter

      Jack, Michael

      Bowis, John

      Jackson, Robert

      Brazier, Julian

      Janman, Tim

      Bright, Graham

      Jessel, Toby

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

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Burt, Alistair

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Cran, James

      Maclean, David

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

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Day, Stephen

      Mills, Iain

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mitchell, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Morrison, Sir Charles

      Dunn, Bob

      Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Fallon, Michael

      Neale, Sir Gerrard

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Franks, Cecil

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Freeman, Roger

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gill, Christopher

      Norris, Steve

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Page, Richard

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Paice, James

      Gregory, Conal

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hague, William

      Raffan, Keith

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      833

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Thurnham, Peter

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Shersby, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wells, Bowen

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Stern, Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Stevens, Lewis

      Wood, Timothy

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Yeo, Tim

      Sumberg, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mr. Nicholas Baker.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

      Macdonald, Calum A.

      Canavan, Dennis

      McKelvey, William

      Cryer, Bob

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Darling, Alistair

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

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

      Nellist, Dave

      Dewar, Donald

      Pike, Peter L.

      Dixon, Don

      Ruddock, Joan

      Doran, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alexander

      Strang, Gavin

      Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

      Foster, Derek

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Foulkes, George

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Worthington, Tony

      Galbraith, Sam

      Galloway, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Mr. Allen McKay and

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

      Question accordingly agreed to. [Special entry.]

      DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OR SCHEMES

        Natural Heritage Areas
        `.—(1) Where it appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that an area is of outstanding value to the natural heritage of Scotland, and that special protection measures are appropriate for it, it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the area be designated as a Natural Heritage Area.

        (2) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (1) above he may designate the area by a direction under this subsection as a Natural Heritage Area.

        (3) Where the Secretary of State proposes to make a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the proposal in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the proposed areas.

        (4) Before making a direction under subsection (2) above, the Secretary of State shall consider any representations received by him about the proposal within six weeks of the date which is the later of the dates on which the publication under subsection (3) above of notice relating to the proposal occurs.

        (5) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under subsection (2) above he shall publish notice of the designation in the Edinburgh Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in an area which includes the Area.

        (6) Where is appears to SNH, after consultation with such persons as it thinks fit, that it is no longer appropriate that an area which has been designated as a Natural Heritage Area or any part of it should continue to be so designated it may recommend to the Secretary of State that the designation be cancelled or, as the case may be, varied.

        (7) Where the Secretary of State receives a recommendation under subsection (6) above he may, by a direction under this subsection, cancel or, as the case may be, vary the designation of the Natural Heritage Area; and subsections (3) to (5) above shall apply to a direction proposed to be made under this subsection as they apply to a direction proposed to be made under subsection (2) above, and for the purposes of such application the reference in subsection (3) to the proposed area shall be construed as a reference to the Area.

        (8) Section 262C of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 (National Scenic Areas) shall be amended as follows—

        (a) in subsection (3) for the words "National Scenic Area" there shall be substituted the words "Natural Heritage Area under section [Natural Heritage Areas] of the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991; and

        (b) in subsection (4) for the words "National Scenic Area" there shall be substituted the words "Natural Heritage Area".

        (9) Notwithstanding the repeal by section 26 of and Schedule 11 to this Act of subsections (1) and (2) of the said section 262C or the amendment by this section of subsections (3) and (4) of that section, any area which, at the date of such repeal, was designated as a National Scenic Area shall continue to be so designated and, until such designation is cancelled by a direction under the said section 262C, the provisions of that section shall continue to have effect in relation to the area as if they had not been repealed or, as the case may be, amended.'.

        but propose the following amendment thereto:

        787
        Lords amendment: in subsection (4), leave out "six weeks" and insert "three months".
        Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment to the Commons amendment.
        The amendment provides for a longer period for the receipt of representations in dealing with the establishment of a natural heritage area. Six weeks is a standard period for representations in planning legislation, but the longer period is perfectly reasonable here, as allowing a substantial time for commenting on a NHA proposal is, of course, entirely in keeping with the Government's view of NHAs as promoting a co-operative approach between all relevant interests. Such an approach is in tune with the fundamental philosophy of Scottish Natural Heritage.
        The extension of the period to three months should ensure that anyone who is absent on holiday or the like at the time of the proposal being published is properly able to be involved in the process. I trust that the House will share that view of what is a simple, but important, amendment.
        Mr. Robert Maclennan: Can the Minister give us any information about the
        " .—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee (in this section referred to as "the Committee") which shall have the function of giving advice to SNH on such matters concerning areas of special scientific interest as are specified in this section.
        (2) The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons who are not members of SNH or of any committee appointed by it having scientific qualifications and experience in relation to flora or fauna or the geological or physiographical features of land.
        (3) The chairman and members of the Committee shall be appointed upon such terms and for such periods as the Secretary of State may determine and they shall be paid by SNH such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
        (4) The Secretary of State may, from time to time, give directions to the Committee as to its procedure.
        (5) Where SNH has given notification to the owner or occupier of any land under subsection (1) of section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (areas of special scientific interest) that the land is or forms part of an area of special interest and has received from the owner or occupier of the land, within the time specified in subsection (2) of that section, representations or objections relating to any reason specified in the notification in pursuance of subsection (4)(a) of that section and the owner or occupier does not agree to withdraw such representations or objections, it shall refer the matter to the Committee.
        (6) Where, as regards any land in respect of which a notification has been given under subsection (1) of the said section 28 before the commencement of this section of this section, SNH receives representations from the owner or occupier of the land that any reason specified in the notification in pursuance of the said subsection (4)(a) has ceased to be valid and, within six months of such representations having been made, they have not been withdrawn—

        (a) in the case of a notification given since the commencement of section 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1985 or in the case of a notice of proposed notification given before such commencement, where objections or representations were duly made in pursuance of subsection (2) of the said section 28 at the time the notification or, as the case may be, notice was given; and

        (b) in any other case, where not less than 10 years have elapsed since the date the notification or, as the case may be, notice was given,

        it shall refer the matter to he Committee.
        consequences of designation? If he cannot, can he explain why we should accept that three months would be a suitable time?

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

        NORTHERN IRELAND
        That the draft Cinemas (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 15th May, he approved. —[Mr. Kirkhope.]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

        ANIMALS
        That the draft Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 21st May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &c.).

        CRIMINAL LAW
        That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
        That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before tis House on 1st May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &c.).

        CRIMINAL LAW (NORTHERN IRELAND)
        That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &c.).

        INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
        That the draft Vienna Document (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
        Question agreed to.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Statutory Instruments, &c.).

        CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)
        That the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
        That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
        Question agreed to.

Burma
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
2.39 am
Mr. Jim Lester: This is the second time that I have sought to draw the Government's attention to the situation in Burma and to press for comprehensive action from the United Kingdom Government. The first time that I did so was on 1 November 1989. I seek to raise this issue again to deal with one of the most objectionable regimes in the world today and to express the sense of widely felt frustration about the fact that it seems impervious to outside influence. It is a coincidence that my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), is seeking an Adjournment debate on human rights under that regime. I have asked him if he will speak for five minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has also expressed an interest and wants to speak for one minute. The fact that three hon. Members have shown an interest in raising this issue on the Adjournment at this time of night is of some significance.
I have sought this debate now because of two anniversaries. First, 28 May is the anniversary of the elections in Burma that overwhelmingly returned the National League for Democracy, which received 86 per cent. of the vote and 392 seats, as opposed to the National Unity party which received 3 per cent. of the vote and 10 seats. The latter was the close ally of the military junta, known as SLORC. By any standards, that was an overwhelming result—all the more so because of the incredible way in which SLORC attempted to stifle true expression before the election. It was so flagrant that I sought to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to ignore the result, but the true expression of the people prevailed and the result was overwhelmingly in favour of the National League for Democracy.
However, a year later, not only has no transfer of power taken place, as was requested by all outside observers, but there has been a cold-blooded systematic offensive against the second and third levels of the leadership of the National League for Democracy, with the systematic arrest of elected representatives and savage sentences on trumped-up charges for various members of the party. Kyi Maung, the acting leader of the NLD, has recently had his sentence doubled from 10 to 20 years. Thirty-five Members of Parliament, including four women, have been given 25-year sentences for upholding the democractic will of the people who elected them. Over 80 have been arrested and about 1,000 of those who work for the NLD have been held in prison without trial.
I cannot remember or recollect any similar action by any country. Those in power must have sought to use the elections, presumably to reinforce the 40-year-old military regime's power, against all democratic and international legal precedent, defying the election results and the constitutional process over which no unelected military junta does or should have power. That has been confirmed by the legal director of the international committee on human rights.
The second anniversary was on 19 June, which is closer to the date of this Adjournment debate. It is the birthday of Aung Sun Suu Kyi, the lady was the catalyst for democratic change—a role that she did not seek, and which has resulted in her being kept under lonely house
836
arrest for over 21 months, without mail, telephone, calls or visits. Even the international civil servant who was appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights could not make contact with her. She has had no contact with her family in recent months. Everyone who knows about the lady's position realises that that is a wholly uncivilised way to treat anybody, let alone the leader of a party before an election.
To keep that lady in the same situation after the result that I have described and systematically to undermine her role as a party leader and a patriotic Burmese citizen is wholly unacceptable. Until recently, her role has been unsung, although earlier this year the European Parliament awarded her the Sakharov prize. She has been nominated for the Nobel prize and has already won the Norwegian peace prize. In those ways, those of us who understand the position can try to change world opinion. That lonely lady, an indomitable flame, stands alone against a regime that has increased its forces by over 100,000 since 1988—it now has some 280,000 soldiers and is still recruiting—and is spending its slender national reserves on purchasing ever more arms from China.
I know that the Government share my concerns arid I know about the statements made by the European Community on 27 May. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his interest at the meeting with ASEAN Foreign Ministers, when he spoke strongly of our desire to help to bring about a peaceful political change. What else can and should we do to bring about a change in that obnoxious regime? How can we stop arms sales, especially from China, which can be used only to subjugate the people within Burma? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there are no external threats to Burma, so its massive army and those weapons can be used only to continue subjugation. Although my right hon. Friend has called on members of the Community, the permanent five and ASEAN to be careful not to supply arms, arms have been purchased from China.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that Burma's overall position is raised at the United Nations General Assembly this year? Active help should be sought from the United States, Australia and Canada, which all have larger Burmese communities living in exile than does this country. Will he consider the suggestion that we could move to a full United Nations aid and trade embargo on goods originating from Burma? I know that all the countries now provide no aid other than humanitarian aid. Could the credentials of the delegation to the United Nations, who have clearly resisted the democratic will of their people, be challenged?
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider seeking to grant observer status to the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma, some of whose members I have met in the House and who have risked terrible consequences by leaving Burma and trying to set up a government in exile. Will he also look at the Swedish draft resolution, which in the United Nations last year was not regarded as sufficiently supportable? I suspect that, because of the continued attitude of SLORC, it might be rather more supportable this year. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the position that I have described in so few words is highlighted?
Will my hon. Friend the Minister follow up the report on human rights that Professor Ogata presented to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva? Those of us who

837
followed her journey to Burma realise that only one person had a minimalist treatment within that country, not being allowed to meet any leaders of the Opposition; I have already referred to Aung Sun Suu Kyi. None the less, her report was critical and I hope that, instead of only one delegate going to Burma, we could support at least three, representing different sections of the world community. That would insist on carrying out a full inspection to determine the state of human rights in that country.
Furthermore, will my hon. Friend the Minister shake ASEAN's belief that the problem is an internal affair of Burma, which has already isolated itself from the world community for the past 40 years, and that, therefore, it is a continuation of the same policy? When I discussed the question with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York, he shared the view that this was the sort of internal affair that should be regarded very much as an external affair because it offends the world's sense of order, and of humane and decent government.
Can we not express grave concern over the treatment of Burmese students in Thailand? The Minister of State assured me in a letter on 20 March that we were monitoring the overall situation. Since then, 41 asylum seekers, all of whom were of concern to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have been arbitrarily deported to Burma, to heavens knows what. I gather that 21 of them have returned to Thailand as a result of what might have happened to them. They have now been arrested by the Thai authorities. We need to help to establish proper procedures and support for the students who are at risk and to ensure the implementation of United Nations rules.
The reason why I have raised the subject again is not only that many people in the House are concerned, but that there are even more outside who share the sense of frustration which I hope that I have injected into the debate. There are many people in exile in different parts of the world and there must be many more in Burma itself who reach out for those of us who can speak on their behalf and who have no opportunity, other than listening to the BBC world service, of finding out what is happening outside their closed world in which no press, no television and no radio are allowed to go.
The issue is important because of Britain's historical link with this beautiful country and the fact that the only period of genuine democracy that the Burmese people have had was the 14 years after the war of 1945 in which they established a democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when he listens to the speeches of my colleagues, will recognise that we share the concern and that we seek to press my hon. Friend and the Government to act on the five issues that I have described so we can bring this dreadful period in Burmese history to an end.
2.51 am
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), a near Nottinghamshire neighbour, for allowing me to participate in what he and everyone in the House would agree is a most important debate. Despite the lateness of the hour, I very much hope that the plea from all of us tonight
838
will not fall on deaf ears. Burma may be a long way away, but it is certainly a country about which we know a great deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has referred to the historic links with this country. Some 38,000 British and Commonwealth war dead are buried in Burma. There were 74,000 dead and wounded during the second world war. My hon. Friend has referred to the democratic regime which we left in that country when we departed as the colonial power. Yet for the past 30 years, Burma has been subjected to a brutal dictatorship.
Burma used to be the largest exporter of rice in the world. Today, it is the sixth poorest country in the world. As my hon. Friend has said, it is a country with no external enemies —yet 40 per cent. of its national spending is on arms, which are used against its own people. In short, it is a nasty, corrupt, brutal and repressive dictatorship. The recent letter in The Independent from the cultural attache at the Burmese embassy, explaining that one of the reasons for the delay in yielding democracy was the failure of candidates to file their election expenses, shows the level of argument to which we are subjected from the illegal regime in Burma.
In 1988, democracy nearly made a breakthrough. Under the eyes of the world, there was appalling repression. Some 10,000 people died, elections followed some time later and, as my hon. Friend said, 86 per cent. of the votes were won by the opposition. Since then, 25 Members of Parliament have been sentenced to long periods in prison, and in some cases sentences have been arbitrarily doubled. Opposition leaders are locked up without trial, between 3,000 and 10,000 people have had to flee the country, and the illegal regime has attacked the country's established religion—Buddhism. There may be some hope that the Buddhists in Burma can play a role similar to that played by the Catholic Church in Poland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said that Aung Sun Suu Kyi was a catalyst for change. That immensely brave lady is in an appalling plight in Burma and she remains under house arrest. I was delighted to see her nominated for the Nobel peace prize. She is still unable to see her two teenage sons, who have been stripped of their Burmese passports. She remains the legitimate and elected leader of Burma, and the way in which she has been treated and imprisoned is a disgrace.
There are several ways in which we can intensify the pressure on the regime in Burma. We must make sure that the eyes of the world are focused on what is happening in that country. I hope that we can continue the excellent work that the Minister has been doing in ensuring that representations are made through the European Community and the United Nations. I hope that the Minister will heed the words of my hon. Friend the Minister for Broxtowe about the importance of an arms embargo, and I welcome the work carried out on that by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I hope that we can persuade America to put more pressure on China, which is the country with the most effective leverage on Burma. The BBC world service has many listeners in Burma, and I believe that the BBC receives more letters from Burma than from any other country. Perhaps the Minister will consider whether the BBC world service is broadcasting to Burma for a sufficient number of hours. I hope that he will find out whether more can be done to offer scholarships to Burmese students, especially those who have been forced to flee to Thailand, and that he will heed what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has said about

839
human rights. The Government can help by collecting data on human rights atrocities, and by doing so more actively than they have done in the past. We must let the regime know not only that evidence of its misdeeds is being collected, but that it is a pariah in the international community.
I hope that the Government will do everything possible to secure the early release of Aung Sun Suu Kyi. As I have said, she is the rightful and legitimate leader of Burma and before long events will show that she is the right person to lead that country. I hope that the Government will do everything to ensure that that happy event occurs as quickly as possible.
2.57 am
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has rendered the House and Burma a service by initiating this debate, and he has been ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell).
There are 40 million people in Burma—equivalent to the population of Spain or to the combined population of Canada and Australia. We are debating very many decent, cheerful people who for a long time have suffered under a regime that has made them poorer year by year. The glimpse of democracy has returned those people to conditions worse than those that prevailed four or five years ago when I was there.
I hope that the debate will lead to greater international co-operation and to a promise to the present rulers of Burma that their way is a cul-de-sac which brings no benefit to them and certainly leads to harm for their people. The sooner they realise the advantages of a flexible, democratic and economic system, the sooner Burma can return to the community of nations. I hope that Burma will put right the mistake of not joining the Commonwealth, which it made when it became independent.
2.58 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The House is grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for drawing attention to what is undoubtedly one of the worst cases of human rights abuses in the contemporary world.
It is hard to overstate the sense of indignation and outrage which the situation in Burma evokes in Britain, in the European Community and, indeed, anywhere in the world where democracy and the rule of law are valued.
The facts can be simply stated. Three years ago, the Burmese people, in a series of demonstrations and popular protests, overwhelmingly showed their dissatisfaction with nearly three decades of misrule, entitled 'the Burmese way to socialism', under the dictator Ne Win. One point above all stood out from those turbulent events, which involved ordinary Burmese in all walks of life: the desire for change and for a new democratic start for their much abused country.
Alas, this was not to be. Employing brutal methods which were widely condemned outside the country, the Burmese army suppressed the demonstrations with military force and efficiency. As a result, we suspended all official bilateral European Community aid to Burma, a suspension which remains in force. The only glimmer of hope to come from the carnage was that the State Law and
840
Order Restoration Council, or SLORC, the military junta which assumed control, promised to guide Burma towards free and fair elections and thus to democratic rule. British policy was at that stage to press for those elections and to judge SLORC on the extent to which that promise was kept.
Although in the run-up to the elections the opposition were harassed and their charismatic leader, of whom we have heard mention tonight, was placed under house arrest, as we have also heard, the result was an overwhelming vote for the National League for Democracy—a truly massive demonstration of the popular yearning for a new democratic course. The poll in May 1990 was generally regarded as free and fair, and was welcomed as such worldwide.
At the time of the elections, the Foreign Office drew up a four-stage plan for improving our relations with Burma, in the expectation that SLORC would fulfil its promise to return Burma to democracy, and that that would lead to a full normalisation of relations, including the restoration of aid. The first stage was to start when SLORC initiated a dialogue with the NLD, the minimum step that we expected it to take. Whatever our expectations, the reality turned out to be very different. Far from starting a dialogue with the winning party, in the year following the elections SLORC systematically set about destroying the opposition and cowing all other elements in Burmese society which represented any perceived threat to its continuation in office. This was done in the face of repeated calls by the international community for the outcome of the election to be honoured and respected.
For example, two months after the elections, the Foreign Secretary wrote personally to the chairman of SLORC, in friendly terms, regretting that relations between our two countries should be at such a low level and expressing the hope that the process of transferring power to those who had been democratically elected would begin soon. Those and other such appeals have been flatly and cynically ignored, with SLORC strengthening its grip on state power and showing not the slightest desire to stand by the election outcome. Recently, the Burmese embassy circulated a 65-page press release on the position in Burma which contrived to avoid any mention of the election result.
We believe that the completely unambiguous way in which the Burmese people opted for democratic change must be acknowledged and acted upon. After holding a free and fair poll and then ignoring the outcome, SLORC has cocked a snook at the democratic principle in the most direct possible way. That cannot and must not pass unchallenged. It is incumbent on all countries who value democracy to make it clear that such behaviour is not acceptable and that democracy is not to be trifled with in that cynical fashion.
As I have said, deep concern about the present situation in Burma is widespread. We and the European Community have repeatedly called for the restoration of democracy and human rights. We were closely associated with a demarche to SLORC by no fewer than 18 like-minded nations in September 1990. At the recent meeting of the European Community—ASEAN nations in Luxembourg, we called on Burma's regional neighbours to use their influence with SLORC to persuade it that its policies were leading in the wrong direction. We understood the delicacy of that request for the ASEAN countries, especially as they had never before in their

841
official pronouncements referred to Burma in any way, and it might have seemed strange for them to do so for the first time in Europe. Nevertheless, they agreed to such a reference in their joint statement. The EC and ASEAN Ministers expressed the hope that the situation in Burma would evolve in such a way as to enable the country to take its place among the dynamic Asian economies.
That may sound a less than revolutionary aspiration. In the Burmese context, however, it effectively calls for the reversal of a policy of self-imposed isolation which Burma has pursued for the past 40 years and is clearly a major change. We hope that the ASEAN countries will now make this new position known to SLORC and that there will be an appropriate response.
Other sentiments in the EC-ASEAN joint statement are also relevant to Burma. For example, Ministers referred with approval to the growth of democratic practice, respect for human rights and increased political and economic participation for all people. These are the policies that Burma needs, and we hope that SLORC will heed the advice.
What else can we do? My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe posed several questions and I shall comment on some of them. Clearly we must continue our efforts to bring home to SLORC that its policies are leading Burma up a blind and dreadful alley. We support all diplomatic action that helps to bring home that message. For example, we would like to see action in the United Nations. The United Nations General Assembly's third
842
committee resolution on Burma, which was put forward in 1990, will be discussed at this year's Assembly. We shall again support it, and hope that it attracts the widest possible international support, including, this year, from ASEAN. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights is also considering Burma for the second year running in its confidential 1503 procedure. We welcome this continuing action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned arms. We are particularly concerned that SLORC should devote such a large proportion of Burma's meagre resources to the purchase of arms, despite the fact that Burma faces no external threat. We have taken the lead in seeking an EC embargo on all such sales, and we hope that it will be formalised shortly. As my hon. Friend said, the signs are that China is an arms supplier in Burma. We have publicly urged all countries to show restraint, and that was a major theme of the address to the EC and ASEAN ministerial meeting on 13 May by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
My hon. Friends have mentioned their great concern, which is shared by us all, for Aung Sun Suu Kyi, who has been held without charge under house arrest since July 1989. The award of the European Parliament's Sakharov prize and her nomination for a Nobel peace prize reflect the international esteem in which she is held. Here is someone whose only crime was to seek democracy by peaceful means for the country which her father did so much to create after the second world war.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Three o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kurdistan
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the armed forces of each of the allied coalition countries have been stationed in Iraqi Kurdistan on a week-by-week basis since 6 May.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is not available.

  Paraguay
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Paraguayan relations.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We enjoy friendly relations with Paraguay and maintain an embassy in Asuncion. British-Paraguayan trade is on the increase. I welcome the current visit to United Kingdom of a Paraguayan parliamentary delegation.

  Caribbean Dependent Territories
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Chief Ministers of(a) British Virgin Islands, (b) Turks and Caicos Islands, (c) Anguilla, (d) Montserrat, (e) Bermuda and (f) Cayman Islands; and what subjects were discussed in each case.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  During my time in office I have met all the Chief Ministers of the Caribbean Dependent Territories. The Cayman Islands do not have a Chief Minister. I met Executive Council Members during my visit to Grand Cayman on 6 December 1990. I look forward to meeting the recently elected Chief Minister of Turks and Caicos Islands in London on 10 July. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the Premier of Bermuda on 27 November 1990 in London.

  The United Kingdom's commitment to the good government of the territories and the ways in which we can assist the local governments with their economic and social developments were discussed at all these meetings.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had or proposes with the Chief Minister of the British Virgin Islands about the appointment of the new governor.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following normal procedure Mr. Stoutt has already been advised of the appointment of the next governor in advance of the official announcement which is expected shortly.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations have been 362
  undertaken with the Government of the British Virgin Islands on capital punishment; what was their result; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The views of the Governments of all the Caribbean Dependent Territories on capital punishment are well known and were carefully considered before the decision to abolish capital punishment for murder in the Caribbean Dependent Territories was taken. I discussed them with the Chief Minister of the British Virgin Islands in London in March and when I visited the islands in April.

  European Political Union
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the latest draft treaty on political union submitted by the Luxembourg presidency.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The presidency circulated on 20 June a revised draft treaty text updating the version circulated on 17 April and taking account of discussions in the inter-governmental conference since then. This is an interim working document which will simply be a basis for the next phase of the negotiations. I understand the Library is taking steps to obtain a copy.

  Hong Kong
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the People's Republic of China has ever suggested that it be allowed to construct the new airport or any part of it for Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No.

  Information Services
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the costs of administering the market information inquiry service and the overseas status report service were in each of the last two financial years.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Information on the costs of supplying these individual export services is not, at present, separately identified.

  Kuwait
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the Government of Kuwait the most recent death sentences on alleged collaborators imposed by the military court in Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall continue as necessary both bilaterally and with our EC partners to urge the Kuwaiti authorities that trials should be conducted in accordance with due process of law and respect for the fundamental human rights of the defendants.

  China
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 19 June, if he will ask the Chinese authorities to produce Lee Bun and her
  363
  husband to demonstrate that they have not been executed; and if he will seek an account of the circumstances in which the couple are now living.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No. The Chinese authorities have told us that the couple are under investigation, accused of engaging in illegal petroleum transactions.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last carried out a review of the financial consequences for Gibraltar of their joining the EC customs union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  At the request of the Government of Gibraltar we carried out such a review earlier this year. It has been passed, in confidence, to the Gibraltar Government.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there will be anything pertaining to Gibraltar at the British pavilion at Expo 92 in Seville.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 June at col.417. The theme of the British pavillion at Expo 92 will be "Original Britain". There is no plan to include exhibits based on specific geographical areas.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Development Issues
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each year since 1979 Overseas Development Administration funding for research and development into development issues, in real and nominal terms.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 19 June 1991: The amount spent by the ODA on funding for research and development into development issues since 1979 is as follows:

  Cash terms £ 000

  Real Terms(1990 Prices)£ 000

  1979–80

  25,800

  51,771

  1980–81

  27,333

  46,349

  1981–82

  26,474

  40,940

  1982–83

  29,358

  42,389

  1983–84

  32,588

  44,973

  1984–85

  33,861

  44,471

  1985–86

  32,875

  40,950

  1986–87

  36,056

  43,409

  1987–88

  48,906

  55,897

  1988–89

  53,058

  56,439

  1989–90

  58,486

  58,486

  Source: Statistics of the British Aid Programme

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecutors
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what research the Government have carried out on whether the quality of service to the public would be better and costs lower if Crown prosecutors were granted extended rights of audience; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Research is at present confined to an initial assessment of the potential costs and savings to the CPS according to the range of options open to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and training. No research is feasible as regards the qualitative effect of any decision by the advisory committee.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his latest estimate of the full costs to public funds involved in providing the services for a full year of(a) a Crown prosecutor, (b) a senior Crown prosecutor and (c) a chief Crown prosecutor.

  The Attorney-General
  The latest estimates of the full costs to public funds involved in providing the services of Crown prosecutors for a full year, including accommodation costs and notional superannuation contributions are as follows:

  In London

  Outside London

  (a) a Crown Prosecutor

  £36,868

  £29,404

  (b) a Senior Crown Prosecutor

  £42,225

  £34,306

  (c) a Grade 4 Chief Crown Prosecutor

  £67,424

  £59,281

  a Grade 5 Chief Crown Prosecutor

  —

  £53,056

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his estimate of the number of salaried Crown prosecutors who appear in court as advocates on each sitting day.

  The Attorney-General
  No collected figures are available in respect of the number of salaried Crown prosecutors who appear in court each sitting day. In the financial year 1990–91 some 246,000 sessions in the magistrates' courts were covered by salaried Crown prosecutors. Assuming 250 sitting days in a year, the estimated average number of salaried Crown prosecutors appearing as advocates each day is 1,000.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current annual cost of the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The current estimated annual cost of the Crown prosecution service for 1991–92 is £229,923,000. Further details were published in "Supply Estimates 1991–92" class X, votes 5 and 6.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if he is able to give an estimate of the number of hours per week spent in court, excluding waiting time, on average, by a Crown prosecutor and a senior Crown prosecutor respectively.

  The Attorney-General
  No specific figures are available of the average number of hours per week spent in court by Crown prosecutors. The best estimate that can be made is a figure of about 15 hours per week for both Crown
  365
  prosecutors and senior Crown prosecutors. Waiting time is not a significant factor—full list advocacy by Crown prosecutors results in efficient use of resources and reduces waiting time to a negligible level.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of advocates appearing in magistrates' courts on behalf of the Crown prosecution service on an average day are(a) counsel from the independent Bar instructed (i) on a case-by-case basis and (ii) otherwise, (b) solicitors in private practice instructed (i) on a case-by-case basis and (ii) otherwise, (c) salaried members of the Crown prosecution service and (d) other advocates.

  The Attorney-General
  Exact figures giving the proportions requested are not available. The estimated proportions for the financial year 1990–91 are:

  (a) (i) 2 per cent.

  (ii) 15 per cent.

  (b) (i) and (ii) 17 per cent.

  (c) 66 per cent.

  (d) 0 per cent.—an insignificant number of cases is handled by advocates from other Government Departments on behalf of the Crown prosecution service where a joint prosecution arises.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General what additional cost to public funds is involved in providing the services of a Crown prosecutor stationed in central London as against one stationed in Manchester.

  The Attorney-General
  The latest estimate of the additional cost to public funds involved in providing the services of a Crown prosecutor stationed in central London as against one stationed in Manchester is £7,464.

PRIME MINISTER

  Baltic Republics
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister when representatives of the Government of the United Kingdom will next meet representatives of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and what plans they have to discuss improved trade relations with the Baltic republics.

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will meet the Lithuanian Foreign Minister, Mr. Saudargas on 25 June. My hon. and learned Friend expects to discuss a wide range of topics of mutual interest with Mr. Saudargas. We have regular contacts with Baltic representatives in London and Moscow, and in the Baltic republics. These contacts cover a wide range of bilateral political and economic issues.

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department is responsible for the co-ordination of Government policies on solvent abuse; and what policies there are to reduce solvent abuse.

  The Prime Minister
  The Department of Health takes the lead on Government policies against solvent misuse. These policies are directed primarily towards education and prevention and, where practicable, the restriction of sales of products containing volatile substances to young people. We have supported a number 366
  of initiatives to educate young people at risk and to inform adults, including parents, professional workers and retailers who may become involved.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Shops (Golders Green Road)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many shops the Church Commission owns in Golders Green road; and what is their rent.

  Mr. Alison
  Forty shops producing nearly £850,000 per annum.

  Property Holdings
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what were the reasons for the reduction in the value of the Commissioners' holding in the Grange Precinct, Birkenhead between 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Alison
  The value dropped by 13 per cent. in line with general market trends at a time of recession.

