Sitting of 22 May 1991

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

    LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 6 June.

    KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 June.

    EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Debate further adjourned till Thursday 6 June.
    Mr. Speaker: As the next three Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
      LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

        BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        Orders for Second Reading read.
        To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 June.

        HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
        Read the Third time, and passed

  Mr. Rajiv Gandhi
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd):With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the death of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. It would be wrong to begin Foreign and Commonwealth questions without doing so. I know that the House will join me in condemning the assassination. It is a fearful tragedy. No one who knew Rajiv Gandhi could doubt that it was devotion to India that brought him into political life in the first place and led him to the top. The loss for India and for his friends is beyond calculation, and I am sure that the House will wish to join us in sending our deep sympathy to his family and to the people of India. We are confident that India, as a great democracy, will surmount even this disaster.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say first how absolutely right the Foreign Secretary was to start our proceedings this afternoon as he did. We echo entirely what he said, and he spoke for the whole House. We—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I—have had our own acquaintance with Rajiv as well as with his mother. I last saw Rajiv at the Namibian independence celebrations in Windhoek last year, when the Foreign Secretary was there.
  We have a particular and long-standing relationship with the Indian people, which stems from the independence of India, which was brought about under one of our Governments. Since that time, both sides of the House have admired the strength of Indian democracy and have admired that family for its contribution to Indian democracy. It is tragic that such an event should have taken place during an election, one in which Rajiv might again have become the Prime Minister of his country.
  The Foreign Secretary is right to say that Indian democracy is strong enough to withstand even this event. It is a great democracy which we admire enormously and which will persevere and survive. In sending our sympathy to Rajiv's family and to the Indian people, let us not forget the Indian community in this country who will share the grief of their compatriots in India. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Russell Johnston: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate all the Liberal Democrats with everything that the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said. The sheer wickedness of putting a bomb in a basket of flowers to kill a democratic politician leaves one emotionally empty. The hugely important thing that Rajiv Gandhi sought to do was to bring to India reconciliation between different groups and different religions. That aim will continue after his death and we salute him for that high objective. We grieve with his wife, his family and his people. This is a terribly sad moment.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with what the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    European Economic Unity
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on further progress in the intergovernmental conference in the European Community on economic unity.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The United Kingdom continues to play a positive part in the European monetary union intergovernmental conference. The most recent discussions were in ECOFIN—the Economic and Finance Council—on 11 May 1991, attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mrs. Currie: Bearing in mind the huge changes that the negotiations and discussions would mean for the United Kingdom and the fact that, according to opinion polls, two thirds of the British people think that we will be at stage 3 with a single currency by the year 2000 and more than half of them think that that is a good thing, does my right hon. Friend accept that the correct role of United Kingdom Ministers is to defend United Kingdom interests in all the negotiations, but as a part of, and at the heart of, a Europe that continues to be strong, democratic and free?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The negotiations at both conferences—the one in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes part and the one in which I take part—have their occasional difficulties, as my hon. Friend knows, but they are being held in a good atmosphere and if everyone acts in the spirit that my hon. Friend suggested, the prospects will be good.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary think that the good atmosphere to which he referred has been improved by the early-day motion on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Hurd: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt very adeptly with that matter yesterday. I have nothing to add to the comments that he made.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great confidence among Conservative Members in his ability to stand up for British interests in the negotiations and that there is no general willingness to tie his hands by imposing conditions on which concessions he may wish to offer to secure still more vital British objectives?
    Mr. Hurd: The stance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are taking in the two sets of discussions has been fully discussed in the House and in the country. I hope that, as my hon. Friend says, it commands general consent.
    Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman must not be quite so coy about the early-day motion and he must come clean on where he stands on it. Is the Government's policy the one that we know that the right hon. Gentleman
    914
    favours, signing up for EMU and the single currency; or is it the policy of Sir Leon Brittan, which would side-track us on a double-track approach; or is it the policy of the early-day motion, which everyone knows that Downing street has stirred up and is the Prime Minister's position? Which of the three policies—[Interruption.] It is the tendency of Conservative Members to heckle on all their splits so they now heckle a lot. Which of the three is the Government's policy, or are they dithering among the three?
    Mr. Hurd: In following the right hon. Gentleman over many years, I have noticed that when he says that a certain thing is something that everybody knows, it is usually open to question, and that is exactly the position with his remarks today. The early-day motion to which he has again drawn attention refers to a text which the Luxembourg presidency put forward in an attempt to reach a compromise. There are various points in the text and some, although not all, are set out in the early-day motion and will need substantial change if they are to have our support.

    Caribbean (Drugs Trade)
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international measures are being taken to tackle the drugs trade in the Caribbean.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The drugs trade poses a serious threat to the Caribbean. We are actively helping regional and international efforts aimed at interdicting drug smuggling, pursuing drug traffickers and confiscating their assets.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government pay great attention, applying considerable detail, to drug trafficking in the dependent territories and that they are taking a series of measures in co-operation with independent countries in the Caribbean which is to be welcomed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. Much of the United Kingdom's drug-related assistance goes to the region, especially to the dependent territories. That assistance amounted to more than £4 million last year. We are in contact with the independent countries and encourage them to enact suitable legislation and sign agreements with us. Recently, I signed an agreement with Barbados on confiscation of drug-related assets.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the position on the Caribbean, the Minister will be aware that some people there forecast that the movement will spread to Europe. Is he satisfied that drug smuggling into Europe will be met with the same international co-operation to destroy trafficking and protect our people?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, it is particularly because of the movement of drugs from the Caribbean to Europe that we take such an interest. Naturally, we are also concerned for the interests of that region, but there is a community of interest between us because the drugs ultimately come here.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When considering international measures, will m y hon. Friend bear in mind the potential of the banking operations on many of the Caribbean islands to launder money on behalf of the drugs trade?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we are conscious of the need for arrangements to counter money laundering. Part of our activities is to advise on how to counter money laundering in that region.

    European Council
    Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is on the agenda of the European Council of 28 and 29 June; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: I expect discussion to cover the two intergovernmental conferences, progress in the single market programme and major international issues. The Luxembourg presidency has not yet announced the formal agenda.
    Mr. Buckley: Will the Heads of Government discuss why the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Community ever to have the Commissioner block regional development grant due to the misappropriation—if that is the proper word—of the Treasury in terms of the European Parliament? Will the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary raise the matter of fines that the United Kingdom Government wish to impose on European Governments for not carrying out Community law for the Treasury in that matter?
    Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's question. If he wishes to write to me, the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry about his complaint, I shall look into it.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, one of our proposals to the intergovernmental conference is that countries that persistently refuse to carry out their obligations within the Community should suffer in the form of fines.
    Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, on the early-day motion that has been mentioned today, has gone down extremely well with a very high proportion of Conservative Members? I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers on their efforts to ensure that the British line stands firm on those vital matters. I totally repudiate the remarks by the shadow Foreign Secretary suggesting that the motion was inspired at No. 10 Downing street. It came from the Conservative Back Benches.
    Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is delighted. I gracefully accept his congratulations.
    Mr. Radice: Were the right hon. Gentleman a Back Bencher, would he have signed that early-day motion?
    Mr. Hurd: I would have had a long talk with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) first.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the role of political leadership to explain to the country and to the House the issues of principle and detail? Is not
    916
    there a grave danger that the House and the country will be left without leadership on the vital issue of economic and monetary union?
    Mr. Hurd: I know of few political subjects that have been so thoroughly discussed and debated in the past months as that one was. Of course, my hon. Friend is right—there will need to be a constant process of debate and coming and going. As I understand it, the House will have an opportunity between now and the summit to go over those issues again.

    Single Market
    Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent meeting with other Foreign Ministers from other EC member states on progress towards establishment of the single market.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Single market questions were not discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 13 and 14 May. Single market business is normally conducted at the Internal Market Council, where Department of Trade and Industry Ministers represent the United Kingdom. The Internal Market Council next meets on 18 June.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister insist that the United Kingdom has the right to ban the importation of dangerous dogs, illegal drugs and illegal arms at the frontiers of this country, irrespective of the single market? If those overpaid, arrogant, appointed Commissioners try to interfere, will he muzzle them or will he be the lapdog of the Common Market, as the Government have been for the past 12 years when they have capitulated to every demand made by the Common Market?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman was once an overpaid Member of the European Parliament and I dare say that, given the marginality of his seat, he may soon be looking for another European seat.
    The United Kingdom does not share the Commission's views on the abolition of border controls. Frontier checks will continue to be necessary to prevent illegal immigration, terrorism, drug trafficking and serious crimes, as well as the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the intergovernmental conference which is under way is about something completely different from the single market? The draft treaty from the Luxembourg presidency is about who controls economic, foreign and immigration policies and much else. Does it strike my hon. Friend as extraordinary that the newly pin-striped socialist nellies have no policy on that whatsoever?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is right to say that intergovernmental conferences range over wide issues. They discuss the future of the European Community and European union and, as my hon. Friend said, the Government are at the centre of that debate. We intend to ensure that the next steps that the Community and the European union take will have the fingerprints of Britain all over them and that our influence is well brought to bear. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the

    917
    Labour party has spent a generation campaigning for withdrawal from the Community and now does not exactly know which way to move. One part of the party is manned by Europhobes, another part by Europhiles and it is led by Europhoneys.
    Mr. Robertson: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be a bit of a holiday atmosphere—will hon. Members please settle down.
    Mr. Robertson: I was tempted to ask whether, if the Minister had still been the deputy Chief Whip, there would have been any early-day motion for us to discuss. Instead, I shall point out the dramatic contrast between the words of the Secretary of State for Employment which appeared in the Financial Times last Monday, which suggested that the British Government's stance on the social charter had softened, and the hard-line approach taken on the same day in the Foreign Affairs Council by the Foreign Secretary, who said that the British Government opposed the social charter. If majority voting on social affairs is proposed, will the British Government use their veto at the intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am able to give a simple answer on both the hon. Gentleman's points. I shall deal first with the social action programme within the Community and the general action taken by the Community on social issues. The hon. Gentleman will know—I wish that he would also make it known to his hon. Friends—that the United Kingdom is the only member state so far to have implemented all 18 of the directives due for implementation. We have an excellent record on social issues, for which I make no apologies.
    Secondly, the Government and their predecessors during the past 12 or 14 years have invested a considerable amount of effort, with the support of the British people, in shaping the way in which we think that industrial relations should be conducted in this country. The result of that policy during the past decade has meant that we now enjoy the best industrial relations that we have enjoyed for many years, which has enabled our nation's economy to prosper in a way that it has not done before. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend those achievements to be reversed by an extension of qualified majority voting within the Community.
    Mr. Marlow: Whatever the merits of the issue, did we give the European institutions, within the single market, the right to decide about tobacco advertising? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is one thing for the House to surrender powers to the European Community but that those powers should not be acquired by stealth.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that Britain's support for the single market and Britain's decision to achieve it by qualified majority voting was a wise decision and that the implementation of the single market is the driving force behind the Community. As regards the proposed directive on tobacco advertising, it is only a proposal. It raises a substantial number of difficulties, not merely for Britain but for many other member states.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate answer from the Minister, who is a servile Euro-fanatic, I ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me clear up this matter. It is certainly legitimate to ask to raise matters on the Adjournment, but not by making a speech and giving a foretaste of what the hon. Gentleman may say if he gets that Adjournment debate.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We support the Sri Lankan Government in their efforts to overcome the terrorist challenge that they face, but at the same time we have made very clear our concerns that all parties must fully respect human rights.
    Mr. Battle: In pressing the Sri Lankan Government to pursue a political solution to the conflict between the Sinhala and the Tamils, can the Minister assure me that our Government will support the Australian initiative for mediation by the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have always made it clear that if there is any helpful part that we can play through mediation at the request of the Sri Lankan Government, we shall do so.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Has my hon. Friend seen the same reports that I have received on the local elections in Sri Lanka, saying that they were free and fair and that Tamils stood and were elected? Is it significant now that, in response to the tragedy in India, the voice of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was heard from that organisation's European headquarters in London? Is not it time that the Foreign Office and the Home Office got together to deal with those people who are essentially here on bogus visas?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can confirm that it is our judgment that the elections were free and fair. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), to whom I have spoken, were observers at those elections, and I am happy to say that they endorse that judgment, as does the high commissioner in Sri Lanka.
    On the other matter that my hon. Friend mentioned, of course, should any evidence of illegal activity be noted or observed by anyone in London, that would be a matter for the police. At present, the LTTE's office in London is entitled to stay here. If anyone can provide any evidence that should be drawn to the attention of the police, we shall be happy to do that.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister any information about whether Tamil Tigers were involved in the cruel assassination of Rajiv Gandhi? What communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government about Mr. Gandhi's assassination?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No evidence of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman has come to our knowledge. Let us hope that evidence is soon available about the identity of

    919
    the perpetrators of that dreadful crime. Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, Her Majesty the Queen, have sent messages to Mr. Gandhi's family and to the Indian Government about that terrible incident.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister agree that the elections in Sri Lanka—which everyone concurred were free and fair—open up a period of political stability in that country? Does he agree that that, along with the exceptional talents of its people, will ensure that Sri Lanka plays a great and dominant role in the future?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much hope that my hon. Friend is right. We welcome the elections as having been free and fair. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that Sri Lanka has other problems to attend to before can move swiftly forward on a path of prosperity.

    Yugoslavia
    Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions with the Government of Yugoslavia.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I visited Yugoslavia from 25 to 28 February and met representatives of the Federal and Republican Governments. The Yugoslav Prime Minister, Mr. Markovic, called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 April. I saw the deputy Foreign Minister on the same day. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in touch with the Foreign Minister.
    Sir Russell Johnston: When the Minister contacts the Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia, will he tell him, first, that in the view of all democratic opinion in Europe no military solution to Yugoslavia's regional and national problems would be acceptable and, secondly, that the British Government would be willing to argue in the European Community in favour of the EC's taking on a role of mediation and perhaps even providing a peace-keeping force?
    Mr. Hogg: On the role of the Yugoslav army, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a disaster if it were used in the way that he described. It should be used only as a genuine peace-keeping force within Yugoslavia.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that the European Community should play such a role. However, we should explore the possibility of finding within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe some method for offering good offices to the republics and provinces of Yugoslavia. To achieve that and make it effective would require the consent of all relevant parties.
    Mr. Wareing: Have not the Government shown a complacent attitude to Yugoslavia? Do not the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia threaten to overflow into other parts of Europe? As Europeans in one European home, we now have a responsibility. Should not the Government make a positive attempt to bring the European Community into discussions with the Federal Government of Yugoslavia and recognise that Federal Government as a proper member of the Council of Europe?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework. We have not been complacent. Indeed, our intervention in early January was given credit by the Croatian people for having prevented an invasion of Croatia by the Yugoslav army at that time. I do not believe that the European Community has a role to play. I have said that the CSCE might have a role to play if we could persuade all the parties to agree to use their good offices.

    Arab-Israel Dispute
    Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress to date in resolving the Arab-Israel dispute.
    Mr. Hurd: We welcome continuing American efforts to restart the middle east peace process, as I emphasised to Mr. Baker in Washington on Monday. With our EC partners, we have given them our full support. There has been some progress towards acceptance of the idea of a peace conference. Important differences remain, but there is enough encouragement to wear down those differences in order to get a conference under way.
    Mr. Hogg: Has the Foreign Secretary read the remarks attributed to Mr. David Gore-Booth, an Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office? Do those remarks assist the Government's endeavours with the peace process, and are senior civil servants at the Foreign Office entitled to make such speeches under the cloak of a personal capacity? Will the right hon. Gentleman please clarify the position on that?
    Mr. Hurd: After speaking on 20 March to a meeting of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, on lines which set out Government policy, Mr. Gore-Booth answered questions. A report on this appeared just the other day. Some of his answers gave personal views, not Government policy, as he made clear at the time. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Mr. Gore-Booth is a talented and experienced public servant. I intend to take no further action.
    Sir Dennis Walters: Despite the recent tendentious press attacks aimed at undermining Britain's role in the middle east, which have just been aired again, does not my right hon. Friend agree that Britain and Europe have an important part to play, either in supporting Secretary Baker's initiative or in replacing it if it is blocked because of Israeli intransigence, as, regrettably, now seems likely?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree about supporting it. I do not believe that a European initiative could replace the active and energetic efforts of the United States. That is the view of the Twelve. We have deliberately stepped back from putting our own ideas and initiatives directly so as to give Mr. Baker's efforts a fair wind. I still think that that is the right policy.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be no permanent peace in the middle east until there is a Palestinian state? A clear statement on those lines by the British Government and other Governments would accelerate a long drawn out peace process that has no prospect of success while the Americans accept that there is an Israeli veto on the proposition.
    Mr. Hurd: We believe in the right of the Palestinians to exercise self-determination. The outcome of that is not for us to decide. To get this process under way, a conference must be held, which must include both tracks of negotiation—between Israel and the Arab states, which are still in a state of war or a state of belligerency with her, and between Israel and representative Palestinians. That, in essence, is the Baker plan, and we believe that it is the only sensible way to proceed.
    Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if progress is to be made there must be confidence-building measures on both sides? One important confidence-building measure, if the United Nations is represented at the conference, would be the rescinding of the "Zionism is racism" resolution.
    Mr. Hurd: I think that that would be difficult to achieve, but my hon. Friend is right about confidence-building measures. An important confidence-building measure would be a stop to new settlements on the west bank. If that were forthcoming, it would be reasonable to ask Arab states to look at the operation of the boycott. It is possible to imagine, on both sides, confidence-building measures that would help the parties to get to grips with the essential central matters of substance.
    Mr. Anderson: We pay tribute to the tireless efforts of Mr. Baker in seeking to find an acceptable peace formula for the middle east. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether, plausibly, there is any life left in those peace efforts, as Syria appears to have been written out of the script and the Israeli Prime Minister has said in terms that there will be no trading of land for peace?
    Mr. Hurd: Following my talk with Mr. Baker on Monday, I believe that there is enough encouragement —though not a breakthrough—for him to persevere. That is also his view. The issues that have not yet been successfully tackled are the exact role of the United Nations in the process and whether the conference would be a once-for-all conference which would launch the discussions on the two tracks that I have described or whether it would be resumed from time to time.
    Those are important points of difference. There is also the question of Palestinian representation, on which some progress has been made. But the points of difference are not so overwhelming as to justify writing off the whole process.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend really believe that Mr. Gore-Booth's not-so-youthful indiscretions really helped Britain in its role as an honest broker in the middle east? Does he agree that any Minister who was as indiscreet as that mandarin would have been asked for his or her resignation? Should not Mr. Gore-Booth be treated similarly?
    Mr. Hurd: I have said what I have to say on that matter. When people go to meetings which they believe to be private and answer questions in an expressly personal capacity, the House must show some understanding of their position. I have confidence in Mr. Gore-Booth, with whom I have worked for a long time and, as I have said, I intend to take no further action in the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, we have close dialogue with the
    922
    Government of Israel—perhaps closer and more intimate than for some years. I welcome that and intend to maintain it, and I see no difficulty in doing so.

    Iraq
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives of political groups within Iraq.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I met representatives of political groups from Iraq on 7 and 12 March and on 22 April. I have no date set for another meeting. However, representatives are in regular contact with Foreign Office officials.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that every possible pressure will be kept on Saddam Hussein during the period of the discussions in Baghdad between the Kurdish leaders and the Iraqi Government? If the Iraqi Government in any way delay finalising those talks, can it be made very clear to them that they invite external intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq?
    Mr. Hogg: We certainly think it desirable that the Iraqis should enter into an agreement with the Kurdish representatives with a view to establishing an autonomous region within Iraq. There are various points at which, under the Security Council resolutions, we can exercise pressure on the Iraqi Government. To the extent that that is proper, we shall do so.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it not incomprehensible to many people that a beast like Saddam Hussein, against whom the world took up arms, should be able to bring to trial and sentence a British subject?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend that that was a deplorable event. It was also in clear breach of a number of Security Council resolutions which required the release of third country nationals then held in Iraq. There are various types of pressure that we can put on Iraq. We have already made it plain that we shall be remarkably unsympathetic to any attempt to relax sanctions. Furthermore, we have made it plain that the attempt by the Iraqi Government to persuade us to unfreeze assets held within United Kingdom jurisdiction is likely to fail.