WALES

  Mail Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the intention of the Post Office to combine south Wales with south-west England for Royal Mail purposes; what discussions he has had with the Post Office concerning this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have received representations from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and from the Gowerton branch of Plaid Cymru concerning the location of the Royal Mail administrative headquarters for the combined south Wales and south-west England area. We understand that Royal Mail will not be transferring its total divisional administrative base into one location. There will be several outstanding administrative units. We have written to the chairman of the Post Office pressing the case for Wales as a location for the administrative staff. The chairman has assured me that the location of the divisional headquarters and its outstations will be carefully considered.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the members of the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Current members of Cardiff Bay development Corporation are:

  Geoffrey Inkin OBE (Chairman)

  Councillor Lord Brooks of Tremorfa (Deputy Chairman)

  Mrs. Mair Barnes

  Mrs. Honor Chapman

  Alan Cox CBE

  Hugh Hudson-Davies

  Councillor Paddy Kitson

  Professor Richard Silverman MSc(Edin) Dip Arch ARIBA ARIAS

  James Beveridge MA FCA

  Brian Thomas

  367
  At present there are three vacancies following recent district council elections.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prevention of Terrorism Act
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of people held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in connection with Northern Ireland affairs were not allowed to contact a solicitor for the first 48 hours;

  (2) what proportion of people held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in connection with Northern Ireland affairs exercised their right under (a) 56 and (b) section 58 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act;

  (3) what proportion of people held under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in connection with Northern Ireland affairs were not allowed to contact another person for the first 48 hours.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  This information is not available.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many searches were made of the records held by the national joint unit at Scotland Yard in each year from 1987 to 1990, respectively.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The number of inquiries made of the records held by the national joint unit was as follows:

  Number

  1987

  81,060

  1988

  77,472

  1989

  101,766

  1990

  83,753

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many computerised records the national joint unit holds on individuals for the control of terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland affairs.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men and how many women have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in connection with Northern Ireland affairs each quarter since 22 March 1984(a) at ports and airports and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Men

  Women

  Total

  (a) Ports

  1984

  Q1 1

  —

  —

  —

  Q2 1

  —

  —

  20

  Q3 1

  —

  —

  19

  Q41

  —

  —

  16

  1985

  Q1

  12

  0

  12

  Q2

  18

  4

  22

  Q3

  17

  5

  22

  Q4

  14

  0

  14

  368

  Men

  Women

  Total

  1986

  Q1

  30

  2

  32

  Q2

  6

  1

  7

  Q3

  14

  1

  15

  Q4

  19

  1

  20

  1987

  Q1

  41

  2

  43

  Q2

  38

  2

  40

  Q3

  26

  3

  29

  Q4

  21

  1

  22

  1988

  Q1

  22

  1

  23

  Q2

  17

  0

  17

  Q3

  42

  2

  44

  Q4

  25

  1

  26

  1989

  Q1

  19

  1

  20

  Q2

  19

  0

  19

  Q3

  21

  0

  21

  Q4

  17

  1

  18

  1990

  Q1

  14

  0

  14

  Q2

  16

  2

  18

  Q3

  9

  1

  10

  Q4

  9

  2

  11

  (b) Elsewhere

  1984

  Q1

  1—

  —

  Q2

  10

  Q3

  9

  Q4

  29

  1985

  Q1

  10

  2

  12

  Q2

  36

  10

  46

  Q3

  11

  2

  13

  Q4

  44

  8

  52

  1986

  Q1

  0

  0

  0

  Q2

  14

  3

  17

  Q3

  11

  1

  12

  Q4

  43

  1

  44

  1987

  Q1

  15

  2

  17

  Q2

  12

  0

  12

  Q3

  14

  3

  17

  Q4

  4

  0

  4

  1988

  Q1

  6

  4

  10

  Q2

  11

  0

  11

  Q3

  14

  2

  16

  Q4

  21

  2

  23

  1989

  Q1

  12

  4

  16

  Q2

  14

  2

  16

  Q3

  17

  0

  17

  Q4

  31

  5

  36

  1990

  Q1

  15

  1

  16

  Q2

  27

  4

  31

  Q3

  24

  2

  26

  Q4

  37

  6

  43

  1 From 22 March 1984. Figures not available in the form required.

  369
  This information is in respect of detentions in Great Britain only. Information in respect of detentions in Northern Ireland is not available by sex and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the role of the national joint unit at Scotland Yard; and how many people work in this unit.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The role of the national joint unit at New Scotland Yard is to prepare, on behalf of all police forces in Great Britain, applications to the Secretary of State for extensions of detention and exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, and to provide advice to police forces on the operation of the Act. The unit is staffed by 17 police officers, most of whom are seconded to it for short periods from provincial forces.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average length of time from the initial arrest to the first interview under paragraph 3(2) of schedule 3 for all those arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in connection with Northern Ireland affairs;

  (2) what was the average length of time from the moment they were stopped to the first interview under paragraph 3(2) of schedule 3 for all those people stopped

  Number of people

  Offence

  Where charged

  Outcome

  3

  Conspiracy to cause explosions

  London

  In two cases the charges were dropped. The third is awaiting trial.

  2

  Conspiracy to murder

  London

  Awaiting trial.

  1

  Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life

  London

  9 months in young offenders' institution.

  1

  Possession of a firearm in an aerodrome

  Bedfordshire

  Awaiting trial.

  2

  Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  1 Wiltshire

  Fined

  1 London

  4 months' imprisonment.

  1

  Driving with excess alcohol

  Essex

  Fined.

  1

  Driving whilst disqualified

  Warwickshire

  6 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

  4

  Various offences under Theft Acts 1968 & 1978

  2 London

  1 Failed to appear—warrant issued

  1 Fined.

  1 Essex

  Conditional discharge.

  1 Surrey

  6 months' imprisonment suspended for one year.

  1

  Possession of forged passport and driving licence

  Greater Manchester

  Fined.

  1

  Criminal damage

  Belfast

  1 month in young offenders' institution.

  The table relates to those detained in Great Britain only. In addition 262 people who were detained in Northern Ireland between 22 March and 31 December 1990 were charged with offences in Northern Ireland. Details of the offences and the outcome of the charges are not available.

  Police (Misconduct)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the amount of compensation paid to civilians by the Metropolitan police in each of the last three years following complaints.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Compensation payments may be made as the result of court proceedings or in out-of-court settlements, or when civil action has been suggested but 370
  and examined at ports and airports and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in connection with Northern Ireland affairs;

  (3) in how many cases special arrangements for children have had to be made as a result of their parents or guardians being examined or detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in connection with Northern Ireland affairs in each quarter since 22 March 1984;

  (4) how many children have been taken into care as a result of their parents or guardians being detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in connection with Northern Ireland affairs in each quarter since 22 March 1984.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in connection with Northern Ireland affairs have been charged only with criminal offences other than under the Act, shown by(a) principal offences and (b) where charged; and the outcome of the charge between 22 March and 31 December 1990.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is given in the table:

  not pursued. The matter concerned may not be such as to provide grounds for a complaint made under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Compensation payments totalling £388,000, £523,000 and £836,000 were paid in 1988, 1989 and 1990 respectively.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of police officers dismissed from the Metropolitan police force for breaches of discipline, in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of officers dismissed from the Metropolitan police following disciplinary proceedings is published each year in the annual report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of police officers
  371
  serving in the Metropolitan police force who are now suspended from duty pending inquiries as to their conduct as police officers.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand that there are at present 72 officers suspended from duty in the Metropolitan police.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of official complaints made against police officers serving in the Metropolitan police force, in each of the last three years; and how many have been upheld after inquiries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of complaints made against officers of the Metropolitan police under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, together with the number of complaints completed, are published in the annual report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The Commissioner's 1990 report contains figures for the last three years.

  The number of complaints substantiated in 1988, 1989 and 1990 are 184, 103 and 172 respectively.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of(a) project licence and (b) personal licence applications rejected since the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 came into operation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The vast majority of project licence applications and many personal licence applications are discussed in detail at an early stage with the Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate. Many are revised and redrafted as necessary into a form which the inspector considers acceptable.

  The normal procedure is for applications, mainly for project licences, to be withdrawn or not to be proceeded with in those cases where their justification is considered insufficient or where the applicant feels unable to refine the proposed procedures to an extent that the inspector is satisfied that it would be appropriate to advise my right hon. Friend that a licence should be granted. This means that it is only very rarely necessary to refuse an application formally.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to involve consumer views in the development of performance indicators.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Consumer views are taken into account, either directly or indirectly, in developing performance indicators, particularly those which measure quality of service to the public.

  Of those operational services which the Home Office does not control, police forces consult local communities, often through opinion surveys, to obtain public views on police performance and worries about crime; fire brigades take pains to ensure that they have the views of the communities they serve and the fire service is currently looking at a scheme for introducing performance measures nationally, some of which will include measures of public satisfaction.
  372
  Of those services which the Home Office provides itself, the immigration service and the nationality division take account of consumer views, albeit less directly, in setting their performance targets; an opinion survey conducted last year by the Passport Agency led to the setting for this year of a target for customer satisfaction; Forensic Science Service Agency targets for turnround times for cases were set in consultation with its customers.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what performance indicators are published for his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Details of performance indicators for Home Office departments and services are published in the Home Office annual report 1991 (Cm 1509). For details of performance indicators for Home Office agencies (the Passport Agency and the forensic science service) I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) and for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) on 27 March at columns 469–70.

  Foreign Countries (Entry of British Citizens)
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy on the passing of names of British citizens to foreign Governments for the purpose of warning those Governments that these citizens should not be granted entry to those countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the interests of international co-operation on law enforcement the names of people of whatsoever nationality may be passed to the authorities in other countries, for example for the purpose of taking forward an extradition request. All decisions over the granting of entry are the responsibility of the country concerned.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide the financial help needed by Manchester's victim support schemes to avert closure; what representations he has had about their urgent need for alternative funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Home Office grant for local victim support schemes, which has increased by 20 per cent. from £4·5 million last year to £5·4 million this year, is administered by Victim Support under criteria which have been revised this year to allow grants for both salaries and running costs to be paid to schemes which are in danger of closure. Applications from a number of Manchester schemes are being considered by Victim Support nationally.

  We have received representations about the funding of Manchester schemes from local Members of Parliament, district councils, representatives of Victim Support and the police.

  Immigration
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to determine the application for British citizenship, reference
  373
  IMPH330480/4 (S) which was first raised with his Department on 27 April 1989; on what date he requested from the embassy in Islamabad the confirmation that entry clearances for settlement had been issued and when that confirmation was received; whether all outstanding routine inquiries in this cases have now been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A final decision on this application was delayed while we obtained evidence that the applicant met the statutory requirements regarding residence in the United Kingdom. With this in mind we wrote to the British High Commission in Islamabad on 21 December 1990 for details of entry clearances issued to the applicant and her daughter in 1982. This information was received at the beginning of February 1991. From that and from information supplied by her solicitors we are now satisfied that the application may be granted, subject to her making an affirmation of allegiance. Her daughter will also be registered as a British citizen.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to publish guidelines concerning remission for people imprisoned for poll tax non-payment; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will (a) outline what guidance his Department has circulated to prison governors concerning poll tax imprisonment, (b) list the circulars and the dates of their distribution and (c) place a copy of each in the Library.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Guidance circulated to governors on 12 June advised that terms of imprisonment for non-payment of the community charge are not eligible for reduction by remission or remand time. A copy of this instruction is being placed in the Library together with prison standing order 12 which gives full details of the terms of imprisonment that do not attract remission on remand time. A revised version of the standing order, to be published in a few months' time, will include reference to the community charge.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which categories of prisoners are allowed access to a telephone while in prison; and if he will list those of Her Majesty's prisons which have(a) payphones and (b) cardphones; what plans he has to improve access to phones; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Cardphones for use of convicted inmates have been installed in the category C and D, and equivalent female and young offender, establishments listed in the following table.

  At all establishments inmates may have access to an official telephone with the permission of the governor in special circumstances.

  On 25 February my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, announced on publication of the Woolf inquiry report that cardphones would be provided in all those establishments which do not already have them. This programme is being taken forward as quickly as resources permit.

  There are no ordinary payphones designated for inmates' use except at Haslar in respect of those persons detained under the Immigration Acts.
  374

  Prisoners with cardphones for convicted inmates' use

  Prison

  Category

  Acklington

  C

  Aldington

  C

  Ashwell

  C

  Askham Grange

  Female

  Aylesbury

  Young Offenders Institution

  Blantyre House

  C

  Bullwood Hall

  Female/Young Offenders Institution

  Camp Hill

  C

  Castington

  Young Offenders Institution

  Channings Wood

  C

  Cookham Wood

  Female

  Deerbolt

  Young Offenders Institution

  Dover

  Young Offenders Institution

  Down view

  C

  Drake Hall

  Female

  East Sutton Park

  Female/Young Offenders Institution

  Eastwood Park

  Young Offenders Institution

  Erlestoke House

  C

  Everthorpe

  Young Offenders Institution

  Featherstone

  C

  Feltham

  Young Offenders Institution

  Ford

  D

  Glen Parva

  Young Offenders Institution

  Guys Marsh

  Young Offenders Institution

  Haslar

  Immigration Custody-payphones

  Hatfield

  Young Offenders Institution

  Haverigg

  C

  Hewell Grange

  Young Offenders Institution

  Highpoint

  C/D

  Hollesley Bay

  Young Offenders Institution

  Holloway

  Female

  Huntercombe

  Young Offenders Institution

  Kirkham

  D

  Kirklevington Grange

  Young Offenders Institution

  Lancaster

  C

  Latchmere House

  C

  Leyhill

  D

  Lindholme

  C

  Littlehey

  C

  Low Newton

  Female/Remand

  Morton Hall

  D

  The Mount

  C

  New Hall

  Female

  Northallerton

  Young Offenders Institution

  Northeye

  C

  North Sea Camp

  D

  Norwich

  C/D prisoners only

  Onley

  Young Offenders Institution

  Portland

  Young Offenders Institution

  Pucklechurch

  Female/Young Offenders Institution

  Ranby

  C

  Risley

  C

  Rochester

  C

  Rudgate

  D

  Send

  C

  Shepton Mallet

  C

  Spring Hill

  D

  Stafford

  C

  Standford Hill

  D

  Stocken

  C

  Stoke Heath

  Young Offenders Institution

  Styal

  Female

  Sudbury/Foston

  D

  Swinfen Hall

  Young Offenders Institution

  Thorn Cross

  Young Offenders Institution

  Thorpe Arch

  C

  Usk and Prescoed

  Young Offenders Institution

  The Verne

  C

  Wayland

  C

  Wellingborough

  C

  Werrington

  Young Offenders Institution

  Wetherby

  Young Offenders Institution

  Whatton

  C

  Winchester

  Local

  Wymott

  C

  375
  Notes:

  1. Prisoners in female and young offender establishments who are on remand or who are being held in category A conditions are not permitted at present access to cardphones.

  2. Winchester is a local prison, holding all categories of prisoner, including those on remand. Cardphones have been operational at Winchester since December last year in order to test the conditions under which category B and remand prisoners may have access to them.

  Bailiffs
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), 17 May 1991,Official Report, column 284, he is now in a position to place a copy in the Library of the guidance notes for use of bailiffs by magistrates courts.

  Mr. John Patten
  Best practice guidance on the use of bailiffs by magistrates courts should be available shortly, and I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many licensed mink factory farms there are in Scotland; and if he will publish the names of the parliamentary constituencies in which they are located.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are two licensed mink farms in Scotland, one in Strathclyde region and the other in Grampian region. More precise information is not published.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of fishing vessels by port(a) over 400 hp and (b) below 400 hp.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is given in the table for the base districts of active Scottish-based fishing vessels. Base districts are defined as the district in which the majority of the owners of the vessels live. District figures include vessels from a number of small ports and creeks in addition to those from the main port on which the district is centred.

  Horse Power

  Base district of vessel

  Under 400

  400 or above

  Not Known

  All

  Eyemouth

  117

  14

  2

  133

  Pittenweem

  110

  18

  —

  128

  Arbroath

  81

  4

  —

  85

  Aberdeen

  34

  16

  1

  51

  Peterhead

  58

  90

  —

  148

  Fraserburgh

  84

  89

  —

  173

  MacDuff

  40

  57

  —

  97

  Buckie

  56

  51

  —

  107

  Lossiemouth

  45

  53

  —

  98

  Wick

  87

  3

  —

  90

  Orkney

  87

  14

  —

  101

  Shetland

  55

  37

  —

  92

  Stornoway

  298

  4

  3

  305

  Ullapool

  52

  —

  —

  52

  Mallaig

  216

  3

  5

  224

  Oban

  142

  1

  1

  144

  Campbeltown

  182

  —

  7

  189

  Ayr

  108

  20

  1

  129

  376

  Horse Power

  Base district of vessel

  Under 400

  400 or above

  Not Known

  All

  Kinlochbervie

  14

  1

  —

  15

  Lochinver

  25

  5

  —

  30

  ALL

  1,891

  480

  20

  2,391

  Salmon
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the consequences to the Scottish salmon farming industry of uncontrolled imports from Norwegian producers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  We have received representations from a number of hon. Members and from salmon farming companies in Scotland.

  The Government understand the industry's concern about the current state of the market for farmed salmon. We are anxious to ensure a satisfactory and stable long-term future for the industry and are working closely with it to that end.

  A74 (Archaeological Sites)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps are being taken to safeguard archaeological sites identified in the course of development of the M74 —A74;

  (2) what funds his office has made available, and to which organisations, in connection with emergency archaeological investigation of sites along the proposed development of the A74;

  (3) for how long the Lintshie Gutter site will be available to archaeologists engaged in emergency investigation of the site.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The upgrading of the A74 to motorway standard has provided an unexpected opportunity to discover some of Scotland's past. Throughout the development of the project the Scottish Office's roads directorate has liaised closely with Historic Scotland, an executive agency within the Scottish Office responsible among other things for the protection of ancient monuments. Every effort has been made in determining the line of the motorway to avoid disturbing sites of archaeological importance. In eight locations where this has not been possible, archaeological surveys and excavations have been carried out in advance of the road construction. Without the impetus of the motorway these important examples of Scotland's heritage might have remained hidden for many years to come.

  Funds amounting to 100,000 have been granted by the Scottish Office towards archaeological surveys and excavations along the line of the motorway. In addition, Historic Scotland has made a contribution of £75,000. Apart from a small element of survey and monitoring carried out by the Biggar Museum trust, all the work has been undertaken by Archaeology Projects Glasgow (APG) which is a research group set up within Glasgow university archaeologist department to manage fieldwork and consultancy studies for Government and industry.

  It is expected that the excavation of the Lintshie Gutter site will be completed by the end of June. The site will remain available for some months beyond that.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, further to his replies to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan,Official Report, 14 June, column 713, what information he has on whether clinical waste incinerators in the national health service in Scotland are effectively complying with current pollution control legislation; and when the last report of inspection of the clinical waste incinerators was submitted to him.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am aware that three clinical waste incinerators in the national health service in Scotland are experiencing difficulty in complying with current pollution control legislation. No report of inspection of clinical waste incinerators has been submitted to my right hon. Friend; powers to control emission standards are vested in local authorities.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations took place with the chairmen of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, in advance of the introduction of provisions for the establishment of an advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consultations took place between the Scottish Office Environment Department and the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation in Scotland, before the amendments introducing these provisions were tabled. Since the committee relates exclusively to Scotland and its establishment does not affect the SSSI procedures laid down in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, no consultation with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales was necessary. As the advisory committee can deal only with individual cases within the site guidelines overseen by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and there will be no overlap in membership, it was not necessary to consult the JNCC chairman.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland of the total number of sites of special scientific interest in Scotland(a) how many were objected to at the point of notification and (b) how many were objected to subsequent to notification; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 21 June 1991]: As at 31 March 1991, 1,319 sites of special scientific interest had been notified in Scotland. A right of objection was introduced by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, which came into effect on 26 August 1985. The Nature Conservancy Council's latest available figures are that 541 sites were confirmed during the period from 1 August 1985 to 30 November 1990 and that representations or objections were received in respect of 153 of those sites. The detailed information about the stage at which objections were received is not available.

  Scottish Action on Dementia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish Action on Dementia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have this week received a report "Dementia in Scotland: Agenda for Action 1991–95".

  Since the publication of the report "Scottish Health Authorities Priorities for the 80s" (SHAPE) in 1980, which drew attention to the need to develop services for this care group, the Government have given high priority to the development of such services in Scotland and now accord their development top priority. Since 1981 health board expenditure on services for elderly people with dementia has increased by 61·5 per cent. in real terms and it continues to rise.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses were available for rent by local authorities in Scotland in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: Information on the numbers of dwellings owned by local authorities is given in table 2 of statistical bulletin HSG/1991/4, "Housing Trends in Scotland—Quarter ended 31 December 1990". Copies were sent to all Members representing Scottish constituencies and are available in the Library.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the total number of domestic customers of Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric, respectively (b) how many of those individual customers, not including other members of their family or household, have bought shares in the recent privatisation and (c) how many of those customers have given postal addresses outside Scotland for correspondence about shares.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 21 June 1991]: Scottish Power plc and Scottish Hydro-Electric plc respectively have around 1,600,000 and 530,000 domestic customers. Information on the numbers of those individuals who have purchased shares in the two companies or have given correspondence addresses outwith Scotland is not separately available, since customer preference under the share offers extended to include other members of their family or household. The share registers of both companies will be publicly available from 3 July.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the titles of the video recordings purchased by his Department during the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 to date.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information in respect of Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office is as follows:

  Video Recordings

    Department of Finance and Personnel
    1990–91

    The Survival Game

    Viruses on Personal Computers

    Telephone Courtesy Pays Off

    Inside Organisations

    Counter Action II/III

    Effective Management and Leadership

    The Grapevine

    Take it from the Top DF1

    Take it from the Top DF2

    Take it from the Top DF3

    The Unorganised Manager

    A Women's Place

    Excellence in the Public Sector

    Partners in Training

    It's up to You

    Let's be Fair

    Let's be Fair (2)

    Nobody's Perfect

    The Customer Revolution

    The Right Fit

    The Tough Ones

    Sense and Nonsense in Stress

    Management

    Take It From The Top

    Team Building

    Team Building Volume 1

    Team Building Volume 2

    Total Fitness

    The Successful Manager Executive

    Time Management

    The Telephone Sting

    Meeting the Challenge of the 90's

    The Management of Time

    1991–92

    The Professional Development Scheme

    Making Customer Service Happen

    Meeting to Build a Team

    Meeting to Decide

    Meeting to Negotiate

    Department of Agriculture
    1990–91

    Rabbit production … naturally

    Grime goes green: your business and the environment Say what you want

    Preview—COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health)

    Working with Internal Audit

    When letters work

    Guide to Health and Safety

    The Formal Meetings video

    If looks could kill

    The Technique of Volumetric Analysis

    Hygiene at Work

    Pests on the Menu

    Fight against Bacteria

    Microbes and their Control

    Marketing Support for the '90s—Business Pack

    A Vous la France

    Hygiene in Practice

    The Shooting Year

    A Calf per Cow per year

    Dairying—A Blueprint for Success

    Wild Oats Control

    Potato Production

    Planning for Profit

    Business Farming

    MIG Welding (mild steel with low current sets)

    Manual Metal Arc (Stick) Welding (mild steel with low power sets)

    BBC RSPB—Video Guide to British Garden Birds

    BBC—A Vous la France (parts 1–4)

    Reproduction in Pigs (Lothian and Borders)

    Royal Agriculture Society—Pigs

    An Ounce of Prevention (CFL Vision)

    380

    Dog and Stick. Essential Dog Skills (A. Cooper)

    Whatever happened to the Countryside (CFL Vision)

    Carcase Quality

    1991–92

    Organic farming—is there a market?

    Environmental enrichment: advancing animal care

    Farming and Food Production

    Dairy Farming

    Pig Production

    Pregnancy Detection of Pigs

    Pregnancy Detection of Cattle

    Pregnancy Detection of Sheep

    Royal Agricultural Society—Beef Production

    A Vous la France (parts 1–4)

    Deutsch Direkt (parts 1–4)

    Farm Diversification (NFU, RASE)

    How to deal with Difficult People (volumes 1 and 2)

    How to give exceptional Customer Service (volumes 1 and 3)

    Team Building (volumes 1 and 2)

    The Changing Countryside

    The Medata Pregnancy Test for Cattle

    The Medata Pregnancy Test for Sheep

    Department of Economic Development
    1990–91

    AC Motors Part 1 and 2

    Be Alive to Safety

    Blind Man's Buff

    Cables and Considerations

    Car Bodywork Repairs (Welding)

    Casebook Video Pack

    Client and Professional

    DC Motors Part 1 and 2

    Electricity at Work

    Inspection and Test

    Isolation and Switching

    Flying Start

    Help Yourself—Careers Occupation Information Centre

    I Can't See

    Lights and Lighting Circuits

    Made to Measure

    Managing Energy—Burners for Boilers

    Managing Energy—Exercise Control

    Managing Energy—Hotels

    Managing Energy—Insulation of Industrial Buildings

    Managing Energy—Look at Lighting

    Managing Energy—Pipe Insulation

    Managing Energy—Refrigeration

    Managing Energy—Retail Shops and Stores

    Managing Energy—Small Firms

    Managing Energy—Steam

    Managing for Customer Care

    Meetings Bloody Meetings

    Moving On

    Murder by Mixed Messages

    PES Safety Computer Control

    Routes—Wiltshire Careers Service

    Take It From The Top

    Timber Frame Housing

    The Protection Factor

    Tom Peters Experience Part 1

    Tom Peters Experience Part 2

    Tough Jobs/Problems

    1991–92

    Classical Change

    Effective Business Reports

    Snow Monkeys

    Sun Cats

    Department of Education
    1990–91

    Finance for Non-Financial Managers

    Introduction to Assertiveness

    A Matter of Time

    Delegation

    Performance Review

    Are You Getting the Message

    Making Belfast Work

    381

    Art in the Primary School

    Simple Print Making in the Primary School

    1991–92

    NIL

    Department of Health and Social Services
    1990–91

    Changing to Primary Nursing

    Data Protection Training Package

    1991–92

    Something You Can Do

    Training Video: Interviewing for Information

    Healthy Eating in Later Life

    Flora Project for Heart Disease

    Affairs of the Heart

    Finally Fitness for Men

    Meetings

    Department of the Environment
    1990–91

    Stranmillis Learning Resources Unit—Nendrum

    Stranmillis Learning Resources Unit—Greyabbey

    To see another day

    Watch this space

    I can't hear

    COSHH in practice

    What everyone should know about toxicology

    Understanding material safety data sheets

    PSA pacesetter in QA

    CPI in the PSA

    Managing for customer care

    The helping hand

    Data Insecurity

    Next Steps—First Agencies

    Let's be fair

    The noise was deafening

    Drive in total safety with Barry Lee

    Radiodetection CAT and GENNY User training programmes

    Water Pollution—1st Film

    Biological Science—Ecological Biology

    How flowers make seeds

    Ecological Agriculture

    Acid Rain the silent crisis

    Saving the plants Planning for survival

    The life cycle of insects part III

    Fungi

    Fungi and Man

    The process of pollination

    The dispersal of seeds plus fruits

    Discovering the Wild Bogland

    Second Nature

    Farming and Conservation

    Safety Side Up

    Round Robin

    Early One Morning

    1991–92

    What's it all about?

    A worker's overview of COSHH

    What the window cleaner saw

    Managing stress

    I'm sorry. What's that you said?

    You and your workforce

    Northern Ireland Office
    1990–91

    Constructive Criticism Part 1 and 2

    The Formal Meeting

    Let's be Fair

    An insider's guide to the European Community

    What's it all about?

    Don't let him Die

    What Everybody should know about Toxicology

    Taking to the Hills

    The Professional Kitchen

    382

    The Human Factor

    For children's use at the Visitors' Centres in Prison Establishments:

    Fireman Sam

    Children's Picturehouse

    Flintstones

    Cartoon Superstars II

    Jetsons 1st Episode

    Magic Roundabout

    Tom and Jerry

    Children's Cartoon Favourites

    Postman Pat

    Magic of Fairies

    Fraggle Rock

    Noah's Animals

    Cartoon Superstars

    Sooty Out and About

    Waterbabies

    Rainbow Music

    Mickey's Christmas Carol

    Snoopy and the Peanut Gang

    Button Moon

    Muppets

    Mickey and the Gang

    Mr. Ben

    Children's Summer Stories

    Children's Favourites Vol. II

    The Carebears

    Hillcraft and Navigation

    Alf

    Big

    Goonies

    Nursery Rhymes

    Pinnochio

    Count Duckula

    Bill and Ben

    Yogi's First Christmas

    Tales of Button Moon

    Neigbhours—Scott and Charlene's Love Story

    For catering-based training:
    1991–92

    Meat

    Fish

    Poultry and Game

    Vegetables

    Cakes

    Pastries

    Catering for Health

    Eggs

    Flour and Yeast

    Desserts

    Positive Time Skills

    Put it in Writing

  Civil Service Transfers
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many employees of the Northern Ireland civil service have applied for a job transfer and have stated Newry (i) as their first preference or (ii) as a preference other than first preference.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of non-industrial staff in the Northern Ireland civil service who have applied for a transfer and have stated Newry as:

  (i) first preference is 159; and

  (ii) as preference other than first preference is 66.

  Social Security Agency
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State For Northern Ireland when he will make an announcement about the establishment of the social security agency.

  Mr. Brooke
  The social security agency was launched this morning and will be formally established on 1 July
  383
  1991. I have made arrangements for copies of the framework document and the business plan, which includes challenging quality of service and efficiency targets, to be placed in both Houses of Parliament.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Child Protection
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the amounts allocated to local education authorities to enable them to carry out the training initiatives on child protection and child abuse under the new Children Act 1989, as described in consultative paper No. 22 "Working Together".

  Mr. Fallon
  The consultation paper is concerned with inter-agency co-operation, and emphasises the importance of joint training under the auspices of area child protection committees. Local education authorities and schools may choose to make specific provision for training teachers and certain other education staff in matters relating to child protection, drawing as appropriate on the support available under our programme of grants for education support and training. However, their allocations for this purpose cannot be readily quantified.

  Polytechnics and Colleges Employers Forum
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of the total expenditure of the polytechnics and colleges employers forum for 1989–90 and 1990–91 was spent on entertainment.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government.

  TUC Courses
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the level of departmental funding of the Trades Union Congress for educational purposes; what criteria determine the continuity of that funding; which section of his Department is responsible for vetting materials used on TUC training or education courses which use departmental funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  This Department does not provide any funds for the TUC for educational purposes.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in respect of the student loans scheme, (i) the most recent figure for loan applications received, (ii) the number of loans made, (iii) the value of loans made and (iv) total costs incurred administering the scheme.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As at 20 June 1991 over 181,000 students had applied for a loan from the Student Loans Company Ltd. Over 153,000 loans had been issued, with a total value of £59·2 million.

  Between September 1990, when the scheme became operational, and 31 May 1991, the company's running costs were £7·73 million, exclusive of VAT.

  Football
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he has taken following his letter of 31 May to the Professional Footballers Association to bring together the Football Association, the Football League and the Professional Footballers Association to discuss plans for the future of football; what further measures he intends to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 June 1991]: I have had detailed discussions with each of the three bodies and have indicated to all of them that I stand ready to help, in an impartial manner, if the three organisations wish me to do so. In pressing the need for unity and for football to speak with one voice I have made it quite clear that the resolution of the various differences is for football alone.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Building Societies
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue in court challenged the Woolwich tax model of the effects of regulations 3 and 11 (1985).

  Mr. Maples
  Yes. The Inland Revenue did not accept the conclusions of the Woolwich building society based on its hypothetical tax model.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates beginning and ending the financial years for which building societies' payments of members' income tax in(a) January 1984, (b) January 1985 and (c) January 1986 satisfied the Inland Revenue and the dates beginning and ending the period of deduction of tax to which the 1985, 1986 and 1991 legislation and regulations are directed; and if he will now add the information to a simple chart and place it in the Library.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 21 June 1991]: Payments of tax by building societies in January 1984, 1985 and 1986 under the former annual accounting arrangements satisfied their liability under those arrangements for the tax years 1983–84, 1984–85 and 1985–86 respectively.

  The Building Societies Regulations 1986, to which the 1985, 1986 and 1991 legislation relates, required societies to account for tax from 1986–87 onwards at the end of each quarter. In addition, under transitional provisions, societies were required to account for the tax on interest paid to their investors in the gap period between the end of their accounting period in 1985–86—which formed the basis for the January 1986 payment under the annual arrangements—and 5 April 1986.

  I have placed a chart explaining the sequence of events in the Library.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the balance of trade with(a) the other countries of the EC and (b) the rest of the world in (i) visible and (ii) invisibles in 1990 as a balance of payments basis; and if he will add the figures for imports and exports.
  385
  Mr. Mellor
  Information about visible trade with the EC and the rest of the world in 1990 on a balance of payments basis can be found in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", available in the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office database which may also be accessed through the Library. Comparable information about invisible trade will be published on 4 September in the 1991 edition of "The CSO Pink Book."

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his responsibilities in respect of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Maples
  Department of Trade and Industry Ministers determine and answer to Parliament on the general policy framework within which the Insolvency Service executive agency operates. The Treasury has a number of specific responsibilities as set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 for certain issues of finance, accounting and investment (part XIV sections 404–5 and 407–9) and for certain fees (part XV sections 414–5). The Treasury also has certain other order-making powers (part XV section 422); and the Insolvency Service executive agency is subject to Treasury staff inspection.

  Tour Operators
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations underlay his decision to continue to operate the tour operators' margin scheme.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The United Kingdom is obliged, under article 26 of the EC sixth VAT directive, to have a special scheme for taxing tour operators' margins.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in 1991–92 and in a full year of the introduction of a 50 per cent. top rate of income tax on annual taxable income above(a) £42,000, (b) £47,000, (c) £52,000 and (d) £57,000.

  Mr. Maude
  The yield in a full year at 1991–92 levels of income is estimated to be(a) £1·7 billion, (b) £1·5 billion, (c) £1·4 billion and (d) £1·2 billion. The corresponding yields in 1991–92 are (a) £0·9 billion, (b) £0·8 billion, (c) £0·7 billion and (d) £0·6 billion.

  No account is taken of possible behavioural changes or of any effect on receipts of capital gains tax.

  Lloyd's Underwriters
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all the tax concessions available to members of Lloyd's insurance syndicates which may be set against income from sources other than underwriting profits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  A Lloyd's underwriter carries on the business of insurance, and if he makes a loss in that business, he is entitled to effectively the same reliefs for a trading loss as any other trader. He may set the trading loss against his income from other sources of the same year
  his income from all sources of the previous year
  his income from underwriting in a later year.
  386
  The Government have proposed that in common with all other traders, trading losses for 1991–92 and later years may be set against capital gains.

  The only difference between the reliefs for losses of Lloyd's underwriters and those of other unincorporated traders is that Lloyd's is able to set off losses against total income of the same year and the previous year. Other traders are able to set off losses against total income of the same year and the succeeding year. This difference merely reflects the fact that Lloyd's is taxed on a current year basis whereas other trades are taxed on the preceding year basis.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the cost of annual premiums for stop-loss insurance policies available to Lloyd's underwriters are set against tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  An underwriter is entitled to deduct the cost of stop-loss policies in computing his taxable profits. He is also required to include any recoveries under a stop-loss policy as income in computing his profits. The position is no different from the tax treatment of comparable insurance policies taken out by other trades.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of any recent proposals of the presidency of the Council of Finance Ministers of the European Communities relating to the harmonisation of value added tax.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on Wednesday 19 June to bring him up to date on the position we have reached in the indirect tax negotiations in Europe. I attached to my letter a note summarising the previous proposals for the approximation of indirect taxes and the compromise proposals to be presented by the Luxembourg presidency to ECOFIN on 24 June, and an annex giving full details of the presidency proposals.

  My letter and its attachments were placed in the Library on Friday 21 June. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will report the meeting of the ECOFIN in Council on 24 June to the House in the normal way.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are awaiting radiotherapy treatment in the Sunderland, Hartlepool and Durham area health authorities; how many were on the lists for treatment in each year since 1986; and what is the average waiting time for treatment in each of these years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been no in-patients waiting for radiotherapy treatment at hospitals in these three districts since 1986. Figures on patients waiting for out-patient treatments are not held centrally.

  Aflatoxin
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the scientific evidence held by his Department on whether aflatoxin is a human carcinogen; and if he will make a statement.
  387
  Mr. Dorrell
  The most recent scientific publications held by the Department on the human carcinogenicity of aflatoxins are:

  1. WHO (1979). Environmental Health Criteria 11, Mycotoxins. World Health Organisation, Geneva.

  2. Linsell A, (1982). Carcinogenicity of Mycotoxins. Environmental Carcinogens Selected Methods of Analysis. Volume 5—Some Mycotoxins. Egan H, Stoloff L, O'Neill IK, Scott P, Castegnaro M, Bartsch H, Davis W (Eds.). International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.

  3. IARC (1987). Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans. Suppl. 7, 82–88. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.

  4. IARC (1988). Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 44. —International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.

  5. Ivana Dvorackova (1990). Aflatoxins and Human Health. Published by the CRC Press, Florida.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements there are for the repair of wheelchairs for a disabled person staying away from his or her home area; and whether he will provide a list of approved repairers for each regional health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  As individual contracts are negotiated by health authorities, a list of approved repairers is not held centrally. All contracts with approved repairers cover work on NHS-supplied wheelchairs for both resident users and those visiting the area. Visitors may, however, need to contact the local disablement services centre to obtain details of the appropriate approved repairer.

  Perinatal and Infant Mortality
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the rates of perinatal mortality and infant mortality for Greenwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham in 1981 and for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table lists the perinatal and infant mortality rates for the London borough's of Greenwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham in 1981 and 1990.

  Perinatal and infant mortality rates for the London Borough's of Greenwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham, 1981 and 1990

  1981

  1990

  Perinatal

  Infant

  Perinatal

  Infant

  Greenwich

  11·8

  16·0

  7·1

  8·2

  Wandsworth

  10·6

  10·1

  7·2

  7·8

  Lewisham

  14·5

  14·0

  9·7

  7·3

  Source:

  Local authority vital statistics, Series VS number 8, 1981. VSI statistics, 1990.

  Registered Homes Act
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of owners of private care or nursing homes who had their registrations cancelled under the Registered Homes Act 1984 during 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has been notified of 30 residential care home owners and 16 nursing home owners who had their registrations cancelled during 1990.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department plans to take to recognise World Diabetes Day on 27 June and to implement the measures agreed in the St. Vincent declaration of October 1989.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department's chief medical officer has sent a message of encouragement to mark World Diabetes Day. The recommendations in the St. Vincent declaration for the care of people with diabetes in Europe have been incorporated in the Government's Green Paper "The Health of the Nation". We have invited comments on these with a view to the possible development of targets for this country.

  GP Lists
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average general practitioner list size; and what it was in 1978–79.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At 1 October 1990, the latest date for which figures are available, the average general practitioner list size in England was 1,942. The corresponding figure for 1979 was 2,286.

  Food Additives
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to publicise the adverse effects on many children of sodium salt of benzoate (E211) in view of its use as a preservative in many popular branded drinks.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. Sodium benzoate (E211) is a permitted preservative listed in schedule I of the Preservative in Foods Regulations 1989 (SI 1989 No. 533). The levels of sodium benzoate in foods are strictly controlled. Studies commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of a number of additives, including sodium benzoate, have found the overall incidence of intolerance reactions to be very low. As its presence as an additive in food must appear on the product label those who consider themselves adversely affected can avoid foods containing this preservative.

  Pregnancy
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of ectopic pregnancies in each of the last 25 years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 June 1991]: The figures for each year since 1979 are given in the table.

  Estimated number of episodes where Ectopic pregnancy (ICD 633) is the principal diagnosis.

  Ordinary admissions and day cases, NHS hospitals

  Year

  Total

  1979–851

  1979

  4,240

  1980

  3,892

  1981

  4,253

  1982

  4,344

  1983

  4,841

  1984

  4,965

  1985

  4,788

  389

  Year

  Total

  1987–902

  1987–88

  4,941

  1988–89

  5,570

  1989–90

  6,928

  1 Source: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry. Ordinary admissions only until 1985, NHS hospitals for England and Wales until 1982, post 1982 England only.

  2 Source: Hospital Episode Statistics. Figures for 1987–88 onwards are provisional, based on incomplete, ungrossed data and may be subject to revision following analysis.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the unemployment figures for Waveney in(a) May 1987 and (b) May 1991 as a whole and as a percentage of the work force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  In May 1991 the number of unemployed claimants, not seasonally adjusted, in the Waveney parliamentary constituency was 3,423. This compares with 5,847 in May 1987, a fall of 41·5 per cent.

  Official unemployment rates are not available for parliamentary constituencies. The smallest areas for which unemployment rates are calculated by the Department are travel-to-work areas. These are broadly self-contained labour markets in which at least 75 per cent. of the people who work in the area, live in the area and vice-versa.

  TUC Publications
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will obtain a copy of the Trades Union Congress booklet, "Working Women," and place a copy in the Library, marking the passages which were considered by his Department as tendentious; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the Trades Union Congress publications designed for education or training courses to which he has objected being part of courses which attract financial support from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have always made it clear that they are not prepared to provide financial support under the trade union education and training grant for booklets which engage in political controversy. The booklet "Working Women" contained a number of passages which were openly critical of Government policy. When these passages were drawn to the attention of the TUC, it agreed that they were not appropriate in a booklet financed by public money. Since the TUC has now withdrawn the booklet, no purpose would be served by placing a copy in the Library.

TRANSPORT

  Drink-Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the 1991 research findings on the 1990–91 anti-drink driving advertising campaign.
  390
  Mr. Chope
  Copies of the 1991 research findings on the Department of Transport's 1990 anti-drink driving advertising campaign have been placed in the Library.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to implement the draft regulations published in April 1990, pursuant to the review of the orange badge parking scheme for persons with disability.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 21 March at column 212.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to increase the use of public transport and to reduce traffic congestion.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government are supporting massive investment to improve facilities on British Rail and the London Underground, and are giving grant to two new light rail systems. A network of priority red routes is proposed in London to keep traffic moving. A working group has been set up with the bus industry, the local authorities and the police to encourage bus use and the development of bus priority measures. We are also commissioning wide-ranging research into urban traffic congestion, including the possibility of road pricing.

  Road Proposals Display, Tower Hamlets
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for displaying the proposals for the East India Dock road/Canning Town bridge and A13 flyover scheme at a venue in Tower Hamlets.

  Mr. Chope
  We are investigating the possibility of displaying our proposed exhibition at the Aberfeldy estate after it has been shown at the Mayflower centre, Canning Town.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investment he has approved for British Rail services on the Eltham and New Eltham lines of Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend announced approval on 19 June of investment in 188 Networker vehicles at a cost of £127 million. He had previously announced approval for 86 Networker vehicles on 13 May at a cost of over £67 million; 400 class 465 Networker vehicles for Kent link routes were approved in August 1989. The first of these is due to be delivered to British Rail in September this year. The new trains will begin to come into service on Kent link routes, which include Eltham and New Eltham, during the first few months of 1992.

  London Transport (Salaries)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what percentage the salary of (i) the chairman and (ii) the board of directors as a whole of London Transport increased in the year 1990–91 on 1989–90; and what is the projected percentage increase in 1991–92 on 1990–91.
  391
  Mr. Freeman
  The salary of the chairman of London Transport was increased by 25 per cent. and that of the deputy chief executive by 13·7 per cent. from 1 April 1990; these increases reflected additional responsibilities each had previously assumed. Other board members received increases of 8·5 per cent. or 8·6 per cent. My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet considered proposals for pay increases for members from 1 April 1991.

  M40
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the present surface texture of the grooved concrete surface of the M40 between junctions 1 and 2 measured by the sand patch method; and what was the value of the surface texture in 1973.

  Mr. Chope
  The sand patch method of measuring texture is not appropriate to grooved concrete surfaces. The specification for measuring grooved concrete is to measure the depth of the grooves. On the M40 between junctions 1 and 2 the average depth is 3·6 mm.

  The records from 1973 are no longer available.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the consultants' report on the proposed widening of the M40 between junctions 1 and 4; when public consultation will begin; and whether the consultants' terms of reference include the submission of measures to ameliorate the noise nuisance from this stretch of motorway.

  Mr. Chope
  We expect the consultants to submit their preliminary report appraising the options for increasing the capacity of this length of motorway towards the end of this year. That appraisal will include measures to mitigate the effects of the improved road on the local environment. A decision on the preferred widening option is expected to follow in the spring of 1992. The procedures to be followed from that stage will depend on the scale and nature of the works proposed.

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which countries are signatories to the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are now 82 countries which are signatories to the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers 1978. I have placed International Maritime Organisation circular STCW/circular 76, which lists the countries concerned together with circulars 77, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 84 which give the most recent accessions, in the Library.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of foreign ships inspected in British ports in each of the last five years under the provisions of the 1982 memorandum of understanding to secure compliance of ships with international standards and indicate(a) how many ships were found to have deficiencies, (b) under which flag those ships with deficiencies were flying, (c) how many ships were detained pending the correction of deficiencies and (d) what financial penalties were imposed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of foreign ships inspected under the provisions of the memorandum of understanding on port state control 1982 were as follows:392

  Number

  1986

  2,439

  1987

  2,250

  1988

  1,839

  1989

  1,692

  1990

  2,118

  (a) The numbers of the above found to have deficiencies were:

  Number

  1986

  1,309

  1987

  1,228

  1988

  915

  1989

  1,003

  1990

  1,272

  (b) Deficiencies were found on ships flying the following flags during 1989 and 1990:

  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Antilles (Netherlands), Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma (Myanmar), Canada, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Faeroes, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, German Federal Republic, Ghana, Greece, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korean Republic, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, St. Vincent and Grenadier, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Togo, Turkey, USA, USSR, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Zaire.

  (c) the numbers of foreign ships detained were:

  Number

  1986

  18

  1987

  17

  1988

  37

  1989

  44

  1990

  79

  (d) Financial penalties cannot readily be measured but usually comprise three main elements: the often considerable loss of revenue arising from delays in sailing, the cost of repairs and the cost of any further inspection to ensure that repairs have been satisfactorily carried out.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate has been made of the impact of the introduction of catalytic converters on total emissions of carbon dioxide from motor vehicles.

  Mr. Chope
  Catalytic converters, which are essential to meet our future air quality objectives, can lead to an increase in fuel consumption and thus CO2 emissions. But this effect will be offset by improved engine control systems which will be required to be fitted to new petrol-engined cars from the end of 1992.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to respond to the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities that his Department should commission a study of a Berne gauge line from the channel tunnel to the midlands and north-west, to be able to carry a mixture of containers, demountable bodies, and road trailers; and if he will make a statement.
  393
  Mr. Freeman
  The Select Committee's report was debated in another place on 4 March. During the debate my noble Friend, Department of the Minister of State, Transport, said that it was clear that the cost of converting a rail route or routes to a continental gauge would be very high and that British Rail's initial strategy of using small-wheeled wagons for the larger continental containers was the right one. He added that the Government might consider whether a gauge conversion study related to the longer-term future would be sensible. So far we have not seen any case for such a study.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to bring forward legislation to provide financial support to British Rail for routes to and from the channel tunnel which are safe, environmentally acceptable and fast.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to amend section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which prohibits Government subsidy for international rail services. We are prepared to consider subsidy for any non-user benefits arising from the use by commuter services of a rail link between the channel tunnel and London.

  Marchioness Inquiry
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations of the marine accident investigation branch inquiry into the Marchioness disaster, indicating which have been accepted and implemented, which have been accepted and not yet implemented and the date by which he intends that they should be implemented; and which have not been accepted and the reasons for such rejection.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  All 27 recommendations listed in the marine accident investigation branch report into the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle were accepted on 24 July 1990 by the then Secretary of State. A copy of the recommendations was placed in the Library at that time. Action on 14 of the recommendations (Nos. 1–3, 6–11, 14, 16, 18, 23 and 25) has been completed. Action to implement the remaining recommendations is well advanced and will be completed as quickly as is practicable. Two of these recommendations (Nos. 26 and 27) require the Department to establish and maintain monitoring processes to ensure that the substance of the report's recommendations continues to be borne in mind in future developments; and this has been set in place.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action has been taken to review and, where necessary, to improve the procedures of the communications and emergency services as a result of lessons learnt about the Marchioness disaster.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The procedures for communications between ships, the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the emergency services are contained in PLA's combined accident procedure (POLACAP) instructions. Two full-scale POLACAP emergency exercises have been held recently and the lessons learnt have been incorporated in the POLACAP instructions.

  The PLA general directions for navigation have been amended to require:

  1. Ships to be equipped with a VHF radiotelephone capable of communicating with the harbourmaster.

  394

  2. Ships to maintain a continuous watch on the VHF channel appropriate to the part of the Thames in which they are operating.

  3. Ships to be fitted with vertical emergency aerials if main aerials are lowered when passing under bridges.

  4. Ships of more than 40 metres length to be provided with telephone or portable handset communications between the navigating bridge and the lookout forward.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Mobile Abattoirs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further review the Chief Veterinary Officer has made of the use of mobile abattoirs in remote areas since the answer to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight,Official Report, 17 January 1990, columns 290–91.

  Mr. Maclean
  Veterinary staff are working closely with the Humane Slaughter Association to assist it in the development of a mobile abattoir. Any such abattoir will be required to meet the proposed single market standards.

  Food Imports
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of food imports into the United Kingdom came from(a) EEC countries in 1970 and (b) from the original Six in 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  In 1970, 13 per cent. of United Kingdom imports of food, feed and drink by value were from the original six members of the European Community; the comparable figure for 1990 was 43 per cent.

  Hedges
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances officials of the Agricultural Development Advisory Service charge for advice on the planting and management of hedges.

  Mr. Curry
  General advice on conservation matters, including advice on hedgerows, is available free of charge from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. A charge would be made, at a rate agreed between ADAS and an individual client, for detailed advice specific to a site, including survey and evaluation work and the provision of planting and management programmes.

  Export Refunds
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage change between 1991 and 1990 in export refunds for foodstuffs containing cereals; what is his policy on the level of export refunds on such foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Export refunds for processed products containing cereals are derived by applying to the basic refunds, set each month by the Cereals Management Committee, co-efficients related to the cereal content of the processed product. The basic refunds for the principal grains and some example products determined for June 1990 and 1991, and the percentage increase for each, are set out in the table. Full details of export refunds on processed products applying in June 1991 are set out in EC regulation 1461/91 (OJ L138 of 1 June 1991) available in the Library of the House.
  395

  ecu/tonne

  June 1990

  June 1991

  Per cent. increase 1990–91

  Wheat

  74·05

  102·93

  39

  Wheat Pellets

  75·53

  104·99

  39

  Barley

  72·41

  90·22

  25

  Rolled or Flaked Barley

  108·62

  135·33

  25

  Maize

  97·29

  127·47

  31

  Maize Groats

  175·12

  229·45

  31

  Government policy is to seek to ensure that export refunds for processed products containing cereals are set at a level which adequately compensates processors for the cost of their cereals raw materials.

  Farm Budget
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of the overall farm budget agreed for 1991–92 with the comparable figures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 13 June 1991,Official Report, col. 669–70.

  Blue Ear Pig Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 17 June,Official Report, column 21, on blue ear pig disease, if he will list in which counties his veterinarians are, or have been, on detached duty as a result of the disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  During the current outbreak of blue eared pig disease, detached duty for veterinary staff in the field has so far been confined to Humberside. During the period of disease control 14 other veterinary field staff have had periods of detached duty in this county.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the counties where pigs from the area restricted as a result of blue ear disease have been sent in the last two months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The counties which have been identified, as a result of the tracing of movements since 1 March, as having received pigs from infected and suspect holdings in the large restricted zone around Humberside are:

  Cambridgeshire

  Norfolk

  Cheshire

  North Yorkshire

  Co. Durham

  Perth

  Cumbria

  Somerset

  Devon

  Suffolk

  Essex

  Tyne and Wear

  Gloucestershire

  Warwickshire

  Lancashire

  West Yorkshire

  Leicestershire

  Wiltshire

  Lincolnshire

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields of 17 June,Official Report, column 21, on blue ear pig disease, if he will list the number of veterinarians on detached duty, and their usual place of work within his Ministry; and if he will make a statement.
  396
  Mr. Gummer
  There are currently two veterinarians on detached duty in Humberside; one from the Leeds animal health office and one from Carlisle.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of feline spongiform encephalopathy have been confirmed in cats to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Feline spongiform encephalopathy is not a notifiable disease, but I am aware of 16 confirmed cases in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of canine spongiform encephalopathy have been confirmed in dogs to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No case of a spongiform encephalopathy in a dog has been reported anywhere in the world.

  Food Safety
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to make a response to the report entitled Priorities Board: Food Safety on Applied Nutrition Research Consultative Committee of November 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 October 1990,Official Report, column 426.

  Salmon
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will take steps to limit the importation of Norwegian salmon; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will discuss with European Community Agriculture Ministers the effect that unlimited imports of salmon from outside the Community will have upon United Kingdom and other European salmon farmers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 17 June.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufactured Goods
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage share of the United Kingdom market for manufacturing goods was filled by imports from the EEC in 1970; and what was the percentage share in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department does not make regular estimates of import penetration ratios for particular groups of trading partners. Estimates broadly comparable to the published statistics for the percentage share of the United Kingdom market for manufacturing goods filled by imports are as follows:
  397

  EC imports as a proportion of home demand (manufacturing):

  percentage

  1970

  5

  1990

  20

  European Single Market
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many EC directives for the single market have been agreed at meetings of the Council of Ministers that he has attended; how many of these directives have been given legislative effect in the United Kingdom; and how many have been put into legislative effect by all member states.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following the Internal Market Council on 18 June some 202 of the 282 measures in the Commission's single market programme have been adopted, agreed in principle, or had common positions agreed for submission to the European Parliament.

  The Commission presented to the 18 June Council its sixth annual progress report concerning the completion of the single market. This reaffirmed the United Kingdom's excellent record on implementation. Of the 126 individual provisions which are required to have entered into force by the end of May the report recorded the United Kingdom as still needing to implement only 20. This was bettered only by Denmark (12 not implemented) and France (18).

  Although only 33 directives have been implemented in all member states, the Commission report noted an improvement in the overall level of implementation. This has increased from 69 per cent. in December 1990 to more than 73 per cent. in May 1991.

  Bryanston (Report)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 22 May,Official Report, column 477, if he is now in a position to make a statement on what representations he has received seeking the publication of the final report on Bryanston.

  Mr. Redwood
  From the papers which are now available, I am advised that there is no indication that my right hon. Friend received any representations seeking publication of the inspectors' final report.

  Disclosure of Non-audit Fees
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the parties who responded to the draft of the statutory instrument relating to the disclosure of non-audit fees and opposed it.

  Mr. Redwood
  A number of responses were received, some of which expressed opposition to the use at the present time of the Secretary of State's power to require the disclosure of non-audit fees paid to a company's auditors and their associates. It would not be appropriate to disclose the views of identified respondents, since they were not told beforehand that their views would be made public.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 20 May,Official Report,
  398
  column 333, on what date he intends the statutory instrument relating to disclosure of non-audit fees would come into operation.

  Mr. Redwood
  No date has yet been decided.

  Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation under which the auditing firms criticised by his Department's inspectors will be required to file a statement with the regulators stating that they have read and understood the criticisms made of their practices.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation under which banks in their annual corporate reports will be required to publish the number of times their auditors have acted as receivers for any of the bank's clients.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will indicate the dates on which his representative has attended the meetings of the Auditing Practices Board.

  Mr. Redwood
  The first meeting of the Auditing Practices Board is due to take place on 3 July.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his representative on the Auditing Standards Board has taken to bring about a reduction in the influence of the six largest auditing firms in setting auditing standards.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has no role in the selection of voting members of the Auditing Practices Board.

  Recognised Supervisory Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether under the Companies Act 1989 the recognised supervisory bodies will enjoy any immunities from prosecution.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Bank Loans
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will propose legislation under which banks in their annual corporate report will be required to publish the loans they have advanced to small, medium and large companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  As we made clear during the public consultation on the forthcoming implementation of the bank accounts directive, the Government support the principle of fuller disclosure aimed at benefiting users of accounts. Where possible, however, we prefer to allow the banking industry to develop its own response to the need for disclosure additional to the directive's requirements.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will bring forward proposals for legislation to ensure that banks rank with all other creditors in bankruptcy and are prevented from imposing conditions which put them in a preferential position.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to propose any such legislation.

  Recognised Professional Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions he has laid down as to the number of visits to be made by each regulator to their members in respect of the recognised professional bodies listed in his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 476.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the procedure required for lodging an application for European regional development grant.

  Mr. Leigh
  Applications for European regional development fund (ERDF) grants are made to the secretariat of the monitoring committee of the appropriate ERDF programme. The secretariats for programmes in the north-west are provided by the Department of the Environment's regional offices in Manchester and Liverpool.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the North-West region's share of European regional development grant in each year since the United Kingdom joined the EC.

  Mr. Leigh
  The north-west's share of European regional development fund grants is shown in the table.

  North West's per cent. share of England's ERDF Commitments

  North West's per cent. share of United Kingdom ERDF Commitments

  1975

  25·1

  8·5

  1976

  23·7

  11·6

  1977

  19·6

  9·1

  1978

  44·9

  19·8

  1979

  26·3

  9·1

  1980

  23·0

  12·6

  1981

  19·1

  7·1

  1982

  24·3

  11·1

  1983

  38·3

  16·0

  1984

  28·9

  15·5

  1985

  38·1

  21·6

  1986

  24·9

  13·8

  1987

  16·3

  8·4

  1988

  20·5

  9·4

  11989 to 1991

  26·7

  12·5

  21975 to 1991

  26·4

  12·7

  1 Three year allocation from Community Support Framework.

  2 There are no figures for 1973 and 1974 as the ERDF did not start until 1975.

  Data Protection
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside, 3 June 1991 Official Report, column 32, (1) if he will arrange for the study being carried out by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte to be extended to consider electronic raids on medical data;

  (2) if he will arrange for the study being carried out by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte to be extended to consider electronic raids on research data compiled by academic institutions as distinct from businesses.

  Mr. Leigh
  The focus of the study is on the requirements of business and the police. It would not be practicable for a relatively short-term study of this kind to collect material directly from all sectors. However, it is expected that the findings of the study would be applicable to the needs of most organisations which use information technology, and would therefore be likely to be relevant to those institutions which hold medical and research data in electronic form.

  Insolvency Reports
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his responsibilities in respect of the insolvency service.

  Mr. Redwood
  The insolvency service is an executive agency within my Department. Its day-to-day management has been delegated under the terms of its framework document to its inspector general and chief executive. He is accountable to and reports to me on its performance. I remain answerable for the policy governing the service's work generally and determine the policy framework within which it operates.

  A copy of the agency framework document is available in the House Library.

  Synergistic Air-breathing and Rocket Engine
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support his Department is proposing to provide for the research and development of the synergistic air-breathing and rocket engine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  At present my Department has no plans to support the research and development of the synergistic air-breathing and rocket engine. There are many concepts for re-usable space launchers currently under study within Europe. What is clear is that any eventual development of such a vehicle will have to be collaborative, probably on a Europe-wide basis, if it is to be affordable. If, in the context of European collaboration, the European Space Agency were to propose a new optional technology support programme to explore such concepts as the synergistic air-breathing and rocket engine, the Government would be prepared to consider United Kingdom participation in such a programme.

  Health Insurance Companies
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from United Kingdom health insurance companies in seeking business opportunities in France, Italy and Germany; and if he will make a statement.
  401
  Mr. Redwood
  United Kingdom health insurance companies were among the organisations which responded to my Department's consultative document on the proposed EC third non-life insurance directive published in February this year. They welcome the proposed directive and its liberalising provisions for the marketing of insurance throughout the Community. Our aim is to secure in the directive the maximum possible freedom in the single insurance market.

  Buses
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of buses(a) manufactured in the United Kingdom and (b) imported into the United Kingdom for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Leigh
  The available figures are as follows:

  United Kingdom production and imports of buses

  Year

  Production number

  Imports number

  1980

  21,572

  417

  1981

  12,444

  678

  1982

  13,107

  1,041

  1983

  15,616

  1,616

  1984

  4,726

  1,301

  1985

  3,885

  1,174

  1986

  2,514

  1,493

  1987

  2,178

  1,067

  1988

  2,511

  1,045

  1989

  2,171

  1,056

  1990

  1,504

  665

  Notes:

  1. Prior to 1984 production figures include mini buses.

  2. Imports figures are as defined by SITC(R3) 783.11 and 783.19 (New Buses and Coaches.

  Source:

  Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Steel
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the rules governing the import and export of steel for British manufacturing companies with subsidiaries in(a) EC countries and (b) non-EC countries with particular reference to the end-user costs.

  Mr. Leigh
  Steel prices within the European Community are governed by the pricing rules in articles 60 to 64 of the treaty of Paris. These rules are enforced by the European Commission and impose certain constraints on producers' pricing policies. However, producers are still free to compete on price. Hence prices for a given product will vary across the Community and within any individual member state, for example: on the basis of the range of products and services provided; on whether metric or imperial standards are involved; and on whether sales are direct from the mill or through a stockholder.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many enterprise initiative consultants also contract for business arising from firms seeking enterprise initiative grants; and what proportion of the total grant allocation funding to these consultants represents.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: Of the 3,298 consultancy practices listed with DTI contractors in the
  402
  financial year 1990–91 to carry out work under the enterprise initiative assisted consultancy scheme, 2,239 undertook consultancy projects during that period. Payment of consultancy fees by the DTI represents either one half or two thirds of an individual project's cost, depending upon the location of the client business.