    Cyprus
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support those Cypriot politicians who are working for a peaceful solution to the problem of partition in Cyprus.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I recognise the hon. Member's close interest in this subject and, indeed, his wide knowledge of Greek culture. I am sure, therefore, that he will be pleased to know that Her Majesty's Government are giving full support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to secure a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus dispute.
    Mr. O'Hara: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the beautiful island of Cyprus has seen far too much human misery and experienced far too much drag on its economy as a result of 17 years of partition? Does he

    923
    agree that, for historical reasons, Her Majesty's Government have a particular obligation to use their good offices to solve the problem? Does he agree that there has never been a better time for progress, with Turgut Ouzel increasingly recognising that the Cyprus problem is a major block to his ambitions for good relations with the west? The Gulf war has drawn attention to other United Nations resolutions, which have not been so enthusiastically pursued. There is increasing recognition by politicians on both sides of the divide in Cyprus that there must be a peaceful solution. Will the Minister therefore send the Government's congratulations to President Georghios Vassiliou who, in this weekend' elections [Interruption]—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a rather long question.
    Mr. O'Hara: I am asking the Government to send congratulations to President Vassiliou because in the elections at the weekend two thirds of the Greek electorate of Cyprus voted for his policies for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic of Cyprus.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's question. He will be aware that the "noises off" were raised not so much in disagreement, but because his question was a tiny bit prolix. The Government strongly support the efforts made by the United Nations and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the stature and importance of the United Nations in world affairs has increased substantially in the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with the United Nations Secretary-General on 20 May. We shall continue to support the Secretary-General in his efforts.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the United Nations should now make a stronger effort as there is a better atmosphere with the Turks in that part of the world? Surely the United Nations can now take firmer action.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the United Nations Secretary-General's representative is pursuing separate discussions with the parties to the dispute with a view to the resumption of inter-communal dialogue. He proposes to report to the Security Council in July and we very much hope that his report will be encouraging.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members who take an ongoing interest in Cyprus argue for a united Cyprus in which the rights of both communities, Greek and Turkish, are honoured? Is he also aware that one of the great stumbling blocks is the attitude that Mr. Denktash repeatedly takes when Turkish Cypriots wish to meet Greek Cypriots to discuss how they want to see their island developed? Mr. Denktash always refuses to allow Turkish Cypriots to leave the north to meet Greek Cypriots. Will the Minister make those views known to Mr. Denktash and tell him that he is in no way building goodwill or confidence by that attitude?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will know as he takes a close interest in these matters, Greek Cypriots attach fundamental importance to territory, rights of return, settlement and property, while on the other hand, for the Turkish Cypriots, security and political equality are the key concerns. What we wish to see, what the hon.
    924
    Gentleman wishes to see and what the United Nations is working towards is one state and two communities. We must keep our eyes firmly fixed on that.

    Latin America
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the dialogue between the European Community and Latin America.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: This dialogue has been strengthened by the ministerial level discussions that the European Community held with the countries of central America in Managua on 18 and 19 March and with the Rio group in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 April.
    Mr. Dickens: So that we get the British sales teams cracking in Latin America, will my hon. Friend outline to the House some of the commercial opportunities available to British sales forces?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The prospects for British exporters in the Latin American continent are very great—the more so now that countries there are fully open to democracy and are pursuing proper market policies. Latin America is a very promising market with 422 million people and a gross domestic product in 1989 of $840 billion. It offers substantial opportunities for British exporters who, in 1990, increased their penetration there by 16 per cent.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the self-sufficiency, indeed the very nature of much of the farming in South America, is being destroyed by the lure of easy loot from the common agricultural policy to provide feedstocks for the beef and butter mountains in Europe and that it is causing a dramatic and detrimental change to much local agriculture in South America?
    Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the most crucial issues facing Latin America at the moment is a successful outcome to the Uruguay round—an outcome which opens up European markets to the agricultural products of Latin America. That is an outcome for which Britain is pressing very strongly indeed.

    Hong Kong
    Sir Michael Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in talks on the future development of the port and airport in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: Talks with the Chinese Government on the Hong Kong airport project resumed on 18 May. We and the Chinese Government agree that Hong Kong needs a new airport, and we are making intensive efforts to secure Chinese support for the project.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that recent conversations with the Chinese Government and with the Hong Kong Government suggest that there is widespread support in principle for the early implementation of the project? Does he accept also that there is genuine cause for unease on the part of the Chinese Government over the long-term financial implications of the project? Will he keep an open mind on structures that would allow both governmental and

    925
    commercial linkage to look at some way in which the financial aspects of the project can be monitored without interfering with the administration of the project?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the points that we have been discussing with the Chinese for some time now and we are still discussing it today. We are seeking means of reassuring them on that point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.
    Sir Peter Blaker: While the Government of Hong Kong must remain with and be seen to remain with the United Kingdom until 1997, is it not desirable in present circumstances that there should be many more exchanges of visits and much more dialogue between officials in Hong Kong and officials in China, in the interests of improving mutual understanding?
    Mr. Hurd: I am certainly in favour of that. I believe that there should be—and, under the joint declaration, would be—gradually increasing co-operation and exchanges of visits on such matters. My right hon. Friend will also agree that everyone needs to be clear that the Hong Kong Government retain the ability to administer Hong Kong effectively between now and 1997.

    United Nations
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments and the United Nations to review the mechanisms and structures of the United Nations.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We play a leading part in efforts by members states to bring about effective structures and efficient methods at the United Nations.
    Mr. Sillars: Am I correct in saying that under the provisions of article 96 of the United Nations charter, taking account of the major organs of the United Nations and the specialist agencies, only the secretariat headed by the Secretary-General does not have power to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice? Would not it help the peaceful solution of disputes if he were given such a power?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that supplementary question, which would have been difficult to answer in other circumstances. With all due deference and gratitude for that, however, I cannot be too enthusiastic in my reply. The position is broadly as the hon. Gentleman has described it. However, the United Nations bodies that need legal advice are those bodies which make the decisions—the General Assembly, the Security Council, and other bodies composed of member states. Those are the bodies that need advice from the International Court of Justice. Although we very much welcome all the hard work of the Secretary-General and the success that he has had, it would not be appropriate to press in the direction that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note that the Prime Minister's excellent recent initiative in obtaining a common European policy on matters due to be discussed at the United Nations is a significant development and an important one within the European Community? Would not it also have the advantage of avoiding further discussion about whether Germany should become a
    926
    member of the Security Council because it is most effectively influenced through Britain and France and the European Community common position?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, where there is a common European Community position, permanent members of the Security Council that are also members of the European Community, such as Britain, are more than happy to take account of it. We also make every effort to keep the rest of the Community involved in its activities.

    Occupied Territories
    Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Foreign Secretary of Israel to discuss the future of the occupied territories.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has no plans for a further meeting with Mr. Levy at the moment, but he remains in regular contact with him, particularly on the peace process and the situation in the occupied territories. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), met Mr. Levy at the EC-Israel Co-operation Council in Brussels on 14 May.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the Minister confirm that the continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands in the west bank and Gaza is just as unacceptable and wrong in principle as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Will he take every opportunity to make that simple fact clear and plain to the Israeli Government, whenever he meets them?
    Mr. Hogg: What I shall do, whenever I have the opportunity, is to impress on everybody—the Palestinians, the Arab states, and the Israelis—the importance of starting a peace negotiation. It is that which they must do.
    Mr. Sumberg: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that, when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, one of the first people to back Iraq was Yasser Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Bearing that fact in mind, is it not unrealistic and unacceptable to pressurise the Israeli Government now into sitting down and negotiating with the PLO and others who seek Israel's destruction?
    Mr. Hogg: The PLO certainly discredited itself by its conduct during the Gulf war. We are not pressurising the Israelis to sit down at the same table with the PLO, but we do say that it is extremely important that the Palestinians who are at the table are able to speak with authority and carry conviction among the people whom they purport to represent.
    Mr. Janner: Before there are any further meetings with the Foreign Secretary of Israel, whether concerning the occupied territories or any other matter, would it not be a good idea for at least one Minister to dissociate the Government from the statements made by Mr. Gore-Booth, especially as they were made at a so-called private meeting reportedly attended by more than 100 people? Perhaps it would be better to move Mr. Gore-Booth so that he could represent Her Majesty's Government in Syria, Iraq or some other enlightened regime elsewhere in the world.
    Mr. Hogg: I have to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that when he gets to his feet I smell the strong smell of humbug.

    Lebanon
    Mr. Adlley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Lebanon.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We congratulate President Hrawi and his Government on Lebanon's continuing progress towards peace and reconciliation. Their efforts enjoy our full support. I hope to visit Beirut soon.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for his forthcoming visit, notwithstanding the fact that Israeli tanks are yet again massing on the Lebanese border? Will he confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the Ta'if agreement and also the implementation of United Nations resolution 245, which calls on the Israelis to withdraw from the part of Lebanon that they are currently occupying?
    Mr. Hogg: I am very much looking forward to going to Beirut. We welcome the fact that the Lebanese Government are reasserting control over that country. We think that the Ta'if agreement is an important element in that process. We look to an early withdrawal from the Lebanon of all foreign forces.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the problem of the British hostages in Lebanon is indirectly linked with the Muslim hostages who went missing in the Christian enclave north of Beirut, and in view of the improved circumstances in the Lebanon, have the Government made any progress in identifying the location of the missing Muslim hostages?
    Mr. Hogg: I will do all that I can when I am in the Lebanon to carry forward our policy of securing the release of hostages. There is no more important issue on our agenda on the Lebanon and Iran.

    Burma
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the current Government in the republic of Burma.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend wrote to General Saw Maung, chairman of the ruling military council in Burma, on 6 July last year welcoming the democratic election in May and urging respect for human rights and for the wishes of the people expressed in that election. We have since reinforced that message several times.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that while Burma may have moved away from the world headlines, Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and is banned from leading her party and taking part—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on. Mr. Mitchell.
    Mr. Mitchell: Some 25 Opposition Members of Parliament in Burma have been sentenced to long periods in prison, 3,000 people are political prisoners imprisoned without trial and 15,000 people have fled the country to escape arrest and intimidation. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that outrage is kept before the world's attention and that Her Majesty's Government make strong representations themselves and through the European Economic Community about this outrageous state of affairs?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to support the condemnation that my hon. Friend expressed. We condemn the failure of the Burmese military authorities to give power to the people who have been democratically elected. We condemn their outrages in terms of human rights and their imprisonment of political opponents—including, of course, the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for the first week after the recess?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for the week following the spring adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 4 JUNE—Second Reading of the Child Support Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 JUNE—Opposition day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
THURSDAY 6 JuNE—Remaining stages of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill.
FRIDAY 7 JUNE—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Subject for debate to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet to consider European Community documents as follows:
Tuesday 4 June at 4.30 pm:
Committee A will consider document No. 5518/91 relating to the import of animals.
Wednesday 5 June at 10.30 am:
Committee A will consider documents Nos. 10749/90 and 10837/90 relating to the specific character and origin marking of foodstuffs.
Committee B will consider document No. 8460/90 relating to data protection.
[Tuesday 4 June

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Committee Document

5518/91

Third Country Imports of Live Animals

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
HC 29–xviii (19990–1991)
Wednesday 5 June
European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 10749/90

Foodstuffs: Certificates of Specific Character

(b) 10837/90

Foodstuffs: Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin

i
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29–xii(1990–91) and HC 29–xx (1990–91)

(b) HC 29–xi(1990–91) and HC 29–xix (1990–91)

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document

8460/90

Processing of Personal Data and Information Security

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 29–iv (1990–91).]
Dr. Cunningham: Given the urgent need to act on the issue of vicious dogs, why is not legislation to take the
930
necessary action being introduced at the earliest opportunity, in the first week after the recess? As the Government have deliberately and consistently blocked proposals to introduce a dog registration scheme—against which the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House have voted, against the advice even of their hon. Friends—may we have some assurance that when the legislation is published it will include provisions for a dog registration scheme?
We are to have yet another Local Government Finance Bill from this Government. People have lost count of the number of Local Government Finance Bills that we have had and of the changes that have been made. Does the Leader of the House recall the assurances that were given to hon. Members in all parts of the House during the debates on the Local Government Act 1984—that councils with small budgets would never be the subject of capping proposals under this Government? Does he recall that just a year ago the present Secretary of State for the Environment said, when he wrote to The Times on 10 May 1990—
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are business questions. The hon. Gentleman should ask about the business for the week following the spring recess.
Dr. Cunningham: I am speaking about the very business that is to occupy the House after the recess. Does the Leader of the House recall that the present Secretary of State for the Environment said that universal capping would be an act of centralisation which the nation could well do without? What has changed since May of last year when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that? Can we be told when this Bill, the most centralising and the most ignominious control of local government ever introduced, is to be published? When will the Bill be in the Vote Office? As the Leader of the House —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that we are going into recess tomorrow, but could we just settle down and deal with today's business in a serious manner?
Dr. Cunningham: Has the Leader of the House seen the decision of the Royal College of Nursing, unanimously taken, to press the Government yet again to stop—
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing out of order, but what is it?
Mr. Holt: It is only a short while ago that, when it came to business questions, the Leader of the Opposition undertook that role. Arbitrarily, the Labour party changed that. One of the reasons that it changed it was the verbosity of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now—
Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Well, I am afraid some points of order are bogus.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for whom the Opposition Front Bench designate for business questions. It is not a point of order.
Dr. Cunningham rose—
Mr. Holt: It is a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat?
Mr. Holt: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that you will not allow this side of the House to speak. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is behaving in his usual boorish fashion.
Dr. Cunningham: We are well used to the whingeing from the Conservative side of the House.
Has the Leader of the House seen the decision, unanimously taken, by the Royal College of Nursing to press the Government yet again to stop proposals for the creation of new national health service trusts? As the Government have a day in the first week after the recess, the Friday, to which they have not yet allocated a subject, why can we not have a debate in Government time about the crisis in the national health service so that, if the Government have such a good story to tell, the nation can hear it?
Mr. MacGregor: First of all, the hon. Gentleman asked me about dogs. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement about legislation immediately after this business statement. We shall introduce legislation as soon as possible, and that means very soon. I note that the Labour party has given its broad support to the objectives of this measure. As my right hon. Friend will make clear, we are endeavouring to make the Bill concentrate on the key issue of the breeds of dog that are causing the present difficulties. I voted against dog registration for a variety of reasons, one of which was that it did not seem to focus on this key issue, which is what the Bill is about. The country expects us to act on this issue as soon as possible, and will want speedy action on the relevant measures. The country will not forgive the Labour party if it tries to obstruct the measure. I hope that it will not, but will co-operate fully to achieve the objectives of the Bill as quickly as possible.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Local Government Finance Bill. One of the issues on which that Bill focuses is an increase in capping on authorities with a turnover of less than £15 million. The hon. Gentleman will know that since last year there has been a major change, which is that we propose to introduce the council tax. That tax has many merits and, unlike the Labour proposals, it deals with the criticisms of both the domestic rating system and the community charge. As we said in the consultative documents on the council tax, it is necessary to ensure that we have some protection against authorities that substantially increase expenditure. For the hon. Gentleman to claim that this is a great centralising measure is, like so many of his remarks on these issues, right over the top. We already have considerable capping powers. As I have explained to him, we now propose a council tax rather than the community charge.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the Bill is likely to be published. It will be published by the time the House rises tomorrow. Therefore, we shall be giving the normal two weekends for the Bill to be considered before the debate on Monday 3 June.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about national health service trusts. I am glad that he used the phrase "national health service trusts" which, of course, makes it absolutely clear that the trusts are part of the national health service. We have made it clear that we will continue this policy because it is very much in the interests of the
932
funding of the national health service that all its expenditure is as efficient as possible. The NHS trusts are a way of achieving that.
As for Friday's debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that on recent business statements I have been urged to find time for debates on a wide range of issues. We now have an embarrassment of choices. We have already had many debates on the national health service, and the House has urged me to consider other subjects on which we have not had a recent debate. We are endeavouring to decide which of those many subjects should be chosen for 7 June.
Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time to make a statement to the House not only to confirm that questions to the Secretary of State for Health on hospital trusts within the national health service are in order, but to follow up inquiries which I trust he has made into yesterday's activities in the House when the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) sought to mislead the House and, even more disgracefully, sought to involve in a party political charade a Clerk of the Table Office?
Mr. MacGregor: I should make the position clear, as it was made clear yesterday by you, Mr. Speaker, when you said:
"The answer to that question … is yes."
That is absolutely unequivocal, and you went on to say:
"I have already said that the Table Office is accepting questions."—[Official Report, 21 May 1991; Vol. 191, c.782.]
This is the second time that the Labour party has raised a wholly inaccurate and wrong scare about NHS trusts. I am sure that the House will regret the fact that, on both occasions, the Labour party has not seen fit to withdraw.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House has mentioned legislation on dogs but, although he might reasonably expect co-operation to get it through speedily, does he accept that there should be careful consideration of the terms of such legislation? Will he guarantee that adequate time will be given in both Houses for consideration of the Bill?
In the first week after the recess, what measures will create one more job or do something to decrease the growing number of the unemployed in this country? Can we have a debate on the growing scandal of unemployment?
Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I have already said on many occasions that I am perfectly happy for the question of unemployment to be raised in the House as often as possible, because our record on unemployment measures is streets ahead of that of the Opposition. We have had many opportunities to debate that issue.
On the first point, we are anxious to publish the Bill as soon as possible, so that the House will have the opportunity to consider it. Clearly, we want proper parliamentary consideration of it in both Houses. Given the urgency of the situation and the desirability of ensuring that the dreadful incidents that have occurred recently do not recur or, at least, that we take every possible action to prevent them from recurring, I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to act quickly
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Government's response to the previous two Procedure Committee reports showed considerable

933
agreement with many of its recommendations? They need to be debated in the House, as does the resolution for them to come into operation. I wonder whether we might have a debate on that next week, or, if not, very soon afterwards.
Mr. MacGregor: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as Chairman of that Committee and to all the members of the Committee. The effectiveness of the Committee's work is shown by the fact that, as he says, the Government have accepted many of its recommendations. The first stage is clearly for me to put the orders on the Order Paper, which I hope to do fairly shortly after we return. I should then wish to give the House a short time to consider them, and I hope to be able to deal with that before the House rises.
Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Leader of the House see the excellent publicity and does he know of the great public interest in the launch of the Labour party's proposal to set up a Greater London authority to act as a strategic authority for London? I have a copy here if he would like to see it. In view of the fact that he has not announced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give back the silver."] I will give it back when we have the Greater London authority. As the Leader of the House has not announced a subject for the Adjournment debate on 7 June, may we have a debate on strategic planning in London and on the fact that, under this Government, the standard of living and of life in London has deteriorated rapidly?
Mr. MacGregor: I have certainly seen the publicity and I have also read some of the leaders about the Labour party's proposals, which were pretty devastating critiques. It is clear that the bureaucratic, profligate and extremist Greater London council, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, was deservedly unloved and that its passing was understandably unlamented. The proposal to reincarnate son of GLC will go down extremely badly with the electorate because it was not a period or an institution that was popular or effective.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on London so that the widest possible publicity can be given to the Labour party's document? The Labour party speaks about creating a vision of quality, but the people of London will see that the creation of a Greater London authority means a vision of filthy streets, uncollected rents, rotten services and overweaning bureaucracy. Is not the Labour party trying merely to saddle all Londoners with more red ink, more red tape and more red Ken?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that point has been made by commentators this morning. There is no doubt that no one was sad to see the Greater London council go except for people such as the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). No one else was. Its passing was unlamented and it will remain so.
Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the typically charming, friendly and generous refusal of the
934
Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to reply to the question on Mr. Gore-Booth, may we have a debate on whether civil servants who speak in so-called private meetings attended by more than 100 people are entitled to put forward their views in a private capacity and continue in their jobs when in the process they are palpably speaking against Government policy as expressed by everyone other than the Minister of State?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the matter during Question Time and I have nothing to add to what he said.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate as soon as possible on priorities in public spending? Bearing in mind that Nye Bevan once said that socialism is the language of priorities, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a copy of the book "What Nye said" to be placed in the Library of the House? Unfortunately, although the Leader of the Opposition claims authorship of the book in several of his "Who's Who" entries, the Library can find absolutely no trace of it. Would it not benefit all hon. Members to have the views of the Leader of the Opposition on priorities as an absolute, overriding and top priority?
Mr. MacGregor: I have certainly noted my hon. Friend's remarks. I would recommend another book which, if I recall correctly, was called "Inside the Treasury", written by Lord Barnett—Joel Barnett—Chief Secretary to the Treasury during a horrendous period under the previous Labour Government when public expenditure went completely out of control. It is an interesting book because it is riddled with quotations on how the Labour party succumbed to every spending pressure and simply did not control public expenditure. In the coming months, we need many more opportunities to debate that, because it is exactly what would happen again.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the pressure on business today, will hon. Members concentrate on the business statement and not deal with matters which might more correctly be dealt with on a different platform?
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House will be aware of the important statement that was made earlier this week about post-school education in Scotland, as it is a matter in which he takes a great interest. Given the continuing contravention by the House of its Standing Orders, in that there is not a Scottish Select Committee to discuss such vital matters, does the right hon. Gentleman expect that such a Committee will be established after the recess? At the very least, will the Scottish Grand Committee, which has not met for virtually a year, be convened, or have the usual channels clogged up?
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I have said on several occasions in the House about a Scottish Select Committee and I do not expect to add anything more after the recess. I am happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the means by which we can debate his excellent proposals.
Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the increase in crime, especially auto crime, in north Yorkshire, will my