  Shipbuilding
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the legislative basis for the Government's decision to privatise British Shipbuilders; and what parliamentary approval was either required or given before the privatisation took place.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: The legislative authority for the privatisation of British Shipbuilders' subsidiaries is the British Shipbuilders Act 1983. No further parliamentary approval was required for these privatisations, but Parliament was informed on each occasion.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's reasons for closing the North East Shipbuilders Ltd yards in Sunderland as opposed to any other United Kingdom yards at the time of the 1988 agreement with the European Commission to reduce Britain's merchant shipbuilding capacity.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: The decision to close the remaining NESL shipyards in Sunderland was taken by the Government in December 1988 because no acceptable bids had been received for them. In contrast, sale negotiations for British Shipbuilders' other remaining shipbuilding subsidiaries had by that time reached an advanced stage.

  The package notification made in December 1988 to the European Commission of the proposed closure aid at NESL, the proposed terms of sale of the other British Shipbuilders' subsidiaries and forecast British Shipbuilders' results for 1988 and 1989 was to seek the Commission's approval of the overall level of subsidy to British Shipbuilders as conforming to the relevant Community shipbuilding aid ceilings, rather than a specific agreement to reduce United Kingdom merchant shipbuilding capacity.

  Exports
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the average annual growth in the volume of exports for the United Kingdom and other EC countries over the period 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: The information is in the table. There are no data for Luxembourg or Portugal.

  Annual average growth rates of the volume of total exports of goods 1979–90

  Per cent.

  Belgium1

  3·9

  Denmark

  4·8

  France2

  3·6

  Germany

  4·3

  Greece2

  4·7

  Ireland2

  8·7

  Italy2

  3·2

  403

  Per cent.

  Netherlands

  3·9

  Spain

  6·7

  United Kingdom

  3·9

  1 Average for the period 1979–87.

  2 Average for the period 1979–89.

  Source: OECD Monthly Statistics on Foreign Trade.

  Notes:

  (1) The average annual growth rate is the rate which, when compounded over the 11 calendar years from 1979 to 1990, gives rise to the observed change in export volumes.

  (2) 'Total exports' include goods (including oil and erratics) but not services.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will be able to give 1989–90 figures and 1990–91 figures on energy consumption and energy spending to update the 1988–89 figures given in the answers of 14 May 1990,Official Report, columns 277–78, and 30 April 1990, Official Report, column 387.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 20 June 1991]: Some estimates have been prepared for 1989–90:

  Million

  £ million

  Electricity

  10·4 Kilowatt hours

  3·3

  Gas

  2·6 Therms

  0·8

  Oil

  3·6 litres

  0·4

  However, it should be noted that these figures and previous figures given have been compiled from global billing of the Property Services Agency. This billing was not broken down in a way which readily identified the consumption of individual Departments. The figures are therefore only broad indicators and are not comprehensive.

  From 1990–91 the Department will have figures based on direct billing which will be accurate and comprehensive. The 1990–91 figures will be available in October 1991.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many public houses and inns there were in England in 1981 and the last year for which figures are available; and if he expects the number to change significantly during the next two years.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 June 1991]: The precise figures are not readily available. The number of full on-licensed premises—about 70 per cent. of which are public houses—in the United Kingdom in 1980 was 76,403. By 1989 there were 83,000 full on-licensed premises in the United Kingdom. I cannot predict whether this figure will change significantly in the next two years. I would not, however, expect it to reduce significantly as a result of the Beer Orders introduced following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. These require brewers to free from ties half the pubs they own in excess of 2,000; however pubs which are closed do not count towards the number to be freed.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the brewing industry and the licensees of public houses with regard to the future of their trade.
  404
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 21 June 1991:] In recent months the Secretary of State and I have had meetings with the Major brewers. I met the National Licensed Victuallers' Association in January this year and the Secretary of State has also recently offered to meet the NLVA. In addition officials are in regular contact with a wide range of representatives of the brewing industry.

ENVIRONMENT

  Energy Use
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the results of the survey on energy use, undertaken as part of the English house condition survey in 1986–87, will be published.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The results will be published this summer.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all consultancy contracts awarded in the past five years without competitive tender.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have arranged for a list of the contracts awarded to management or computing consultants in the past five years without competitive tender to be placed in the Library.

  Inner City Programme
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will specify the full range of grants currently available under his inner city programme with a brief technical description of each.

  Mr. Portillo
  Very important support is provided for the inner cities through the main programmes of the Home Office and the Departments of Trade and Industry, Employment, Education and Science, Transport, Health and Social Security and through support to local authorities and the Housing Corporation by this Department including the estate action programme.

  My Department promotes inner city regeneration through a variety of programmes and initiatives, including the following grant measures.

  City Challenge
  City Challenge is a new initiative under which local authorities are invited to draw up comprehensive plans in partnership with the private sector, voluntary organisations and local people, to bid for resources for the regeneration of key parts of their areas within a five-year period. Fifteen authorities have been invited to compete for a share in over £250 million from DoE programmes during the five years 1992–93 to 1996–97.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Grant-aid is provided for the ten urban development corporations in England. Some £470 million will be available in 1991–92 to purchase and reclaim land, provide infrastructure, encourage development and improve the environment.

  Urban Programme
  Fifty-seven urban programme (UP) authorities in England receive 75 per cent. grant towards a wide range of projects with an emphasis on economic and environmental improvements as the key to self-sustaining regeneration in targeted inner city areas. In 1991–92, £268 million is available to support almost 9,000 projects.

  City Grant
  City grant is provided to support private sector capital projects which benefit run down urban areas and which

  405
  cannot proceed without grant. Over £56 million has been committed to the city grant programme for 1991–92 and will be available for industrial, commercial, housing and leisure projects.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Derelict land grant (DLG) is available throughout England to local authorities, other public bodies, voluntary organisations, private firms and individuals to promote the reclamation of land which has been so damaged by industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment. The DLG programme for 1991–92 totals £88 million of which about £81·5 million is expected to be spent on local authority reclamation schemes. About 40 per cent. of the programme will be devoted to schemes in the inner cities.

  City Action Teams
  There are eight city action teams (CATs) operating in Birmingham, Cleveland, Leeds/Bradford, Liverpool, London, Tyne and Wear, Nottingham/Leicester/Derby and Manchester/Salford. The CATs are an important mechanism for co-ordinating and targeting Government programmes and harnessing the support of business and industry. Each CAT has a small budget, a total of £8·1 million in 1991–92, with which to prime action targeted on inner city problems of unemployment, environmental improvement and the need to promote enterprise.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the report of the public inquiry into the planning application submitted on 12 September 1989 for the extension of the runway and the operation of jet aircraft at London city airport; and when he expects to complete his consideration of the report.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment arising from the planning application dated 12 September 1989 by John Mowlem and Co. plc. to extend the runway at London city airport(a) if he has now received the report of the inspector who conducted the public inquiry and (b) when he expects to be able to announce his decision.

  Mr. Yeo
  The inspector delivered on 14 June his report of the public inquiry into two applications relating to the London City airport. One application to vary the conditions of a permission granted on 23 May 1985 was submitted on 12 September 1989. The second application to carry out development of the runway was submitted on 15 December 1989. My consideration of the report will be completed when I have taken careful account of all relevant matters.

  Refugees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to provide a per capita per refugee revenue support grant for receiving local authorities.

  Mr. Key
  There are currently no such plans.

  Waveney District Council
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to report his Department's findings into the way Waveney district council assigned its buildings cleaning work contract to its own direct services organisation in March this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I am currently considering the response of Waveney district council to my Department's inquiries 406
  about its building cleaning work contract. A decision on whether the Secretary of State should use his powers of sanction under part I of the Local Government Act 1988 will be taken shortly. I shall write to my hon. Friend again at that time.

  3Ds Ltd.
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the application by 3Ds Ltd. for £5 million city grant has been considered; whether all the information required has been provided; whether the identify of all shareholders in 3Ds Ltd. has been ascertained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The first phase of 3Ds proposed development is still under discussion and further information is still awaited before a full appraisal of the project can be undertaken. The identity of the shareholders in 3D Ltd. has been ascertained.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce an advisory committee on sites of special scientific interest in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Housing Improvement Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has of hardship caused to applicants for housing improvement grants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 by virtue of (i) the allowance of the notional housing premium for applicants with substantial housing costs being beyond what they can afford and (ii) the lack of an unearned income disregard affecting applicants with small occupational pensions.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: We have received a number of representations from grant applicants and others on these matters and will be considering them as part of our review of the new grant system later this year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents (Benefits)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current level of spending on benefits for lone parents.

  Mr. Newton
  In 1990–91 expenditure on income-related benefits for lone parent families was approximately £.3·4 billion.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the weekly additional cost to a married man with a non-working wife and three children earning £26,000 a year of the abolition of the national insurance upper earnings limit.
  407
  Mr. Scott
  If the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions were removed, a married man earning £26,000 a year would have to pay about £10 a week extra in contributions.

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the impact on a person earning £35,000 per annum, of the removal of the national insurance contributions upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Scott
  If the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions were removed, a person earning £35,000 a year would pay an extra £1,324·80 a year in contributions; that is over £25 a week.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the national insurance upper earnings limit.

  Mr. Scott
  It remains the Government's intention to retain the national insurance upper earnings limit and we have received no recent representations about it.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the impact on a typical family with two children of the last two increases in child benefit.

  Mr. Jack
  This year's increases mean that such a family will see their weekly tax-free income from child benefit rise by over 15 per cent. from £14·50 to £16·75.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new jobs are likely to be created as a result of the establishment of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Jack
  We anticipate that the proposed Child Support Agency, which becomes operational from April 1993, is likely to create around 2,200 new jobs across the country.

  The majority of these jobs will be located in Belfast, Birkenhead, Dudley, Falkirk, Hastings and Plymouth. Each of the designated locations for these offices will provide around 500 administrative jobs. It is hoped that the majority of these job opportunities can be filled locally.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if any estimate has been made of the potential reduction in spending on benefits for lone parents as a result of maintenance orders following the establishment of the Child Support Agency.

  Sir Robert McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether any estimate has been made of the possible reduction in spending on benefits for lone parents as a result of improved assessment and enforcement of maintenance orders following the establishment of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Jack
  We expect spending on benefits to be about £400 million a year lower as a consequence of the full establishment of the Child Support Agency.

  Family Credit
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current length of time which elapses between receipt of application for family credit and a decision being reached in cases affecting(a) employed and (b) self-employed applicants.

  Mr. Jack
  In May 1991, the average clearance time for family credit claims was 17·7 days for employed cases and 31·5 days for self-employed cases.

  Pensioner Premium
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are estimated to have benefited from increases in the pensioner premium in income support.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Since October 1989 nearly 1·5 million pensioner claimants have gained directly from increases in income support premiums. And this takes no account of the millions who have benefited because improvements in income support levels have increased their entitlement to housing benefit and community charge benefit. We have added some £300 million to pensioner premiums over and above normal upratings in less than two years.

  Healthy Diets
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the measures his Department has taken to ensure that families on social security can pay for a healthy diet.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government do not prescribe what proportion of benefit should be spent on any particular budgetary item, but the social security reforms have made it possible to channel extra help to the most vulnerable groups. Compared with the pre-1988 position, the resources made available to families with children through income related benefits have risen by around £1 billion a year in real terms.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total value of the reduction in pension contributions to a man on average earnings with a personal pension if the 2 per cent. special incentive were withdrawn.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Based on average full-time male earnings of about £16,000 per year, the total amount of national insurance contributions payable in the year 1991–92 would be £3,745. The total amount payable from the national insurance fund to an appropriate personal pension scheme would be £1,037. Withdrawing the 2 per cent. incentive would reduce this by approximately £266.

  Sir Bernard Braine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about personal pensions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received a number of representations about various aspects of personal pensions.

  Local Offices
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent in London social security offices during the past 12 months on facilities for clients.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the financial year 1990–91 £3·5 million was spent on capital refurbishment projects at 30 offices in the London area. Of this amount £1·8 million can be clearly identified as specifically for client facilities. The balance of £1·7 million was on schemes involving both client and staff areas.

  Liable Relatives Officers
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's liable relatives officers.

  Mr. Jack
  Liable relative officers work within the current maintenance system to obtain maintenance for people claiming income support so that people are not unnecessarily dependent on income support because someone who can afford to pay maintenance fails to do so. We have carried out a wide-ranging review of the whole system of maintenance for children, and the Child Support Bill now before Parliament contains proposals for a new child maintenance system. Under the new system, assessment of maintenance for children will be by a standard formula. In addition, there will be a Child Support Agency dedicated to the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance. The agency's services will be available to all parents bringing up children where maintenance is an issue.

  Young People
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has received a copy of the recent report published by the Coalition on Young People on Social Security.

  Mr. Scott
  I have received a copy of the report by the Coalition on Young People and Social Security. I do not consider that the restoration of general entitlement to benefit for 16 and 17-year-olds recommended by the report is the right solution. However I shall be looking at the report's findings carefully, together with the Department's own research, to ensure that the most vulnerable young people receive the best possible service.

  Performance Indicators
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance indicators are published for his Department.

  Mr. Jack
  A wide range of performance indicators are published in the DSS departmental report (cm 1514) most notably in tables 40, 41 and 42.

  In addition each of the Department's agencies include performance targets, covering their most important activities, in their business plans. Targets are typically set for service delivery and for a range of financial indicators. Copies of the departmental report and the business plans are in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sittings
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many representations on hon. Members' hours have been received from hon. Members' spouses.

  Mr. MacGregor
  One.

  EC Proposals
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the parliamentary procedures for debate and scrutiny of EC proposals.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The changes leading to the present scrutiny procedures were debated on 28 June 1990, 24 October 1990 and 22 January 1991. The Government are committed to carrying out a full review of the procedures at the end of this parliamentary Session.

  In addition, I keep the arrangements constantly under review and I have recently tabled a proposal to deal with one technical point that has arisen from the operation of the European Standing Committees.

  Regional Sittings
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to permit the House of Commons to meet in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  No.

  Ibbs Report
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the several outbuildings to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster showing who is in charge of each building and what changes in these arrangements will follow from the Ibbs report.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The following House of Commons outbuildings form part of the parliamentary estate:

  Number 1 Canon Row

  Norman Shaw (North) and (South)

  St. Stephen's House

  Number 1 Parliament street

  Number 1 Derby Gate

  Number 3 Dean's Yard

  Number 6–7 Old Palace Yard

  Number 2 the Abbey Garden

  In addition, Palace Chambers and Nos. 1 and 2 Bridge street are either vacant or occupied temporarily pending redevelopment as part of phase II of the new parliamentary building project.

  No. 1 The Abbey gardens is occupied by the House of Lords.

  Accommodation in these buildings is managed by the respective House authorities with works services being undertaken by the DOE Property Holdings, parliamentary works organisation. Implementation of the Ibbs report will transfer responsibility for the latter to the Houses.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to maximise energy conservation and efficiency in the House during the current year.
  411
  Mr. MacGregor
  Energy conservation work is treated both as a specific task and as integral part of both the maintenance of the fabric of the buildings and services on the parliamentary estate and the design of new facilities. During the year the coverage of the building energy management system will be extended, further energy efficient lighting will be installed, another major step in the modernisation of the heating system will be completed and other minor work will be carried out as the opportunity arises.

  Staff of the parliamentary works office have a continuing brief to draw the attention of energy liaison officers where lighting is left on repeatedly, and security staff are asked to switch off lighting in empty rooms. It is, of course, incumbent upon all occupants of the parliamentary buildings to adopt a commonsense approach to the use of lighting and other energy consuming equipment.

  Library
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the books offered by a Member of the House in the last month for inclusion in the Library.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Members who are authors often present a signed copy of their book to the Library for its special collection. From time to time Members also offer books to the Library written by authors other than themselves. It is not, however, Library practice to reveal the names of Members who present books in this way without the agreement, in each case, of the Member concerned.

  Millbank
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress he has been able to achieve on improving safety for hon. and right hon. Members crossing Millbank to and from their offices.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have little to add to the information I gave the hon. Member on 11 February last. Both Houses and Westminster city council have agreed to the installation of an additional island refuge outside the entrance to the Lords' car park. They are all agreed,

  Date

  Location

  Aircraft involved

  5 March 1980

  15 NM1 E of York

  Starfighter/Schweizer AG-Cat

  29 September 1980

  7 NM S of Pitlochry

  Buccaneer/Lama SA315B

  22 September 1981

  21 NM N of Dundee

  Buccaneer/Lama SA315B

  15 April 1982

  5.5 NM NE of Leconfield

  Lightning/Schweizer AG-Cat

  23 February 1983

  Foulsham Airfield

  Caberra/Schweizer AG-Cat

  14 June 1984

  4 NM SW of Eshott

  Jaguar/Sioux Trooper

  15 January 1985 (11.35 am)

  18 NM SW of Wick

  Harrier/Hiller 360 UH12E

  15 January 1985 (12.15 am)

  18NM SW ofWick

  Untraced military aircraft/Hiller 360 UH12E

  25 February 1985

  11 NM NE of Cottesmore

  Untraced military aircraft/Pawnee

  12 April 1988

  5 NM N of Dalwhinnie

  Buccaneer/Hughes 500

  13 April 1988

  4 NM SW of Newtonmore

  F16/Hughes 500

  412
  however, that it would be impracticable to install an extra pedestrian crossing between those at the south-east corner of Parliament square and at Great College street.

DEFENCE

  Civil Aircraft Notification Procedure
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures exist for the reporting and recording of breaches by military aircraft of areas notified under the civil notification procedure, other than those incidents in which an air miss was reported.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Complaints made to my Department relating to civil aircraft notification procedures, other than air miss reports, would be handled in the same way as other complaints about military low flying.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of notifications made under the civil aircraft notification procedure in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Records are not available for notifications made under the civil aircraft notification procedure before August 1983. The number of notifications since then is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  1775

  1984

  5,976

  1985

  7,183

  1986

  4,598

  1987

  4,604

  1988

  3,213

  1989

  548

  1990

  412

  1991

  251

  Notes:

  1 Figure is for August to December inclusive.

  2 Figure is for January to May inclusive.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of all air misses since 1979 in which a military aircraft breached an area notified under the civil aircraft notification procedure.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Following is the information requested:
  413

  Date

  Location

  Aircraft involved

  15 April 1988

  5 NM S of Newtonmore

  Hunter/Jet Ranger

  11 October 1988

  1 NM W of Fort William

  Tornado/Jet Ranger

  1 NM—Nautical mile.

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of booked low-flying movements at less than 250 ft over the United Kingdom in each year since 1979, broken down by aircraft type.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer the hon. Member to my Department's evidence to the recent inquiry by the Select Committee on Defence (HC 120/90, page 141) and to the written answers to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 19 December 1990 at column 208 and to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 8 March 1991 at column 332.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the flow control regulations in the United Kingdom low-flying system apply to traffic at all altitudes within the system.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Yes, except for some helicopter operations and above certain flowed valleys.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects that the official board of inquiry into the incident in which British soldiers in Iraq were killed by friendly fire will be completed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) on 19 June at column 226.

  Grenadier Guardsmen (Accident)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many documents requested by the solicitor acting for Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray have been(a) withheld and (b) withheld in part; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None of the documents which the solicitors have requested has been withheld. Their outstanding request for the 1984, 1985 and 1989 editions of the Batus range standing orders will be met if they are still available.
  414
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many special socks have been provided to Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray; and if he will make it his policy to supply such special socks free on demand.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will reply shortly.

  Charter Technologies (Liquidation)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from Muras, Baker, Jones and Co., liquidators of Charter Technologies.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None.

  Submarines
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the operation of the scheme under which the Royal Navy notifies details of planned activity by submerged submarines in the inner Clyde.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Clyde submarine movements notification scheme was introduced on 17 December 1990. Under this scheme the Royal Navy gives notice of the sea areas and times of planned submerged submarine activity in the inner Clyde. The information is broadcast by the Clyde coastguard every four hours on VHF and is also available by telephone from the operations room a1 the Clyde submarine base. Local fishermen have also undertaken to inform the Navy in advance of those times and locations when fishing activity is expected to be heavier than usual. The scheme does not preclude fishing in notified areas, but alerts fishermen to those areas where dived submarine activity may occur. The operation or the scheme has been monitored closely since its introduction and I believe it is working well and has achieved a worth while improvement in fishing vessel and submarine safety in the areas covered. In the light of this, I have agreed that from 1 July the scheme will be expanded to cover all Clyde submarine exercise areas lying either wholly or partly within the United Kingdom 12-mile limit. The ranges at Rona and Raasay are also to be included in the notification arrangements.

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

BBC Services for the Visually Handicapped
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they will give when renegotiating the licence of the British Broadcasting Corporation to the needs of blind and partially sighted people for audio-descriptive services.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, consideration of the future arrangements for governing the whole of the BBC's services, including those for the blind and partially sighted people, will be included in the review which will precede the expiry of the present charter and licence in 1996.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I am sure he is aware that the audio-descriptive services to which the Question refers are now available in the United States through more than 47 stations serving 52 million people. When the Government come to renegotiate the BBC licence I should not like to think that we shall be left behind Europe, Japan and America in the provision of these services to the blind and those who are hard of hearing
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is right that audio-descriptive services are in use in the United States of America. However, for technical reasons, those systems as they stand cannot be adopted in this country. The matter will be considered as part of the review before the licence and charter are renewed.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not true that during the passage of the Broadcasting Act the Minister accepted at Report stage amendments on this subject tabled by noble Lords on both sides of the House? Under the amendments those applying for ITV franchises have to agree to take these proposals into account. Out of 40 applications, 38 have in fact so stated. Does the noble Earl not agree that there is an urgent need for the ITC and the BBC to develop the best technological and most economic common audio-descriptive service for use by the 1 million blind and 700,000 partially sighted people in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that during the passage of the Broadcasting Act we accepted amendments to the effect that those who applied would have to state what they were going to do for the blind, the deaf and the disabled and that that would form part of their application. That is different from what happens with the BBC. At the
414
moment it operates under a different system but it takes into account the need to help the disabled. The noble Baroness is quite right that if this service is developed we should make certain that the BBC and ITC develop it along the same lines.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is any work being done to produce equipment that would make the American system suitable for use in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we are aware of what happens in America. It is a technical matter which at the moment precludes the system being of use in this country. I am not aware of the technical complications of it but I shall delve into it and let my noble friend know.

London Bus Services: Deregulation
2.40 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many responses have been made to the proposals to deregulate London bus services set out in the Green Paper on a new transport strategy for London, how many of these have supported the proposals and how many have opposed them.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we have received more than 200 responses to the consultation paper A Bus Strategy for London. Those responses are currently being assessed. An announcement on the Government's conclusions following the consultation exercise will be made shortly.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is it not a fact that of those 200 responses the vast majority were opposed to the proposals and that the fiercest criticism came from companies in the private sector such as Grey-Green Coaches Ltd.? It has told the Government that the proposals would involve large fare increases, worsening congestion and untold misery for millions of Londoners. Evidence from deregulated metropolitan areas outside London suggests that, although more road miles are travelled by buses, patronage has fallen. Is there not a certain amount of complacency in the noble Lord's reply? Is it perhaps that the Government have underestimated the scale of the opposition, or is it just that once again they are not prepared to listen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that there was any complacency in the reply I gave. My reply was purely factual. It listed the number of responses that were received and went on to say that an announcement would be made shortly. Nothing in that could be considered to be complacent. The noble Lord will have to wait to see the conclusions of the consultation. It is true to say that more responses opposed deregulation than supported it. But that is no surprise, as radical change is often met with resistance.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, how many responses were received from the physically handicapped; and what was the reaction to their various questions?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have a breakdown of the 200 responses that were received.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister said something rather surprising when he said that in situations of this kind one might expect an overwhelming degree of opposition. Of course there is ample precedent for that—for example, with the poll tax, where the Government pigheadedly went on notwithstanding opposition. But what does the Minister say in response to the points made by Grey-Green Coaches Ltd. as rehearsed by my noble friend Lord Stallard? Does he say that there is anything in those allegations; or does he say that they are absolute piffle? What does he say?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, first, I must point out that I did not say that there was overwhelming opposition in the responses. Indeed, nowhere will the noble Lord find that those words were used by me. I said that there were more responses opposing the proposals than supporting them. I then went on to say that radical changes often meet with resistance. I recall that noble Lords opposite opposed the deregulation of long distance coaches some years ago. That has proved now to be extremely popular with the travelling public.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has not even begun to answer the question that I put to him and that which was put by my noble friend. Even if it causes some offence to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I must point out that Ministers are here to answer questions. Therefore, will the Minister answer the question put by my noble friend about the representations made by Grey-Green Coaches? The Government seem to be in a very temperamental mood today, judging by the behaviour of their supporters. Will the Minister tell us his response to the claims made by Grey-Green? They are extremely important. Moreover, they do not come from the Labour Party; they come from the independent sector.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if I have failed to answer the noble Lord's questions it is perhaps because I normally answer two questions at a time, as laid down by the Companion to the Standing Orders. I in fact answered two questions and the noble Lord has asked me a third. That is fair enough. However, as I said in my original Answer, the responses to the consultation are being currently assessed and will be announced shortly.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister has said that there is a consultative document. I understand that fact. I should have thought that it was a very good thing actually to consult and talk about the proposals. However, can the Minister tell us a little more about when he hopes that the Government will make a decision on their future plans?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, our aim is to introduce new legislation to give effect to the proposals as soon as possible in a new Parliament.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister accept that he has hardly answered any of the questions which have been put to him? For example, the point made by my noble friend about the needs of the physically handicapped has been widely publicised by the Consumers' Association. He must have a better reply than that which he gave to my noble friend. In all honesty, would it not be better to shelve this proposal and set up an independent review body to look at the overall picture of transport, not just in London but also in the deregulated metropolitan authorities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think so. Deregulation outside the London area has, on the whole, been a great success. I do not believe that anyone would wish to go back to the old system. We propose to extend those benefits to the London area. We have, therefore, issued the consultation paper, inviting comments on those proposals.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Phillips asked a specific question. It is the purpose of Question Time to elicit information from the Government. In his answer, the Minister said that he did not have that information. By giving that answer, is he undertaking to write to my noble friend with the information and, if so, will he put a copy of that information in the Library?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said that there were over 200 responses to the consultation paper and that an announcement on the Government's conclusions following the consultation exercise will shortly be made. If that announcement does not include the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, I undertake to write to her on the matter and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

House Building: Local Authority Finance
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will permit local authorities to use a greater proportion of their capital asset sales to revive their house building programmes.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the balance between debt redemption and new investment is kept under review. Local authorities are required to set aside part of their capital receipts to meet outstanding loan debt and other credit liabilities. The remainder they may spend on new capital investment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that kind of Answer makes one almost want to stamp one's foot in sheer frustration? Is she also aware that in Swindon in 1979, when I was the Member of Parliament for that great constituency, people on the housing list were being rehoused within weeks? The council was also able to assure engaged couples that they would be rehoused when they married. However, is she further aware that in Swindon now, under a Conservative Government, there is a seven-year waiting period and homeless

417
people are being put into hotel and hostel accommodation? That is happening at a time when the borough council has received £23 million from the sale of council houses which it could very well spend on solving its homeless problems and those of the people who are waiting for housing.
Therefore, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible at this time, when the building industry is suffering its worst slump for well over 12 years, for these funds to be used not only to help the homeless but also to help the Government dig themselves out of the slump which they have created?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this particular Question has been answered many times. Moreover, the explanation as to why the system operates in the way in which it does has been explained many times. Where the receipts are the greatest is where the needs are the least; where the needs are the greatest is where the receipts are the least. That is why the Government choose to target resources on the areas with the greatest need. That is done by limiting the expenditure of capital receipts, using the surplus to reduce debt, and maximising credit approvals. That allows resources to go to the areas of greatest need.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, are there any schemes or systems available by which housing can be provided without people having to go through local authorities?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would take almost too long to catalogue the agencies involved in providing houses. One of the difficulties is that noble Lords opposite appear to believe that municipal authorities are the only providers of houses. They are merely a part of the system available to provide houses for people who need them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are literally tens of thousands of families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and that the yearly cost of that accommodation would almost provide them with a home of their own? If the Government showed some initiative and asked local authorities to carry out some of the proposals suggested a moment ago by my noble friend, two things would be achieved: the stigma of having to live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would be removed and people would be given a fair crack of the whip and helped to have a home of their own—something with which the party opposite agrees. Will the Government try to do something to achieve that aim so that people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation will have a brighter and better future?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government's record for providing houses and addressing the difficulties caused by homelessness is excellent. It certainly compares favourably with that of the previous Labour Government. Mr. Gould is on record as saying that he will spend an extra £3 billion on housing construction, repairs and maintenance; that he wil1 extend the role of housing associations, with which we agree; that there will be no limit on local government expenditure; that there will be no capping
418
for local authorities and no limit on spending receipts. How does that square with the fact that there will be no spending unless there is the money to provide for it?
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister did not answer my question.
Noble Lords: Order.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the problem might be alleviated if the Government were to encourage some local authorities to adopt a more realistic and lenient attitude towards planning applications for the building of houses on private land? Such applications are often turned down. If some authorities took a more lenient attitude, we might find more houses being built.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. I have no doubt that there is some scope in relation to planning approvals. There is also scope in the better management of housing and in bringing empty houses back into use. There is much scope for improvement. The problem is not all about resources.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I hate to say it, but the answers the Minister has so far given have shown that she has not been doing her homework. Is she aware that only last week the Association of District Councils and the AMA submitted reports to Sir George Young, the Housing Minister, showing that in 1990–91 under the present system of allocation of capital receipts, local authorities will receive £1,891 million, as against £2,406 million in the previous year? That is a substantial drop of 21 per cent. Is she also aware that the vice-chairman of the ADC, Lady Elizabeth Anson, said that the decline in local authority housing investment had in recent years been so great that not only were councils now unable to provide low-cost houses for sale or rent but their ability to repair and modernise their existing stock was also under threat? Will the Minister undertake to correct that situation, in everyone's interests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, credit approvals for local authorities have increased by £102 million to £2 billion for 1991–92; housing revenue subsidy has reached £3.5 billion; Housing Corporation expenditure will be over £2 billion by 1993; an extra £50 million has been spent on rural low-cost housing; £270 million has been directed towards estate action programmes; over £300 million for two years, in addition to mainstream funding, has been provided to help the statutory homeless in London and the South East; over £100 million has been provided to combat single homelessness and rough sleeping in London; home ownership has increased to 69 per cent.; and the housing stock has increased by 2 million since 1979. The Government's record stands up very well against that of the previous Labour Government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister tell us why in reply to the two associations that I have mentioned Sir George Young said that they had made

419
out a most powerful case for extra resources and that he would take it on appeal to the Treasury? Will the Minister back her Minister instead of coming to the Dispatch Box and trying to mislead people?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I am not misleading people. All the figures that I have given are actual figures. Good cases for more resources can always be made out. No one is being complacent about the requirement to spend money on such an important need. We have a fine Housing Minister in my honourable friend Sir George Young. He is doing a good job for those who require homes and is making considerable progress in that respect.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, where are the areas of less need about which the Minister spoke? I know of no area in this country that does not need housing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when operating budgets one has to determine priorities. Receipts are highest in areas such as Surrey or Kent, whereas the need is greatest in areas such as Leeds or Liverpool.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the Minister said that the Question has been answered many times, but does she accept that an inadequate answer has been given to the simple question of why councils are not allowed to spend more of their own money on replacing some of the units that have been lost? Is not the shortage at present in affordable rented accommodation, which in the main can be provided only by housing associations and local authorities? But they need resources. Why will the Government not accept the fact that they have the resources but that they need the Government's permission to spend them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not present policy to allow all local authorities to spend all their capital receipts. As I have said, receipts are greatest where the need is least; where the need is greatest, receipts are the least; and so a mechanism has been put in place which allows the Government to redistribute credit approvals to ensure that those areas in greatest need receive the greatest help.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is no good noble Lords moaning, I am going to make this point—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the question will be answered more quickly if noble Lords opposite and on the sidelines stop heckling. Is the Minister aware that she is wrong when she accuses Members on this side of the House of not understanding the position? We understand the position perfectly well. First, we know—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am answering the Minister's question. Is she aware that we understand that the Government's record is
420
incomparably bad? Is she also aware that when the Government put forward their proposals to sell council houses one of the arguments used was that local authorities would be able to use the resources made available to build new houses? That is not happening. Will she please do something to ensure that it does happen?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given reasons why the mechanism is in place. The policy advocated by noble Lords opposite will be colossally expensive. It would cost taxpayers a great deal. That conundrum has yet to be answered by noble Lords opposite.

Fish Conservation: EC Rule
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether decisions have yet been reached, and agreed within the EC, on a conservation regime for United Kingdom fishing vessels to replace the present confinement to harbour for eight days in the month.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, no decision has been made by the Commission to replace the eight-day rule. However, the Commission agreed in February that United Kingdom vessels using 110 mm nets could be exempted from the eight-day rule, and approximately 200 vessels are taking advantage of that exemption.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. While conservation of fish stocks is essential, and must be the first consideration, I should like to ask whether he is aware that the present scheme of tying up boats for eight days is regarded by many British fishermen as the worst option among those available?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I entirely welcome the words of my noble friend that conservation is the most important aim. I also recognise that the eight-day tie-up regulation is of great anxiety to individual fishermen. At the end of last year we were faced with a situation where stocks of cod and haddock in the North Sea were found to be in a dire state. Therefore, the eight-day rule had to be introduced. We have always agreed that it is a blunt instrument; but it was the only course that could be introduced quickly to preserve the stocks.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government are hated and reviled in the fishing ports of Scotland for the way in which the eight-day tie-up scheme has been managed, and for their stubborn refusal to introduce a de-commissioning scheme? In view of the recent increase in the EC contribution to scrapping grants, how can the Government justify their refusal?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at the end of last year we were offered a 10-day tie-up regulation by the Commission. It was because of the negotiations which

421
we were able to continue in the Council of Ministers that we were able to reduce it to eight days. The Government have always maintained that decommissioning would be a poor use of taxpayers' money. However, given the great worry that fishing communities have, we have offered fishermen and their representatives the opportunity to come forward with schemes that would help conservation of fish stocks. If that included a de-commissioning scheme which was significantly financed by fishermen themselves, then we would look at it carefully.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since more than one member state outside the United Kingdom habitually ignore EC regulations whenever it suits them, and bearing in mind the necessity for conservation, I should like to ask this question. What steps have Her Majesty's Government initiated to monitor the performance of other countries in obeying the regulations that they vehemently supported?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that vie view conservation and its enforcement as having a great deal of importance. It is up to the Commission itself to make sure that European laws are adhered to. A survey was recently carried out of the enforcement operations of different national states and the United Kingdom came top of the list.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, can my noble friend say what consequences will result from the conservation measure both to the fish stocks and to the catches? What will be the financial consequences to British fishermen?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is difficult to give a straight answer to my noble friend. On the financial consequences, he will know that over the past 12 months prices of white fish landings have increased by 15 per cent. That has a substantial effect. As to what has happened to the fish stocks, the eight-day tie-up scheme was designed to reduce the amount of discards, as will the measure the Government will bring forward on 1st July, to include 90 mm sq mesh nets in the cod end of fishing nets. We shall not know for some years how effective these measures have been.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the decimation of the British fishing fleet constitute one of the so-called benefits that we have received from membership of the EC?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is generally recognised that the common fisheries policy and its concept of relative stability has helped to maintain the British fishing fleet.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord re-examine the answer given to me in which he pointed out that the Commission was responsible for the enforcement of the regulations? Normally, under Community law, it is the responsibility of the member state to enforce the regulations as agent for the Commission. Will the noble Lord again take on board
422
the necessity for more effective monitoring of the performance of those states which habitually ignore regulations when they do not suit them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord and I are in any disagreement. He is right that it is the obligation of the member state. However, it is also for the Commission to make sure that member states carry out their functions the way they agreed to in the Council of Ministers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend has just said: that the Government are prepared to consider an orderly reduction in fishing fleets. However, does he agree that the fishing industry suffers from a special problem? Unlike other industries, the increasing productivity which fishermen have achieved to a great extent in recent years risks annihilating the product.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I recognise that. It is something which the fishermen themselves have taken on board.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the noble Lord name the countries which are not obeying the regulations on fishing?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is up to the Commission.

Ports Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Ports Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 20,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 21 to 30,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 31 to 42.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sunday Entertainments (Video Supply) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.
Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic Bill
3.9 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 43 [Permitted and special parking areas outside London]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 41, line 27, leave out ("76") and insert ("78").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects the reference in Clause 43. That clause is an introductory clause to Schedule 3 which contains the general power for the Secretary of State to make orders designating "permitted" or "special" parking areas outside London to which the provisions of the new decriminalised parking regime in London can be suitably applied. The references in the clause need to be expanded to include Clauses 77 and 78, which deal with the enforcement of unpaid penalty charge notices through the county courts and Crown application. This ground will need to be covered in the orders made under Schedule 3. The expanded references will enable that to happen. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Parking attendants]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 41, line 44, at end insert:
("(3A) Whether employed directly by a local authority or otherwise, parking attendants shall not be remunerated on any basis which relates remuneration to the number of penalty charge notices issued.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a neater and greatly simplified version of an amendment that I moved on Report and later withdrew. That amendment received a great deal of support from various quarters of your Lordships' House. To avoid any misunderstanding let me say straightaway that this amendment is in no way an attempt to take advantage of the embarrassment and difficulties that Westminster City Council is currently facing. The amendment is based on important broad principles applicable throughout the whole of Britain.
The amendment is designed to ensure that parking
424
attendants are paid on a normal weekly, monthly or annual basis, as is the case with most employed people in this country as opposed to self-employed people. The amendment specifically seeks to ensure that the attendants are not paid on results. By that I mean that their pay should not be linked to the number of parking tickets issued.
There is no need for me to repeat at length the arguments that were advanced in Committee and on Report against this deplorable practice. The practice is unnecessarily harsh on individuals, some of whom may be harassed mothers collecting their children, or temporarily disabled people, who may arrive at the parking meters only 20 or 30 seconds after their time is up or whose car bumpers may extend a few inches over the yellow line. The paying of parking attendants on the number of tickets issued will almost certainly engender contempt for the law and will lower the esteem of the police in the eyes of the public in so far as the police are linked in the public mind with parking attendants partly by virtue of their uniforms and partly by virtue of the role that the police play in towing away vehicles which are incorrectly parked.
The system of paying attendants on the number of tickets issued will also tend to bring authority in general into disrepute and that cannot be a good thing. I am sure your Lordships will agree that such a practice could open the way for corruption. A woman, for example, may arrive back at her parking meter and if she is a minute or less over her allotted time the attendant may say to her, "If I do not book you I stand to lose, but if I do book you, you stand to lose a great deal more. How about splitting the difference? Shall we say a fiver in cash"?
All in all, paying attendants on the basis of the number of tickets issued constitutes an unacceptable abuse of power. That is why this matter cannot be left to local authorities to determine. It is a matter for the country as a whole to determine. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, as I have done previously. I hope that the Minister can comment on one or two points upon which he was unable or did not wish to elaborate when this matter was before the Chamber on 10th June.
The burden of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is that it is offensive in these circumstances for parking attendants to be paid by results. When we discussed this issue on 10th June the Minister said:
"I recognise the concerns that may be held about paying these attendants on a piecework basis and the abuses that that might encourage. However, it is not for legislation to tie the hands of local authorities in matters such as these".—[Official Report, 10/6/91; col. 984.]
If a local authority by reason of a contractual obligation does something which is contrary to the public good and perhaps even invades the liberties of the citizen, I suggest with respect that the argument that the Minister has adduced will not stand up. It is the job of Parliament to address abuses of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has made a strong point on two occasions in relation to this form of

425
abuse. Admittedly, the Minister has pointed to some slightly mitigating factors. He said on 10th June, again at col. 984, that provision is made for motorists,
"to make representations to the local authority concerned, and to appeal to an independent parking adjudicator if they consider their representations have not been dealt with satisfactorily".
With respect, that argument is only good as far as it goes. Often people will not take matters further—unless they feel strongly about a situation—as they believe it is inconvenient to go to such trouble, particularly if they are in business or carrying on an important occupation. While they may want to pursue the matter further, it is simply inconvenient to make representations and an appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is addressing a collective rather than an individual problem here. To say effectively that someone cart appeal to an independent parking adjudicator does not address that problem at all.
The Minister continued at col. 984:
"Provision is also made for an annual report on the parking adjudicators' activities to be published, so that any abuse of parking attendants' powers will rebound on the local authorities and will do so in a highly public manner".
However, such a report will probably mean that problems are dealt with a long time after the offending event has occurred. The Minister's reply does not begin to address the seriousness of the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has referred. The Minister further stated at col. 984:
"If contractors behave badly as well, then the local authority will receive complaints and surely will discuss them with the contractor. If need be, the local authority can cancel the contract".
The problem with that statement—the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has not referred to this today but he did so on the previous occasion—is that a council such as Westminster City Council goes along with the idea of paying rewards on the basis of results. Therefore, it will be difficult to dislodge such a council from that ideological absurdity.
However, I believe that this is not a matter that should divide us politically. A perfectly reasonable proposition has been made that can be introduced into legislation without any undue difficulty. It concerns a mischief which affects many people. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will take this mischief into account. After all, the Bill will go to another place and government amendments have been tabled which will have to be considered. This amendment should be just such another amendment. I hope that the Minister will respond to my plea in a positive way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I oppose the amendment but I do so not just because Westminster City Council has been mentioned and I have moved amendments on its behalf. I accept that that council has undertaken measures that have not been satisfactory. I oppose the amendment because in all walks of life people are being urged to earn productivity bonuses. The amendment is a contradiction of that principle as it proposes that parking attendants should not be paid on results. Since Westminster introduced a scheme of paying parking attendants on results, parking meters have been
426
checked every 20 minutes. In the past one could leave one's car parked at a meter for hours without an attendant checking the meter.
I hope the day will come when parking meters are installed in the royal parks. The whole purpose of parking meters is to obtain a turnover so that people do not hog parking spaces. At the moment only the first 20 people who arrive at one of the parks can park there. No one else has a hope of parking there. That situation used to prevail in the streets of Westminster and all over London. The meters are intended to achieve a turnover of parked cars. I do not excuse the practice that prevailed in Westminster when the parking wardens were first subjected to a different system. Appalling practices came into being and wardens used to stand by meters almost waiting for them to tick the seconds away. They used to hand drivers tickets as the drivers put their keys into the doors of their cars. There was uproar because that was a scandalous thing to do. It is no longer the practice. However, to say that they should not be employed on the basis of being paid by results is contrary in general to most employment practice, quite apart from the specific case of parking. I must oppose the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, am opposed to the amendment, but for different reasons from those given with great sincerity by my noble friend Lady Gardner. Like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I think that it is wrong for traffic wardens to be paid by results. I must confess to having played a part in the introduction of traffic wardens some 30 years ago. At that time it was said that it was a conspiracy aimed at getting prostitutes off the streets and replacing them with traffic wardens!
If it is right for traffic wardens to be paid by results in this way, what about the police? Next we shall find that an incentive bonus is to be paid to members of the police force who get the maximum number of people convicted in court or the maximum number of thieves arrested. It is jolly good that the police should make as many arrests as possible, but for them to be rewarded on that basis is totally wrong.
Until the debate the other day I did not know that there was any question of traffic wardens being remunerated on the basis of the number of motorists they had managed to catch out. I still cannot believe that that is done on a very wide scale. Rather than legislate against it, if there is a danger of that happening I should have thought that all that is necessary is for the Home Office or the Department of the Environment to write to local authorities saying that that is not the right way to go about it and asking them not to do it any more. However, for us to legislate on that basis would be wrong.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to lend my support to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Gardner, who have covered what I intended to say and far better than I could have. I believe that it would tend to lead to a number of people being encouraged to become peeping Toms and behaving like Mack the Knife, hiding behind bushes, waiting for people to commit an offence and then grabbing them.

427
This is the only instance of which I am aware of such a provision in any Bill. My noble friend Lord Renton referred to the police. Let us take the case of a park attendant. Is he to be remunerated on the basis of the number of litter louts he manages to find in the park?
It is an appalling amendment. It is a disgraceful amendment. It is an indictment of the integrity of our countrymen. I do not think that we should allow it. The local authorities should be able to employ their staff on terms and conditions which they see fit. It is not for us to tell the local authorities on what terms to engage their staff. If people living in a particular borough find such things happening I suspect that at the next council election the members of the local authority would not hold their seats. I hope very much that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, perhaps I may ask whether the noble Viscount is for or against the amendment. He said that he was against it and seemed to suggest that it would lead to all kinds of things. That is exactly the tenor of our argument from this side of the House.
It is interesting that Westminster, my favourite local authority, was the first to react. It not only has the lowest poll tax. Why? Because it is closing schools and sacking teachers. It uses these twopenny-halfpenny exercises in order to raise money. It has a privatised system of rubbish collection which every tenant and every occupant of an office is forced to use. That is not the way we want local authorities to run our affairs. If everybody is to be paid by results, what kind of economy will we have?
I have been with people when the clampers have appeared. They obviously hover about. It is a well-known fact that certain people are paid by results. The principle is quite wrong. The noble Baroness defended it because that is the way the Government see everything. Presumably they will pay doctors more for performing more operations in a day; doctors will then be encouraged to take shorter operations which can be conducted more quickly. That is how the system works.
Thank God there are many of us in this country who still do not believe in such a system but believe in putting our best into the community and accepting the remuneration that goes with it. It would be a very sad day if every local authority were to copy Westminster.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the amendment because I feel that payment by results in this case could well lead to misuse of the powers of traffic wardens employed by local authorities.
When my noble friend answers the debate I wonder whether he will let the House know whether those who tow away vehicles because they are parked in the wrong place rather than clamping them or issuing penalty tickets at meters are likely to be paid for the number of vehicles they remove.
On a rather different point, can my noble friend tell the House what would happen if the amendment is not accepted, in the case of an operator who is paid by
428
results and who accidentally makes a mistake and issues a ticket or tows away a vehicle when patently he ought not to have done and the owner is able to prove that? Will the amount he was paid for removing the vehicle be deducted from his salary?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, since I put my name to the amendment perhaps I may say two words in support of it. I support all that my noble friend Lord Monson said on the general principle. In particular, I support the amendment because I believe that this method of remuneration adds to the problems experienced by orange badge holders trying to park their vehicles.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should also like to support the amendment from these Benches, having put my name to it. If the Minister were to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and give an undertaking that instructions will be issued by the Department of Transport to local authorities that that should not be the method of payment—
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sorry if I gave the impression of there being instructions. I did not say "instructions". I said that the department should write to local authorities, in other words implying that it should give advice.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. If the Department of Transport were even to give an indication that this was something of which it disapproved we might go away happier. Otherwise, the matter needs to appear on the face of the Bill.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I was slightly confused by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. He seemed to begin by supporting the principle that people should not be paid by results and then came down against the amendment.
I draw noble Lords' attention to the wording of the amendment. I have no objection to people being paid on the basis of doing a good job and ensuring that the law is obeyed, but the amendment is very specific. It says that people should not be paid on a basis:
"which relates remuneration to the number of penalty charge notices issued".
It is that which is offensive. People start to spread such notices around like confetti in order to improve their wages. That is the truly offensive aspect. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has rightly pointed out, it encourages all sorts of dubious practices by traffic wardens, who are, after all, not the most well loved of people, contrary to the other group of people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Renton, referred. They need to have a rather better image for the public. If the public have the impression that they slap notices on cars at the slightest provocation, their standing in the eyes of the motorist will go down even further.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting in his last statement that parking attendants put notices on cars before drivers are in default?
Lord Tordoff: No, my Lords, I am not, but I am suggesting that the impression is given that people are

429
being harassed by meter readers—the people with yellow hats on. That image will he reinforced if people realise that parking attendants are paid according to the number of notices that they distribute.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, with the except ion of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, practically all of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate have accepted that it would be undesirable for people whose job it is to enforce regulations to be paid by results or given a bonus for productivity. as my noble friend Lady Gardner described it. Generally speaking, your Lordships regard that as a dangerous idea which might be very unpopular with the motorist.
The question on which I admit that I have a more open mind is that on which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, touched; namely, whether legislation by way of amendment to the Bill is the right way of dealing with the matter. It would be clear-cut and definite and would give a proper indication of the views of Parliament. On the other hand, I share to some extent the dislike of my noble friend Lord Renton for legislating on every detail. To my mind, therefore, it comes down to what line the Minister will take. If he is prepared to say that he will give—I use the word deliberately—guidance to local authorities to point out that this would be a thoroughly undesirable system and that, if they use it, they would do so against the disapproval of the department, that might clear most of our apprehensions. Therefore, everything—certainly the way that I would vote if there were a Division—depends on my noble friend's reply.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had an interesting short debate on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, warned us that he was not content with the reply that I gave on Report and he has duly come back with this amendment on Third Reading.
I have listened carefully to what has been said today about the possible dangers for drivers and owners if local authority parking attendants are paid partly on a salaried basis and partly on a commission basis. However, I must reiterate the view that I expressed on Report and say that the Government do not believe that i1 is for legislation to tie the hands of the local authorities in matters such as these. If that means that local authorities or their contractors see the need to offer an incentive to parking attendants as part of their salary, that will be entirely a matter for them. The Government have no business interfering with such contractual arrangements. Incentives may be a good thing in terms of the need to control parking. At the end of the day, however, effectiveness must be mean red by improved parking compliance, not simply by the number of tickets issued. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes made the point, but it has not come out in other speeches this afternoon, that, although many people curse parking attendants for giving them tickets, many other people are grateful
430
to them. If turnover takes place at parking meters as it is intended to, we all stand a better chance of finding a parking place when we look for one.
Under the terms of the Bill, the local authorities will have full responsibility for enforcing the new local authority parking controls. They will be responsible for the consequences of that action whether they employ their own parking attendants or use attendants employed by a contractor. The local authority is responsible for the persons whom it employs. The contractor is an agent of the local authority and will be responsible to the local authority for the actions of its employees. All parking attendants will act under the instructions of their respective employers. It will be the responsibility of those employers to issue instructions to their employees as to how they carry out their duties under the Bill. The contractors will obviously wish their people to comply with what the local authority instructs, otherwise the contract will be lost. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, that is a powerful incentive. Attendants who fail to comply with instructions, whether they are directly employed by the local authority or contracted, will ultimately be liable to dismissal.
Parking enforcement practices are not matters for legislation, but for education and training. As such, they are more appropriate to be covered in the Secretary of State's parking guidance. In due course the London authorities may decide upon a code of practice for parking enforcement. That would be a welcome move. I can assure the House that the need for local authorities to exercise effective management of parking enforcement and the need for adequate training for the attendants who will enforce the new parking controls will be addressed in the Secretary of State's parking guidance under the Bill. Coverage of those issues will ensure that the attendants act with tact and sensitivity in the same way as the police are required to. That point was of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at earlier stages and was raised again this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
I can also reiterate that the Government are against any abuse of powers by parking attendants, either now or in the future. We accept that there is a need to guard against over-zealousness. Provisions in the Bill do that. They provide for aggrieved motorists to make representations to the relevant local authority and, if they are not satisfied with the response that they receive, to appeal to a parking adjudicator to have that abuse rectified. The adjudicators will provide the objective and independent assessments to which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred on Report. I do not think that it is any good the noble Lord saying that people will not be bothered to do that. That is not true. They will do so, especially if debates such as that which has taken place in your Lordships' House this afternoon raise some of the difficulties that have been experienced.
In keeping with the theme of incentives, there are two further measures in the Bill for a local authority to make sure that parking attendants get it right. First, Clause 72(18) of the Bill requires the joint committee

431
of London authorities to publish its annual report on the discharge by the parking adjudicators of their functions. Thus, abuse of the kind described this afternoon will come to light and in a public manner.
Secondly, Clause 72(12) (i) of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations which will in particular make provision for the award of costs by parking adjudicators in relation to proceedings before them. If parking attendants abuse their powers and treat motorists in an unfair manner and those motorists use the representations and appeals procedures, parking adjudicators will be able to award against the local authority the costs of bringing the appeal. That point was raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. That will be a powerful incentive to the authority to ensure that abuse does not occur. I hope that it will also improve the image of traffic wardens, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
I hope that that explanation will convince noble Lords that, although the Government believe that there is no place in legislation for the kind of controls suggested by the amendment, alternative provisions have been made or will be included in the Secretary of State's parking guidance to prevent abuse. In summary, the terms of the Secretary of State's parking guidance will lead to effective management and proper training for parking attendants and the representations and appeals procedures in the Bill will provide a safeguard for aggrieved motorists. Both actions will be backed up by the threat of adverse publicity and the award of costs of bringing appeals against the local authorities if attendants do not behave properly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend goes any further perhaps I may raise one point. Throughout the debate we have referred to parking attendants, but it is clear from what he says that his comments should apply also to traffic wardens, whose duties overlap with those of parking attendants. Does he include traffic wardens in what he says?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, both in the amendment and in the Bill we are talking about the new arrangements for local authorities to take over the control of parking in their areas. They will employ people who are known in the Bill as parking attendants and who will be to all intents and purposes, as the noble Lord knows, the same as traffic wardens.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked about the towing away of vehicles. Under the new system, that will be the responsibility of the local authorities. As I said, it will be for them to make the necessary arrangements.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that he has not made entirely clear in his answer whether people who are responsible for towing away or otherwise removing vehicles are likely to be remunerated according to the number of vehicles that they remove.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, my point was that that also will be a matter for the local authorities who are responsible for those areas. It will be up to them to decide what system to use. I hope that I have
432
answered most of the questions and persuaded noble Lords that the safeguards written into the Bill and under the new arrangements will guard against the type of abuse which it is alleged occurs under the existing system but which will not happen under the new system as proposed in the Bill with its safeguards. I hope, therefore, that I have convinced the noble Lord that he should withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down he has given us a number of useful and important points but has not replied to one important question. He mentioned that the guidance will lay down that there must be no abuse. But will the guidance refer to this specific matter about which noble Lords are very concerned?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not say that the guidance would specifically prohibit the types of arrangements that might be made by the local authorities. I was quite clear in not saying that.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Minister explain a little more fully? So far as I understand, there will be an ombudsman to whom one can complain, but how on earth would one prove such a case? These days one has enough trouble proving that someone has bashed one's car when there is clearly a big crack in its side. How on earth would one ever prove this case? It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that we do not need this provision in the Bill because everyone will receive one of the marvellous little guides, but to whom they will be issued? Will one be given to every motorist? Will they be available at every parking place? It all sounds very glib and easy but I suggest that in practice it will be very difficult to implement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, clearly, as in everything, mistakes are sometimes made by parking attendants or traffic wardens. If those mistakes become obvious and the motorist feels hard done by he will be able to appeal to the parking adjudicator. The parking adjudicator will then decide whether or not that is the case.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Swinfen, for their valuable support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for his support in principle, slightly qualified though it was. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, it proves that this is not essentially a party political matter.
I am somewhat puzzled by the quixotic intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, who said that it was not for us to tell local authorities what to do. That view was echoed in a rather less intense fashion by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and, indeed, the Minister. Do they also suggest that we have no right to tell police authorities what to do? For example, suppose the Metropolitan Police authority, the West Midlands Police authority and the Thames Valley Police authority had the necessary power and decided to pay the police—as suggested by the noble

433
Lord, Lord Renton—not on an annual salary basis but according to the number of arrests that they made. How horrified the general public would be. I believe that I can say with all confidence that the Government themselves would be horrified. Yet, there seems to be no difference of principle. They both consist of people in uniform who have been given a power over the ordinary citizen. What applies to one should apply to the other.
I should have preferred not to press this amendment to a Division. The trouble is that although the Minister said that traffic wardens will be encouraged to act with tact and sensitivity that seems incompatible with the powers that they are given by, happily, the very few local authorities—I think that so far there is only one—which pay them on a commission basis. The Minister was asked from various quarters of the House to give an undertaking that the Government would encourage local authorities—they can do no more than encourage because they cannot compel them to behave—at least not to employ that method of remuneration. However, the Minister felt unable to do that. Effectively he said that the Government must maintain a position of neutrality. I do not honestly believe that that is good enough.
Let me repeat, payment by results on a quasi-commission basis would be unfair on individuals, would lower the esteem in which the police are held by the general public because of their association with traffic enforcement, would bring the law into disrepute, would open a door to the possibility of corruption and would constitute an abuse of power. For those reasons I feel that we must give the other place a chance at least to have a look at this amendment. If they reject it, so be it. I should certainly not dream of carrying it any further. I must test the opinion of the House.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 99.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ezra, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gainford, L.

Attlee, H.

Gallacher, L.

Aylestone, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Bottomley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Brain, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brightman, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Holderness, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Craigavon, V.

John-Mackie, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kinloss, Ly.

David, B.

Lawrence, L.

De Freyne, L.

Leatherland, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

434

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

Lytton, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Serota, B.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Shackleton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shannon, E.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stallard, L.

Milverton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tordoff, L.

Munster, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nelson, E.

Underhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

White, B.

Phillips, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Quinton, L.

Willis, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rea, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Renwick, L.

Winstanley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wise, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Auckland, L.

Kitchener, E.

Beloff, L.

Knollys, V.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Bessborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Margadale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Marsh, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Middleton, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Morris, L.

Cayzer, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Newall, L.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Plumb, L.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pym, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reay, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rodney, L.