935
right hon. Friend arrange a debate at the earliest opportunity on whether we need to extend the powers available to the judiciary and why magistrates in York have never in the last year used the maximum penalties available to them? Does he agree that such a debate would clearly illustrate that crime does not pay?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, my hon. Friend's message is important and we wish to find every opportunity to put that message over. I cannot promise any Government time to debate that matter in the near future, but he will know that other means are available to him to raise the matter in the House.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the Leader of the Flouse provide time for an early debate on this week's Home Affairs Select Committee report on horse racing? Will he explain to the Home Secretary that all my hon. Friends, with the exception of one, who are active members of the all-party group on bloodstock industries and horse racing—incidentally, none of them were called as witnesses by the Committee—wish to express dissent on two or three of the recommendations? They particularly wish to dissent from the criticism of the Jockey Club and the recommendation that it should be replaced.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government will respond to all Select Committee reports in the normal way and within the normal time scale. It may be appropriate to find time for a debate after that.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many hon. Members on his excellent speech pointing out that many building societies are not reducing their interest rates as fast as the Government are reducing the bank base rate? If that continues and banks do not reduce their mortgage lending rates as fast as the Chancellor is reducing the minimum lending rate, it may be necessary to have a debate in the House on competition in the financial services sector.
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that more building societies will follow the lead of some that have already offered greater choice and flexibility to borrowers who had previously had annual repayment schemes. That was the real point that I was making last night. It is a matter for the building societies and their borrowers, because I believe in choice and variety.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Is the Leader of the House as concerned as some Opposition Members at the development of the European Commission's drafting of food legislation on certain important British products that we have enjoyed in this country for many years, such as mince and beautiful sausages? Our flavoured crisps are now being attacked. Those are important items in the lives of many people. We should have a debate in the House on behalf of the people of this country who want to continue to enjoy products against which the Commission is discriminating.
Mr. MacGregor: I have long experience of those matters. Sometimes, inappropriate proposals are made at an early stage and they should not be pursued by the Commission. The proposal to prohibit flavoured crisps falls into that category. It is not necessary to debate the matter in the House, because any moves to prohibit the production of that food item, which has been marketed
936
safely for years in the United Kingdom, will be opposed by the Government, and we are already making our position clear.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), does the Leader of the House agree that it is high time that we had a debate on procedure and abuse thereof? That would ensure that we did not have the disgraceful scenes that occurred on the Floor of the House yesterday when, under the guise of bogus points of order, the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) wantonly misled the House by saying that the Table Office—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that no Member wantonly or deliberately misleads the House. Will he withdraw that comment, please?
Mr. MacKay: I withdraw the word "wantonly", Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MacGregor: I thought that there was more to come.
It was uncharacteristic of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to pursue a matter that turned out to be inaccurate. He does not normally do so and is falling into the trap of some of his hon. Friends who are pursuing wrong issues and giving an inaccurate impression of NHS trusts.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Since, in South Africa today, so many political prisoners are on hunger strike and the peace process there is at a dangerous stage, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will use the recess to put pressure on President de Klerk to honour his obligations and guarantee that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement immediately after the recess?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, I cannot give any guarantees about statements, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on dog registration that could go wider than the debate on the Bill? Would not that give the House an opportunity to remind the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the essence of a dog registration scheme is ownership, and that in none of the attacks with which the Bill will deal has the issue of ownership been in any doubt, so the idea that a dog registration scheme is relevant to this issue is wrong?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree very much with my hon. Friend and think that, if the Bill is to progress speedily through both Houses—as we wish it to do and as, I think, the country wants us to ensure—it will be important to concentrate precisely on the matters in question and find solutions that are entirely pertinent to the problem.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does the Leader of the House not have a debate about unemployment? For the past 13 months the figures have soared and there are now probably many more than 3 million people unemployed if we include women who do not appear on the register and the half a million young people who are on slave labour schemes. Is it not a fact that the jobs of

937
ambulance men and women up and down the country are now placed in jeopardy because the NHS and the trusts are refusing to cart people back and forward from hospital? Therefore, the 3 million unemployed will be added to by numerous ambulance workers up and down the country. Let us have a debate on unemployment.
Mr. MacGregor: I have said already that we are happy to debate the issue all the time, because our employment policies are very much more designed to deal with ensuring permanent, secure, long-term jobs, which are viable and deliver goods and services effectively. That is part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about NHS trusts.
It is open to the Opposition to use their Supply day for a debate on the subject. I hope that they will, because it will enable us to contrast our policies and proposals with theirs, and demonstrate yet again the point on which they seem to be so sensitive—a national minimum wage will destroy many jobs. I shall be happy for us to have a Supply day debate on the subject. The hon. Gentleman might suggest it to the relevant Opposition spokesmen.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the Leader of the House consider, as I do, that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) owes the excellent staff of the House an apology? At exactly the same time as the hon. Member was saying yesterday that staff were refusing to accept questions—an allegation which I have just heard him repeat today—exasperated staff in the Table Office were protesting that they had been given no such instructions; I heard them say so. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government of this country are more than happy to answer questions in debates on subjects that involve the spending of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on NHS patients in NHS hospitals, whatever they are called, so that the Government can take the credit when the benefit of the reforms comes to the fore?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Government are happy to answer all questions on the NHS because their record is an extremely creditable one. I believe that our policies ensure not only substantial funding, but the effective delivery of services within that funding. It is noticeable that the Labour party has no such policies, which is why it resorts to inaccurate side issues —it is obvious that that is all it can do.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Last week, the Leader of the House said that he could not find time this week for a statement on the World in Action programme about the Larry Goodman empire. In the light of evidence that Government servants have been in receipt of gifts from Mr. Goodman and agriculture in Northern Ireland is suffering as a result of the way in which his empire has spread, will the Leader of the House re-examine the subject and attempt to find time for such a statement when we return after the recess—or are we waiting for the inquiry in the Republic of Ireland?
Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, I cannot find time for that in the week after the recess, but I shall discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. James Paice: When my right hon. Friend considers finding time for a debate on procedures in the House, will he also consider the question of information to hon. Members about what is taking place in the House because I was rather concerned to see early-day motion 861 on coal mining subsidence?
[That this House congratulates the honourable Member for Sherwood on persuading Her Majesty's Government to include the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill in this year's parliamentary programme; congratulates Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for Energy on making the parliamentary time available; notes that this Bill completed its Second Reading on 4th February of this session and all its remaining stages in the House of Commons on 22nd April; and is surprised that this information does not appear yet to have reached the honourable Members for Llanelli, Brent East, Clydesdale, Birmingham, Perry Barr, and Preston, all of whom signed Early Day Motion Number 78, condemning Her Majesty's Government for failing to introduce the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill after it had completed all its stages in the House of Commons.]
That reminds us that five Labour Members, including a Front-Bench spokesman, continued to press the Government to take action on coal mining subsidence even after the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill passed all its stages in the House.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was interested to see that six Opposition Members were urging the Government to do something that we had already done and that had taken up a great deal of parliamentary time, which suggests that some Opposition Members are not exactly following what is going on.
The Government have acted on that matter and I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), as does the early-day motion, because that subject has been a great interest of his and he has had a great deal to do with the fact that we have acted so swiftly on the matter.
Mr. David Winnick: Is there to be a statement on the further responsibilities which are apparently to be given to the Government Chief Whip? We are told in the newspapers that he is to be the Government's troubleshooter—Mr. Fixit. If that is the case, is not it necessary to have a statement because surely, with the way in which the Government are facing a crisis virtually every day, the Chief Whip's job will be virtually redundant, as he will be so busy occupying himself with his second job?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that Conservative Members feel that it is totally unnecessary to have a debate because we know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is doing an admirable job and I am sure that he will continue to do so. I am also sure that he is glad that anything to do with handling the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is not one of his responsibilities.
Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that the wonderful news that inflation has reduced by a huge amount to 6·4 per cent. seems not to have reached the Opposition? Therefore, will he consider giving time at the next available opportunity for a debate on the success of

939
the Government's economic policies and for a comparison of our policies with those of the Opposition, which revolve around spend-tax, spend-tax, spend-tax?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with him, and I am sure that when the House gets back after the recess we shall concentrate upon such matters.
Mr. Ray Powell: I wonder whether the Leader of the House would consider early-day motion 868, tabled by myself and 134 right hon. and hon. Members yesterday,
[That this House expresses deep concern and sympathy at the death of .Jeff Jones, a Rhondda miner, at the Wem Tern licensed coal mine at Pencoed, Mid Glamorgan, and asks the Secretary of State for Energy to hold an immediate inquiry into the safety standards at this and other licensed coal mines and to publish quarterly statistics on safety inspections in those mines.]
May I ask for an early debate on the issue, and especially on the subject of safety in mines? I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, together with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, would like to join me in recording our sympathy to the widow June and daughters Gemma and Jade at their home in Stanley road in Gelli, Rhondda, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I am sure that it will be a comfort to them to know that we share their grief in this tragedy. It is always a sad day when there is a death in a mine and it is a constant reminder of the days when deaths occurred in the mines every week and sometimes every day, especially in Wales. I pay tribute to all those who burrowed with hands, picks and shovels to reach Mr. Jones but who found, after 22 hours, that they had worked in vain. This is yet another reminder that safety in our mines must always be a top priority for any Government.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I come from a coal-mining village and therefore I very much share the sentiments that he has expressed. I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its sympathy to the relatives of Mr. Jones and to pay a tribute to the work that was done yesterday, alas to no avail.
The Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate has responded, as it always does in the case of a fatal accident, by initiating a full and thorough investigation. We must now await the outcome of that investigation, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter so that it enables the whole House to express its sympathy in this tragic incident.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of having another debate on the national health service, specifically on the distribution of spending within the NHS? Is he aware that, within the North West Thames region, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire comprise 45 per cent. of the population, but benefit from only 32 per cent. of spending? The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that a Labour Government would provide no extra money for the NHS, and that the Labour party will fight to prevent redistribution of money away from London to where people actually live. My constituents and others would suffer the effects of such Labour policies.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have other opportunites to make his point in the House, but I cannot say when we shall be able to have another debate on the NHS in Government time. My hon. Friend has made the important point, which should be made constantly, that the Opposition have made it clear that they will not be able to spend any more on the NHS than we have.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Is it not remarkable that we have not debated the Gulf since 21 January—a few days after the outbreak of war? If the outcome of the war did not justify a debate, surely developments in Iraq since then have shown that a debate is long overdue.
Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, I am aware of the desire of many hon. Members to debate this matter, but we must wait for an appropriate time. There are many pressures on Government time between now and the summer recess.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether we could have a debate on the disgraceful, unspecific and cowardly attack on a highly respected public servant, the Hon. David Gore-Booth—particularly when that attack has been co-ordinated by people who have at heart not the interests of the United Kingdom, but the interests of a foreign country, which has quite rightly been the subject of widespread criticism in the House.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to that at Question Time today. I was unable to be present, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Ron Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, SAI in my constituency is likely to close. That is a disgrace, because it is the most efficient fertiliser plant in the United Kingdom. Jobs are important in Leith and throughout the United Kingdom. Can we have a debate about that issue at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on a specific plant. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, he will have to do so in other ways.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Further to the point of order that I raised on Friday, when I urged Treasury Ministers to come to the House to justify and extend the excellent policies that have led to a dramatic fall in the rate of inflation, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate so that the House may fully understand that the Government have reduced inflation from 10·5 to 6·4 per cent.? Has my right hon. Friend noted that that rate compares with an average of 15·5 per cent. under the previous Labour Government? The present Government understand that beating inflation is the only way to remove a socially divisive disease. That underlines our estimate of caring. By allowing inflation to rip when it was in office, the Labour party damaged the people who could least afford to be affected. This Government care and a Labour Government cannot deliver their promises.
Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Reducing inflation to levels comparable with those of our major competitors is the Government's overriding

941
priority. I am sure that there will be opportunities throughout the summer and beyond, as inflation continues to come down, to make the points that my hon. Friend has made.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House consider having an early debate—perhaps immediately after the spring recess—on the problems facing the car industry? Grave concern has been expressed about the effect of Government policies on the industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should arrange such a debate?
Mr. MacGregor: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have a heavy legislative programme to complete in Government time. There are many opportunities for debates outside Government time, and that is how the subject will have to be pursued.
Mr. John Marshall: The debate on 7 June should be on the future government of London, as many people regard the proposed Greater London authority as bureaucratic, bolshevik and unwanted. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed Greater London authority would have more elected members than the old Greater London council? Is he aware that London Labour councils have the worst record for the collection of rates and for empty council houses, whereas Conservative councils have the best school records in London?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes some effective points. As I said, I do not believe that the people of London want a return to the GLC.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement to the House on the continued infiltration of the British security industry by organised crime, especially in the leisure industry? More people are killed and injured each year in Britain by rogue bouncers than by rogue dogs. Every day of the week, someone is injured or even killed by bouncers whose companies have been infiltrated by organised crime. The Secretary of State should make a statement on regulating the industry to drive bouncer companies and those who are involved in organised crime out of legitimate interests such as security.
Mr. MacGregor: I shall not go into the issues or respond to the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made, but he asked for a statement. I do not know whether a statement would be appropriate, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in the Chamber and will have heard what he said.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I wholeheartedly support the request that was made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and by some of my hon. Friends for a further debate on the provision of health care so that we can set out again and again the Government's superb record in the past 12 years, so that I can draw attention to the brand new £18 million community hospital in Cannock and to the increased employment opportunities at the Mental Health Foundation for Mid-Staffordshire NHS trust, so that I may expose the shroud-waving hypocrisy of Opposition Members and so that the Labour party may formally, on
942
the Floor of the House, retract the disgraceful allegations contained in the notorious leaflet that it issued at Monmouth, which suggested that NHS trust hospitals were opting out of the NHS?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that there will be many opportunities for my hon. Friend to make his effective points about the considerable progress in his constituency and about the Labour party's policy. There will be opportunities, therefore, to continue to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the allegations that were made in the leaflet to which my hon. Friend drew attention.
Mr. Dave Nellist: May we have a debate to explore why the Government acquiesced last Saturday in allowing General Augusto Pinochet to arrive at British Aerospace's private aerodrome at Hatfield? On a day when millions of people are mourning the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, can the Government have forgotten that Pinochet organised the assassination of the elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, and in the 1970s and 1980s murdered thousands of decent people in Chile? Is it now Government policy that, after a set number of years, the murder of a head of state is a sanatised, politically acceptable act, as long as the perpetrator is coming here to buy arms?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I cannot see scope for a debate on the issue in the forthcoming week.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend give further urgent consideration to the possibility of having a debate on a national minimum wage? Although the Labour Fabian Society has made it clear that such a policy would cost 800,000 jobs, and although we all know that the figure would be twice as high, does not it remain a key policy of the Labour party, and should not we have a chance to debate it as a matter of urgency in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is clear that that proposal will result in the loss of a very considerable number of jobs. It is interesting that the Fabian Society now corroborates that fact and gives its own estimate. We shall have many opportunities in the weeks ahead to continue to make these points, and I note the embarassment of the Labour party every time the proposal for a national minimum wage is raised.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: The Leader of the House said last week that it would be inappropriate to have a debate on the future of ICI, on the ground that
"That would be a matter for the takeover panel".—[Official Report, 16 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 433.]
Last Friday, the takeover panel gave the green light to Hanson, the asset stripper, causing a great deal of concern in the country at large and to many of my constituents who work for ICI. Will the Leader of the House consider the provision of time to debate this important matter—we are dealing here with the leading manufacturer and second largest exporter in this country—or does he intend to wait for the recess, when Hanson can act without our having any democratic input whatsoever?
Mr. MacGregor: There is no question of our waiting for the recess. We do not have a situation in which action of

943
the sort that I outlined might have to be taken. In my comments last week on referrals, I mentioned not only the takeover panel but also two other bodies. We are not in a situation in which that action is triggered. That being the case, it would not be appropriate to have a debate.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: I support the suggestion that we should have a debate on the visit of General Pinochet to this country. That would give us an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Government neither received General Pinochet nor conferred on him an order of knighthood, as happened during the term of the last Labour Government, when President Ceausescu visited this country.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point that he has made.
Mr. Max Madden: May I ask the Leader of the House to accept that, following the savage attack on Rucksana Khan, the vast majority of people understand that if effective action is to be taken against dangerous dogs it must he based on a national dog register? Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the Government's Bill is introduced it will be debated as quickly as possible, and that it will be framed in such a. way as to enable the House to take a clear decision on the establishment of a national dog register? Will he give an undertaking that, if an amendment to this end is moved, Conservative Members will have a free vote so that they may support something that clearly now has the support of a vast majority of the British people?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already expressed my own view. I do not believe that the issue to be addressed by the Bill—an issue about which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement shortly—is related to a dog registration scheme. It is important that the Bill should focus on the emergency measures that are necessary to prevent, if possible, any further tragic incidents such as the one that involved the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That is the importance of getting on quickly with this measure.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: As my right hon. Friend has not yet decided the business for 7 June, may I commend to him the idea of arranging a debate on the need for a national lottery, for which there is a great deal of support among Conservative Members?
Mr. MacGregor: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it is unlikely that we shall be able to debate that matter for a whole day, as many other issues have been raised. My hon. Friend knows very well that there are other ways in which he personally can pursue the matter.
Mr. Norman Hogg: As the Leader of the House will be aware, there has been only one item of Scottish legislation this Session. Therefore, as has been pointed out already, we have had very little opportunity to debate Scottish issues. Can the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the Scottish economy, the Scottish national health service, or primary school testing in Scotland, all of which are matters of policy in which there is considerable public interest? It is a very long time since there was any Scottish debate on the Floor of the House, and there has certainly been no debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. MacGregor: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he recognises that there are many opportunities for those issues to be raised in other debates in the House. However, I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a statement on the reporting of national health service matters to Parliament and in particular on the question of trusts? May we have an assurance in that statement that there will be no distinction in the way in which questions on health service trusts are answered as opposed to questions about other hospitals that remain in the national health service? At the moment, questions about the internal workings of hospitals can be answered fully by Ministers. May we have the same assurance about questions on health service trust matters?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House and making the wrong point if he tries to suggest that somehow trust hospitals are outside the NHS. My right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to answer questions fully on the health service.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate at the earliest possible moment on the safety of fishermen and fishing vessels? If that is not possible, may we have in the very near future—perhaps in the first week after the recess— a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on the regulations governing the safety of our fishermen? For some years I have been seeking to persuade the Department of Transport to invoke regulations allowing for the provision of immersion suits on fishing vessels. The Department of Transport has refused that sensible measure. I discovered yesterday that the European Commission is to introduce a draft directive on the safety of fishermen that will include among many other things the provision of immersion suits on all fishing vessels above a certain size. Why is the European Community leading us? The Government should have taken such a decision years ago.
Mr. MacGregor: I am not aware of that particular Commission proposal, if indeed it is such at this stage. However, I will raise that point with my two right hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time after the recess to allow the Government to repudiate the disgraceful behaviour of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who has been parading her pro-apartheid views around South Africa, including—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has not been here very long. Normally, if that kind of attack is made on another hon. Member, prior notice is given about it.
Mr. Hain: It may be a case of post-prime ministerial senility.
Mr. MacGregor: That question shows that the hon. Gentleman has a great deal to learn in this House. I certainly do not intend to find time to respond to a charge of that kind.

Dangerous Dogs
4.27 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, I would like to make a statement about dangerous dogs.
As we are all aware, there have been a number of recent attacks by dogs which have left their victims very badly injured. The first of those was the horrific attack on 8 May by two pit bull terriers on Mr. Frank Tempest, which has left him with severe facial and other injuries. The second was an attack on a two-year-old child by a pit bull terrier owned by her grandparents. The third incident, which took place last Saturday, left a six-year-old Bradford girl, Rucksana Khan, very seriously injured. The whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of those dreadful attacks and our wishes for their recovery. Those most recent attacks were of a different degree of seriousness altogether from the great majority of dog-biting incidents.
All three were carried out by American pit bull terriers. The American pit bull terrier is a cross-breed dog, specifically bred for fighting and, in many cases, trained to be aggressive. As has been tragically shown, it is capable of vicious and sustained assault without warning or provocation. Once a pit bull terrier has started an attack, it has been shown to be impossible for full-grown adults to prevent the dog from causing horrific injuries.
The public are increasingly concerned about attacks by those vicious dogs and are entitled to look to the Government to take action to tackle the problem. I have therefore decided to bring before the House as soon as possible this Session legislation which will ban the breeding and ownership of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred especially for fighting. Also included in the ban will be the Japanese tosa, a dog bred for fighting which, apparently, can weigh up to 17 stone. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we have taken action to ban the import of those dogs, as from midnight last night.
I emphasise that the ban will initially apply only to those breeds of fighting dogs, but it is clearly important to prevent new and dangerous breeds coming in to replace dogs which have been banned from domestic ownership. I understand that there are three other possible breeds in the world today.
The legislation will therefore include powers to add other types of fighting dogs to those which are banned.
It is essential to rid the country of the danger from such dogs. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, they have no place in our homes. Owners of those fighting dogs may be able to return them to their country of origin.
It has been put to me that it would be possible to make those dogs safe by neutering them. I am advised that that policy is unlikely to be effective. I am ready to consider further evidence on that point with experts, including the veterinary profession. If that will not be effective, the ban on dogs bred for fighting will mean, sadly, that those types of dogs have to be put down.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the veterinary profession have also suggested that there could be some specific and very tightly drawn exemptions to the ban, and I will be considering that suggestion. I am also considering the question of compensation for owners whose dogs are destroyed.
946
There were many attacks by dogs last year. The types of dogs responsible for those attacks are numerous, and include breeds such as alsatians, rottweilers, terriers and collies. Many of those attacks, unfortunately, can be laid at the door of irresponsible owners. The Government have always recognised that. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 made the law to control dogs more effective. Courts can now guarantee the destruction of any dog which has shown itself to be dangerous and, as a result, it is quickly put down. That is an important step forward.
Last year, the Government issued a consultation paper on the control of dogs and proposed a number of measures to bring about the safer control of dogs and powers to penalise the irresponsible owner. The response to the consultation paper shows an encouraging measure of support for such action. That includes a tougher criminal offence to penalise dog owners, whatever the breed, who fail to keep their dogs safely under control in public, as well as a power to allow a court to specify the control of a particular dog of any type. That could include muzzling.
The Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House yesterday that the Opposition would co-operate in getting such measures on to the statute book as quickly as possible. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will confirm that in his response today.
Dogs, Mr. Speaker, can provide companionship, friendship and comfort, and they do that for many people, but there is a clear distinction in the public's mind between the domestic pet and a dog that is bred to fight and kill. I hope that our proposals to ban those most dangerous of dogs will therefore command the full support of the House and pass quickly into law.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first join the Home Secretary in offering the Opposition's sympathy for the victims of dog attacks—about 10 a month—who have suffered over the past two years, particularly those to whom our attention was drawn this afternoon? May I go on to welcome the proposal to ban the import of specified categories of vicious dogs and the Government's intention to legislate for the prohibition of their ownership?
The Home Secretary will not be surprised to receive our support for a policy to reduce the number of attacks by such dogs. During the Committee proceedings on the Environmental Protection Bill in March 1990, the Opposition made comprehensive proposals that covered all that he has said today. Those proposals were rejected by the Government and voted down despite Opposition support.
The Home Secretary asked for the Opposition's specific agreement to facilitate the passage of necessary legislation. Of course he has that assurance. The problem is that none of us can be clear what the Home Secretary means by the intentionally imprecise phrase "such legislation", other than the specific ban on a limited number of species. Other action is necessary, but the Home Secretary simply says that there may be legislation providing tougher penalties for owners whose dogs are not kept under proper control. He says that there could be a law requiring muzzling.
Today's statement was disappointingly vague, and will be seen as inadequate by all who have already complained that the Government are not acting with sufficient speed or resolution. This is no time for doubt or prevarication. With 10 serious attacks taking place each month, action is

947
urgently needed, and I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what that should include, in addition to the general prohibition announced today.
Of course, the responsibility for preventing attacks must lie with the dog's owners. My questions are about the Home Secretary's willingness, or will, to take the necessary action to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce stringent safety rules requiring all owners of potentially dangerous dogs to keep them in secure conditions and to allow them into public places only under such control that the safety of the public is assured? That must usually mean their being kept on leads and muzzled.
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are some breeds of dog which, although they are occasionally dangerous, it would be wrong to prohibit altogether? Nevertheless, we believe that there must be some safety standards for their ownership, so I ask the Home Secretary to introduce substantial penalties for any infringement of the safety rules that I have described. Will he provide the necessary resources to ensure that those rules are enforced?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman place an obligation on owners of specified potentially dangerous breeds to take out third party insurance cover so that those whom such dogs damage can be compensated? In one other respect, the right hon. Gentleman was less than precise. Why are rottweilers not to be included in the prohibited category? They are often advertised as having an aggressive temperament, and in the past they have been responsible for vicious attacks. One was responsible for an attack on two police officers only yesterday.
Finally, the Home Secretary knows that virtually all authorities on the care and control of dogs insist that protection and prohibition cannot work successfully without the introduction of a national registration scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Such a scheme would be good for the welfare of dogs as well as for the protection of human beings. It would reduce the number of dogs obtained casually and callously abandoned within a few days. It would enable the Government effectively to enforce their other proposals. Why does the Home Secretary object so much to the idea? He was a great enthusiast for a register of people so as to implement the poll tax; why should we not have a register of dogs to protect the welfare of animals and the safety of citizens?
Mr. Baker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the broad thrust of what I have said about our proposals to deal with fighting dogs. I understand that he believes in and supports our proposal to prohibit not only import but ownership. I welcome that.
I welcome, too, the right hon. Gentleman's support on other matters relating to general legislation on dogs, and I should make it clear that I intend the Bill to make it a criminal offence. with a severe penalty, to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. That would apply to all breeds. I also hope that the Bill will clear up the definition of the word "control" and allow the courts specifically to require muzzling of certain dogs in some circumstances. That can be effectively policed. I hope that we can agree on those matters, too.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically asked about compulsory insurance. I have some sympathy with the idea, and I understand that many household insurance policies cover injuries caused by owners' dogs. However,
948
measures relating to insurance may be rather more complicated than the other measures, and may not be ready in time for the Bill, which I hope to introduce shortly after Whitsun. I do not rule out the idea for further legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether rottweilers should be included. In defining the group of dangerous dogs bred to fight and kill, I sought to draw a clear distinction between such dogs and other dogs. Rottweilers are not bred to fight and kill. Of course, I discussed the matter with the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and the veterinary associations yesterday. They said that there was a clear distinction between dogs bred over decades, or in some cases centuries, to fight and kill, and other pedigree dogs.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman argued again for registration, and I believe that a scheme will be in the Labour manifesto when the election comes. I do not believe that a general registration scheme would have had any effect on the dreadful incident last weekend. If that dog had been registered for £5 and had had a computer number on its collar, it would not have been prevented from attacking that little girl. Moreover, the argument for a registration scheme is that it would identify the owner with the dog. In all the recent incidents, the identification of the owner has not been the problem. The owners have been known in each case.
I am glad that I shall have the support of the right hon. Member and the Labour party on much of the legislation, although I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his last point.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that there are 27 groups of amendments to be debated on the subsequent Bill and that there is an order after that. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue until 5.15 pm. I ask those hon. Members who are called to be brief because it will enable as many hon. Members as possible to be included.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: While expressing our sympathy to the victims of these appalling attacks and welcoming the Government's proposed ban on two species of fighter dogs, does not the Home Secretary recognise that, in proposing his Bill in such vague and uncertain terms, he betrays the Government's unwillingness to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs at root? He has not even made it plain that, in respect of the two breeds to be banned, he is prepared to take the advice of those who say that neutering would be adequate.
Why has the Home Secretary set his face against measures more comprehensive than those which will apply to the two breeds? Of the 465 cases of serious dog attacks in the metropolis of London in the past year, only 111 were by American pit bull terriers. The Home Secretary may believe that it is adequate to tackle a quarter of the problem, but many people in Britain will feel that the Government are falling sadly short.
Mr. Baker: The measures that I have announced represent a comprehensive package affecting all breeds of dogs. The measures on dogs which are out of control in a

949
public place and on control orders involving muzzling of specific dogs have the strong support of the Kennel Club and the RSPCA.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I did not take the advice that the specified families of dangerous dogs should simply be neutered. I have discussed the matter with the various interests. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, if dogs can be made safe by neutering, I shall be prepared to consider it. However, my advice is that a neutered dog can be just as vicious.
The important point to appreciate about pit bull terriers and other cross-breeds is that they are completely unpredictable. That marks them out from other dogs. They can be friendly and docile one minute and complete killers the next. After the last three incidents, the owners said, "Our dog could not possibly have done that. It was friendly." I shall, of course, consider neutering, but I would have to be satisfied that it would secure safety.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of Mr. Roger Mugford, one of the most highly regarded animal psychologists in Britain and a writer on dogs. He said:
"All pit bulls go bad—it is just a countdown from when they are 12 months old."
Mr. Robert Hayward: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a tragic case in my constituency last year. When the case ultimately came to court, the magistrate did not order the destruction of the dog, even though the hospital had to place 100 stitches in a young girl's face and upper body. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the legislation and in his discussions with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, magistrates are given strict and clear guidelines that dogs should be destroyed in such tragic cases?
Mr. Baker: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about that incident. He has seen me about it. It would be wrong for me as Home Secretary or, I suspect, for the Lord Chancellor to comment on the sentence passed by a court. However, I am sure that the fact that he has mentioned it in the House will be noticed by many people.
Mr. Terry Lewis: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement this afternoon, especially as two of the items in it were clearly addressed in early-day motion 840, which I tabled before the three tragic accidents last weekend. May I go further with the Home Secretary and reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about a dog registration scheme? I shall certainly support today's announcement when it is translated into a Bill. However, it does not go nearly far enough. It does not address other problems with dogs in society, which the Home Secretary must tackle.
We need a comprehensive Dogs Act and a neutering programme, we must stop puppy farming and we must engage in an exercise to promote responsible dog ownership. That can be done only through a dog registration scheme. Only the fossilised remains who run the Kennel Club are opposed to such a scheme. Every other organisation in the land which has the welfare of animals and especially dogs at heart is in favour of a scheme. We shall have a scheme in Britain. If the Home
950
Secretary is not forced by the political consequences of the dithering that has taken place to introduce a scheme before the general election, we shall introduce one after it.
Mr. Baker: I will say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I do not believe that, if a registration scheme had been in operation, it would have had any effect on the recent incidents. Many of the owners of these breeds of dog would pay scant regard to registration. I must be frank with the House on that. When I talk to police forces about some of the people who own such dogs, they tell me that such people would not register. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would try to enforce this scheme, but I remind him that, in the Republic of Ireland, where there is a dog registration scheme, in spite of attempts to enforce it, the authorities have managed to register only a third of dogs so far.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today. He may not be aware of a recent case in my constituency in Yardley Wood, in which a young girl was severely attacked by the family pet, which was not one of the dangerous breeds that he has specified. The attack happened while the dog was being fed. Therefore, I welcome the emphasis that my right hon. Friend has placed on responsible ownership. I hope that he will do all that he can further to promote responsible ownership of dogs.
Mr. Baker: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Fortunately, the great majority of dog owners are responsible. One can never exclude the possibilities of incidents in the home with any sort of dog. One only hopes that the dog has been trained by the owner to ensure that incidents do not take place.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Home Secretary accept that his announcement is welcome but belated? If it were not for Rucksana Khan's tragic accident, the Government would not have taken action, despite a long list of similar accidents. Why does not the Home Secretary take immediate action to add such breeds as rottweilers and dobermans, which are also responsible for serious accidents, to the schedule of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976? That would immediately give powers to local authorities to license owners, inspect premises and ensure that proper standards are maintained, bearing in mind public safety.
Why does not the Home Secretary ensure that the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981 on muzzling are enforced as a matter of urgency, rather than wait for the legislation to come to the House, when a dozen more accidents might take place in the meantime?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has not studied it in enough detail. If he had studied the Act a little more carefully, he would have discovered that canus familiaris is specifically excluded from the Act. Therefore, I could not designate certain dogs. That is the reason why we are introducing a measure to identify a group of dogs. We cannot call them a breed. They are a species of dogs and a series of cross-breeds that have to be defined as carefully as we can to ensure that we cover them properly and make sure that the courts will be able to take action against them. One thing that is agreed between the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association and

951
ourselves is that we want those types of dogs to be removed from our society permanently. They made that very clear to me yesterday. What we are examining is the way in which that can be done.
Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) criticise the Government earlier this afternoon for not introducing a Bill next week. Those of us on this side of the House who are members of the all-party animal welfare group are heartily relieved that my right hon. Friend is not adopting a populist or knee-jerk reaction. We are very grateful for the level of consultation that has taken place so far. May we hope that that consultation will continue, that the level of flexibility that has already been shown will continue and that my right hon. Friend will be open to suggestions before the Bill is brought before the House?
Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to consult the various dog interests. I had useful and interesting meetings with them yesterday. As I have already said, there is an identity of interest. It was clear that the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association want to see the elimination of these dogs from our country. They do not want them. It is a question of how we achieve that. They do not want them because these dogs are unpredictable. They can be very gentle one moment and killers the next. We cannot judge their behaviour in future by their behaviour in the past. We have made it very clear that we want to achieve the same objective.
Mr. David Young: As a Bolton girl was involved in one of these incidents, I join those hon. Members who have expressed sympathy for the relatives and for all those who have been injured in these attacks. How does the Minister propose to deal with crossbreeding? Does he accept that, although we would agree to the putting down of animals, it ought to be a measure of last resort?
How does the Minister propose quickly to make this a criminal offence so that people have easy redress? It is bad dog owners who are responsible. We can put down the dogs but not the owners. If the Minister does not intend to have dog registration, does he accept that people who own potentially dangerous dogs that are not on his list should register them at the police station, in the same way as lethal weapons are registered?
Mr. Baker: By identifying these dogs and putting them into this category, one would be eliminating these types of dog. Those who favour neutering will realise that that is the end of the species; if the dogs are all neutered there can be no future puppies. I have already said that I will examine all this, but it would inevitably lead to a large number of dogs being put down. I must ask the House to remember how vicious and deadly these dogs can be. They are trained to fight and to kill. The pit bull terrier has a pressure in its head of 1,000 lb per square inch. It can pull several weights weighing several thousand pounds. They are trained to do that by chasing live cats that are then fed to them.
Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he moved with commendable speed— I must confess almost electric, in Home Office terms, in being able to do so quite so quickly? Will he advise on whether or not
952
the problem about bringing an owner to prosecution is affected by the fact that the dog itself has been destroyed? I understand that, if the dog is destroyed, no proceedings can be brought against the owner. Can that be put right?
Mr. Baker: If a dog is destroyed under the changes that we propose to make, and if the owner is found to have been guilty of having it dangerously out of control in a public place, proceedings will be taken against the owner. It is always possible, of course, for civil actions to be brought against owners, if negligence can be proved.
Mr. William Ross: Does the Home Secretary realise that, although he has named breeds of dog, his real problem is not breeds of dog but types of dog that are bred with the blood lust in them to kill? How will he deal with that problem if he has to go to the court with each individual dog to get that dog muzzled? Surely the only sensible way to deal with the problem is to have a licensing authority that has the power either to grant or to deny a licence to keep a particular dog. Such a licence should not be granted for any dog unless the owner also has insurance against the damage that the dog might cause.
Mr. Baker: As I said, we are dealing with a particular group of dangerous fighting dogs. It is not a question of licensing them and letting them go on. The dog interests in the country clearly want these types of dog to be removed from our society. That is the purpose and the intention. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about definition. All dogs are of the same species. It is not possible to determine the type of dog by a method such as DNA fingerprinting. The existence of pedigree allows us to distinguish certain breeds, but the cross-breeds are very difficult to define scientifically or legally.
I have consulted experts about the definition. We plan to specify in the ban the type of dog commonly known as the pit bull terrier and the Japanese tosa, together with other dogs that appear to have been bred for fighting. I believe that these definitions can be made to stand up. We shall also take powers in the Bill to ensure that they can be tightened up should scientific knowledge in this area change and should it become easier to define dogs.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As a former breeder and show judge of great Danes— [Interruption.] I know that we all look like our pets, but do not be rude to me— and also as a former boarding kennel owner, may I say that the vast majority of the big breeds have lovely natures? It is only a tiny minority that are bred by irresponsible breeders. Bona fide breeders will not use bad temperament in their breeds to produce puppies. I am sure that the Home Secretary has heard that from the Kennel Club.
In the case of the pit bull terrier, we are talking about exterminating the complete breed. Whether we call it a breed or a species, we have a problem. Some of the pit bull terriers will be used to produce half-breeds and three-quarter-breeds. It will take an expert to decide whether it is a pit bull terrier. Notwithstanding that fact, I honestly feel that, because some of those dogs are real pets and have been with their families for many years, we ought to give their owners a reasonable time to find homes for them in countries where it is not illegal to have them. That would be a humane approach. We should not give them too long, but they ought to be given long enough, if we are to be humane.
Mr. Baker: I had not appreciated that my hon. Friend was a big breeder. [Laughter] I said "breeder". I have some sympathy with his point. If some of these dogs have been imported and the countries from which they came are prepared to take them back, a reasonable time should be allowed. However, most other countries in the world are introducing legislation that is very similar to what we are doing in the United Kingdom about these dogs.
Mr. Alan Williams: May I remind the Home Secretary that one attack every third day in the London area alone would have been avoided if only the Home Office had responded to an early-day motion tabled by 50 of us on 1 May 1990 warning of the nature of just these animals and the need to ban them.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman more precisely about compensation? That is crucial. This breed of dog is possessed all too often by people of an irresponsible disposition. There are over 10,000 of these dogs. Does the Home Secretary recognise the danger that, if just 10 per cent. of them were to decide to abandon their dogs instead of destroying them, we should have 1,000 of these vicious dogs loose on our streets? Therefore, we need to know more about compensation, which will cost about £5 million. Will the Government pay that, or will it be paid by the councils?
Mr. Baker: On the question of owners abandoning their dogs, that would be an act of criminal irresponsibility, and I am therefore making it a criminal offence to permit a banned dog to stray. Those who act in that way would risk going to prison and would thoroughly deserve it. We are certainly considering a compensation scheme and will possibly allow some time for owners who wish to bring forward their dogs in that period to receive it.
Yesterday, I asked the RSPCA what it thought about the matter. It favours a compensation scheme, and when I asked about the level of compensation the RSPCA thought that for one of these fighting dogs with the fighting value taken out compensation should be about £20 to £25.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the nation. Does he accept that it must not be used as the first step in a vendetta against dogs by dog haters inside and outside the House? Dr. Roger Mugford, to whom my right hon. Friend referred, and who is a distinguished dog psychologist, is, like me, a member of the national advisory panel Pro-dogs and believes that a dog registration scheme would not work. It is utterly irresponsible for some people to pretend that such a scheme is a magic panacea for dealing with all the problems. It is no solution to the problem of dangerous dogs.
Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his support, and agree entirely with his comments. Those with the greatest enthusiasm for a dog registration scheme have great difficulty in arguing that it would have affected the events of the past few weeks. I do not think that it would have affected them and such a scheme would be exceedingly difficult to enforce.
I assure my hon. Friend that our proposed measure is not anti-dog. Many dogs in our country give great pleasure and comfort to their owners, and their owners are responsible. We are dealing with a particularly difficult type of dog that has been bred specifically to kill and to
954
fight. Fighting in private is illegal here, although it is not illegal in some parts of the world. Our Bill is directed against such practices, and at the same time it will impose some general obligations with which the responsible dog owner would have no difficulty in complying.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have another 14 minutes on the statement. I hope to call most hon. Members who have been rising. I hope that they will be brief and will not repeat questions that have already been asked.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report from Lothian police on the case of the pit bull dog that has been terrorising the Boghall housing estate in Bathgate? What is the scientific evidence to which he referred about the lust for blood and the very real dangers that girls face at obvious times?
Mr. Baker: I was not aware of the incident, and I shall certainly ask for a report. If the hon. Gentleman has any information about it, I would be glad to see it.
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Inevitably, there will be a lapse of time between the Bill's introduction and the implementation of its parts. Many people want to protect themselves against dangerous dogs. Has his Department carried out any evaluation of electronic hand-held devices which repel dogs? Such devices are widely available and are being promoted by mail order businesses. It is important that people who buy such devices know that they afford some protection and are not just completely useless toys.
Mr. Baker: We have not carried out any evaluation of these devices, but I am aware of them and shall certainly have them examined. I suspect that that is not really the ultimate answer to what we are dealing with. The ultimate answer has to be more responsible dog owners and the elimination of dangerous fighting dogs.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Does the Home Secretary recall that, over the past two and a half years I, in common with some of my hon. Friends, have warned him in an early-day motion as well as in correspondence of the neigbourhood threat posed by pit bull terriers, and invited him to compel their owners to register them with the local police? It is evident to the entire House that he has been most reluctant to move in this matter. Now he is rushing towards a conclusion.
Although we accept much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, some of us are entitled to doubt his judgment. He might get it wrong again. Is he justified in risking penalising the good, responsible owner? Is there no other way to deal with the breed? The right hon. Gentleman speaks with all the zeal of the convert, but what about alternative measures such as securing the dogs in a compound and muzzling them when they take exercise and, of course, registering them? Will he invite the neighbourhood watch schemes to incorporate in their terms of reference the reporting of such threats that arise in their areas?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that registering dogs would have effectively stopped the savage attacks in Lincolnshire, when two pit bull terriers in a