Flather, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Gridley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hood, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Ironside, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Westbury, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.53 p.m.
Clause 46 [Tramcars and trolley vehicles]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 43, line 12, leave out ("9,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is a technical amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause:
Applications for licences to drive hackney carriages etc.
(".—(1) Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (including that Part as it applies in any area at the commencement of this section) shall have effect with the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1) of each of section 51 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles) and section 59 (qualifications for drivers of hackney carriages)—
"(1A) For the purpose of satisfying themselves as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence, a council may send to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the council is situated—

(a) a copy of that person's application, and

(b) a request for the chief officer's observations;

and the chief officer shall respond to the request."
(2) Where any local Act contains a provision requiring a district council to be satisfied as to the fitness of an applicant to hold a licence to drive a private hire vehicle or a hackney carriage, the council may send to the chief officer of police for the police area in which the council is situated—

(a) a copy of that person's application, and

(b) a request for the chief officer's observations;

and the chief officer shall respond to the request.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara. The amendment is the result of the consultation which my noble friend promised during the debate at Report stage of the Bill. The effect of the amendment is that, when a district council has to decide whether an applicant for a licence to drive a taxi or a private hire vehicle is a "fit and proper" person, the council may copy the application to the local chief officer of police with a request for his or her observations; and the chief officer must respond to that request.
The significant difference between this clause and the one suggested previously by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is that the onus to seek the views of the police rests with the licensing authority and not with the applicant.
This is an important subject on which I should like properly to explain the Government's views. There are three practical reasons why the responsibility should rest with the licensing authority. First, it is in the interests both of reducing the work load on the police and of maintaining the privacy of the individual. If every applicant were to have his record vetted by the police one could well have a situation where there may be, say, eight applicants but only one licence granted. The system then becomes clogged up with the police unnecessarily checking seven records. The Government consider that applications should be sent to the police only when a licensing authority is satisfied that, in all other respects, the applicant is worthy of a licence.
The second reason why the licensing authorities
436
should retain the responsibility for checking records with the police is this. If the onus were on the applicant to send his application to the police and the licensing authority had received no observations within a reasonable period, the licensing authority would have no way of knowing whether that was because the applicant had failed to send his application to the police, whether the police were being dilatory or whether the application had simply become lost in the post.
Thirdly, if the application forms make it clear that the licensing authority intends to check with the police the information which has been put on the form, that fact will go a long way towards ensuring that the applicant declares his previous convictions when completing the form. That will be particularly so if licensing authorities decide to make the provision of false information, or of failure to disclose unspent convictions, a reason for refusing a licence.
I hope that your Lordships will realise that the Government, by moving this amendment, are very concerned about the realities of the situation which were so graphically presented from all sides of the House at Report—anxieties which I happen to share.
But I have to express a word of caution. It would be wrong for me to pretend that this amendment answers the immediate worry which has been expressed by your Lordships, and indeed by others. There are substantial difficulties in getting these provisions to operate immediately. They will come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by a statutory instrument.
The practical reasons why the Government have been, up to now, reluctant to go down this road still remain valid, but I assure your Lordships that that should not eclipse a real will on the part of Government to overcome the problems. I am, however, anxious that your Lordships should not under-estimate them.
To start with, there is the question of the additional work load on the police. I understand from the Department of Transport that there are approximately 35,000 taxi drivers and 50,000 private hire vehicle drivers in England and Wales outside London. Most district councils renew their licences annually, so in theory we are talking of about 85,000 checks each year. Obviously the initial check would be the major one and renewals would require a check only on the preceding year. Even so, this is a pretty substantial increase in work.
There is no centrally imposed manpower ceiling on civilian staff, so forces could—again, at least in theory—increase their staff to do the work. The associations may agree in principle to such an increase, but whether they could, or would, find the money to finance it is, of course, another matter. Similarly, there is no guarantee that staff for this purpose would be regarded as a priority in every police area. If we are going to achieve a reasonable level of service it is essential that we should consult the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils as to the increase in civilian strength and the general methodology which should be adopted.
Charging fees sounds an obvious solution to the manpower problem. However, I am advised that it would probably be unlawful for the police to charge a fee for fulfilling what can reasonably be considered to be a proper police function. It may well be that legislation could overcome that difficulty, but we would be breaking new ground and we think that it would be unwise to introduce the concept of the police charging for vetting, in the relatively narrow context of a Road Traffic Bill, without full consideration of the implications for all other kinds of vetting.
If the police had to make observations on applications for licensing without any additional staff, I know that the police service would do its best to do so. But I equally know that it is also being asked to meet the increasing demands which have been imposed upon it since the introduction in 1986 of the vetting of teachers, social workers and others who work closely with children, and since 1988 of health workers too. Without limitless resources it would have to pick its priorities—and without limitless resources backlogs would grow. Already we have received complaints about the backlogs being too great.
We are of course not just considering the capacity of the police to check a record but also—and this is vital—the capacity of the system both to cope with a large increase in demand and the ability of the staff to keep the information in the system up-to-date. Obviously, the results of the checks when they are made must be accurate and prompt.
Recently a Home Office scrutiny was made of criminal records. It states quite clearly that the present records are fragmented, that they differ from force to force and that they vary greatly in quality. The scrutiny recommends that there should be a central computerised system of recording criminal offences. That should be based on a general agreement as to which records should be included and what procedures should be followed in disclosing them. The scrutiny states that until then no new categories of vetting should be added to those which have already been agreed. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the introduction of this new clause is directly contrary to the advice which the scrutiny offers.
The Government have not yet reached decisions on the recommendation in the scrutiny, but the acceptance of this amendment means that very careful consideration will need to be given to seeing how we can overcome the deficiencies which exist in the present system—or at least how we can reduce them—before the new central computerised system comes into operation.
In advising licensing authorities and the police on the implementation of this amendment, the Home Office would wish to ensure that the standard of vetting throughout the country is reasonably consistent. We need to be as sure as we can be that all members of the public are receiving broadly the same standard of service. That is obvious but it will be necessary to consult licensing authorities in the hope of reaching agreement on matters such as how far back the checks should be made, whether certain types of conviction may be ignored for the purpose of these
438
licences and whether other types of conviction should mean automatic refusal. These are matters on which there is a wide variation of opinion.
We must also bear in mind that a force may have no record of an applicant's wrong-doing. However, the applicant may have recently moved from an area where the police force had a record of his wrong-doing. There is no way of checking this at present other than by individual contact with other forces. An applicant may, therefore, receive a clean bill of health from his own police force which would be totally misleading to the licensing authority.
Those offences which are recorded centrally are held on microfiche at the National Identification Bureau at New Scotland Yard. As regards those who have first come to notice since 1st January 1981 conviction details are held on the police national computer. But the work associated with —to use the awful jargon word—inputting the convictions onto computer means that the record is about three months behind the facts. A clean bill of health from this source might not indicate therefore what had happened to the applicant in the past three months.
Those are the problems. I felt bound to rehearse them to your Lordships in some detail because it may easily appear that the Government are just not interested in going down this path. I was acutely aware of the general and legitimate anxieties that were expressed on Report. We have tabled this amendment which I hope will go some way towards meeting the immediate worries. However, for the reasons that I have stated, it will not be possible to bring the new clause into force immediately. It will be possible to bring the provision into force by a commencement order by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl to our debate. However, I did not welcome everything that he said. When I saw the new clause on the Marshalled List, I was enormously encouraged. I then heard the noble Earl's reservations. He appeared to say that massive problems arise to the extent that the Minister will introduce the proposals when he thinks appropriate. In view of the weight of the objections adduced by the noble Earl I infer from that comment that if the Government were to remain in power, that might be never.
I wish to pay tribute to noble Lords who participated in the debate on Report, in particular to my noble friend Lady Hollis who is abroad. Her persistence and eloquence and her probing of this issue has been invaluable in developing the opinions of the House and in creating some change of heart on the part of the Government. As has been mirrored by the noble Earl's comments, it appears that the Government have been markedly reluctant to act for a long period of time. Indeed, in reply to a Question tabled on 16th May the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that he could not promise to do anything immediately. That is now manifestly plain.
There has been little reason to be optimistic about the way that the Government have tackled the matter judged by ministerial responses in another place. Yes,

439
the department was sympathetic. Yes, it had received many representations from organisations active in this field; for instance, the National Association of Taxi and Private Hire Licensing and Enforcement Officers; the National Federation of Taxicab Associations; the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils; the Association of Municipal Authorities and so forth. I wonder what view those organisations will now take about the halfway house —if it is as far as that—that the Government have offered to your Lordships this afternoon.
It is fair to say that on Report the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, promised to look at what had been said by a number of noble Lords in support of the proposition then before the House. He promised that he would take the matter away and examine it before Third Reading. He has honoured that promise and I pay tribute to him. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, or the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. I wish to know with whom they consulted following the debate that took place on Report and the questions that were asked. The noble Earl referred to the Home Office scrutiny team. Do I understand that the team still remains opposed to the proposal and that the Government have put forward this proposition notwithstanding that advice? Is the Minister saying that he does not believe that the scheme can operate effectively? That was one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, when the issues were discussed previously.
Looking at the wording of the new clause, I assume that it is not intended that it shall operate in London in respect of minicabs. Why is that? If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will put me right. Why is there a change of pattern or an inconsistency in the requirements applying to minicabs outside of London, and those within London? I can understand the position as regards taxis because there is a clear and precise way of invigilating people who apply for taxi cab licences. That works very effectively. Indeed, it works as effectively, if not more so, than anywhere else in the world and we should be proud of that.
Has the Association of Chief Police Officers relinquished its stand against this proposal within the past few days? Is the Minister saying that no new funds or resources would be made available to ensure the effective operation of the system and that it would be left to the local authorities to procure those funds, although here we are dealing with a matter which relates to policing?
I believe there is a deficiency in the proposal because there should be a provision concerning appeals on the part of people who may be prejudiced as a result of being mistakenly alleged to have a criminal record. I know that your Lordships who have practised in the criminal courts will know that in certain instances—and it is true that it is a minority—records of previous convictions have been mistaken. Therefore, it is right that provision of this kind should be accompanied by a power to redress the situation if that were to arise.
440
The noble Earl said that this would come into force only upon a date appointed by the Minister as a result of statutory instrument. I believe he carefully chose not to give any indication as to the timescale which the Government have in mind. I sense that we shall have to undergo a considerable delay. Will that be a matter of months or years? Perhaps the Minister has decades in mind.
In the light of what the Minister said, I fear that there is a risk that the Home Office is seeking to negate the effective implementation of this matter by raising all those objections. I do not believe that that would be within the mood of the House. This is a continuing problem which has given rise to very serious anxieties on the part of many people. That has been reflected in the incidents to which the Association of District Councils has referred in its earlier representations to your Lordships. There have been serious cases of people who have not declared previous convictions for grave assaults against women, serious acts of dishonesty and major driving offences. Those matters will continue. The mischief needs to be cured with some urgency. The Minister gave no indication whatever of that.
If the Minister is concerned that there could be disparities of practice or that certain objections could arise, then it would be possible for the Home Office or the Department of Transport to issue guidance as to the way in which the provisions of the new clause should be dealt with.
I do not wish to appear churlish towards the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, because he has honoured his undertaking to the House to consider the matter and we should be grateful for that. On the other hand, if the effect of the new clause is to be so long delayed that it is hardly likely to take effect, then we have grave cause for concern. There are objections but surely the Minister can give us an indication of a timescale within which we can expect this provision to operate.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has been exceedingly grudging in accepting the amendment. It may be that it does not go so far as many of us would wish it to go but it represents a significant breakthrough in the Government's attitude to the debate which we had on Report. I am grateful to the Government and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for pursuing the matter and to the noble Earl for bringing forward an amendment with the backing of the Home Office.
Noble Lords will remember that it was a powerful debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is to be congratulated on pursuing the matter, as indeed are those noble Lords who advised the noble Baroness at that stage that she should not push the matter to a Division on that occasion. The wisdom of that has been shown by the fact that there is now an amendment which, although it may not go the whole way, breaks through on the broad front of the principle of the matter.
I was interested to hear the noble Earl saying that he had great personal sympathy with the reasoning

441
behind the need for the amendment. That must go a long way in comforting those of us who wish that the provision could be brought in tomorrow but know that it will not be brought in tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is right to ask the Government to give an indication of the sort of timescale of which they are thinking in bringing this into operation, because it is a serious matter. People are at risk while this loophole is still present in the law where local authorities are not able to obtain the information which they need in order to issue the licences properly.
Also I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that it would be helpful if this provision could be extended to minicabs. I understand that at present there is no licensing of minicabs and, therefore, that this provision cannot apply to them. Would that there were such a provision! That subject has been raised from these Benches by my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, who has pursued the matter at length. Doubtless we shall return to it. However, as I understand the position, this provision will not cover minicabs. If I am wrong, I shall be glad to be corrected about that.
Basically, the Government are to be congratulated, as is the House, on having done a good job on this issue.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I was delighted when I saw this amendment on the Marshalled List. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, seemed to be unduly ungrateful, or at any rate disparaging of it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was not disparaging. I began by saying Clinton-Davis that I was very gratified to see this amendment. I am concerned about all the qualifications introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He gave us no indication of the timescale which the Government have in mind.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I can only suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that he reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow. If he does not regard that as disparaging then I am horrified at the idea of what he may regard as disparaging.
I was delighted when I saw this amendment because it seems to me to reflect, first, the great value of debate in your Lordships' House. We had a very impressive debate on the amendment on Report. I share the views of other noble Lords that that debate was admirably handled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, not least because she had the sense to accept the advice of those who suggested that she would spoil everything if she pushed the matter to a Division. Very wisely she accepted that advice, which has resulted in the present amendment.
The other encouraging point is that it shows that the Minister listened to the debate and allowed it to impress him. He then took the trouble to discuss the matter with the Home Office and this amendment is now before us. Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to say that that is an excellent example of good
442
parliamentary practice and, although my noble friend will not thank me for saying it, I hope that he will follow that practice frequently in the future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend the Minister; not only for the trouble he took in negotiating with the chief constables and others to work out something that he could present to your Lordships but also for the candour with which he explained the difficulties and indicated that there may be some delay.
Perhaps I may refer to the problems in regard to delay. Naturally it passes through the minds of all noble Lords whether the provision will come into operation this year, next year, some time or never. I should think that there need not be too long a delay. In saying that, I refer to the two main problems mentioned by my noble friend. He necessarily referred to the fact that we must wait for the chief constables and other members of the police to establish the necessary administrative arrangements. That must be done, but should not take more than a few weeks or months. Therefore, from that point of view, there is no reason why the provision should not come into force this year.
My noble friend placed a great deal of weight on the need for the police to have a centralised computer. Scotland Yard already possesses a centralised computer for the more serious offences. As my noble friend pointed out, there is sometimes a delay of some weeks before the conviction and sentence passed by courts throughout the country reach that computer. But my noble friend wants all conceivably relevant offences to be brought on to the computer and that will indeed take some time. That would not enable the clause to be brought into force this year; it may be said not next year either, but I hope not.
I implore my noble friend not to wait for the computer. Every chief constable must answer the request from a licensing authority for such information as he has. The fact that he cannot obtain every single piece of information that eventually, in some years' time, might be available should not excuse the chief officer of police from giving the licensing authority all the information he possesses. If he does not have the information, that is too bad and some cases may slip through the net. But we must not wait a long time for this important clause to come into operation. It is an important piece of crime prevention. To that extent it will appeal to the police as well as to my noble friend and to all your Lordships.
The general secretary of the National Federation of Taxicab Associations happens to live at Huntingdon and, living only five miles from there, I know him very well. The members of that organisation are perhaps more concerned than even the rest of the public. The position affects their general reputation. Not only do they want this clause on the statute book—they are thankful that it soon will be—but also they want it introduced as soon as possible rather than waiting until there is perfection.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, like other noble Lords I am delighted with the amendment. However, I am

443
extremely surprised that it does not cover London. This matter was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoffand Lord Clinton-Davis. I wrote to my noble friend Lord Brabazon asking what the Government will do in regard to the minicab situation, and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned his noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham in that connection. I mentioned this subject when we discussed the London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill 1990, introduced by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to a vast number of people—private hire car and hackney carriage drivers. However, there are 40,000 minicab drivers in London who appear to escape scrutiny. It has now been established that there is a need for scrutiny of taxi drivers and I should like to hear the Government's plans in that respect. Licensing of minicab drivers may be too cumbersome. However, a scheme existed, which it may be too late to discuss in detail now, for licensing minicab owners. I believe that scheme has a place. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government agree with that scheme? Perhaps legislation which is contiguous should follow on quickly and perhaps be introduced at the same time as the arrangements made by my noble friend. We must face the situation in London.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will allow me to intervene. I am sure he appreciates that the clause refers to people applying for licences to drive private hire vehicles. Minicabs are private hire vehicles and, as I understand it, they will therefore be covered by the provision. If that is wrong perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will so indicate.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, to answer my noble friend, perhaps he will bear with me for a moment. My noble friend will see that paragraph (1A) refers to a "council". That is a licensing council and London boroughs are not licensing councils. In London the authority issues the licence. If the amendment said, "licensing authority" that would be splendid. However, I am afraid minicabs do not come under the provision, so perhaps my noble friend will respond.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that it is in order for me to say that the clause does not refer to the metropolis, which has different arrangements. These provisions refer to what happens outside London and hence the reference to the "district council".
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, my name was added to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in regard to her amendment which made a brief appearance on the Marshalled List and was then replaced by the Minister's amendment. I welcome Amendment No. 4 and I hope there will not be too long a delay before its implementation. As a woman, as a mother with daughters and as a disabled person I consider the amendment to be extremely important.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too support the amendment, to which I spoke briefly at Report stage. The sooner it comes into operation the better. At
444
Report stage most of the anxieties were in regard to attacks on the person, particularly children and disabled people. I should have thought that anyone convicted of such a crime would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Therefore, the three-month delay in putting the records on the computer, as mentioned by my noble friend when moving the amendment, in all probability will have well and truly passed by the time the miscreant is released from gaol. There should therefore be no difficulty in that regard. I see no real reason for delaying implementation.
Several noble Lords put forward different suggestions, but let us not forget that the Bill must return to the other place once again. It is the right of the Members of another place to disagree with the amendment if they so wish and to table an improved version if the Government so choose.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in welcoming the amendment I must follow the point made by my noble friend Lord Teviot and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, concerning my anxiety in regard to London. Private hire vehicles, or minicabs to most of us, are not covered in any way. I was rather impressed and surprised in that I had not remembered the exact title of the Bill to license minicabs that I attempted to introduce last year.
It was revealed that there were about 40,000 minicab drivers. Not only do we not know whether they have criminal convictions, but we do not know whether the vehicles are licensed, insured or anything else. Quite a story has come to us about attacks on people who travel in such vehicles. I think that the amendment is to be welcomed, but there is still a huge gap in the provisions for London. The black cab drivers, with their expert knowledge, rightly protect their right to ply for hire, which applies nowhere else in the country. But because they are so protective of the valuable interests that they have, they are leaving Londoners exposed to the great weakness of the other 40,000 or more minicabs in which passengers have no protection whatever. That causes concern.
I ask my noble friend whether subsection (2) of the new clause—namely,
"Where any local Act contains a provision requiring a district council"—
means that if in due course we have an Act for London which licenses minicabs or private hire vehicles, all the provisions will automatically come into force or whether certain provisions will still have to be dealt with by primary legislation.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for being kind enough to welcome me to the proceedings on the Bill. He said how enormously happy he was when he saw that the amendment had been put down. But the more he listened to what I had to say the more unhappy he became. I am sorry about that. It shows the trouble that one can get in to when one tries to be as frank and open as possible. Many people believe that noble Lords should make short speeches and I am one of those, but it is quite different when it applies to oneself. I deliberately made my speech longer today,

445
which I knew would antagonise many of your Lordships. I made the speech longer in order to cover the points of anxiety which were expressed.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, because he congratulated the Government. My feathers rose a little, but I appreciated his help. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that the Government had been reluctant to go down this route. It was not a reluctance arising from a wish not to follow the route but because of the physical ability to do so. That is the reason why I spent a certain amount of time in my opening speech trying to explain what the complications were, not why we were not minded to go down a certain route. I hope that the noble Lord will relax a little and realise that we are trying to meet his concerns and those expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that he believed the amendment might not come into operation for a few months, a few years or even a decade. I was trying to explain to him that the arrangements will come into operation under a statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State. That applies to every part of the Bill. If the noble Lord addresses himself to Clause 83 he will see that it states:
"The preceding sections of, and the Schedules to, this Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order".
In that respect the amendment is no different to any other part of the Bill.
I have tried to explain to your Lordships that all our sympathies are with your Lordships and also with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), who also expressed her anxieties. I understand those anxieties, the great problem is to find how they can be dealt with. It is all very fine for Parliament to pass a Bill saying that certain measures should be put into effect, but if the provisions do not work or it is difficult to put them into operation, that is another matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked a string of pertinent questions. I shall try to answer them. He referred to the scrutiny team and asked whether we were going against its advice. The team was set up by the Home Office to look into the problems of criminal records and so forth. It found that a great deal was needed before the system could reach perfection. The report of the scrutiny team has been placed in the Library of the House for your Lordships to read. It states that no more vetting procedures should be undertaken until the whole problem has been looked at.
By tabling the amendment we are acting contrary to the advice of the Home Office scrutiny team. I thought that that might endear itself to your Lordships, but not a bit. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that we are seeking to negate the purposes of the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, no. I said that delay of a serious character would obviously negate the purpose of the amendment. I am hoping to hear from the noble Earl some kind of timetable that will prevent that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord will find that I am coming to that point. In tabling this
446
amendment we are going against the advice of the scrutiny team. That is being done in order to meet the concerns which have been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and my noble friends Lord Teviot and Lord Renton referred to minicabs. We appreciate that it is a difficult issue. The fact is that neither the Metropolitan Police nor the London boroughs have the power to license London's minicabs. One begins with that premise. London's taxi cabs are licensed, but not minicabs. In the amendment we are trying to assist the licensing system for minicabs and improve it in England and Wales. Minicabs have been licensed since 1976.
We are not introducing a new regulatory system but improving the vetting procedures. The new provision will apply to England and Wales, but not to London for the reasons which I have given; namely, that minicabs are dealt with under separate legislation. We are funding a research project carried out by the Suzie Lamplugh Trust which is looking at the incidence and perception of serious crime in relation to minicabs in London. We look forward to seeing what it produces.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether ACPO has relinquished its stand against the vetting procedure. ACPO has been concerned only because of the resources involved. We have been in touch with the Association of Chief Police Officers and we expect to be so again.
The noble Lord asked whether new resources have been made available. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the public expenditure survey round, but whatever it is, one cannot pre-empt the way in which local authorities spend their money. Even if the authorities had an influx of additional men, I cannot say whether they would prefer to put them in the field to catch robbers, to carry out other duties or to check records. That must be a matter for the local authorities. That is the reason why we wanted to consult with the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the association of London district councils. We want to find out what their priorities are: what questions they want asked, what answers they expect to receive and how it can all best be done in order that the Association of Chief Police Officers will be able to respond correctly.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to an appeal procedure for anyone aggrieved by a decision. Provision is already made for that in the general licensing legislation. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Renton referred to the fact that the provision is introduced by statutory instrument, and they wanted to know how long the delay would be. I cannot say how long the discussions will take, but it is our intention that the measure should be completed by 1st April 1992. That is the timescale that we have in mind.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is perfectly reasonable. But that matter was not dealt with in the noble Earl's earlier remarks. As far as I am concerned (and I believe also my noble friends) we would regard that kind of delay as perfectly acceptable, taking into account all the matters referred to earlier by the noble Earl.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, or stands up—I am not sure which—it would be important to put on record that a point that he made was not quite accurate when he said that the minicabs in London were dealt with under other legislation. The point we have all been making is that they are not dealt with under other legislation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I said that, then that was an error. My noble friend is quite right: they are not dealt with under legislation; it is taxis that are dealt with under legislation. However, the vetting of London taxis is different from that which applies in the rest of the country.
I hope that I have been able to disarm those anxieties that were still retained by your Lordships. If I did not give that data at the beginning, I apologise if it has discomfited the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He will realise that one does not always shoot all the bolts out of the quiver at one time, and I thought that he would have been satisfied with the explanation that I had given him.
I would re-emphasise—and it is important to re-emphasise this—that this is a matter that the Government consider of great importance. We want to see it work, but we want to make quite sure that it works effectively and that one does not impose on people things that will not work properly. When my noble friend Lord Renton said, "Don't wait. Let the chief officer give what information he can give", I understand that. But he must also be reasonably certain that the information that he gives is correct and that it is not erroneous information. That is why we want to go through this as carefully as possible. With that explanation, I hope that your Lordships will see that this is a matter that we have treated with great concern and we want to see it work.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [The Director's network plan]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 47, line 5, at end insert ("and to the needs of people with a disability.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 and, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. The House will recall that during Report stage the Government fulfilled undertakings given at Committee and moved a number of amendments relating to the needs of people with a disability. Upon further detailed consideration of those amendments, it has become clear that some of them were not always carried through to their logical conclusion. The present amendments therefore complete the process. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister. I cannot recall whether there is any provision in the Bill—I think not—to deal with a report as to the nature of the activities carried on with regard to consultations of this kind. Will there be some annual report issued in order to inform the public of the organisations so consulted?
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to welcome these amendments, and in particular my noble friend's efforts to continue to improve the Bill in this respect.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, it would be discourteous of me not to express satisfaction and thanks to the Government for these amendments which have been taken with the ones that were passed at Report stage. As noble Lords know, I have spoken at various times in recent years and recent months in our debates on the question of disabled drivers and the modifications and improvements that some of us think need to be made to the existing schemes.
I have been a disabled driver for more than 40 years, and in another place I was a sponsor of the 1970 Act that brought in the orange badge scheme. Then in the same year I found myself, as Secretary of State, responsible for bringing in that new scheme for the first time. When I was chairman for Scotland of the International Year of Disabled People in 1981 we were monitoring the orange badge scheme all over the country to see how it was working, and again made suggestions as to how it might be improved.
I thank my noble friend for what has been done in this Bill, because in the early stages I was told that it might be difficult to do very much during the Bill as we were awaiting the replacement scheme for disabled drivers to replace the orange badge scheme, whereby the orange badge will be abolished and each individual disabled driver will carry a document that will be a kind of passport. That will be the major improvement, and I ask my noble friend whether he can give us any later information as to when that scheme is likely to come into operation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception that these amendments have had. These amendments merely tidy up what has already been decided in the Bill. Unfortunately from the week since I last spoke on these matters I cannot give any further information to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked whether the matters of consultation would be published in any way. Under the Bill the traffic director has to produce an annual report to Parliament, and it will of course cover this issue of consultation and the measures taken regarding the disablement provisions in the Bill. I hope with those assurances that the House will approve this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 54 [The Director's trunk road local plans]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 50, line 12, leave out ("their") and insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 14, 17 and 19 to 21, which I should also like to cover, are all technical drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [The Minister's trunk road local plans]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
Page 51, line 3, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
Page 51, line 26, leave out ("their") and insert ("the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Variation of local plans]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 9 and 10:
Page 53, line 40 after ("Transport;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to the authority to be appropriate;").
Page 54, line 6, after ("Transport;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to the Director to be appropriate;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Intervention powers]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 55, line 31, after ("Transport;") insert:
("( ) such organisations representing the interests of people with a disability who may be affected by the plan as appear to the Director to be appropriate;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of vehicles displaying disabled persons' badge
The Secretary of State may make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in relation to the removal of vehicles displaying a disabled persons' badge by local authorities or their contractors.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 in my name. We are returning to this subject for the third time on this Bill. When speaking to Amendment No. 2, my noble friend confirmed that local authorities who indulge in the practice of towing away vehicles that are parked dangerously or so as to cause an obstruction may pay their contractors on the number of vehicles removed. I think that is what he said. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong. To my way of thinking, this makes my amendment all the more important.
The disabled fraternity have no objection to their vehicles being moved from a position where they are causing a danger or an obstruction to a more sensible position close to the position where the disabled driver left them. Bearing in mind the nature of many disabled drivers' disabilities, it is a considerable burden for them to have to go to the pound to collect their vehicles. Some of them physically cannot do it, particularly if they are on their own—and many disabled drivers are on their own. Added to that there are many vehicles specifically adapted for use by disabled people that cannot be driven by anyone else in their families because of the nature of the adaptations. This again makes it much more difficult for a disabled driver if the vehicle is removed completely.
No one has any objection to the repositioning of a vehicle in a safer and less obstructive position. The amendment has been drafted in such a way that it is not compulsory for the Secretary of State to make regulations. It is an enabling amendment. It allows him, should he so wish to make the regulations, to make provision for the necessary removal of a vehicle when security is involved rather than just traffic safety
450
or traffic flow. This is a particularly important matter, reinforced by my noble friend's remarks when answering questions on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support, as I have done previously, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in part of his campaign. That campaign has been remarkably successful on the whole and the Minister is to be applauded once again for listening to the arguments put forward in our debates. It is a great credit to your Lordships' House that that has been the case.
The amendment is couched in extraordinarily wide terms. It could not have been made more flexible for the Minister. What I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is saying is that, as the Minister on other occasions listened patiently to what the House said and responded to many of those concerns, we have confidence that in this regard—I qualify the praise that I may heap on the Minister by saying "in this regard"—he will use his best endeavours within the department to ensure that progress is made. That, in effect, must be the meaning of the amendment, as the Secretary of State,
"may make such regulations as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in relation to the removal of vehicles displaying a disabled person's badge".
The Minister will have listened to the eloquent pleas of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and others. He has not so far been able to satisfy the House on the specific question of the removal of vehicles which display the disabled person's badge. One can only hope that on this occasion he will demonstrate that he is still prepared to come forward with a suitable provision, although I suspect that he will be unable to do so today. I shall not complain too much about that. However, I shall be looking for that general intent in the future development of policy in this area. I conclude where I began by complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on his diligence and devotion to this cause. The whole House is grateful to him.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has put the case very clearly. I thank the Minister for Amendments Nos. 5, 9, 10 and 11. They are most welcome and a logical follow-up to the amendments that he brought forward at an earlier stage. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I am delighted that the Minister has listened, reflected and given so much. However, the towing away of vehicles is a separate and important issue.
I am sorry that to date the Minister has not been able to agree with the solution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, dated 19th June, the Minister said:
"I believe local authorities have generally shown that they understand the needs of disabled people and I have no doubt that their interests will be properly served in this way. I am, however, happy to offer that we will watch developments closely; and, if the need arises, we will bring forward regulations necessary to ensure uniformly good practice on vehicle removals by local authorities and their contractors".

451
That is very encouraging, but I should like to read from another letter which was written to me, curiously enough on the same day, by the director of RADAR, who is himself a wheelchair user. He said that,
"on Thursday 13th June I was parked at a parking meter on Jockeys Fields, WC1. My car was displaying a current Orange Badge and City of Westminster badge. In addition RADAR had also obtained permission from PC Moles at the local (Holborn) Police Station for me to park at Jockeys Fields. A message to this effect was placed on the windscreen. Despite this, a parking warden employed by the London Borough of Camden placed a parking ticket on my car demanding that I pay a fine of £30.
I think the above incident shows that Local Authorities do not always exercise the same discretion to disabled people as the police who do at least have a Code of Practice. If Local Authorities are granted powers to tow away vehicles it is likely that many Orange Badge Holders will find themselves stranded when Local Authorities remove their vehicles without considering the consequences".
That shows that the regulations are necessary with regard to local authorities and their contractors. Does the Minister agree that, unless the amendment is accepted, he will not be able to introduce such regulations until another Road Traffic Bill is brought forward? I hope that he will be able to make that point clear when he comes to reply.
Amendment No. 12 specifically does not cover the police. At Report stage on 13th June, at col. 1245, the Minister mentioned the need for the police to have flexibility in matters such as security. The amendment is targeted at local authorities and their contractors. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it is only an enabling amendment. I hope very much that, even at this stage, the Minister will feel that we have got round any problems and will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) by asking this question. If the Government are not able to accept the amendment, or something equivalent to it, will they be able to bring forward a provision when the new disabled parking scheme is introduced? When I referred earlier to that scheme, my noble friend said that he could not yet give a date for its introduction. The scheme should help to eliminate the present concerns about the abuse of orange badges.
Of course, there are cases of orange badges being used when a disabled person is not a driver or passenger in a vehicle. There is also casual misuse, where a member of the family leaves the badge on or forgets to take it off. In some cases the orange badge has not been removable, although most of us have been trying to insist that it should be in a holder from which it can be removed when the disabled person is not using the car.
When the new scheme is introduced the badge will come out of the disabled person's pocket and will be placed in the car where it will be visible from the outside. The scheme will restore confidence which has been lacking in the past because of the abuses that have occurred. The introduction of the new scheme should transform the situation. When it is introduced, will the Government be able to bring forward a
452
measure of the kind suggested in the amendment, or will we have to wait—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth)—for the next Road Traffic Bill? I hope that the Government will have powers to bring forward regulations when the scheme is introduced. That will be the moment when disabled drivers' parking should be very much improved.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the amendment. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on his work for the disabled and thank him for moving amendments on my behalf at previous stages of the Bill when I had to be abroad.
I support the amendment: it is an enabling amendment. The phrase "necessary or expedient" is desirable. In certain parts of central London—Camden, Westminster and possibly Kensington and Chelsea—a different type of disabled parking scheme has to be operated from the orange badge scheme; otherwise there would not be enough parking places to enable orange badge holders in general to use them. Those areas hope that when the Bill becomes law they may be able to make greater provision for disabled people. I hope that they will.
Without doubt the problems in some areas of London are different in terms of traffic congestion. The phrase "necessary or expedient" means that the amendment takes into account both the needs of the disabled and the traffic situation in the area in question. It would mean that if such a vehicle had to be removed at least someone would be there to ensure that the disabled person reached home safely. There would be ways of dealing with the problem other than by stating that such a vehicle must never be towed away no matter where it is. This is a good amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can accept it.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, no one would mind his vehicle being towed away a short distance. I beg, however, that it should still be in sight of the disabled person who may well be in a wheelchair. Would it not be possible to put a note on the windscreen to explain to the disabled person why he should not park there and to warn him not to do so again? Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that my husband has just been given an orange badge by North Yorkshire County Council. It has supplied a plastic pocket so that we can take out the badge when he is not in the car.
5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we discussed at earlier stages the general issue of the removal of vehicles displaying an orange badge. I appreciate that the question of removals by local authorities and their contractors, the subject of the present amendment, was a matter of anxiety. I fully accept that, where local authorities assume control of parking enforcement in their areas, we must ensure that they are no less sensitive than the police towards the needs of disabled people. I accept, too, that guidance is needed to guarantee that.