955
compound surrounded by a fence about 8ft high and a concrete floor jumped out of it, savaged a man, and destroyed his face. I would he happy to show the hon. Gentleman pictures of that man's face. It does not exist.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When it comes to the method of removing the menace of the 5,000 or 10,0000 pit bull terriers in this country, will my right hon. Friend be careful about the argument that a programme of neutering would do the job? Does not the American record show that some of the 34 deaths and many hundreds of attacks in that country have been caused by pit bull terriers that had been neutered? Since that is the case, is there any alternative to a programme of humane extermination?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend may prove to be right. I said that I would be prepared to look into this matter. Neutering a dog does not necessarily render it less savage; it could still savage people or other dogs. My hon. Friend proffers wise counsel. Many people would like to believe that neutering is the solution and that neutered dogs would be able to live out their natural lives. They would have to be muzzled and kept in compounds with fences that are even higher than 8ft. Such controls and conditions could be introduced, but it would be a matter for owners whether to comply with them.
Ms. Diane Abbott: Why will not the Home Secretary accept that public concern is not confined to these two breeds? Public concern is about the irresponsible owner who keeps potentially vicious breeds, such as rottweilers and dobermans, not as family pets or companions but as potential offensive weapons. Such people can be seen every day swaggering up and down the streets of our inner cities. Such irresponsible ownership cannot be tackled without dog registration. How long will the Government set their face against public opinion in this matter?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady speaks of the problem of irresponsible owners, but they are the very last people to register a dog. I do not agree with her general condemnation of certain dogs. The dogs that she mentioned are not trained to fight and kill.
Mr. Michael Colvin: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I remind him how much the House dislikes retrospective legislation? We shall look most carefully at the Bill's provisions for exemptions. Will he ensure that any exemptions are coupled with adequate safeguards, such as muzzling and proper insurance? If he wants to know the sort of dog to which I refer, he has only to go to St. Stephen's entrance now and meet Mrs. Juliet Glass, who is there with three-year-old Holly, an American pit bull terrier. Holly has been spayed and my right hon. Friend and any other hon. Member who makes Holly's acquaintance will confirm that it would not hurt a flea, never mind a human being.
Mr. Baker: The three owners of the dogs which recently committed these appalling attacks all said that the dogs were very quiet, friendly and peaceful and that people could stroke them and play with them. The characteristic of these cross-breeds is their unpredictability. They can change very quickly, and when they decide to attack, the jaws cannot be prised open. They go on until they kill. They can be muzzled in a public place, but the second of
956
the incidents happened when grandparents were with their granddaughter. It is unreasonable to think that a dog can be muzzled throughout its life.
Mr. John McAllion: The Home Secretary referred to different degrees of seriousness in attacks involving American pit bull terriers. I remind him that my constituent, Kelly Lynch, was killed in a savage attack by two rottweilers more than two years ago. Her family and friends will not be convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's statement shows that the Government have acted urgently or adequately.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, without the dog registration scheme, he cannot begin to know the true levels of ownership of dangerous dogs? Without an adequate licence fee, the resources will not be available to establish a national network of effective dog warden schemes. Without those two basic building blocks, the whole edifice of dog control that he has announced will be built on sand and will not survive.
Mr. Baker: I have commented on our views about the registration scheme, but I continue to be unpersuaded that it would have a significant effect. On the question of rottweilers, as I said, the RSPCA and the Kennel Club, both of which support a ban on the ownership of pit bulls, would not support a ban on rottweilers, which are a recognised breed of dog. I am not convinced that rottweilers fall into the same category of unpredictable viciousness as pit bull terriers.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: As with dangerous weapons when carried in a public place, we have, in the public interest, reversed the presumption of innocence. Could we not use the same approach to deal with what will inevitably be the grey area of defining a pit bull terrier? The last thing that we want is for a smart alec lawyer to drive a coach and horses through much-needed legislation the first time that it comes to court.
Mr. Baker: I take my hon. Friend's comment, and I think that he makes a good point. If there is a dispute about whether a dog is of a banned type, the dog owner will have an opportunity to prove that the dog is not a pit bull, a tosa or another banned type by producing a certificate from two veterinary surgeons. That is an important safeguard, but in cases of doubt, the onus will be on the owner to prove that his dog should not be banned.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Many of my constituents will be extremely disappointed that the Minister is again setting his face against a dog registration scheme, which is seen as the sine qua non of the control of many aspects of dogs' behaviour. Will he clarify how today's statement relates to Scotland? It is most unusual for the Home Secretary to give a statement that covers Scotland. Indeed, I understand from a note that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has had to leave the Front Bench that the legislation will be amended under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
As the Home Secretary is the only Minister to make a statement today, can he say whether, if there will be separate legislation for Scotland, it will be open to the Committee that deals with it to suggest separate proposals relevant to the Scottish experience as related by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and

957
by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)? In Scotland, no more than a quarter of the deeply worrying incidents that take place would relate to the species covered by the announcement today. It must go wider, and I should like the Home Secretary's assurance that, in Scottish terms, it can go wider.
Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed that the legislation should extend to Scotland which shares much of its legislation for controlling dogs with England and Wales.
Mr. Jim Lester: With regard to third party insurance, my right hon. Friend might be reassured to know that most people who have comprehensive house insurance, whether or not they have a dog, will find that third party insurance for a dog's actions is already included so that there is no need to have an additional policy. My right hon. Friend is already undertaking consultation, but will he also consult the National Canine Defence League, of which I am a council member and which has a valid point to make about people, dogs and breeds, so that he has a complete consultation procedure with all those who take an interest in the welfare of dogs and in their continuation?
Mr. Baker: On the latter point, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. On insurance, it is perfectly true that some insurance policies— but by no means all— cover damage caused by dogs. However, very few insurance companies will cover the insurance of fighting breeds and, indeed, specifically refuse to do so. The companies have no difficulty in defining a fighting breed to justify their refusal of insurance.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the Home Secretary recall that after disclosures in the South London Press I put down a motion asking for an import ban on tosa dogs? At the time, I was advised that the powers to ban the import of those dogs did not exist. If the Home Secretary is satisfied that he has those powers, which he exercised from midnight, what exactly are they? If he is not certain about them, will he ensure that the law is amended so that he has the power to ban the import of dogs on the basis of breed and characteristics?
Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the powers do exist under the Department of Trade and Industry's legislation and they were exercised last night. The difficulty has been to define the type of dog. It is easier to define a pedigree dog than to define a cross-breed. We now believe that we have a set of definitions which will stand up to scrutiny. It is important that we act— and I shall have the powers to do so— to ensure that new types of dogs can be added to the banned list.
I understand that there is only one tosa dog in the country, so we can take action now rather than 10 years on, when there would be debates about trying to eliminate a large number of dogs. Indeed, if we had taken the appropriate action with the American pit bull terriers in 1976, we should not be dealing with this problem today. I gather that at least three other breeds are being trained to fight and kill and we must ensure that they do not come to this country. As soon as we know and can define them, we can put them on the banned import list.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Having had the doubtful pleasure of being bitten by a rottweiler—
Mr. Tony Banks: Did the dog die?
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No, the dog lived too.
There is a growing problem with guard dogs, of which rottweilers and dobermans are the well-known breeds. Although we talk about the savage injuries caused by the two dreadful breeds of fighting dogs, nearly all the injuries are caused by rottweilers and dobermans. The interbreeding of those dogs is a time bomb which is just about coming home. Many young people are now growing up fearful of big dogs. Unless we have a way to control the big breeds in public so that they are at least muzzled or controlled by their owners, a generation of young people will miss the great joy and pleasure of owning dogs which is experienced by many hon. Members.
Mr. Baker: The size of a dog does not necessarily have anything to do with its viciousness. Some large dogs are completely safe, such as the St. Bernard and the Irish wolfhound, which was once trained for hunting wolves but which has been bred over the centuries not to be a savage dog. I do not want to give the impression that a large dog is necessarily more dangerous and vicious than a small one. We had considered a definition of the size and weight of dogs, but it does not apply—one must examine the characteristics of a breed.
Mr. Hattersley: May I urge the Home Secretary to understand that he has been questioned about two different dimensions of the problem? The first is the specified breeds, and I believe that almost the entire House will support him in their banning and eventual extinction. The second dimension deals with attacks by dogs that are not the specified breeds. A dog's motives are hardly important— whether it was bred to fight is no consolation to the person who may be savagely and desperately attacked by a dog that was purchased for another purpose.
It is because of our concern to limit attacks by other dogs that we want to see a number of proposals to make the owners more responsible. The programme to make owners more responsible has at its heart a national dog register. There is widespread support for such a register. This is not an appropriate matter for party controversy — there is no ideology in the issue of a dog register. When the scheme comes before the House— as it will—will there be a free vote?
Mr. Baker: It is not for me to determine such matters, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. I have made my views on dog registration known. I do not believe that it is the panacea that Opposition Members deeply believe it to be. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to be helpful, and I appreciate that. I am grateful for his support of the proposals to deal with the dangerous breeds. As I said, I shall introduce wider measures to make it a criminal offence to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place and measures to give court powers to be more specific in the control orders on dogs, which will extend to all breeds. I am anxious to put that package on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Health Care of Prisoners
5.20 pm
Mr. John Battle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision for the health care of prisoners in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.
The main purpose of the Bill is to transfer the function of the health care of prisoners from the prison medical service to the national health service.
The question of medical care in prisons is not new to the House. Statutory medical presence in prisons dates back to 1774 when the Health of Prisoners Act was passed empowering justices of the peace to intervene in the administration of prisons in order to ensure the maintenance of health standards within them. As a result of that Act, justices could order the scraping and whitewashing of walls and ensure the provision of sick rooms, ventilation and regular washing and cleaning facilities. In addition, they were allowed to appoint an experienced surgeon or an apothecary, paying them from the rates, whose duty was to report on the health of those in prison.
In the 19th century, the House frequently debated deaths in prisons. In July 1840, The Lancet launched an assault on the reliability of the official figures for deaths in prisons. It commented:
"Health is impaired and life is shortened by imprisonment."
Since I was elected to the House in 1987, I have had to ask questions about seven suicides in Armley prison in my constituency. Six of those were committed by unconvicted youngsters held on remand. The issue is not confined to Armley prison by any means. With a national prison population of about 50,000 people, the United Kingdom has the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the population of any western European country. As a result of the Government's building expansion programme, the capacity will be increased to hold 80,000 prisoners.
In recent years, suicides in prisons have increased, especially among remand prisoners. Since 1987, the number of suicides has doubled each year. Last year, 51 prisoners died by their own hands and 12 have died in the first quarter of this year. There have been 13 "lack of care" verdicts returned on prison suicides by coroners' courts in the last four years.
In May 1989, the new suicide prevention guidelines were issued by the Home Office and were welcomed, but they need to be backed up by staffing and resources. Recently the British Medical Association focused on the prison medical service and described it as
"Unable to provide the necessary care of prisoners in general and particularly those prisoners on remand."
In December 1989 Mr. Justice Pills, ruling on the suicide of Paul Worrell in Brixton prison in 1982, made it clear that the prison medical service has no duty to provide prisoners with the same standard of care as that provided by the national health service. The Home Office's scrutiny of the prison medical service published last October recommended closer alignment with the NHS, but encouraged the prison medical service to call upon clinical services from national health service authorities.
960
At present, three types of doctor are involved in the prison medical service: the full-time prison medical officer employed by the Home Office, part-time visiting general practitioners and visiting specialists. There are 110 prison medical officers who are backed up by 1,069 uniformed prison hospital officers, also employed in the dual function as Home Office prison staff. Of those, only 171—16 per cent.—have even basic nursing qualifications and, although their training was extended from 13 weeks to 24 weeks in 1983, the Prison Officers Association has described it as
"little more than an extended first-aid course".
The 1989 report of the chief inspector of prisons for the very first time devoted a full chapter to medical services. It drew attention to a catalogue of practices which it described as
"well below the accepted standard and must not be allowed to continue."
The report drew attention to diagnostic testing, X-rays not properly taken, badly maintained equipment, inability to read the X-ray films, failure to carry out routine blood and urine tests, prescription of out-of-date drugs, misprescription and even cases of jaundice and diabetes not being properly diagnosed and treated. The chief inspector's report also highlighted the shortage of prison hospital officers, who are particularly overstreteched at night time which is the crisis time for suicides.
The prison medical service is structurally accountable to the prison service, but, because there is not a separation of function and responsibility between disciplinary control and medical care in prisons, the result is a lack of trained staff and training opportunities, recruitment problems, lack of accountability and strained loyalties, all of which must affect the quality of health care.
I have received supportive and confidential letters from doctors who are aware of the difficulties caused by their accountability to the Home Office. My Bill would replace the facilities of the prison medical service with NHS provision, it would establish an independent medical council and ensure that free health care of an equal standard to that of the general public is available to prisoners as a basic right. My Bill is a common sense practical measure with widespread professional support within and without the prison service and in the probation and medical services. It is also supported by statutory and voluntary bodies such as the National Association of Probation Officers and Inquest. I hope that it will receive the wholehearted support of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Battle, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Chris Smith, Sir Charles Irving, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

HEALTH CARE OF PRISONERS
Mr. John Battle accordingly presented a Bill to make new provision for the health care of prisoners in England and Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
Orders of the Day

  New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order: new Clauses relating to Part I; new Schedules relating to Part I; Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1, Clause 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 24; new Clauses relating to Part II; new Schedules relating to Part II; Amendments relating to Clauses 25 to 43; new Clauses relating to Part III; new Schedules relating to Part III; Amendments relating to Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 3, Clauses 47 to 59, Schedule 4, Clauses 60 to 98, Schedule 5, Clauses 99 to 102; new Clauses relating to Part IV; new Schedules relating to Part IV; Amendments relating to Clauses 103 to 118, Schedule 6, Clauses 119 to 157, Schedule 7, Clauses 158 to 161; Other new Clauses; Other new Schedules; Amendments relating to Clauses 162 to 164, Schedules 8 and 9, Clauses 165 to 167. — [Mr. Freeman.]

New Clause 2

  ANNUAL REPORT ON CONCESSION AGREEMENTS AND TOLL ORDERS
  '.— (1) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each calendar year lay before Parliament a report—

  (a) stating the number of concession agreements entered into by him during that year,

  (b) stating the number of new roads opened to public use during that year for which he is the highway authority and which at the time of their opening were subject to a concession,

  (c) listing the toll orders, and orders varying or revoking toll orders, made or confirmed by him in that year, and

  (d) containing such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders (whenever made) which are in force during that year or any part of it.

  (2) The report shall be laid on or before 31st July in the following calendar year.'.— [Mr. Freeman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.26 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27, 29, 30, Government new clause 9— Report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland—and Government amendments Nos. 74 to 76.
  Mr. Freeman: We start with what I hope is, as far as possible, a note of consensus. We have had sufficient time since the completion of the Committee stage to consult as widely as possible with local authorities; utilities; those interested in the preservation of the countryside, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and various cycling organisations. I hope that I have met most, if not all, of the legitimate concerns on which I promised the Committee to reflect.
  I hope that the new clause and some of the others will not provoke much controversy. They may expose a
  962
  fundamental difference of opinion on a number of issues, but on the narrow issue of how best to improve the Bill I hope that there will be at least a measure of agreement.
  The new clause and the related Government amendments affecting England, Wales and Scotland extend the scope of the annual report which is required by clause 1. It is an annual report to Parliament which must be made before 31 July of the following year. The Government welcome the procedure because it is open and represents solid, if modest, progress on the size of the road programme. Nevertheless, it is positive progress.
  The annual report already has to include the number of concession agreements entered into and the number of new roads that were opened to public use when the Secretary of State was the highway authority and that were subject to a concession.
  New clause 2 and the related amendments fulfil a commitment that I gave in Committee and add another requirement— that the annual report should list the toll orders, the changes, variations, revocations and extensions of toll orders that have been confirmed during the year; and other relevant information. It will catch not only special roads for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible but local highway authorities. It is therefore broad in nature and presents no particular problem because the Government would be the confirming authority for toll orders relating to "local" roads— those within the purview of local highway authorities.
  The provision will also catch public tolls, where toll orders relate to public bridges and where changes have been made. It will cover not only the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Transport but parallel provisions for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  When the annual reports are presented to Parliament, it will be clear that tolling is not a substitute but an addition to public sector provision, including the transport supplementary grant. I welcome openness in Government and proper reporting to Parliament, which is appropriate in this case. The provision will not cover those tolls that are directly regulated by private Acts of Parliament, or Acts arising from the hybrid Bill procedure, because there is already full provision for their reporting and public scrutiny.
  Ms. Joan Ruddock: May I echo what the Minister said about the consensus that exists on the Bill and the way in which we have been able to co-operate with the Minister and his Department during its proceedings to date? We are grateful to him for undertaking to consult people between Committee and Report, and we are aware that much of that consultation has been fruitful. Many of the issues that we sought to press upon the Minister in Committee have now been conceded by him; we shall see, as we go through the debates tonight, that the Opposition agree with much of the Bill.
  However, new clause 2 does not seem to contain precisely the measures that we sought. Will the Minister hear me out and see whether he can enlighten us further? Two changes have been made: information on toll orders is added to the list, and a reference is made to the inclusion of
  "such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders".
  Two of our concerns in Committee about clause 1(6) are outstanding. The Committee considered an