453
Noble Lords may recall that, following amendments introduced at Report stage, provision was made in Clause 62 of the Bill for the Secretary of State's parking guidance to have regard for the needs of people. with a disability. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said, I have written to my noble friend Lord Swinfen on the subject. I am glad to repeat now an undertaking which I have already given to him. The Secretary of State's parking guidance will set out for local authorities clear criteria which will provide the same level of safeguards for disabled people. as are offered by the Metropolitan Police guidelines. I believe that local authorities have generally shown that they understand the needs of disabled people. I have no doubt that their interests will be properly served by proceeding in this way.
In fact, I can go further than that: I can assure the House that we shall watch developments closely. That is what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked me to do, and I can give that undertaking. The noble Baroness gave us an example of where the present arrangements went wrong. However, I was glad to hear that the car was not actually towed away but merely had a ticket put on it. Of course, that is a matter which could be taken up in future with the parking adjudicator.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, he is paid by results!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, says that the adjudicator is paid by results. Of course, as I understand it, the incident took place in the Socialist-controlled borough of Camden. I should have thought that nothing much could go wrong there. However, in that particular incident evidently it did.
Perhaps I may now return to the substance of the amendment. If the need arises, we will bring forward regulations to ensure uniformly good practice on vehicle removals by local authorities and their contractors. We do not need primary legislation to do that. The Secretary of State already has, under paragraph 33 of Schedule 4 to the Bill, the power to make just the sort of regulations which this amendment seeks. I hope that that answers the questions put by noble Lords, especially those from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I would not necessarily say that we need to wait for the orange badge scheme to come into force for such regulations; if there is a problem, we can bring in regulations.
With those assurances I hope that my noble friend will realise that the amendment is unnecessary and that there is no question of local authorities ignoring, or being allowed to ignore, the interests of disabled people. In the circumstances, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to thank all those speakers who have taken part in this short debate in support of my amendment. However, it is clear From what my noble friend the Minister said—and who am I to disagree with him, I am not a lawyer? —that it is his opinion that the powers in the Bill will meet the aim that I seek to achieve. I am also pleased
454
to note that he said he will be keeping the matter under review so that, if necessary, regulations may be brought forward at a later stage. I am most grateful to him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Recovery of vehicles or of proceeds of disposal]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 59, line 20, at end insert ("or, where paragraph (b) (ii) applies, as may be prescribed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Appeals to parking adjudicator in relation to decisions under section 70]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 63, line 42, after ("(6)") insert ("(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Permitted and special parking areas outside London]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 79, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a regional or islands council in Scotland;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 18. These amendments seek to make provisions for the new local authority parking regime in London to be available to local authorities in Scotland, in the same way that they will be available to other authorities in England and Wales.
The Government did not bring forward amendments on Report seeking this wider application primarily because there was no clear indication of wide demand from the local roads authorities in Scotland, but that evidence is now available. For example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has recently received an expression of strong support from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. We should have been pleased to accept the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, but for some minor technical difficulties with them. We have overcome these difficulties through drafting changes and these are incorporated into the government amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has withdrawn his amendments, but I nevertheless thank him for his contribution to the debate.
The amendments which the Government introduced on Report, enabling appropriate authorities in England and Wales to apply for orders establishing decriminalised parking regimes, were widely welcomed. The Government are now pleased to make these enabling provisions available to appropriate authorities north of the Border. I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having rewritten the amendments in language which fits better into the Bill.

455
The delay in putting down such amendments is unusual for Scotland. Indeed, the Scots usually keep up-to-date with such matters. I have received representations from Lothian and Strathclyde regions.
Perhaps I may put a further matter to the Minister, although I am not sure that there is sufficient time to do anything about it now. He has probably received correspondence from CoSLA in which the convention points out an odd part of Scottish law. I refer to the difficulty of enforcing regulations in respect of off-street car parks, especially as regards persistent offenders, because it is not possible to use wheel clamps. There are great difficulties involved in using other methods to deal with these people.
It has been pointed out to me that, if the sanction of wheel clamping cannot be used, it is difficult to tow cars away because the overhead space in many car parks is not sufficient. Moreover, there are also intruder alarms which could be set off in such circumstances. Is there any way in which the Minister can find out whether it is possible to use the sanction? I have been given legal advice through the authorities in Scotland. They have taken legal advice which states that wheel clamping is not possible in their car parks, although the sanction is frequently used in privately-owned car parks. Moreover, the car parks of businesses and hotels frequently use the sanction.
I told CoSLA and the local authorities that I would raise the matter with, I suppose I could say, "the fountain-head of all knowledge" in such matters. Therefore, if the Minister cannot do anything at present perhaps he will write to me on the matter indicating exactly what the position would be. Having said that, I should stress that I am very grateful for what he has done thus far.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should simply like to confirm that, although Schedule 3 at present only applies to areas outside London in England and Wales, local authorities in Scotland have made it clear that it would be helpful for them to have similar powers. Therefore, I am glad that the Government have tabled these amendments in preference to those originally proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, though no doubt his aim was the same. I believe that he was right to accept the Government's draftsmanship. These amendments will be appreciated by local authorities in Scotland. It will give them similar powers to those which are to be given to local authorities outside London in England and Wales.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry that when discussing the extension of the power from London to the rest of the country at an earlier stage of the Bill we did not think of including Scotland. However, I believe that the man with the forked stick has been walking a little slowly with copies of Hansard north of the Border. Indeed, it was only at the end of last week that I received an intimation from CoSLA that people in Scotland felt that they had been left out. Like other speakers, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward the amendments, as will be the local authorities in Scotland.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their reception of the amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, we did not wake up until recently to the fact that the Scots wished to have the provisions extended to them. I am glad that we had time to do so before the Bill goes back to another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about the use of wheel clamps at off-street car parks and the treatment of persistent offenders at those car parks. We debated that matter in relation to England and Wales at an earlier stage of the Bill. I hesitate to comment too much, but wheel clamping in off-street car parks is not covered by the Bill in England and Wales or Scotland. I am aware that Scottish law is different from English law in a number of respects. I had better take the opportunity which the noble Lord offered me and write to him on the matter in more detail. I have not seen the letter from CoSLA to which he referred.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 79, line 48, after ("council;") insert:
("( ) with respect to the whole, or any part, of their area, by a regional or islands council in Scotland;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 80, line 11, leave out ("permitted") and insert ("special").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 80, line 22, at end insert:
("( ) section 129(6) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (parking of a motor vehicle wholly or partly on a cycle track to be an offence);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Parking penalties]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendments Nos. 19 to 21:
Page 104, line 18, leave out ("will") and insert ("may").
Page 105, line 46, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1) (c)").
Page 106, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 and insert:
("(d) the district judge shall serve written notice of the effect of service of the declaration on the person making it and on the London authority concerned.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments in relation to London]:
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 107, line 33, at end insert:
("(5) In subsection (4) after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"(e) If it appears to the local authority that for the time being it is unnecessary or undesirable to meet costs incurred in the provision or operation of, or of facilities for, public transport services or of projects connected with the carrying out of operations which constitute the improvement of a highway, the following purposes, namely—

(i) the construction of a new highway; and

(ii) the maintenance of existing highways.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks the power to apply parking places

457
reserve account funds to all activities authorised by the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The amendment would allow that parking account money to be spent on new stretches of road, maintenance and improvements. The parking places reserve account is a special account in which a local authority must keep any surplus accumulated from its on-street parking operation. In the first instance, money must be spent on parking measures. If no further expenditure is considered desirable or essential, money may be spent on other transport, including public transport, or on highway improvements.
At the moment, expenditure on the creation of new highways and routine highway matters, principally maintenance, cannot be drawn from the parking places reserve account. Central London now makes a considerable surplus on parking operations. It is a handicap when money raised for one form of transport activity can be ploughed back into a limited range of highway or transport-related objectives only. After the Bill's passage, not just Central London boroughs, but many large authorities in cities throughout the country, will find themselves with a surplus in their parking reserve account after they have met all the requirements already listed. Controlled parking is spreading and the number of meter bays is likely to increase as authorities increasingly recognise the need to restrain the use of the motor car in the busiest areas. That applies throughout the country.
Many more authorities are therefore likely to accumulate larger surpluses in their accounts in the future. The reserve fund is a good way to fund new roads and road maintenance, because by using money from parking operations the user is paying directly for work from which he or she would benefit. The spirit of the proposed amendment means that the money may be spent only on the provision of new stretches of road and on maintenance, if no further expenditure—I emphasise this point because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, on a previous occasion—on parking-related measures, other transport or highway improvements is considered desirable or essential.
The amendment continues to limit the use of that money to items provided for under the Highways Act 1980 and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It is wrong; that councils should have money frozen in accounts and be unable to use it when surplus funds are not readily available and other sources of funds for maintenance are desperately short. I shall give an example. I asked a Question last week about Kensington High Street. A Kensington councillor informally told me that the council has to restrict use of the road because it is unsafe. The Minister's answer revealed that it was due to the covering of the London Underground tunnel which requires special reinforcement. It further emerged that the council is applying to the Department of Transport for a grant to carry out that work. If surplus funds from the parking reserve account could be used for that work it would benefit all traffic in London using what is a "borough" road. It is not a designated road. That case illustrates the
458
need for the amendment. I hope that the Government will consider the amendment favourably. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness made it clear at the outset that the amendment applies to all authorities throughout the country. The heading of Schedule 7 reads:
"Minor and consequential amendments in relation to London".
That is not the fault of the noble Baroness; it is how the Bill is drafted. When I read paragraph 5 it became clear that the schedule relates to all parts of the country. I was deceived by the heading of Schedule 7. I always like to support the noble Baroness because she is so interested in transport matters and generally supports matters that I find I can support. I am afraid my attitude is the same as it was on the previous occasion to which the noble Baroness referred.
We naturally wish to see local authorities allowed the maximum freedom and flexibility in handling their finances, but I wonder whether the amendment is the right way to handle this matter. As the noble Baroness pointed out, Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides clearly how the surplus in the parking account should be used. As she said, it should be used first in connection with parking arrangements. It should then be used for the development of various aspects of public transport and for the maintenance of highways.
I find it difficult to believe that any authority could find it unnecessary or undesirable to spend any of the money in the parking account on aspects of public transport, bearing in mind that the Act relates to the provision and development of all public transport facilities, or on highway maintenance. I am worried that some authorities may see the amendment as an opportunity to divert money into the provision of new highways rather than to provide further parking facilities or the enforcement of parking regulations. The enforcement of parking regulations is important. I am trying to think of an authority which would find it unnecessary or undesirable—to use the words in the Bill and the amendment—to use the money on public transport facilities. I wonder whether every authority provides proper bus stops, halts, and seats. I am thinking specifically of the half-hourly service; sometimes I stand at the bus stop for a quarter of an hour before a bus comes along.
I understand the principle behind the noble Baroness's amendment, but I am concerned that it gives an opportunity to too many authorities to avoid doing some things that they should do and to divert some of the surpluses in the parking accounts to purposes for which the money should not be used.
Incidentally, I find it difficult to understand the difference in the wording. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states:
"improvements of a highway".
Under the noble Baroness's amendment, the money could be used for,
"the maintenance of existing highways".

459
I fail to see the difference. I sympathise with the noble Baroness but I am afraid I cannot give her amendment our support.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government have some sympathy with the suggestion that local authorities should be able to use surpluses on their parking revenue accounts for routine highway maintenance, provided that there is no need for further parking provision to be made in their areas. Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 already allows them to use such surpluses for road improvements within the meaning of Part V of the Highways Act 1980, but that does not extend to maintenance.
The first part of my noble friend's amendment could specifically encourage the financing of new highways from parking revenues. That would significantly widen the scope of Section 55 of the 1984 Act and the present Bill. The case for such an amendment has not been put previously to the department and will need careful consideration. I believe that the best vehicle for that consideration would be the Government's comprehensive review of local government structures and functions which is currently under way. I drew attention to that review when responding to a similar amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner in Committee in relation to highways maintenance works and work under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The current restrictions on the further use of parking revenues will be one of the topics to be considered in the review. I believe that that is the right and proper way to consider the widening of the scope of Section 55. In such a review, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, can be taken into account.
I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of what I have said and on the understanding that the matter is addressed in the review.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I was not able to move the amendment at Report stage because he moved one which, when accepted, ruled out my amendments. For that reason, I brought them back today. However, his explanation is clear. I thank him for it and I hope that when the local government review takes place this item will be carefully examined. It seems to me very wasteful for millions of pounds to be locked away, unable to be used, when other local authority needs are great, including highway needs. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I assure your Lordships that I do not intend to speak at great length at this stage, which I am sure will be welcome.
The Bill deals with safety and efficiency in transport and the House has accepted that these are important matters for government action. I should like to extend my thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to
460
the stimulating and helpful debates that we have had, in particular my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Nugent and Lord Renton from the Privy Council Bench, who were helpful and supportive on various matters. I also thank noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff. Although we have not always agreed on everything in the Bill, I believe that we agree that it leaves the House in a better state than when it came here. That is in no small part due to the friendly exchanges that we have had across the Chamber.
I also wish to thank my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for bringing to our attention the important problems of people with disabilities and the issue of the orange badge scheme. My noble friend Lady Gardner has brought other important issues concerning London particularly before us and I hope that we have been able to help the situation. I particularly wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who was kind enough to write to me to say that she would not be here today. She brought up the important issue of taxi licensing, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for having been able to respond on the matter, I hope satisfactorily.
Part I of the Bill should make a valuable contribution to achieving our road safety target of cutting casualties by one-third by the end of the decade. There have been many suggestions for further improvement in addition, but the Bill has received general support during our wide-ranging debates at Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and again today. I welcome that.
Part II of the Bill addresses the important issue of traffic congestion in London which everyone agrees must be tackled urgently. We have brought forward a major package of measures to help deal with the problem so that traffic can move around London more easily, reliably and safely.
Priority routes will free London's main arteries and provide the opportunity for local benefits; for example, by improving facilities for pedestrians and taking speeding traffic out of nearby residential areas. The new arrangements for on-street permitted parking will enable local authorities to develop and enforce coherent parking policies tuned to traffic policy objectives. They will allow the police and traffic wardens to concentrate on their primary traffic controls. We should be particularly pleased that in this House we have extended those measures from London to the rest of the country.
I have no doubt that we have before us a Bill much improved as a result of our deliberations, which will make a major contribution to road safety and the reduction of congestion and pollution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, at the outset of what will be an uncharacteristically short speech, perhaps I may echo much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. He has shown courtesy

461
to the House throughout our deliberations, particularly to Members of the Opposition, over a Bill that has not been disputatious, although it has given rise to certain controversy. That has not essentially been on party political grounds, because we are all concerned to meet the objectives to which the noble Lord referred. But the problems of injuries through accidents on the roads must be resolved. The toll is high. I can only hope that the purpose of the Bill, as demonstrated by the noble Lord, will be fulfilled, although in some respects I have my doubts.
I also wish to mirror what was said by the noble Lord in paying tribute to those who have ventilated the concerns of the disabled effectively through our deliberations over the past few weeks. No one could have worthier champions than the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (deKnayth), who attended the debates with remarkable regularity. They have taken the trouble to put down amendments which have obviously made a great impression on the Government. From the Opposition I thank them both.
I also agree with the noble Lord when he says that the Bill has been noticeably improved as a result of our debates in this House. The Minister has played his part in listening courteously and diligently to the representations that have been made to him. He has done more: he has responded positively to the concerns which have been expressed. That is the job of a Minister and he has done it well. He has also accomplished something else. He has engaged in a veritable torrent of correspondence, of which your Lordships may not be aware. I believe I should place that on record. Some of the letters have been incredibly long and it has taken me a weekend to read them; but, nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his courtesy.
I wish to pay tribute to my noble friends on this side of the House as well as to all those who have participated from the Cross-Benches and from the Government Benches. They have made the debates civilised and interesting. I wish to pay a special tribute to my noble friend Lord Underhill who has revealed that indefatigable patience, moderation and comprehension on the detail of the Bill—that often eludes me as I am sure the Minister will be the first to agree—which characterises his approach to affairs in this House. I thank my noble friend for his contributions.
I do not intend to create any controversy after that welter of compliments. However, I must mention my anxieties about Part II of the Bill. I am not convinced by any means that Part II of the Bill will produce great gifts for Londoners. Neither the Bill nor the Government's policies generally reveal a cohesive and coherent response to traffic problems. However having put those comments on the record, I had better reserve any further comment on that matter for another occasion when we shall be in a rather more controversial and disputatious mood. The Minister need have no fear on that point.
I apologise for the fact that I have not mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so far. He has almost single-handedly from the Liberal Democrat Benches—perhaps that is not the right thing to say on this
462
occasion—put forward the point of view of his party. He has been persistent in his attendance and contributions. Except for one brief moment today when he ceased to be complimentary to me, he has almost invariably been positive in his contributions. I thank him for his contributions.
We all wish the legislation to have the effect that all of us enunciated from the beginning of the debates on the Bill. It is difficult to believe, however, that any one piece of legislation will have a truly dramatic effect. I hope I shall be proved wrong about that. I also hope that many will be spared the death and injury that is the fate of far too many people on the roads at the present time. That is a blot on our nation.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I echo the final comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Your Lordships' House is particularly successful in its dealings with transport matters as we start from the premise that we are trying to reduce the number of road casualties and traffic injuries that occur. I hope that the work we have undertaken on this Bill may in some small measure have helped to achieve that aim. I am proud to have been part of that process.
I shall refer to the contentious issues first and then pay compliments afterwards. I have been critical of the red route proposals from the beginning, mainly because I do not believe they are comprehensive enough to solve the problems that they were set out to solve. I do not wish to cover that ground again but I hope that when the traffic director is appointed and the system is running, the Government will ensure that in the establishment of the red routes the maximum sensitivity will be paid to the needs of the areas through which they run. At a very late stage I have received representations from Islington where the pilot study has been carried out. It is quite clear that people in Islington feel their local community has been damaged by the pilot scheme.
We must all bear in mind that the red routes are not just arterial roads. In many cases they run through the heart of communities. London was originally a collection of villages which have been connected by main roads. I hope that point can be borne in mind when the regulations come into effect.
Having said that, I am pleased to have taken part in the Bill. Road safety considerations will always receive support from these Benches. I personally wish to thank my noble friend Lord Falkland for the work he did during the early stages of the Bill in connection with two wheel traffic. I believe the changes that have been made have provided some help for cyclists and motor cyclists.
Finally, I wish to thank all those who have already been thanked. I thank the Minister who has been courteous and helpful, as he always is in his exchanges on transport matters. He is always anxious to understand what lies behind some of our amendments and to understand their principles. I also thank his officials who are perhaps a more listening bunch of people than the officials in some other departments of state. Perhaps it is improper to express that view. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his

463
kind words. I am sorry that today I stepped out of my usual helpful mode towards the noble Lord. Occasionally one has to let it be known that we on these Benches have minds of our own and do not always follow exactly what has been said from the Labour Party Front Bench. However, I say that in the friendliest way.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who brings to these discussions an expertise that none of us can seek to emulate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and others who spoke for the disabled lobby. They are greatly to be congratulated for having once again tabled amendments to a Bill in this House. It has almost become a matter of honour that hardly any Bill passes through your Lordships' House without the disabled being given more consideration than is sometimes the case in another place. In general, I wish the Bill well. I hope that Part II succeeds better than I fear will be the case. Certainly the other parts of the Bill are to be warmly welcomed.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, although I did not achieve what I wanted as regards driving standards, the revised Highway Code to be published next year may achieve something in that regard. I am pleased with the camera provisions which should go a long way towards reducing the offence of jumping traffic lights. The provisions of this Bill and those of the new Highway Code should go a long way towards reducing the appalling road accident rate. I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the way he has introduced the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I must start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his kind remarks. I have been passed a note informing me that in my absence my noble friend Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also made kind remarks about me. It is probably a good thing that I was not in the Chamber at that time as my head is quite big enough as it is, and I do not want to have to buy a new hat. With the help of many noble Lords, we have improved the position of disabled people as regards the Bill's provisions. I am delighted about that. The indication that has been given that a revised disabled person's badge will be introduced as soon as possible will help matters considerably. I know that the majority of sensible disabled people look forward to that day even though it is likely that a number of them who already have badges may find they are no longer eligible for them. I thank all those who supported my efforts. I wish the Bill a speedy passage.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the four noble Lords who have spoken on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. We all accept that the aim of Part I is to reduce the appalling toll of road accidents and to reduce the number of injuries that are suffered on our roads. Although I do not claim that Part I of the Bill will achieve that aim on its own, I hope it will go some way towards improving the situation. Similarly, I do not claim that Part II of the Bill will solve London's traffic problems overnight. However, I believe it will result in a considerable
464
improvement in the flow of traffic in central London. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, that we shall introduce provisions concerning the red routes with sensitivity, concern and, as the Bill says, after a great deal of consultation.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their kind words. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Breeding of Dogs Bill
5.40 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Cinemas (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move that the order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order introduces amendments broadly in line with provisions already put into effect in Great Britain by the enactment of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982. The main purpose of the order is to extend the definition of film exhibition to ensure that exhibitions given by means of video equipment are subject to the cinema licensing arrangements provided by the Cinematograph Acts (Northern Ireland) 1909 and 1959.
As your Lordships will be aware, premises used for the exhibition of films require a licence from district councils. Articles 3 to 6 of the order deal with the control of exhibitions and make very little change to the present procedures other than to place them on an equal footing with the licensing of places used for public entertainment. Essentially, the councils, acting as licensing authorities, have a number of important roles to perform. Under Article 5 they have a duty to ensure that appropriate fire and safety regulations are enforced in licensed premises and Article 4 gives them power to prohibit the admission of children to film exhibitions which they regard as unsuitable for children. They also have the power to attach whatever conditions they think fit to a licence and the type of films shown to the public, their decision being subject to appeal to the courts.
The 1959 Act provides for exemptions from the requirement to have a licence for film exhibitions to which the public are not admitted or are admitted without payment. That exemption was intended to apply to non-commercial exhibitions organised by private film societies and charitable, educational, church, political and sporting organisations which might wish to show films from time to time as part of their normal programme of activities. As your Lordships will be only too well aware, experience in Great Britain has shown that that exemption provision was exploited by cinemas operating a club system in order to show pornographic films and to escape the limitations and obligations which a licence would place on them. While it is true to say that Northern Ireland has not experienced problems in

465
that respect on anything like the scale of London, the order will nevertheless provide councils in Northern Ireland with additional powers of control over such clubs and the conditions in which films are exhibited should a problem arise at some future stage.
Articles 7 to 10 deal with exemptions and introduce a "promoted for private gain" test which qualifies the exemptions whereby it will no longer be possible to claim an exemption by virtue of the fact that the public is not admitted to an exhibition. The new test will ensure that the licensing provisions apply to film and video exhibitions given by commercial cinema clubs whose primary object is to make money out of the exhibition.
The move towards a more stringent licensing requirement is designed to ensure that the exemptions which Parliament originally intended when introducing the 1959 Act will continue. Bona fide film societies which are not run for profit and from which the general public are excluded, exhibitions for which there is no payment for admission and other non-profit making organisations that hold an exemption certificate issued by the department will be able to give film shows for which they make charges so long as the proceeds are devoted to the wider objects and purposes of those organisations. Those exemptions are covered by Articles 7 to 10.
Article 11, which deals with exhibitions on Sundays, introduces a new provision for Northern Ireland which regularises the use of premises on Sundays for film exhibitions. It also affords special protection to those engaged in film exhibitions who are required to work on Sundays.
Articles 12 to 15 deal with the enforcement provisions of the order, the significant feature of which will be the increase from £200 to £20,000 in the penalty on conviction for promoting unlicensed exhibitions. A further important new provision is added whereby a court will have power to seize the equipment used in the offence. As with the law in Great Britain, opportunity has also been taken to extend existing powers of entry to officers of the fire authority to enter and inspect licensed premises in order to check that there are adequate fire precautions and to see whether the relevant provisions relating to fire precautions are being complied with.
Article 16 deals with appeals. As in other fields of licensing, it is customary to grant a right of appeal against a decision of a licensing authority. The appeals provisions contained in the 1959 Act are re-enacted and extended to allow for the automatic extension of a licence pending the outcome of an appeal. The remaining Articles 17 to 19 define the meaning of promotion for private gain and give effect to the provisions of Schedules 1, 2 and 3 which respectively set out minor and consequential amendments and repeals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15th May be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, we welcome the order. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having explained its provisions so clearly. I intend to raise only three points, which I have already mentioned to the Minister.
466
By virtue of Article 5(3), the district council, in deciding whether or not to grant, renew or transfer a licence, shall have regard to the observations submitted by the fire authority and by the sub-divisional commander of police. We have no doubt that their observations will be given proper consideration. However, if a district council fails to do so, will the fire service or the police have any right of appeal to the county court against the council's decision apart from judicial review, which I assume would apply?
My second question relates to the safety regulations which the Minister described. Those regulations will be made by the department and relate to film exhibitions and the health and welfare of children attending cinemas. One would be interested to learn who in practice will monitor the application of the regulations. Will it be left to the police and the fire authority under Article 15?
My final point is also a short one. The licence having been granted, one asks oneself what will be the position if the licence holder dies during the currency of the licence. In particular, will the personal representative of the licence holder have to apply for a temporary protection order? With those few questions, on behalf of these Benches I support the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I should like to raise a point relating to Article 11 and exhibitions on Sundays. My noble friend raised the question of exhibitions on Sundays, particularly in relation to the employment of persons working in the cinemas. I hope that the Sunday Observance Act 1695 does not impose tighter restrictions in Northern Ireland than would apply in Great Britain. I was pleased that my noble friend pointed out that the regulations regularised the position in Northern Ireland where cinemas are a particularly popular form of entertainment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and to my noble friend Lord Lyell for responding to the order. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for warning me of the three questions that he wished to raise.
On the noble Lord's first point, the order does not provide any right of appeal for the fire authority or the police. However, I can assure him that not only has it been the tradition over the years in Northern Ireland for district councils to pay due regard to the observations of both the police and the fire authority, but Article 5(3) of the order lays a duty on district councils to have regard to the observations of the police and the fire authority. As the noble Lord said, there is always lurking in the background the possibility of judicial review, on which I do not wish to comment. However, it is important for me to underline that there is a duty to have regard, although there is no right of appeal.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked me who would be responsible for monitoring. It is not the police and the fire authority under Article 15, although, like the noble Lord, that was rather my conclusion until I took advice. Regulations made under Article 6 will make

467
the district councils the monitors in their role as the licensing authorities. In practice that will mean the environmental health officers, except, I understand, in Belfast, where the council has its own licensing section which will do the monitoring for Belfast.
Thirdly, the noble Lord asked me about the transfer of the licence in the event of the holder dying. In those circumstances the personal representative of the deceased licence holder could apply to the district council for the transfer of the licence. Such a licence would continue in force until such time as the application for transfer was determined and thereafter, unless revoked, until the original date of expiry of the licence.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for welcoming the provision in Article 11 on Sunday opening for the showing of films. I used the word "regularises" in my speech because cinemas have, de facto, opened and that puts the matter on a regularised basis. My noble friend will not be entirely surprised to hear that the 1695 Act has fallen into disuse in relation to Sunday opening of cinemas in Northern Ireland. Under the order it will be possible in law for premises to open on Sundays for the exhibition of films.
There was wide consultation on the order. Some 65 organisations were consulted and it is important that I record that there was no objection to Sunday opening from any of the consultees. With those few replies, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Personal Files and Medical Reports (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
5.53 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to two Acts, both of which were introduced as Private Members' Bills in another place and piloted through your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff; namely, the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988. During the passage of both Bills, undertakings were given that similar measures would be brought forward for Northern Ireland. That briefly is the background to the order. As this is a harmonisation measure, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I am brief.
Part II (that is, Articles 3 to 5 and the schedule) contains the framework for statutory rights of access for individuals to certain manually-held housing and social services records which are defined in the schedule and held by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Health and Social Services Boards. The principle of access to computer-based records is of course enshrined in the Data Protection Act 1984. Much of the detail of the statutory scheme for access to housing and social services files needs to be prescribed in regulations under Article 5. Before the regulations are made, there is an obligation on the
468
departments involved to consult appropriate authorities and bodies. I assure noble Lords that consultation will be extensive and thorough.
Among the matters that regulations will provide for, two seem to me to be particularly significant in respect of the individual's rights to ensure accuracy in records relating to him or her. For instance, Article 5(2) (b) imposes obligations on the relevant authority to rectify or make erasures in records containing inaccurate information and Article 5(2) (e) provides for decisions taken by the relevant authority regarding access to or correction or erasure of information in records to be reconsidered or reviewed.
Part III (that is, Articles 6 to 14) gives individuals rights of access to medical reports on them sought by employers or insurers for employment or insurance purposes. The insurer or employer must have the individual's consent before applying for a report and the individual has a right to stipulate before the doctor supplies the report that he or she (the subject of the medical report) wishes to see it. The individual can discuss the report with the doctor and request him to amend it. If the doctor refuses, the individual has two options. He can either refuse his consent to the supply of the medical report to the employer or insurer or, less drastically, he can have a statement of his views appended to the report. There is also a right of access to a medical report in the six months after it has been supplied to the insurer or employer.
Much of what is in the order is regarded by those concerned as good practice. The order gives statutory effect to that and it has been welcomed on consultation in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th June be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches it is my pleasure to welcome this modest but virtuous order. As the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, explained, it applies to Northern Ireland the principles and detailed provisions of the Access to Personal Files Act 1987 and the Medical Reports Act 1988. I have read both Acts and the order faithfully mirrors their provision. However, I regret that the Northern Ireland citizen has had to wait three or four years for the order. I appreciate the need to protect the integrity of the Northern Ireland statute book, but I regret that the citizens of Northern Ireland have had to wait three or four years for identical rights to be enshrined in legislation.
My other regret is that the opportunity has not been taken to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with the equally virtuous provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990. There is a growing recognition, and rightly so, that patients should have the statutory right of access to their health records as well as to their medical reports. I very much hope that the Minister will tell your Lordships that discussions are taking place with the medical profession and other health professionals and authorities with a view to introducing at an early date a statutory right to enable patients to have access to their medical records, subject to appropriate safeguards as provided for in the Access to Health Records Act 1990. Meanwhile, I