  963
  Opposition amendment which would have added three new topics to the contents list of the annual report; first, the number of competitions held and the number of bidders for each competition; secondly, whether the winners of a competition should be required to compensate the loser; thirdly, the number of occasions on which the Secretary of State had entered into joint agreements with bidders to undertake traffic and environmental studies. When we pressed the Minister on those points in Committee, he responded by giving an assurance that the issues listed would, where appropriate, be covered in the annual report.
  The first issue that arises from the new clause is why, having decided to extend the list of items to be covered in the report, the Minister has not included any of the subjects considered by the Standing Committee. The second issue concerns the wording of new clause 2(d), which refers to information
  "with respect to the toll orders."
  The topics covered in the amendment considered in Standing Committee did not relate to a toll order. Indeed, the events referred to may take place a considerable time before a toll order is made for the concession road in question.
  As the Minister has produced a catch-all phrase in respect of toll orders only, and not in respect of the wider issues on concession agreements referred to in Committee, will he explain how new clause 2 meets his assurance in Committee about how he would meet our objections and suggestions— with which he seems to concur— that the topics to which I referred would properly come within the annual report?
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: There was a great deal of agreement in Committee, and I hope that we shall have a speedy conclusion tonight on many of the subjects to be discussed.
  On the annual report, the Minister said that toll orders would be confirmed during the course of the year. I assume that he means that the date the Secretary of State first received notification of a toll order would be the date on which we decided to place it in an annual report. If not, what timing does the Minister foresee for the reporting of a toll order to the general public? Where do the general public come into the matter? Does it then follow that, after the decision, the general public would have a public inquiry and other inquiries, which would then be included in the annual report?
  Mr. Brian Wilson: May I take this opportunity to deal specifically with new clause 9 and the issue that underlies it? It relates to part II and deals with the report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland. It illustrates the off-hand way in which the Bill has been railroaded through. The new clause is of considerable importance to specific communities in Scotland, yet we do not have the courtesy of the presence, on the Government Front Bench or in the House, of a single Scottish Office Minister.
  Virtually nobody else in the House knows or cares about this issue. I care very much, because it is about paving legislation for the construction of a high-toll private enterprise road bridge between the mainland and the Isle of Skye. That is the ideological toehold that the Government are obtaining for private enterprise construction and the imposition of high-toll bridges and roads in Scotland. It is a crime, albeit a victimless crime.
  964
  The people who will pay the price, for at least the next 20 years, for a measure that will be railroaded through tonight are those who live on that island and beyond. At present, they are wholly dependent on the ferry for access to the mainland and, in future— if the Government get their way— they will be at the mercy of a company called Miller Construction, which is about to be given a licence to build a bridge and to charge what it likes for the next 20 years to recoup that investment.
  It would be a terrible wrong on a small community if, in the last month of this Parliament, the Government were to sign and seal a contract that would condemn the people of Skye for 20 years to bridge tolls 10 times more expensive than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That is the immediate prospect under the Bill.
  In the past 20 years, over 140 large and small bridges have been built in the highlands and islands from public funds without the imposition of tolls on those who use them. They include such substantial structures as Ballachulish bridge, Kylescu bridge and Dornoch bridge. The programme, which was initiated when the construction of the Ballachulish bridge in the late 1960s was agreed by a Labour Government, has been carried through since then on a consensual basis no matter which party was in power, on the basis of the shared belief that there was a public duty and social responsibility to improve communications within the highlands and islands of Scotland. It was always the understanding that, as it is the most ambitious of the projects, the Skye bridge would come at the end of that programme. It was always assumed that the Skye bridge would be an extension of the public highway network, but that is not now what is proposed.
  Has the Minister the slightest clue what he is legislating for? Can he explain why, uniquely, those who visit Skye and points west of Skye, and those who cross to the mainland from them, should be penalised by tolls of between £4 and £5 per car per crossing— and that is just for starters? The answer to that question lies not in justice or any iota of concern for island communities, but in the hard face of ideology, in which the project is seen as the way of putting into play in Scotland the concept of high-toll private enterprise bridges.
  Would the few hon. Members present tonight vote happily in favour of a measure that imposed such a dreadful burden of tolls on their communities for the next 20 years? If they would not have it done to their communities, why should they participate in allowing it to be done to the island of Skye? This part of the legislation is a disgrace. It condemns one community in Britain to a regime of tolls 10 times higher than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
  The answer that will be given is that, at present, people are served by a ferry. However, around the coast of Britain, many communities were at some time served by ferries. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who I am pleased to see has just joined us, recently opened a new causeway at Dornie, which is not far from the place that we are talking about. In the past, one had to cross at Dornie by ferry, but a bridge was erected and then a causeway was built. However, people do not have to continue to pay tolls of the same price as the former ferry charge.
  When the bridge was built at Ballachulish, we did not consider what the tolls were 10 or 15 years ago when the bridge replaced the ferry, so that the same charge could be

  965
  applied to the bridge as once applied to the ferry. We do not do that at Kylescu or any of the other places, not just in Scotland but in Britain as a whole, which were once served by ferries and are now to be served by bridges. However, that is the fate that is to be uniquely visited on the people of Skye because of the introduction of the private enterprise element.
  For at least 20 years, those people will have to pay tolls of between £4 and £5 per car, instead of enjoying the bridge as an extension of the public highway. The bridge should be an aid to the development of communities, which are peripheral in every sense and need improved communications to foster their economic prospects.
  The legislation paves the way for the high-toll private enterprise regime which has been visited on the isle of Skye and on those who use the route at present and will do so in future. It is a disgrace which the Government would not dare to impose on a large community: they pick the weak.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I am used to the calmer proceedings in Committees dealing with English issues. I am not as used as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a great deal of—
  Mr. Wilson: Answer the questions.
  Mr. Freeman: I shall address the points raised, but the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) expressed many intemperate views, and I shall deal with those issues first.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Scottish Office should have some responsibility for this matter. I do not necessarily agree with all that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, but he has made a valid point. New clause 9 is in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the strictures apply specifically to Scotland, not to England and Wales. A Scottish Minister should answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. That is a common-sense and fair constitutional point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister for Public Transport has risen to answer the debate, and he should be allowed to continue to so so.
  Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your answer did not apply to the point of order that I was making and I ask you to reflect on what I am saying. New clause 9 is a Scottish clause and a Scottish Minister is present. Although the Minister for Public Transport may be able to reply to the general clauses, the specific issue in new clause 9 has nothing to do with the departmental interests of the Secretary of State for Transport. Surely a Scottish Minister should answer the questions on Scottish issues.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The lead new clause is new clause 2. It is certainly true that new clause 9 is grouped with it, but we should allow the Minister for Public Transport to answer the debate.
  Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can be helpful. Although, with the agreement of the House, I should like to address some
  966
  of the points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond to points relating to the Skye bridge. I cannot speak on that issue and would not pretend to do so.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that the measure was being railroaded through. In my experience of Parliament, I cannot think of a Bill for which that remark would be more inappropriate than the one we are debating. I wish to put on record my strong feelings about that statement, which is not true. The hon. Gentleman should consult shadow Ministers on the subject.
  In Committee, shadow Ministers made it plain that, if in government, they would not activate that part of the Bill to allow them to build toll roads. By implication, it was apparent that, if procedures had been started, they would be cancelled. They were perfectly consistent about that from the word go.
  If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North objects in principle to the building of a particular toll bridge or toll road, he must choose an alternative, of which there are three. He could increase the generality of the road programme, which would mean greater pressure on public resources and could involve higher taxation. He could cancel, or recommend cancellation of, other projects in Scotland because the Scottish Office is responsible for that vote. He would have to state that, in his judgment, a publicly built bridge should be given a higher priority than some other schemes which he, or a shadow Minister, would have to identify. His third option would be to accept that the bridge will not be built as quickly as it otherwise would be.
  I shall now deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). New clause 2 states the statutory minimum, but when we publish an annual report we shall go considerably further than is required as a minimum; otherwise, the report will look a little bare and uninteresting. I should say to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that, although the information will be retrospective— it has to be— all hon. Members would want the public to take an interest in the document. We want it to be not merely a set of arid tables but an informative document. It would not be hundreds of pages long, but it would go beyond the statutory minimum.
  The hon. Member for Deptford raised three points relating to the number of competitions held, whether there was any scheme to compensate the losers, and joint research and studies between the relevant Government Departments and those competing for the concessions. Those are all perfectly valid points. The number of competitions held will probably relate directly to the number of concessions let. I am less persuaded on that point than on the other two, which are perfectly valid.
  Although the hon. Member for Deptford knows the Government's position on compensation for losers— we are not in favour of it— at this point we are not ruling it out as a possibility in the future as an arrangement between the contractors. If that were to happen, I would regard it as public interest and public guidance to the construction industry, and doubtless that would be referred to.
  Joint research between the Department and contractors is one way to avert some of the risks and therefore of advancing the cause of the toll road being built, because contractors might wish to share in common information

  967
  — for example, on soil surveys and traffic densities. I would wish to see that reported, to the extent that it is of public interest and is significant.
  I hope that I have dealt with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Deptford and by the hon. Member for Southport. I know that the latter will have many other comments to make about the information available to the public and to the protection of the public during our proceedings. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may wish to answer the questions about the Skye bridge.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to respond to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who I know feels very strongly indeed about this subject. He has written a strong article in the Glasgow Herald. In principle, he is against tolls and he has made that clear in the past. There is a great deal of support in Highland regional council for a bridge to Skye and for the Skye bridge project. The council voted overwhelmingly in favour of the project proceeding as a privately financed scheme.
  I told the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and many other people in Scotland that I would provide a free bridge if I were in a position to do so. I am not in that position and I do not believe that the Government will be in such a position for the foreseeable future. There is no prospect of that happening unless a major motorway project in the central belt of Scotland is cancelled. Frankly, we are not prepared to do that because of the needs of the lowlands of Scotland, where the bulk of the population lives.
  As regards the Skye bridge and tolls, details of the bridge contract have yet to be finalised. As I said at Dornie — I am glad to repeat it today— tolls will be comparable with ferry fares. Obviously we shall keep in close touch with Highland regional council on the subject.
  Environmental considerations have been taken fully into account, and we have bent over backwards to meet all the environmental concerns that have been suggested, and have had a large number of meetings on the subject.
  I stress again that the bridge to Skye would bring with it enormous benefits for tourism, not only for Skye but onwards to the Western Isles. We have offered to cover the funding of the approach road— to the extent of £6 million — and of the trunk road from Kyle of Lochalsh to Uig, which are substantial contributions. Highland regional council rightly took that into account.
  I believe that the islanders are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the bridge would raise their standard of living. The people whom I would describe as white settlers, who have come from elsewhere in Britain to live in Skye, may not take that view and may prefer no bridge, but the people who have lived on the island and have been directly concerned with the practicalities of life there are strongly in favour of a bridge. I have visited Skye almost every year for the past 20 years.
  The bridge will bring substantial benefits to the local community. By using private finance, the community will be able to enjoy the advantages of a fixed link with the mainland much earlier than would otherwise be the case. A bridge might not be provided from public funding for 20 years or even longer without displacing other extremely worthwhile projects, which are already in the programme.
  968
  We expect to sign a concession agreement with the winning consortium in July or, at the latest, September. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North for giving me the opportunity to reply on that subject.
  Mr. Douglas: That was an inadequate explanation of the Secretary of State's activities in relation to the new clause. One can argue that everything has an opportunity cost. The same arguments could have been applied to the building of the Beauly or the Dornoch firth bridges— neither of those has been subject to tolls—and it can be said that the only way to build the Skye bridge is if it is subject to tolls.
  However, my argument is that we should be going the other way in Scotland. We should have a road-related tariff for ferries to the Western Isles and elsewhere. I argue forcibly for the social cost benefit of not having tolls on that bridge. Tolls will act as a restriction of economic and other activities. They would mean making a section of the population pay an additional charge, to which other sections are not subject. The Minister is making a poor argument at this stage. He says that the Secretary of State for Scotland will enter into an agreement for the commissioning of the private road bridge and will commit succeeding Governments. I do not know whether there will be a succeeding Labour Government, but let us assume that, for the sake of argument.
  Ms. Ruddock: Of course there will.
  Mr. Douglas: I am not necessarily opposed to that. I am willing to argue the case by way of illustration.
  The Secretary of State will sign a contract with a private developer, and if any future Labour Government wanted to reverse that with a buy-out, the developer will be paid considerable compensation. There will be a clause in the agreement to compensate the private developer for the loss of tolls for 20 or 25 years. That should not be done at this stage in the life of a Parliament. The Secretary of State ought not to be allowed to enter into an agreement with a private developer and to commit a future Government to pay compensation for 20 or 25 years. They should desist and they should not enter into such an agreement.
  Obviously, I am not negotiating for the Secretary of State, but it strikes me as extremely silly of him to do that; he should leave the contract more open. If a future Government wanted to abolish the toll, they should not find themselves in the onerous position of having to compensate the private developer because the Secretary of State for Scotland in a Tory Government had wanted to rush through a provision which is desirable— no one is disputing that fact— but which is contrary to what has been done with other road bridges in the highlands and islands.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned a considerable number of bridges, none of which has been subject to tolls. We await the opening of the Dornoch bridge in a few weeks' time. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will go up there and say how wonderful it is and how it will reduce journey times from Inverness to Thurso. However, there are no tolls on that bridge—it is a wonderful piece of economic development. Why should the bridge to Skye have tolls imposed on it when that bridge does not have tolls? There is no real logical or economic argument in terms of the

  969
  development of the highlands and islands and the Western Isles. Although it is useful for the Under-Secretary to be here, it shows up the paucity of his arguments.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: The Minister for Public Transport said that essentially three options were available for the funding of bridges. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that there are two options for the people of Skye: a toll bridge or no bridge at all. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), could not answer in Committee. Will such private funding supplement or be a substitute for public funding of roads? Will it make any difference to the public expenditure programmes available to local authorities in Scotland?
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not in Committee. He has spoken once, and he would need the leave of the House to speak a second time.
  6 pm
  Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to return briefly to my argument, as the Minister did not arrive until I was some way into my speech. Without rehearsing the arguments again, I would like to pick him up on a couple of points. We both know the arguments very well, and I want to get rid of a couple of red herrings that he introduced.
  First, the Minister said that the great majority of people wanted a bridge. There is no disagreement about that; but an even greater majority do not want a bridge with a toll of £4 or £5 a car every time they cross it. That point was made in a petition signed by 7,000 people, which the Minister chooses to disregard, along with other evidence.
  Highland regional council is constantly called in aid. It was faced not with a choice, but with a dilemma. It had not three but two options— take it or leave it. It had to accept a high-toll bridge or, the Government threatened, there would be no bridge at all for at least 20 years. The crux of the matter is not the opinion of Highland regional council or the public, because they are at one. What they want, overwhelmingly, is a bridge without tolls.
  I cannot allow the Minister to get away with the divisive argument about "white settlers". That is a term that I do not like or use. A small minority of people do not want a bridge, some have lived in Skye all their lives and some have not. Who gives a tuppenny toss about that? It is a divisive argument, which I am not prepared to get into. The majority want a bridge, and— whether they want a bridge or not— if there is to be one everyone wants it to be toll-free. That is the one option that the Government are not prepared to offer.
  The community is being blackmailed: if it does not accept a bridge on that basis, it cannot have a bridge at all. That has not been said to any other community in Scotland. I do not blame the Minister, because I do not think that he believes in this proposal any more than I do. He is the stalking horse for nastier forces in the Scottish Office, on this and many other matters. He did not invent the idea of making the Skye bridge a toll bridge. He will not rub his hands with ideological satisfaction when Miller
  970
  Construction, which is one of the largest contributors to Tory party funds in Scotland, receives the contract to build the bridge. He is not the architect of this project, but he should not soil his hands with it, especially in view of his past family connections with Skye.
  People want a bridge, but not a high-toll bridge. They have been put in this dilemma because, unlike every other community that has been served by a bridge, they have not been given the option of a bridge as an extension of the public highway system.
  If a Minister of equivalent status had gone around the highlands 20 years ago— such madness was not abroad then— he could have said to people in Ballachulish, west Sutherland and the east highlands who were crying out for bridges, "We know that it is a splendid idea, and we support the idea of building a bridge here, but the Government have no money. If you want a bridge, the only way is to pay through the nose for the next 20 years to some construction company." Fortunately, that degree of malevolence was not in the public spirit of the times, but it is now. That is why, uniquely, the people of Skye are being given Hobson's choice.
  I ask the Minister not to carry out this proposal in advance of the general election. I say to him, "Don't tie the people of Skye and the Western Isles into this terrible imposition for the next 20 years without the moral or political authority or mandate to do so."
  I remind the Minister that, unlike most of our time in political activism, the present climate means that we could travel the highlands and islands of Scotland from Muckle Flugga to Machrihanish and find many unpleasant impediments in our way, but we would not find a Tory Member of Parliament. Throughout the highlands and islands, the Tory party has shed its traditional support and has turned people against it by such nonsense, and by a lack of social concern for fragile communities. At one time, people were prepared to place some trust in one-world Tories— I am sorry, I mean one-nation Tories; "one-world Tories" would be a bit imaginative. The grandees once represented those areas in the Tory interest, but they no longer exist. People do not trust the Tory party because it continues to impose such experiments on fragile communities.
  I urge the Minister— if he has any influence in the Scottish Office— to wait until after the general election. If by any mischance we are then still lumbered with a Tory Government, my arguments would fall. To tie up a community for 20 years in the dying days of a Parliament with no political mandate would, however, be scandalous beyond belief. The Minister would be held personally responsible for a very long time to come.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to speak again?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All the hon. Members who have spoken have raised a number of points, to which I want to reply. First, the principle of the privately financed initiative is to ensure that more schemes can be constructed than would otherwise be possible. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South, (Mr. McMaster), let me say that the purpose is to make public funds go as far as possible. It may be argued that the Skye bridge should be publicly funded, but it would not

  971
  then be additional. The Government have made it clear that there will be no scheme-by-scheme reduction in the public programme.
  If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is prepared to cancel a motorway project in central Scotland to provide a toll-free Skye bridge, it would be useful for the House to know which programme he would cancel. I do not believe that that would be acceptable.
  I stress again that Highland regional council came out very strongly in favour of the bridge. Its press release, issued on 19 November 1990, said:
  "Highland regional council convenor, Councillor Duncan McPherson, … warmly welcomed the progress being made on the … project and said he was sure the large majority of people of Skye would be delighted … that it should be ready by 1994."
  Councillor McPherson is also vice-president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He said:
  "I am encouraged by the initial indication from the tender process that our expectations will be fulfilled for the people of Skye. From the displays, it is obvious the consortia have gone to a great deal of care and effort to provide exciting designs that are worthy of this setting."
  It is one of the most beautiful in the world. He ended by saying:
  "My Council wholeheartedly support the Skye bridge project."
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was concerned about the level of tolls. That point was put to me when I went to the opening of Dornie. We shall keep it in mind, but I can tell the House that the tolls will be broadly comparable with ferry fares.
  Mr. Douglas: The Under-Secretary knows that the contract for the bridge will reflect the toll charges.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No.
  Mr. Douglas: It would be an unusual contract if it did not. Is the Under-Secretary telling us that he will place a contract with Miller Construction that it will take without any idea of the charges that will have to be borne? If the charges are light, the payback period will be longer. The design has been accepted, so will he give us some idea of the tolls that are likely to be charged? What period of payback does he have in mind?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The next planning stage will be for Highland regional council to endorse the level and duration of tolls and the toll regime before we go ahead. Final details have not been worked out, but I stand by the general commitment that I have given that the tolls must be broadly comparable to ferry fares.
  May I conclude with a point that is relevant to residents of the area? A study is being undertaken of whether a case can be made for a pedestrian ferry. We are taking that seriously in co-operation with Highland regional council as it is important for the islanders of Skye. I think that I have answered all the points that have been made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SPECIAL ROADS
  '. In section 105A of the Highways Act 1980 (environmental assessment of certain highway projects), after subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) insert—
  "(2A) Any project for the construction or improvement of a special road which falls within Annex II to the Directive shall be treated as having such characteristics that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive.".'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:

New Clause

  POLICY COMPLIANCE
  '() (1) Before entering into a concession agreement a highway authority shall satisfy itself in accordance with this section that the special road provided for in the agreement is in accordance with national, regional and local environmental land use and transport policies.
  (2) The requirements of subsection (1) above shall be satisfied if—

  (a) in any case where the route of the special road has been specified by the authority, the authority has published a statement indicating how the road complies with the relevant policies;

  (b) in any case where the need which the road is intended to meet has been identified by the authority, but the route has not been so identified by it—

  (i) the authority has published a statement indicating how the meeting of that transport need through the construction of a road complies with the relevant policies, and

  (ii) the authority has required the concessionaire to publish a statement indicating how his design for the road meets the need identified in the most effective way, and he has published such a statement;

  or

  (c) in any case where the road does not form part of the highway authority's plans or programme, it has required the concessionaire to publish a statement—

  (i) indicating the transport need which the road is intended to meet;

  (ii) explaining how the meeting of that need complies with the relevant policies; and

  (iii) indicating how his design for the road meets the need identified in the most effective way, and he has published such a statement.'.

New Clause 4

  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SPECIAL ROADS (No. 2)
  'In section 105A of the Highways Act 1980 (environmental assessment of certain highways projects), after subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) insert—
  "(2A) Any project for the construction of or improvement of a special road which falls within Annex II of the Directive or is likely to have a significant effect on the environment shall

  973
  be treated as having such characteristics that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive.".'.
  New clause 5—Environmental impact assessment—
  'Before entering into a concession agreement, a highway authority shall carry out and publish an environmental impact assessment of the proposed road which shall include the local effects as listed in the Manual of Environmental Assessment and in addition the following objectives—

  (a) an assessment of land use changes which would occur if the proposed road is built;

  (b) an environmental impact assessment of road construction and maintenance;

  (c) an assessment of the existing means of alternative transport available to persons likely to undertake journeys for which the road is proposed;

  (d) an assessment of the transport need which the road is designed to meet, and

  (e) an assessment of the environmental, social and economic effect of providing alternative modes of transport for persons likely to undertake journeys if the proposed road is built.'.

  New clause 6—Duty of the Secretary of State regarding special roads, etc.—
  'For subsection 16(8) of the Highways Act 1980 there is substituted—
  "Before making or confirming a scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall give due consideration to—

  (a) the requirements of local and national planning including the requirements of agriculture, and of

  (b) in the case of a special road subject to a concession agreement under Part I of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, the environmental impact assessment carried out and published by the highway authority as required under that Act.".'.

  Amendment No. 37, in page 2, line 15, clause 1, at end insert—
  '(5A) It shall be the duty of the concessionaire in discharging any of its functions under this Act to so exercise its powers as to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographic features of special interest and the protection of sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historical or archaeological interest.'.
  Government new clause 10—Essential assessment of projects involving special roads in Scotland.
  Mr. Freeman: New clause 3 provides the requirement for environmental assessments on roads.
  Since the Committee stage, I have had a chance to talk to the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I may not be able to satisfy it on several issues that it raised, but on one point I can do so and it is reflected in the new clause, which requires that every special toll road shall be subject to an environmental statement. European Community directive 85/337 makes provision for environmental assessments for all roads in annexe I, which are mainly motorways, and there is some leeway on roads in annexe II.
  The new clause provides that all toll roads will be subject to environmental statements. Under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 an environmental assessment must be made of local authority toll roads. To the extent that there is a problem, it is more in perception than in reality. The new clause makes it clear that there must be an environmental statement for all toll roads.
  Ms. Joan Walley: Fundamental opposition has been expressed to the Bill's provisions, such as those affecting the toll road to Skye.
  974
  Leaving aside those disagreements, we must consider the substance of the Bill as we can do little to change its main provisions.
  The Minister has not been able to meet all our concerns, but we are grateful that he has met many of them. We have made much ground since we began debating environmental assessments in Committee. New clause 3 is a considerable advance, but it does not meet all our concerns. None the less, we welcome it as, for the first time, it provides an explicit requirement for environmental assessments.
  Existing procedures fail to tackle the fundamental need for environmental protection. The new clause ensures that is a private road falls under annexe II of the EC directive on projects involving special roads, an environmental assessment will no longer be discretionary but will be made compulsory. That is welcome as far as it goes, but we want the Minister to give an assurance that meets the provisions of new clause 4. Some private roads will still fall outside the directive's annexes, but all private and public roads should be subject to environmental assessment. We agree with the views of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that certain road improvements that have significant environmental impact could be exempt.
  6.15 pm
  There is tremendous resistance to environmental assessment, possibly from within the Department of Transport, with which a Labour Government would deal within a few days of taking office. There is some reluctance to believe that environmental assessment is good in its own right. It has been stated that—perhaps the Minister is aware of this—an environmental assessment may attract the objections of conservationists. We believe that, throughout the country, structure plans have been accompanied by honest and open debate. It is essential that any potential conflicts are identified and addressed in the planning stages rather than when it is too late. The concessionaire would be fully aware of the opportunities and constraints of any proposal for a toll road.
  Full environmental assessment of new road schemes should take into account the need for a new road. Existing procedures do not provide an opportunity to question whether a road is necessary, which is considered when it is too late to do anything about it. Full environmental assessment of new roads should take into account their associated development effects and public accountability in the decision-making process.
  It is important to recognise what has happened in the past few years, because we do not want a repeat of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he described the M40 as a "corridor for growth", thereby back-tracking on firm promises given in 1984.
  In a press release, Andrew Purkis, national director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, said that firm promises made in 1984 that the planning system would resist development pressure arising from construction of the M40 have been turned on their head. We want to ensure that the need for a road is taken into account and that the environmental assessment is made at an early stage.
  We do not want roads to slip through the net of environmental protection, which is why we urge, at this late hour, the need for a fail-safe against the criteria set out in the departmental standard. We want a firm undertaking

  975
  from the Minister that the Government will extend their commitments to environmental assessment to cover all private roads. We should like an early reform of the environmental assessment procedures for all public and private road schemes.
  The Government have already taken powers in the Planning and Compensation Bill, which has recently been considered in the House, that enable them to make regulations applying environmental assessments more rigorously to road proposals. If that Bill can reflect such concerns, why cannot the Secretary of State for Transport take them on board?
  I put it to the Minister, who has been very reasonable throughout our discussions, that the Department of Transport is lagging behind other Government Departments in its commitment to environmental protection. I hope that we shall receive from him an assurance that he will fully review the whole issue of environmental assessment in respect of all roads. That would take us a little way along the route that we want to take.
  It is clear that, at present, environmental assessment is made available too late to ensure that environmental matters are material considerations in the selection of a private road scheme. The whole procedure is flawed. The current departmental standard should be reviewed. We should like from the Minister an assurance on that point also.
  One of our reasons for tabling the other new clauses in this group is to provide that, at an early stage in the planning of a concession road, steps will be taken to make sure that the road complies with relevant national, regional and local policies. In new clause 1 we are unashamedly pursuing a theme that was raised during earlier stages of the Bill.
  The new clause reflects our debates in Committee. At that stage, the Minister referred several times to the proposed concession roads in the west midlands—the western orbital route and the Birmingham northern relief road. The new clause and a number of other Opposition amendments are designed, in part, to reflect concern expressed by local authorities in that part of the country. In Committee, we considered a new clause that would have required a highway authority, before inviting tenders from the private sector, to satisfy itself that the concession road proposal was consistent with relevant policies. That new clause was withdrawn following fairly lengthy debate, and the revised version takes account of that debate.
  The Minister, in support of his case for rejecting the new clause at that stage, outlined what he saw as being the six key steps in the approval of a concession road. I remember this vividly. The first step was the selection of the route. The Minister made it clear that there were two ways in which a route could be selected—by the highway authority or by the prospective concessionaire. He said:
  "My argument, in brief, is that environmental considerations start from the word go."
  We absolutely agree. He continued:
  "Where there is no preferred route and some of the groundwork has not been done any sensible contractor will take into account the likely environmental impact."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 March 1991; c. 13.]
  Step two was a competition for the building of a road along the preferred route or within a broadly defined corridor. Step three was the designation of the winner of the competition, and the drafting and signing of a concession agreement between the winner and the highway
  976
  authority. Step four was the publication of the draft orders for the special road, including detailed designs. Step five was the public inquiry to consider the environmental impact of the proposed road. Step six was the announcement of the decision following the public inquiry.
  In response to debates on the environmental impact of concession roads and their effects on local planning policies, the Minister emphasised the importance of the public inquiry. However, it is clear from the timetable, as outlined, that important decisions will have to have been taken by the time the inquiry is held. A decision in principle that the road is necessary will have been taken by the highway authority—most probably the Secretary of State—and the selection between a number of means of providing the road may well have been made. This point has been brought to my attention by the local authorities and has been highlighted in correspondence between the Department of Transport and the metropolitan districts in the west midlands.
  The Secretary to the west midlands planning and transportation sub-committee wrote to the Department in March, expressing serious reservations about plans for the development of the western orbital route and the Birmingham northern relief road, to be financed under the provisions of the Bill and to be operated as toll roads. The Department's response attempted to reassure the authorities that the wider economic, traffic and environmental effects of any tender submissions would all be taken into account in deciding the winner.
  I appreciate the fact that this is somewhat confusing. The Minister has been arguing that the appropriate stage for detailed environmental scrutiny of toll road proposals is the public inquiry, yet he has acknowledged that the decision in principle to build a road is taken at a much earlier stage and that environmental considerations start from the word go. Developers submitting proposals to the Department are expected to have taken environmental factors into account, and a range of environmental and economic considerations will be taken into account in deciding who the prospective concessionaire should be.
  However, the Bill as drafted is silent on all those points. It was precisely to fill that gap that we tabled the new clause. It reflects the various ways in which concession road proposals could be developed. In essence, it would do no more than write into the Bill the assurances that the Minister has already given. The importance of environmental considerations and of securing the implementation of transport and land use policy make it essential that those assurances are embodied in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will announce that further consideration will be given to those issues.
  Amendment No. 37, standing in my name and in the names of several of my hon. Friends, concerns environmental duty. The Bill, as amended in Committee, provides no power to ensure that the private sector will consider the wider consequences of its activities. For that reason, we are suggesting the inclusion of a general environmental duty. It is necessary to have such a provision so that private road developers may be put in the same position as public authorities in respect of the general responsibility to protect the environment affected by their activities.
  Currently, public authorities are very clearly required, in several Acts of Parliaments, to consider the environmental effects of their actions. The duty applying

  977
  to all public authorities is contained in section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968. If public authorities have such a statutory duty, can the Minister assure us there will be a similar duty in relation to the financing arrangements for private toll roads? As private companies become increasingly involved in activities previously the domain solely of public authorities, it is vital that the same level of responsibility and concern for the environment should apply.
  Let us consider how the Environmental Protection Act 1990 deals with some of these issues. There may not be a direct relationship, but that Act certainly contains a provision to the effect that British Rail is responsible for embankment litter. We must ensure that private companies have the same environmental protection responsibilities and duties. As we pointed out in Committee, it is clear that there are good precedents for this. The Electricity Act 1957, in a section entitled "Preservation of amenity"—which requires the generating board and the area boards to take into account the effects of their proposals on countryside, wildlife and historical features—provides such a precedent. The same concern has arisen in respect of the electricity industry and the coal industry. We simply wish to ensure that, with regard to environmental duties, the Bill falls into line with other pieces of legislation.
  We have heard from the Government a great deal about the importance that they attach to environmental protection. It seems to us that they could go further down this road. They have paid lip service to the principle but are not prepared to commit themselves fully in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances on these important issues.
  Mr. Fearn: I want to make it clear from the outset that my party is not against toll roads in principle. However, we are concerned about the impact on the environment if parts I and II of the Bill are enacted. It is obvious from the amendments that have been tabled that many people share that concern for the environment. New clauses 5 and 6 are not too dissimilar from amendments debated in Standing Committee. It is important that the issue should be raised again today.
  I would have given my full support to new clause 1 and withdrawn my amendments if I had believed that it was easy to establish what national, regional and local environmental land use and transport policies really are and, where they exist, that they were formulated with environmental impact as a major concern. I do not believe that that is the case. Perhaps a few local authorities have good land use and transport policies, but many have not, as we are all aware. As for national strategies and policies, where are they and what are they?
  6.30 pm
  As far as I am concerned, the national transport policy consists of building new roads at the expense of other transport systems. In such an atmosphere, any special road scheme is likely to fit in with national policy. Local people and the public at large have a right to know the immediate and future consequences for the environment of privately-funded roads.
  An article in The Guardian last Monday week referred to a claim by Friends of the Earth that 17 new towns and villages may be built if a proposed privately funded
  978
  motorway along the east coast of England goes ahead. The development potential associated with private toll roads causes alarm.
  The Minister brushed that concern aside in Standing Committee by stating:
  "Any development adjacent to the road…is subject…to normal planning laws."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 March 1991; c. 26.]
  I am afraid that that comment does not fill me with confidence. I am sure that hon. Members can identify planning decisions that fly in the face of the wishes of local people or decisions that have had damaging effects on the environment. The possible changes in land use and the associated effects cause alarm. Local planning authorities should be involved in the overall decision making with regard to road construction. Future patterns of land use should be identified and publicised at an early date to allow for differing views to be aired.
  There was much debate in Committee about when and at what stage an environmental assessment should be conducted and about what that assessment would entail. Most of the time, the Minister appeared to think that the public inquiry process was the right forum, although he later appeared to say that environmental considerations would be taken into account from the very beginning. That confusion is still prevalent. If it is to be left to the public inquiry stage, that will be far too late, as we are led to believe that the public inquiry is the fifth stage in a six-stage process. I do not share the Minister's faith in the public inquiry system.
  There is no guarantee that, in an inquiry, the environmental considerations will be given the weight that is demanded in today's climate. Once again, we are all aware of cases in which the public inquiry system has proved to be a poor method of protecting environmentally sensitive areas and in which the scope of environmental considerations was very limited. It is also theoretically possible for a road to be built without a public inquiry, and the Secretary of State has the power to overrule the decision of any such inquiry.
  In Committee, the Minister made many well-intentioned statements on the Government's behalf and on behalf of the unknown concessionaire. I am afraid that good intentions with regard to the environment are not sufficient. Clear objectives must be written into the Bill.
  Previously, when public money has been involved, environmental considerations have taken second place to financial considerations. The fact that the Government face one, and possibly three, prosecutions by the European Community is an indictment of their commitment to protect the environment. Why should we be reassured when private money is involved, particularly when we are dealing with a Government whose underlying philosophy is that all problems can be resolved with private profit and through the marketplace? What chance is there of such a Government turning away private investment if to do so would mean that the road would have to be funded from the public purse?
  I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken some of the environmental concerns on board in new clause 3. Although I will support new clause 4, which is wider in scope and offers more guarantees, we must still go further. The Minister was also fond of saying in Committee that private roads should not be treated any differently from public roads. At the time the Minister misinterpreted my

  979
  support of his view. It would be acceptable if the environmental assessment for public roads was as far-reaching as today's amendments.
  I press the Government for a commitment that there will be an early reform of the environmental assessment procedure for all roads. Until that reform has been carried out, privately funded roads should be treated differently because they are different. They start from a completely different premise. Privately funded roads will be driven by a profit motive. The concessionaire's first responsibility will be to shareholders and not to the public.
  Despite some protests to the contrary, I am convinced that private toll roads will be development-led. I do not envisage a private enterprise coming forward on the basis of profit from tolls alone. The tolls would have to be high, and the risks would be too great for the concessionaire. I am also concerned that a Bill of this type will create a culture of road building. It will allow greater emphasis to be placed on roads—even more than there is now—at the expense of other forms of transport and at the expense of the environment.
  Liberal Democrats are committed to finding ways of reducing the need to build more roads. Before any road is built, and particularly before a privately funded road is built with its potential for development, a thorough assessment of providing alternative means of transport should be carried out, and wherever feasible a highway authority should consider ways to fund alternatives including attracting private finance.
  There are many possible alternatives, including light rail schemes, reopening existing unused railway lines and, in some cases, opening new ones. Other means may include finding ways to improve existing modes and if necessary providing a missing link to meet the requirements of an integrated travel system.
  I stress the importance of ensuring that, before this part of the Bill comes into force, we build in a safeguard to protect the environment from unnecessary and unwanted destruction. The only way to do that is to write into the Bill a requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment incorporating the objectives that I have outlined. The assessment should be carried out at the earliest possible moment before the wheels are set in perpetual motion. I listened carefully to the Minister as he moved new clause 3, but he did not answer the points that I have just made.
  Mr. Freeman: I must tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that my advice is that every toll road will be covered as a result of the amendments. The hon. Lady described a hypothetical situation in which what she described as a private toll road might not be covered. If she reflects on that and takes further advice, I hope that she will accept my assurance that the intention is that all toll roads, whether initiated, authorised or sponsored by the Secretary of State or by a local highway authority, will be covered. That is the intention and I have taken the best possible advice on that subject.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to environmental assessments. The Government regard the environmental assessment process as extremely important and we share that view with the Opposition and with the CPRE.
  On the proposed high-speed rail link between the tunnel and London, I have read some of the environmental
  980
  assessment work that has been done so far. It is not yet published, but I hope that it will be published shortly. It is a monumental effort in respect of the eastern section—a process that has been going on for six or nine months. When a preferred route is published, there will be perhaps six to 12 months of further work, before the planning permission process can even commence, for the environmental assessment of the western part of the route. We take the matter seriously. British Rail is taking it seriously. It is extremely important, and that is why I am glad to have brought forward the new clause.
  Ms. Ruddock: The Minister tempts me by his references to the Government's deep concern about environmental assessments. I wonder whether he thinks that relevant to that concern and the new clause is the prosecution on the M3 extension going through Twyford Down, the possible prosecution of the Government by the European Community over the Hackney-M11 link, and the possible prosecution for driving a road through Oxleas wood.
  Mr. Freeman: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to be tempted to go down that route. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) knows what we are discussing and my specific responsibilities. There will be many opportunities to discuss the specifics. In a moment, I might mention the M40 and the east coast motorway, which have been referred to.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North was that we must establish need first. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said on a quite separate but related point that we must have an environmental assessment at the outset. The two points are related, but not directly.
  On need, I cannot commend the encapsulation of that thought in a legislative amendment to a Bill as the right way to proceed. First, it should be fairly apparent that if there is a process by which either the Secretary of State as the road authority or the local authority is overseeing a toll road procedure, that authority, whether central Government or local government, will have had to be satisfied that there was a need in the first place. That is a practical point. It cannot be escaped; it is an essential part of the process. Secondly, I regard the process as iterative. I do not regard it as being logically compartmentalised into need or environmental assessment stages being exclusively completed at a certain procedural point before a toll road is completed.
  The lack of need or the greater need for a road, or the precise environmental impact, will become clearer as the process proceeds. We know that it is quite a long process for the Birmingham relief road. I was criticised because of what was regarded as an excessive delay in the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road, in part because of the very detailed procedures that have to be gone through. That is why the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and I part company about incorporating an amendment to require a specific statutory procedure for establishing need. It will happen anyway. It is difficult to set down in precise legal terminology what needs to be done, because it would be a fairly exhaustive list of references.
  Ms. Walley: I can understand the Minister's point about difficulties and trying to introduce an amendment at this stage. However, if he gives the matter the importance

  981
  that we give it, will he assure us that he will fully review the departmental standard in relation to environmental assessment? If he would give that commitment, we could start to examine the way in which decisions are made, their timing and their relation to the need for road planning. That would take us some further way towards greater environmental protection.
  Mr. Freeman: I am happy to give that assurance. I alluded to it in Committee, but, for the sake of clarity, I repeat that assurance. We expect advice before the end of the year on the modalities—for example, how we quantify some of the consequences of road building, whether toll roads or public roads, on the environment. That matter is extremely important. It is equally important for rail schemes. I give that assurance to the hon. Lady and, through her, to other hon. Members and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which, as the hon. Lady knows, I am a member. I have as much interest as she has. I fully expect to receive advice before the end of the year. We shall consult on the conclusions before any changes are introduced.
  6.45 pm
  The hon. Lady talked about the M40. Whether it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic who talked about a corridor for growth, I hope that the hon. Lady is not taking that comment out of context. It is an important corridor between the west midlands and London. That is the sense in which the comment was made. The hon. Member for Southport mentioned the east coast motorway. That is not a Department of Transport scheme. It is not promoted by us; it is promoted by a group of local authorities and private sector contractors. It has a long way to go before it reaches serious consideration by the Department.
  I do not believe that the toll roads that I have seen or can conceive of as viable or acceptable will be developer-led. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's view that that evil will come about. If there is to be any development, it must come about through the normal planning procedure. No provision in the Bill gives any right of compulsory purchase or any short-cuts through the planning procedures for the construction of a toll road.
  Ms. Walley: As the Minister has given an assurance that he will consult with the Council for the Protection of Rural England on environmental assessments in relation to all roads, public and private, will he give the same undertaking on the extent to which new roads allow more development to happen? I quoted the director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The Minister would best be advised by that body on the relationship of the extent to which developments arise out of new road building.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady has had a concession from me, and she seeks to extend it even further. Let us be quite clear about what I said. I said that advice from the standing advisory committee on how environmental assessments are made and how we quantify the impact on the environment is expected before the end of the year. That is the subject on which we shall consult. I cannot give
  982
  wider assurances about how the procedure is carried out. I am aware of the views of the CPRE, but that is not the subject of the Bill or what I am seeking to address.
  The hon. Lady asked me for an assurance about the duty to take care of the environment—a conservation duty—and whether it would indirectly be placed upon concessionaires. I can give her that assurance. Highway authorities, whether the Secretary of State for Transport, local authorities or their opposite numbers in Scotland, are public bodies and are bound by the legislation. Therefore, by definition, they have control over the activities of concessionaires.
  The hon. Member for Southport spoke about the environmental assessment procedure occurring at a very early stage prior to the signing of a concession agreement, which, as he knows, is part of the procedure before the public inquiry so that the public inquiry has something specific to consider. The implication of his suggestion is that one must go public on the various proposals of the competitors. If there are three, each must be subject to an environmental assessment so that there is a full public debate. That goes a little further than what happens with a public road scheme, for which there is normally a helpful leaflet, an exhibition and a public consultation procedure on the options—A, B, or C—before draft road orders are drawn up for a preferred route upon which the Secretary of State for Transport, if it is a trunk road, will decide.
  I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Southport—and it is probably shared by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North—that there is no obvious public participation in the social and, especially, the environmental impact of the alternatives before the selection of a winner, or potential concessionaire, who then makes public his proposal. Then an assessment or statement has to be completed; then a public inquiry.
  I understand that argument, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction. The point troubles me, but I cannot see a solution, for three reasons. First, there would be a greater blight if, for example, the three final competitors had to publish the details of their routes so that an environmental assessment could take place, and that is leaving aside the question whether the private sector companies would be prepared to disclose their propositions at an early stage.
  Secondly, I do not honestly believe that a specific proposal could be tested unless it was enshrined in a concession agreement. A specific route needs to be analysed in terms of its environmental impact, but if an assessment were sought at a much earlier stage the ideas would be far too vague and woolly.
  Thirdly, environmental assessment is part of the whole process of bringing a toll road proposal to a conclusion. Proper understanding of the environmental impact of a road is important for the private contractor right from the word go. He must talk to the local authorities, the statutory bodies and the lobby groups in order to understand some of the issues. If he does not, he will not be successful.
  Mr. Fearn: Does not the Minister agree that, behind any successful concessionaire, there would have to be something which he said I described as an evil—although I am not sure whether I used that word? There could be a hidden agenda to favour development-led schemes.
  Mr. Freeman: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance in respect of that assertion, but the propositions that I have seen which, speaking on behalf of the Government, I believe are likely to be acceptable and viable are not developer-led. If such a proposition were to be advanced—I have seen this with some putative rail schemes—I do not believe that it would commend itself either to the local authorities, which in the case of a major national scheme have the power to force a public inquiry, or to local opinion.
  The hon. Gentleman is asking the impossible. I cannot give him an assurance that no scheme would be motivated by such factors, but it is neither our policy nor our intention that such roads should be born of a desire to capitalise on developer gain.
  Mr. Fearn: The Minister referred to schemes that he had already seen. Does that mean that there are schemes for toll roads already before us?
  Mr. Freeman: No, I was referring to schemes that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already announced. I hope that I have answered all the questions asked during the debate.
  Ms. Walley rose—
  Mr. Freeman: Clearly, I have not.
  Ms. Walley: Briefly, and for the sake of clarity on the issue of the environmental duty, I should like to check with the Minister whether I heard him correctly. Was he saying that private companies, by virtue of taking a licence from the highway authority, would have the same duties as public authorities in connection with the prescription of section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968?
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady knows that that was not what I said. Because public sector bodies are bound by the legislation, they will ensure that those to whom they grant a concession or licence will also take care of their environmental duties. I know that that may not be acceptable to the hon. Lady, but my argument. on amendment No. 37 was that I honestly believed the proposal to be unnecessary. The hon. Lady may believe in writing into law that which is unnecessary, but as a Conservative I do not.
  The legislation on the duty of conservation is laudable, and general in nature. The procedures already in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that, right from the conception of an idea through the whole process until the final confirming orders, an environmental conservation duty will be uppermost in the minds of the promoters of roads. I hope that the hon. Lady does not believe that, simply because toll roads are involved, the private sector promoters will have a lesser duty and interest in minimising and mitigating the environmental impact than would be the case if a public road were involved.
  Ms. Walley: The Minister says that nothing should be written into the Bill, and that the duties will be taken up by any respectable private company. Will he consider giving advice and guidance to private companies on carrying out that which for local authorities and other public bodies is a duty, but which they will be expected to undertake voluntarily?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not in Committee but on Report. We are making very slow progress.
  Mr. Freeman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to ensure that we make progress as fast as we can. The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that the amendment concerning concession agreements, which I hope we shall soon reach, will provide a solution to her problem.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