469
welcome the order and hope that the professions in Northern Ireland will fully co-operate with the department in making the regulations under its provisions.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I rise to support the order most warmly. I do so with some pride for, as the Minister so kindly reminded the House, it was from these Benches, in the shape of my noble friend Lord Tordoff, and originally in another place in the shape of my honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood, that we were able to demonstrate parliamentary leadership on these important questions of access to medical reports and personal files.
I believe that the Act deals effectively with those important areas in which openness is the remedy for potential misunderstanding and injustice. It is good to see it extended to Northern Ireland.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I hope that we shall soon see the principle of greater freedom of information extended to health records. I believe that it is in those areas that one can develop the quality of life and the standards of administration which are so much needed in Northern Ireland. I support the order.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, for their reception of this order, which, as I said when I introduced it, is a harmonisation order. We are indebted to the Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for this legislation so far as concerns Great Britain.
Perhaps I may reply to the only question raised—the straightforward question put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, of which he kindly gave me notice; namely, why the Access to Health Records Act 1990 harmonisation has not been included in the order. Both noble Lords hoped that something would be done about it.
This afternoon I can say that the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland is about to begin preparatory work on a draft order in council which will introduce provisions for Northern Ireland similar to those in the 1990 Act. Our aim is to have Northern Ireland legislation next year. I hope that we shall be able to achieve that aim. With that single reply, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GATT Negotiations and Hong Kong
6.1 p.m.
Baroness Dunn Baroness Dunn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current state of the GATT negotiations, particularly as they affect Hong Kong.
The noble Baroness said: I should at once inform the House that I am chairman of Hong Kong's Trade Development Council and a director of a number of companies involved in trade and services. Your Lordships last debated the important matter of the Uruguay Round negotiations on 23rd January, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, called attention to it. Many issues connected with those
470
complex negotiations were aired, and this House was at one in expressing its hope that the Uruguay Round would be brought to a successful conclusion.
I ask this Question today for three reasons. First, since the last debate negotiations have resumed at the technical level and the American Congress has extended its fast track authority to the President. Secondly, at a time when we all rejoice at the decisive victory in the Iraq war, we may lose sight of the threat of a trade war. The risk of a trade war would be the inevitable result of another failure of the Uruguay Round. The implications—and this is my third point—would be far-reaching for Britain, the world and especially Hong Kong. At any rate, my experience in dealing with Ministers facing difficult issues is that it is no bad thing to prod them from time to time.
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has facilitated the greatest expansion of world trade ever known. Its membership now includes 102 nations or territories which account for 90 per cent. of the world's trade. According to the GATT statistics, annual world trade in 1990 amounted to over 7 trillion US dollars, and Britain's trade amounted to over 409 billion US dollars. Since the GATT was founded in 1948 Hong Kong's trade has increased from a mere 1 billion to 164 billion US dollars. Hong Kong is now in its own right a contracting party to the GATT. Its negotiators actively participate in the wide range of subjects covered by the Uruguay Round. It firmly believes that it is in everyone's interest to see the GATT strengthened and world trade further liberalised by a successful Uruguay Round package.
Hong Kong shares with Britain a common interest in a successful outcome to the current negotiations. Like Britain, Hong Kong has an externally orientated economy. It allows unfettered access to its internal markets, and it depends on access to those of its trading partners. The GATT has been the cornerstone of its commercial relations policy and the guardian of its trading interests. As a result, Hong Kong has managed to climb from being a poor and economically backward entrepot, to a thriving, dynamic and broadly-based economy which now ranks 11th among world trading entities, and which gives Hong Kong a GDP per head as great as a number of European Community countries.
To me it is incomprehensible that such a demonstrably successful system should be threatened. Yet threatened it is, because the negotiating partners have been unable to reach agreement on many of the key issues. Four and a half years after the Uruguay Round was launched, it has become stuck on the mudflats. In the words of the Director General of GATT, Arthur Dunkel, it is:
"bedevilled by accusations, self-righteousness, mutual misunderstandings and inability to distinguish special interest pleading from the public good".
That sounds to me like the diplomatic equivalent of the death from a thousand cuts.
At stake is not just the round itself, but the whole system of world trade. In the absence of a package deal, the GATT system will be pushed to the sidelines; protectionist sentiment will gain ground; trade restraints under the guise of voluntary export restraints, orderly marketing arrangements and

471
anti-dumping measures will increasingly be introduced; and the world will be drawn into a trade war with the United States, the European Community and others retreating behind separate barricades.
Such an outcome would hurt Britain and Hong Kong more than it would hurt the United States and Japan. For example, Britain's exports per capita last year in 1990 were worth 3,200 US dollars and those of Hong Kong were worth over 14,000 US dollars as against 2,300 dollars for Japan and only 1,500 dollars for the USA. Other Members of the House will know better than I how much poorer countries desperately depend on access to world markets.
It is not for me to comment on the merits of the Community's stance on agriculture in these negotiations. But I believe it is right to draw attention to the fact that farming accounts for less than 5 per cent. of output and jobs in the OECD countries. I do so because it was the inability to find an acceptable compromise on agricultural subsidies that caused the collapse of the Uruguay Round last December. Negotiations have since resumed, albeit at a technical level. I hope that Ministers can assure the House that when the matter once again comes up for high level consideration at the G7 meeting next month, Her Majesty's Government will use all their influence to ensure that the issue of agricultural protection is put in proper perspective and is not allowed to put at risk a successful outcome of the negotiations.
Unresolved differences remain in other areas where Britain and Hong Kong have a substantial interest, including services, anti-dumping measures and safeguards. I hope that in pursuing Britain's negotiating aims in these areas Ministers will work hard, hand in hand with Hong Kong's negotiators, to seek solutions that will maintain the integrity of GATT.
After four and a half years of discussion, time for a settlement is running out. We must be thankful that the US Congress has recently extended its fast track authority to the President by two years. That authority enables the President to negotiate a complete package for presentation to Congress rather than to submit each component of the deal for congressional approval. But we must not be lulled into a false sense of optimism by that; the longer an agreement is delayed, the greater the risk that it will become an issue in the forthcoming presidential election and the greater the risk of the package unravelling under pressure from the protectionist lobby. Can Ministers therefore disclose their timetable for completing the negotiations and assure the House that all parties are seized with the urgency? The United States and the European Community must be made fully aware of their pivotal position in the Uruguay round and their responsibility for its success or failure. It is time to demonstrate real leadership.
I have been at pains to stress the common interest between Britain and Hong Kong in a successful outcome to the Uruguay round. But the House will forgive me if I conclude by mentioning an additional reason why its success is so crucially important to Hong Kong. While Britain is in the throes of debating
472
the benefits of sharing its sovereignty with its European trading partners, Hong Kong has only six years to run before one sovereign withdraws and hands over to another. The chance of that unique and awesome prospect working out well for its 6 million people largely depends upon the continuation of the remarkable prosperity that the territory enjoys as a successful trading economy. Loss of access to the world market would cripple our economy. Without a successful trading economy, Hong Kong has little chance of retaining its special value to China as a special administrative region, and that would jeopardise the concept of one country, two systems on which the Sino-British Joint Declaration rests.
Therefore an early breakthrough in the Uruguay round is of the utmost importance to Hong Kong in these years of transition. Whatever Britain's trading interests may be, and equal though Hong Kong's status is with Britain in the GATT, Her Majesty's Government in these negotiations must have clearly in mind their constitutional obligation to help maintain Hong Kong's prosperity, on which all our hopes for its future depend.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I rise with particular trepidation to address your Lordships for the first time. One of my noble friends was good enough to seek to reassure me on the prospect. "Don't worry", he said, "the House is always indulgent and generous to maiden speakers. Whatever the maiden speaker says, he or she usually receives compliments". Then he added, "But it's what they think of you that matters".
I am particularly glad to have the chance to speak on Hong Kong, and especially to have the privilege of following the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. I have been lucky enough to know her for many years. Your Lordships will not need me to say that she is held in the highest esteem in Hong Kong. The noble Baroness made the point that a successful outcome to the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations is important both to Britain and to Hong Kong not only for trading reasons but also because there is now only six years before Hong Kong leaves the protection of the British Crown and becomes a special administrative region of China. It is on that aspect that I wish briefly to dwell today.
I believe that Hong Kong is by far the most important factor in Britain's relationship with China and is likely to continue to remain so for at least the remainder of the century. As many noble Lords will know, Hong Kong is one of those places which it is particularly hard to imagine. I first got to know it nearly 30 years ago when I was the Far East representative for the British chemical company, Fisons. I have been fortunate enough to visit it regularly ever since and for the past 14 years or so I have been able from time to time to write articles about Hong Kong affairs for the Economist.
It has changed out of all recognition during that period, except in one respect. The thread of self-reliance and entrepreneurial zest has remained throughout. It is not easy to understand what makes

473
Hong Kong tick. Indeed I suspect that it is as hard for a Chinese from the mainland as it is for a European if neither of them has been a regular visitor.
I fear that today the political, and thus the economic, situation in Hong Kong is fragile. In the five years between the signing of the 1984 Sino-British Agreement and June 1989, it may perhaps have been reasonable to have put great reliance on China's economic self-interest as underwriting the success of the transition of Hong Kong from British to Chinese sovereignty. But that has now changed.
The top leaders in China do not themselves know Hong Kong at first hand. It is they, not the more junior officials who may know Hong Kong well, who are in the driving seat. Deng Xiaoping, who, although he no longer holds executive power in China, is most certainly the dominating influence over his government's policy, has, I believe, never visited Hong Kong. Nor, I think, has the Chinese Prime Minister, Li Peng. Both of them, particularly Deng, are deeply concerned at the political and economic instability which they see in the Soviet Union and which they feel to be a potential threat to the stability and integrity of their own country; and probably to their own political survival.
It was the first tremors of such instability which shook Tiananmen Square on 4th June 1989. Hong Kong shared the world's indignation at these events and showed it all too plainly. The result is that for China's leaders Hong Kong now represents a political threat rather than a potential economic asset. They view with apprehension and alarm the prospect of having to digest such an independently minded place and are worried that it could act as a focus for secessionist tendencies in southern China. That has been highlighted in the past few years with the increasing relative prosperity of Guandung Province, which has been described by some as the California of China.
I fear that sometimes the Chinese Government may now wonder whether the risk of one country, two systems is too great a price to pay for the economic benefits of Hong Kong and its capitalist culture. I believe that their fears are unjustified, first, because, as your Lordships know, open protest is usually a substitute for, rather than a stepping stone to, subversion. I am sure that the vast majority of Hong Kongers merely wish to be left alone to do what they are best at; that is, trade and business. Secondly, it is only in agriculture that the modernisation of China's economy has made real strides in the past decade. Progress in Chinese agriculture has been dependent largely on private enterprise.
Therefore, in the long term China must gradually absorb the benefit of Hong Kong's curious and complicated capitalist chemistry. It is not easy. That is why, perhaps, the attempts of China to turn its special economic zones into laboratories of capitalism have so far been rather disappointing. Had they been more successful the result might have been to make China less dependent upon Hong Kong.
The problem has been that China believed that the economic benefits of capitalism could be obtained by an appropriate mixture of capital, technology and
474
management. It has never really understood the role of the entrepreneur. That is why there are now almost 2 million people on the mainland, most of them in Southern China, working for Hong Kong-owned companies. That is significantly more than the 1.4 million employed in manufacturing in Hong Kong itself.
Yet the management of many such enterprises—and I have visited several—still consists almost entirely of Hong Kongers, sometimes right down to production line supervision. If the Hong Kong companies were to withdraw it is unlikely that the enterprises would to be profitable and competitive. Therefore, there is a growing economic dependence of China upon Hong Kong. That has been reinforced since the check to foreign investment in China which followed Tiananmen Square.
There is one other aspect of Hong Kong that I venture to suggest merits your Lordships' attention during the coming years. The good government of Hong Kong, which has enabled the place to flourish economically since the war and to have standards of decency of which Britain can be proud, is not merely the result of the integrity and dedication of the Hong Kong Civil Service; nor is it due only to the participation of Hong Kongers such as the noble Baroness in public affairs there, important though all that is. It is that Whitehall, which has a direct responsibility for the proper conduct of Hong Kong affairs, has always been answerable to Westminster. In 1997 Peking takes over from Whitehall; but who is there to take over from Westminster? I do not pretend to be able to suggest the answer. It will, I am sure, have something to do with the introduction of local democracy and the responsibilities that that imposes.
As your Lordships will know, from September this year Hong Kong's legislative council will have its first directly elected component. Out of a council of 60, 18 members will be directly elected for geographical constituencies. Some might say that it is too little too late. Most of all, it depends on how we in Westminster, in both Houses of Parliament, are able to reassure the Chinese Government that in 1997, within a flourishing world economy to which the success of the Uruguay round must contribute, we shall be able to hand over to China a stable and prosperous Hong Kong with its people confident that their rights and liberties, in addition to their way of life, will be respected. I am grateful for your Lordships' attention.
6.24 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, on his maiden speech. I am sure that he was as pleased to deliver it as was the whole House to hear it. It was a most notable speech. His knowledge and fair-mindedness which are so apparent in his writings will be of great value to your Lordships' House. I am delighted that he has focused his maiden speech on Hong Kong. However, he is of acknowledged competence in a wide field of economic, political and social issues. I hope that we shall hear from him often.

475
My noble friend Lady Dunn developed her Question in wide terms. She made a most valuable and thought-provoking speech. She remarked that from time to time Ministers should be prodded. As a former Governor who was often prodded by her, I can say only that Ministers should look out.
My noble friend mentioned two or three specific Hong Kong interests but she did not develop those. I wish to expand briefly on only two. I shall then pick up her valuable reference to the political implications of the Uruguay round on Hong Kong in its present political predicament and its relationship with China. That was so well commented upon by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
The first specific point is that a satisfactory agreement on textiles and clothing is of vital importance to Hong Kong. In January at the time of the previous debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, an agreement to liberalise world textile trade seemed within our grasp. However, it has yet to materialise and meanwhile the multi-fibre arrangement on textiles will run out at the end of next month. The uncertainty is highly damaging. Is the United Kingdom endeavouring to move the European Community to agree to an extension? If so, what prospect does the Minister see of success?
The second specific point is that no draft text has yet been agreed for a new anti-dumping code. On 15th June an article in the Economist, which I mention with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, described the present code as "already a protectionist's Charter". Our object should be to achieve stricter disciplines and clearer language in the code, in particular on determination of dumping and of injury. I understand that, on the contrary, America and the EC are seeking to broaden the code. I cannot believe that widening the GATT's scope for protectionist lobbies is in the interest either of the European consumer or of those who depend on the freedom of world trade such as the United Kingdom or Hong Kong. Therefore, will the United Kingdom stiffen the EC to resist?
I leave the specific points and return to the relevance of trade to Hong Kong's present predicament. Your Lordships' House has not stinted time for Hong Kong's affairs but in recent years trade has rarely been the immediate issue. Therefore, I am glad that my noble friend has asked her Question with particular reference to Hong Kong. In doing so she has gone to the heart of the matter because trade and all that accompanies it is the basis on which Hong Kong has been built.
The whole concept of "one country two systems", so well spelt out in the Joint Declaration, is excellent. It was an achievement by the Government and an act of statesmanship by China. But I wonder whether it would have been possible if Hong Kong had not prospered so consistently under the GATT regime or if China had not so wisely and rightly concluded that it would continue to prosper if it continued as a free port and a centre of international commerce. That prosperity could be made or marred by the Uruguay
476
round in which Hong Kong is only one voice among many and naturally looks to the United Kingdom for support.
It is most timely that the political implications for Hong Kong should have been so clearly stated in your Lordships' House by my noble friend who, in addition to her other qualifications, is the senior member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I shall be very brief. However, I particularly wish to support the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, because of the theme underlying her Question. Her persistence as regards this matter with at least one former Minister responsible for Hong Kong has had a belated effect.
Hong Kong is subject to enormous and diverse pressures. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out in his admirable maiden speech, Hong Kong is unique in that she has a peculiar development in her status in only six or so years' time. Many of the economic matters which underlie Hong Kong's relationship with China and worries about 1997 were addressed by my noble friend in his remarks.
Those anxieties are familiar to many of us who have been lucky enough to have a fairly close association with Hong Kong over the past few years. My noble friend mentioned representative government as one problem. There are others which are of much more local and immediate anxiety; for example, the Vietnamese boat people which worry me particularly. It is striking that only about two years ago I was in Geneva taking part in an inter-governmental conference on that subject. While matters improved after that, we now see a sad and debilitating degradation which affects Hong Kong in a very difficult way.
All those aspects damage and have an effect, to a greater or lesser extent, on confidence for the future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said, trade has made Hong Kong what she is today. Up to 1997 and beyond, trading opportunities will allow Hong Kong to remain pre-eminent in the Far East as a gateway for goods to and from China as well as in her position in relation to the wider world. The figures which the noble Baroness gave in her speech say it all.
I always find matters to do with GATT extremely complex, and I cannot pretend to be any sort of expert on it. The noble Baroness explained the detailed arguments in relation to GATT affecting Hong Kong with great clarity. However, serious political consequences could follow from failure to resolve the current round. Those political consequences may be international but they are bound to have a more marked effect upon Hong Kong in her special circumstances.
Time is fast running out. I hope that my noble friend Lord Reay will accept that there are special features about Hong Kong and GATT which deserve particularly close attention; for example, textiles, safeguards, the GATT anti-dumping code to which the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, referred, and tariff reductions.

477
As to solutions to the current impasse in more general terms, recent articles and commentaries point to the role of subsidies under the common agricultural policy being the one single issue which if resolved in a favourable way could unlock the problem. However, I realise that in Europe that is no easy matter, especially at present. When the Minister replies, I hope that h will address the theme underlying the Question asked by the noble Baroness; that is, the confidence for and of Hong Kong in her future. With her unique position, if Hong Kong is not adequately helped to retain her pre-eminence of trade, the very roots of her position are likely to be undermined and the damage very difficult to repair.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, the House will recall that as recently as January we had a full and very useful debate on the subject of GATT. Nevertheless, we are greatly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, for tabling her Unstarred Question this evening which gives us the opportunity of a short debate on an extremely important topic. It is important not only because of the central role which British Parliament must play in the years ahead in relation to Hong Kong but also because the question of GATT is one of the most urgent and fundamental issues in the world economy as a whole.
One could wish that the Ministers at the G7 meeting over the past two days had been as concerned with GATT as they were with trying to manipulate the short-term value of the dollar because it is in the liberalisation of world trade that we can hope for a re-animation and picking up of the world economy which is so desperately needed.
I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It seems particularly appropriate, given his connection with the Economist, that he should have spoken so eloquently on an issue relating to the cause of free trade to which that publication has made such a distinguished commitment over many years. On these Benches we share that historical commitment to free trade. It is a matter of great encouragement that the European Community—not least thanks to the efforts of the Commissioner for Competition Sir Leon Brittan—has resisted those siren voices which call for fortress Europe.
The real test for Europe lies ahead with the problem of the Uruguay round and GATT. Can the problem be surmounted, the Uruguay round fully resumed and the interests of European farmers put into perspective?
If and when the negotiations fully resume, in this country we must have a particular eye open for the interests of Hong Kong albeit that Hong Kong negotiates as a full equal in the round. After all, 80 per cent. of Hong Kong's manufactures are exported. As the noble Baroness reminds us, Hong Kong literally lives to export and exports to live. Therefore, I believe we should look out for the interests of Hong Kong in every way possible.
There is a natural tendency, even for liberalising measures such as the extension of GATT, to reflect the interests of the major trading blocs of Europe and the
478
USA. We need to have regard to the developing countries and the strongly emergent parts of the world economy. Of course, Hong Kong is no longer to be classified as a developing country. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, reminded us of the formidable export record of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a tiger, but even tigers need a leg up occasionally.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, raised the one issue to which I should like to devote a few moments; that is the contentious and difficult issue of textiles. Hong Kong's position in the GATT negotiations is to seek "a meaningful liberalisation" of textiles. We should also want that in the United Kingdom.
We should recognise also that just as the textile industry is important to Hong Kong, so it is important to the United Kingdom. There are 500,000 people in the UK employed in textiles, which is not an obsolete industry seeking some sort of shabby protectionism but is a very go-ahead industry with a fine reputation and good products which is seeking a fair deal. It is not fair that South Korea subsidises its textile and clothing industries to the tune of £2.5 billion or that Australia imposes tariff rates of up to 50 per cent. on some clothing.
Yes, the multi-fibre arrangement should be integrated into GATT as the Punta Del Este declaration of 1986 required. However, let the MFA be phased out over a number of years to allow adjustment. Let there be clear linkage to the question of access to third world country markets allowing for British textile companies greater exports to compensate for what we should accept; namely, higher import penetration. Above all—and this is particularly true between Great Britain and Hong Kong—let us develop a common approach to the question of dumping rather than competitive definitions if possible.
I should like to echo the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, as to whether the Minister can give us some idea of whether there is likely to be an extension of the multi-fibre arrangement during this interregnum. The uncertainty is not good for the industry. I hope that we can help and work with Hong Kong, specifically on the textile question but also on the wider front. We are both trading nations and our prosperity, like that of the world economy, depends on the fastest possible resumption of the GATT.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, for tabling this Question. Perhaps I may say that in my experience in this House—I accept that it is relatively short—few people have come here with the reputation and esteem of the noble Baroness. Today she illustrated why she is held in such esteem. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we are glad to include her among our number.
I echo also what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his distinguished maiden speech. This is a problem not just for the generality of the world but politically and specifically for Hong Kong. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and indeed the noble

479
Baroness, pointed out, we had a debate on the generality of GATT on 23rd January. Unless the Minister can say anything different, not much has happened since then. At that time, speaking from this Dispatch Box on behalf of my party, I advised the Government that we were wholly committed to the Uruguay round and its success; that remains our position today. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that it would be a disaster for the world if this round were to fail. I cannot imagine the 1990s being other than a disaster in terms of world trade and possible United States protectionism if this round were to fail.
As the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, the issues are extremely complex. We must not blame one side or the other, for instance, for their rough negotiating tactics or inability to develop a proper reform of the common agricultural policy. Much work needs to be done to ensure that it is a success.
Speaking about the generality of GATT, I wish to emphasise two points. First, as the Minister will certainly remind us, it is a negotiation conducted by the Community; the United Kingdom is not negotiating in its own right. We are disappointed that the Community did not accept the Swedish proposal, which in our view was a compromise on the agriculture question. As I understand it, the United States would have accepted that had the Community been able to go that far. Secondly, there seems to be no real understanding in the Community of our responsibility towards the third world. I do not include Hong Kong in the third world. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that Hong Kong is part of a thrusting new world. However, there are underdeveloped countries in Latin America and Africa which need the support of the European Community in the negotiations on the Uruguay round.
A point quite properly brought out by the noble Baroness and emphasised by the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord MacLehose and Lord Glenarthur, related to the political implications for Hong Kong should the Uruguay round fail. It is only necessary to realise the timescale under which Hong Kong and the Sino-British agreement is operating to see how important that problem is. Therefore it is vital that we get a move on. I join the noble Baroness and other noble Lords in urging the Government to ensure that the Community does that.
The points where interest in Hong Kong march with interest in the United Kingdom seem to be manifold. We want and they want a proper market in trade, financial services and intellectual property, proper settlement of dispute procedures within GATT and proper respect for copyright patents throughout the world. Those are all points on which we in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong can work together.
The noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord MacLehose, mentioned the multi-fibre arrangement. Areas perhaps exist where the interests of the United Kingdom and Hong Kong do not entirely march together; some areas may be different. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, rightly said, in the United
480
Kingdom there are 500,000 people employed in an efficient textile industry. The Labour Party does not intend to allow those people to be betrayed by any agreement which phases out the multi-fibre arrangement without proper safeguards and a long transition period. By "long" I emphasise what was said by my colleagues in another place: we mean a 10-year period and not the five-year period to which the Government have referred.
Having said all that, I join other noble Lords in stating that the political urgency for Hong Kong is the theme dominating this short debate. We had a debate in regard to the GATT in January. Nothing has happened since then which materially alters the conclusions to which we came. Noble Lords on all sides of the House supported the view that Her Majesty's Government should press the Community as hard as possible to negotiate a proper resolution to the Uruguay round. Since that time the United States Congress agreed to allow the fast track process to continue to the end of the year. Therefore the onus is on Her Majesty's Government and, through them, the Community.
Yet again I reiterate the plea I made in January of this year. It is time the Prime Minister sat down with other heads of government in the Community and got the Community's act together to bring about a breakthrough on the matter. If necessary, he should sit down with President Bush to achieve that breakthrough. Until there is agreement in principle at the highest level of government, however much civil servants talk about the matter they will never have a proper brief upon which to work.
I emphasise the theme of the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. Let the British Government press as hard as they can for agreement, not only for our sake but for the sake of Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister will respond in kind.
6.48 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, we have had a short but interesting and distinguished debate, illuminated by a notable and stimulating maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Marlesford. He spoke from long personal experience of Hong Kong. I hope that he will speak in this House often and on many other subjects.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter today. It enables me to explain the Government's intentions in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations, in particular so far as they concern the position of Hong Kong in those negotiations.
As is well known, the so-called Uruguay round in GATT—the eighth round of negotiations since GATT came into operation in 1947—was launched in 1986 and was due to be completed last December. In the event, the more than 100 countries participating in the Brussels ministerial conference in December could not agree on a package to complete the negotiations. A great deal of valuable technical work had been done by then and important agreements were virtually ready in several of the individual negotiating areas.

481
But major differences remained in a number of key areas, notably agricultural trade, services and market access. That meant that no agreement could be clinched.
Work has continued since. There is agreement among all the main parties to the negotiations that the round must now be concluded as soon as possible and preferably by the end of 1991. That aim was clearly stated at the recent conference of Ministers from the OECD countries. A number of Ministers, including the United States trade representative, Mrs. Carla Hills; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, have stressed the importance of making rapid progress before the end of July. If the round runs on beyond the end of the year the risk is that the current political impetus will be lost and, as the noble Baroness put it, the progress already made will unravel. I can also say to the noble Baroness that at the G7 meeting in London next month, I certainly hope that the heads of government will put their personal authority behind efforts to reach agreement.
It is not surprising that difficulties arose. The Uruguay Round is the most complex international trade negotiation ever, with simultaneous negotiations on 15 separate topics, many of them interlocking. But the Government, with all our main negotiating partners, including the other member states, firmly believe that we must get a successful conclusion. A successful round will contribute greatly to reducing trade barriers worldwide and will accordingly bring a major non-inflationary stimulus to world economic growth. Failure would not only mean loss of these gains but could lead to a loss of confidence in the GATT system itself. That would be extremely damaging for the whole world trading system.
To this end the UK's objectives for the round remain the same as when the round was launched. They are to get more open markets by further reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade; to extend GATT disciplines on an agreed basis to trade in services; to improve intellectual property protection worldwide; to tackle trade-distorting investment measures; to reinforce the structure of GATT, in particular its system for settling disputes; and to persuade developing countries, as they become richer, to observe more of their GATT obligations.
Perhaps most importantly of all, we need to bring agricultural trade for the first time within effective GATT disciplines on agriculture. The need to reform the Community's common agricultural policy is now widely accepted within the Commission and the member states. That process must be carried on in harmony with reforms of world agricultural trade agreed within the GATT round. It is encouraging that the Community has agreed to negotiate specific binding commitments to increase market access and to reduce internal support and export subsidies.
A lot of progress has been made in many of the different negotiating areas, and the Government believe that, given the proper determination, it will be possible to finalise an agreement which is so much in everyone's interest. We shall continue to work hard with our EC partners to bring that about.
482
As to Hong Kong's future in GATT, since 1986 the territory has had the status of an independent contracting party. Hong Kong speaks for itself and does so very effectively. The Sino-British Joint Declaration provides that there will be no change to the position of Hong Kong in GATT after 1997. Hong Kong will continue to have its own independent and influential voice in GATT.
Hong Kong has as great an interest as any other participant in a successful outcome to the Uruguay round. We shall all benefit from more open markets. The territory is one of the most open economies in the world, and it is in its interests that others reduce barriers to trade to the greatest degree possible. I know that Hong Kong is playing a vigorous and constructive part in the negotiations and the personal contribution of ambassador Broadbridge in Geneva and of his predecessor, ambassador Cartland, has been very important.
I might also add that Hong Kong's position as a major trading nation is due in no small part to the excellent promotional efforts of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, of which the noble Baroness, as she told us, is the distinguished chairman.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, raised the question of the multi-fibre arrangements. In that he was followed by the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Williams. The integration of the textile trade into the GATT system is a major objective of the Uruguay round. All parties are agreed of the need to phase out the multi-fibre arrangements. At the ministerial meeting in Brussels last December we were close to an agreement on the terms under which that can be done over about 10 years. I hope that that progress can be built on now that the talks have resumed. In the meantime the extension of the round means that the current MFA, which expires in July, will have to be extended.
I know that Hong Kong and other major exporters share that view because of the importance of ensuring certainty for traders, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, mentioned. Our view, which has been agreed within the EC, is that that extension should be for no longer than 17 months which should provide time to complete the round and ratify the resulting agreement.
The noble Lord also raised the matter of anti-dumping. The United Kingdom is encouraging the Community to work for improvement of the GATT anti-dumping code so that it provides for more objective and transparent procedures while ensuring that anti-dumping remedies cannot be used for protectionist purposes.
I conclude by saying that I profoundly hope that we are on our way to success in the Uruguay round. Hong Kong stands as a shining example to economic dynamism and the benefits that open markets can bring. My noble friend Lord Marlesford spoke of its unchanged thread of self-reliance and entrepreneurial zest which, he observed, had lasted for 30 years.
Hong Kong has been created by free trade. But the United Kingdom, more than most countries, depends on an open trading system. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the United Kingdom has a higher value

483
of exports per head even than Japan. So the United Kingdom and Hong Kong both share an interest in seeing the Uruguay round brought to an early and
484
satisfactory conclusion. I therefore welcome the timing, content and style of the noble Baroness's intervention this evening.
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.

  POLITICAL UNION: INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
  POLITICAL UNION: INTER-GOVERNMENTAL CONFERENCE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 17th—18th JUNE
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 17th—18th JUNE
  CHILDREN ACT 1989: MONITORING PROVISION
  CHILDREN ACT 1989: MONITORING PROVISION
  SOCIAL FUND EXPENDITURE
  SOCIAL FUND EXPENDITURE
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AGENCY BUSINESS PLAN
  SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS AGENCY BUSINESS PLAN
  AIRFIELDS ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION: DOE GRANT
  AIRFIELDS ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION: DOE GRANT
  MINISTERS AND MEMBERSHIP OF LLOYD'S
  MINISTERS AND MEMBERSHIP OF LLOYD'S
  NHS HEARING AID SERVICE: COST
  NHS HEARING AID SERVICE: COST
  PRISONERS: RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION
  PRISONERS: RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION
  PRISONERS: RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS 1991
  PRISONERS: RELIGIOUS REGISTRATIONS 1991