  CONCESSION STATEMENT
  '.—(1) Before making a toll order a highway authority shall publish a concession statement.
  (2) The concession statement shall contain details of any provisions in the concession agreement for the special road concerned in relation to—

  (a) the exercise of highway functions by the concessionaire;

  (b) the design, construction and maintenance standards of the road;

  (c)—the policing of the road and the provision of other emergency services;

  (d) the arrangements for monitoring the performance of the concessionaire in the management of the road;

  (e) the arrangements for winter maintenance and other emergency clearance operations on the road and the standards to be adopted;

  (f) the provision of service and refreshment facilities;

  (g) the reversion of the road to the highway authority; and

  (h) any other matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No.71, in clause 6, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
  '(5A) The Secretary of State shall not make or confirm the scheme or toll order unless it is accompanied by a concession statement fulfilling the requirements of section (concession statement) below.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 28 and 105.
  Ms. Ruddock: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition intend to make good progress.
  We tabled the new clause and the amendment because of an obvious deficiency in the Bill. We pursued the matter in Committee and felt that we had had a positive response from the Minister, but we still felt it necessary to table the new clause because we were uncertain whether the Government's response at this stage would be satisfactory. I am pleased to tell the House that we think that it probably will be.
  The new clause would require a highway authority, before making a toll order, to publish a concession statement. It sets out a number of subjects that would have to be covered in such a statement. We believe that it represents the legitimate interests of road users and of organisations such as local authorities. There is no requirement in the Bill for concession agreements to be published—indeed, the Government rejected moves to enforce the publication of agreements on the ground that some of their content might be commercially confidential.

  985
  The new clause makes allowance for that by requiring the publication of a statement covering aspects of the agreement rather than the agreement as a whole.
  The Minister's response to the demands that we made in Committee is reflected in Government amendments Nos. 28 and 105. Those amendments are welcome and, if I can elicit certain assurances from the Minister, they may be as acceptable to us as is our new clause. Unlike new clause 8, amendment No. 28 does not specify the content of the statement. It leaves that to regulations. We concede that there may be some merit in doing that. It is on that matter that we seek assurances. Does the Minister intend to cover in the regulations the issues listed in new clause 8? I am sure that he appreciates that I seek his assurances on that general point.
  Perhaps the Minister will also understand if I raise one specific and additional point. New clause 8(2)(c) refers to the policing of concession roads. The costs of policing toll roads were discussed in some detail in Committee. The Minister said that the Government had reviewed their position and considered that concessionaires should be required to meet the cost of policing concession roads only where those roads did not form part of a public highway.
  Since the debates in Committee, the implications of parts I and II of the Bill for the police have been considered by several police authorities. On 11 April, the general purposes committee of West Midlands police authority resolved that efforts should be made to ensure that
  "the police are able to recover their full costs from concessionaires of any activities undertaken with regard to concession roads."
  On 10 May, the finance and policy committee of Greater Manchester police authority agreed to support the views expressed by West Midlands police authority.
  Given that there is increasing anxiety on the issue of policing, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether there is anything to prevent an agreement being reached between a highway authority and a concessionaire that provides for the concessionaire to contribute to the cost of policing the road.
  Having raised that specific point with the Minister, and in the interests of making rapid progress, it remains only for me to remind the Minister that his response to our query on the content of the proposed regulations will determine our attitude to pressing the new clause.
  7 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I shall seek to be brief on this point. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) for implying that she might find Government amendment No. 28 and the parallel Scottish amendment acceptable instead of her new clause 8. She raised a couple of points. First, she asked what was likely to be in the regulations. We agreed in Committee that we would like a summary of the concession agreement to be published for all those interested prior to the public inquiry. However, concession agreements are often voluminous and the hon. Lady agreed that it was unreasonable to expect them all to be published. Without commitment, I can tell the hon. Lady that most of what the new clause suggests would commend itself to inclusion in draft regulations. We shall consult on the regulations before they are presented to Parliament.
  986
  The hon. Lady's second point was about policing. I am not sure that she reported accurately what I said in Committee. Detailed arrangements for particular roads can be covered in the concession agreement. There may be circumstances in which the concessionaire and the highway authority wish to reach agreement on the arrangements. That would be entirely a matter for them. I make it clear that, as a general policy, toll roads for which the Government see a need and which by definition qualify for the roads programme should be policed at public expense. After all, they are part of the Queen's highway and are public highways.
  I see no logical reason for separating toll roads from publicly financed free roads. Any category of user permitted to use the toll road has an absolute right to use that road. It would be neither fair nor reasonable to argue that there should be any impediment or disincentive to the emergency services, including the police, to cover those roads.
  In conclusion—I seek to be brief—on some roads, perhaps those which are not in the roads programme, a concession agreement could be reached which covered policing responsibilities and the apportionment of cost.
  Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister. Those assurances are satisfactory to us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  CONCESSION AGREEMENTS
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
  '(5A) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice giving guidance on the matters to be dealt with in the concession agreement; and in entering into a concession agreement a highway authority shall have regard to any such code of practice.'.
  As you asked us to make progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, intend to be brief.
  The effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on the contents of concession agreements. A highway authority entering into such an agreement would have to have regard to the contents of the code. This would apply whether the highway authority was the Department of Transport or a local authority.
  The concession agreement is the kernel of parts I and II of the Bill—it is the document which gives a company the right to charge a toll on a road in return for having built it and undertaken to maintain and operate it. The concession agreement is defined in the first line of the first clause in the Bill.
  It is inevitable, therefore, that the concept of the agreements has been the subject of amendments at every stage of the Bill's parliamentary process. Amendments have been primarily aimed at agreements. They have attempted both to define the basic content of the agreements and to probe the Government's mind on what issues can legitimately be included in agreements—subject, inevitably, to the acceptance of both parties to an agreement.
  The subjects that we have raised in debates include environmental responsibilities; links between the concession road and the local highway network; design and

  987
  construction standards applying to the road maintenance arrangements; the provision of service and refreshment facilities; and arrangements for the reversion of the road to the public sector.
  In response to debates Ministers have fought shy of attempting to define the likely contents of an agreement in the Bill. For example, in Committee the Minister said that the concession agreement was
  "a contract between the highway authority and the successful concessionaire. It is a long, technical document containing what would normally be classified as information in commercial confidence."
  He went on to argue that he hoped that
  "the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford does not expect too much from the concession agreement. It is an important document, but it should not be prescriptive."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, c. 50–51.]
  Presumably the Minister did not mean that the agreement should not be prescriptive—as a contract, it must, by definition, be prescriptive—but that the Bill should not be prescriptive about the contents of agreements. If so, the Minister's argument has some validity. The contents of an agreement must inevitably reflect local needs and circumstances; and the content of agreements is likely to change and develop over time.
  But there is also a strong case for some guidance or ground rules on the context in which individual agreements would be formulated. The contents of concession agreements are bound to be the subject of negotiation between a highway authority—in most cases the Secretary of State—and the prospective concessionaire. It is important that the travelling public and other authorities are protected against the possibility of the highway authority giving too much away to the concessionaire in an effort to secure the company's agreement to construct the road.
  A code of practice along the lines proposed in the amendment would set out the ground rules against which individual agreements could be judged. It could also contain advice that would be of use to both highway authorities and companies considering entering into an agreement. A code of practice would also be capable of being amended and updated in the light of experience.
  Mr. Freeman: In this Bill we are responsible for more codes of practice than in any other piece of legislation in the past 10 years. I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly some guidance will be needed at the outset. I give an assurance that a circular will be issued to all local authorities at the outset.
  On a prescriptive code of practice, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that one probably needs some experience of operating toll roads. It would not be sensible to issue any non-statutory code at the outset. We trust local highway authorities to have the good sense to get on with the task, if they are minded to introduce toll roads. I hope that some of them will. However, I am under no illusions that initially the initiative will rest with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland. I do not rule out a code of practice, but not at the outset. To begin with, there will be a guidance circular. If its provisions need to be encapsulated more precisely in a code of practice later, so be it.
  Mr. McAvoy: How would the environmental aspect be encompassed in a circular?
  Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the circular that is to be issued at the outset, I hope that he will bear with me if I do not detail all the elements that will be included in it. However, I can give him a clear assurance that all the environmental aspects will be covered—in particular, environmental assessment, the procedure for consultation and the procedure for taking into account the views of those who have an appellate right to express their opinions about the construction of a particular road. These are absolutely central issues. I hope that there is no political divide on the importance of a proper and full environmental assessment. I hope that, having heard those comments, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the Minister for his co-operative attitude. The assurances that he has given are most welcome. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (6).

Schedule 2

  PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH TOLL ORDERS
  Amendment made: No. 28, in page 97, line 2, at end insert—
  '(3) Where the special road to which the toll order relates is to be subject to a concession, the Secretary of State or the local highway authority shall make available for inspection with the copy of the draft order or of the order, as the case may be, a statement containing such information as may be prescribed with respect to the concessionaire and the concession agreement.
  The notice under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall indicate that such a statement will be so available for inspection.
  (4) In sub-paragraph (3) "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 98, line 15, at end insert—
  'Special parliamentary procedure where existing highway appropriated or transferred
  8A.—(1) A toll order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure where—

  (a) the relevant special road scheme provides for the appropriation by or transfer to the special road authority of an existing highway comprised in the route prescribed by the scheme, and

  (b) the toll order authorises the charging of tolls for the use of that existing highway or any part of it,

  unless the Secretary of State is satisfied as regards all classes of traffic entitled to use the existing highway that another reasonably convenient route free of toll is available, or will be provided before the date on which the appropriation or transfer takes effect, and certifies accordingly.
  (2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to give such a certificate, he shall—

  (a) give public notice of his intention to do so,

  (b) afford an opportunity to all persons interested to make representations and objections, and

  (c) cause a public local inquiry to be held if it appears to him to be expedient to do so, having regard to representations or objections made,

  989
  and before deciding whether to give the certificate he shall consider any representations and objections made and, if an inquiry has been held, the report of the person who held the inquiry.
  (3) As soon as may be after giving a certificate, the Secretary of State shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the certificate has been given.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendments: Nos. 39, 40, 72, 108 and 111 to 114.
  Mr. Freeman: We have tabled this amendment in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and others. What we are seeking to do in what, on the face of it, may seem to be a draconian measure is to ensure that, where any part of the existing public highway that is free and untolled is proposed to be incorporated into a toll road—there may be circumstances where that is inescapable, necessary and sensible—tough protection is provided. The concessionaire would be able to choose not to toll a specific small section of a road that was previously a public highway. If, however, it is to be tolled, the Secretary of State would be asked to certify that there was a reasonably convenient free alternative.
  The certification procedure would be subject to objection and public inquiry, where necessary. If the Secretary of State could not certify that there was an alternative, or a road that could be specially constructed by the concessionaire to fulfil that requirement, there is a special parliamentary procedure. It is a very special procedure. I understand that it has been used only twice since 1945. It was last used for the Okehampton bypass. It means in essence that Parliament must make a decision. It may seem that these measures are too draconian, but the Government take seriously the view that there should be a compromise so that the public can continue to use the existing public highway.
  Ms. Ruddock: I think the Minister has begun to answer my point. I had intended to ask him how he would define a reasonably free and convenient road as an alternative. I think that he has just acknowledged that it might not be available. That would be my contention. In the circumstances that we are considering, it would be difficult to define that reasonable alternative.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's agreement.
  Mr. Fearn: I thank the Minister for handling this matter very well indeed. His reply to what I proposed in Committee is very satisfactory. He referred to small sections of public road that may need to be incorporated in a toll road. Small sections would probably be ignored. Alternative routes would have to be found for larger sections. If, however, half of a proposed toll road is a public road now, how would the Minister treat it? Would the concessionaire have to put something back into the public purse, since it belongs to the highway authority and local people?
  Mr. Freeman: I find it hard to conceive of circumstances in which half a proposed toll road would previously have
  990
  been a public highway. I imagine that the concessionaire would say that, if one used only the public highway portion and got on or off it there, one would not pay a toll. If, however, one used the whole of a toll road incorporating a previously untolled portion of the public highway, the toll would be commensurately reduced. The toll would cover, therefore, only that portion of road space that was a toll road. If there is to be a toll—and that is a big "if'—a public alternative must be built. In practical terms, if it does not already exist it will have to be provided by the concessionaire, who will have to build it into his costs. Alternatively, Parliament must make a decision. That seems to be watertight. I hope that I carry the House with me, although perhaps not entirely.
  Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister take amendment No. 40 into account? I have well understood what he has just said; I follow its logic. However, amendment No. 40 throws into doubt what he has just said about amendments Nos. 38 and 39. As I understand it, amendment No. 40 is designed to prevent an order from extending tolls to part of a special road on which they have not previously applied. That seems to imply that it could lead to part of a toll road not being tolled. Is that correct?
  Furthermore, some parts of the concession roads need not be tolled at all. The only circumstances in which I can envisage that being acceptable to concessionaires is possibly where there is a development gain that can be offset against the "free part" of the road. In that slightly confused way perhaps, may I ask the Minister to relate what he has said about amendments Nos. 38 and 39 to amendment No. 40?
  Mr. Freeman: I can help the hon. Lady. Amendment No. 40 seeks—after we have shut, bolted, barred and padlocked the door—to ensure that there is no subsequent variation of the toll order by introducing a toll for that portion of the toll road that was previously public. The amendment has been added in an effort to make absolutely certain that no attempt can be made to take away the public's right to what is now a free and untolled public highway.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 39, in page 98, line 37, at end insert—
  '9A.—(1) In relation to a toll order which is subject to special parliamentary procedure—

  (a) if the order is confirmed by Act of Parliament under section 6 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, paragraph 9 above does not apply;

  (b)—in any other case, that paragraph has effect subject to the following modifications —

  (i) the reference in sub-paragraph (I) to the date on which the notice required by paragraph 8 is published (or first published) shall be construed as a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the Act of 1945, and

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (5) the words "and shall become operative" to the end shall be omitted.

  (2) The provisions of paragraph 9(1) to (3) and (5) above apply in relation to a certificate under paragraph 8A as in relation to a toll order, subject to the following modifications—

  (a) the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to the notice required by paragraph 8 shall be construed as a reference to the notice required by paragraph 8A(3), and

  (b) in sub-paragraph (5) for "made or confirmed" substitute "given" and omit the words from "and shall become operative" to the end.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 8

  AMOUNT OF TOLLS CHARGEABLE BY CONCESSIONAIRE
  Ms. Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 41, leave out from 'if' to end of line 43 and insert—

  '(a) the road to which the order relates consists of or includes a major crossing to which there is no reasonably convenient alternative, or

  (b) the highway authority and concessionaire agree that it should do so.'.

  I shall attempt to be as brief as I possibly can, to speed up the proceedings.
  We believe that this is a flexible amendment that deals with meeting transport needs. It moves away from the market forces that the Government are so concerned about. Only through clause 8 is it possible to regulate cases that apply to major crossings. The amendment would change that by allowing tolls to be regulated, but only where the highway authority and the concessionaire agreed that the regulation would be appropriate. The matter was discussed in Committee and the Government thought that this was a wrecking amendment, but that is not so. Perhaps some examples from the west midlands will show the importance of further regulation being incorporated in the Bill.
  I should like to quote from a letter sent by the secretary of the west midlands planning and transportation sub-committee to the Department of Transport. The letter expresses concern about the proposal that the western orbital route and the Birmingham northern relief road should be developed as concession roads. The subcommittee contains representatives of the seven metropolitan district councils in the west midlands. The letter said that the tolling of the two roads was of great concern to the west midlands conurbation as a whole. I know that the Minister is aware of that. The letter states:
  "It is likely that traffic volume on the M5 and M6 through the conurbation will not be significantly reduced as drivers will continue to use the free routes unless there is a significant benefit to them."
  The Department replied in a letter dated 24 April which states:
  "You question the benefits that a tolled road would offer by way of relief to the M5 and M6. In order to establish a viable business the operator of a tolled road would have to attract a substantial number of road users by means of a competitive toll."
  In that context, the Department was looking at market forces that would encourage the concessionaire to build the road in the first place rather than at the whole issue of transport needs, which the amendment addresses. When transport needs that a road is intended to meet involve taking traffic away from an existing route, it is essential for the highway authority to be able to ensure that the toll is set at a level that will achieve that objective. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
  The amendment would allow tolls to be regulated only where agreement had been reached between the highway authority and the concessionaire. Circumstances may emerge in which a prospective concessionaire proposes a toll road which the highway authority is prepared to accept, provided that the level of the toll can be regulated. Rather than back out completely, the concessionaire may be prepared to accept that condition—subject, of course, to the rules and regulations being agreed.
  The Bill does not allow for such an agreement, but the amendment would provide some flexibility and, in
  992
  appropriate circumstances, will enable highway authorities to take advantage of private sector finance while at the same time protecting the interests of the road user through toll regulations.
  I urge the Minister not to dismiss our amendment by calling it a wrecking amendment, but to agree that in some circumstances it might be highly pragmatic to go beyond the tight constraints of clause 8 and consider regulation where there was agreement between the parties concerned.
  Mr. Freeman: In some circumstances, the concessionaires and the highway authority will want to agree on regulating tolls, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. The hon. Lady does not believe in toll roads; for her it is a hypothetical problem, because she will never be in a position to negotiate with concessionaires. We strongly believe in toll roads and think that the Birmingham northern relief road and the western orbital route will bring great benefits to the west midlands. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly be able to make a statement about a further stage in the process of bringing the western orbital route to fruition.
  The Government do not see a case for regulating the tolls on either of those two roads. They are not monopolies, and there will be public alternatives. There is a case for regulation over estuarial crossings on which there is a monopoly, and that is written into the Bill. We do not intend to enter into any agreement with any concessionaires to regulate or limit the tolls on toll roads over which the Secretary of State for Transport has a control. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent others from doing so. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.
  Ms. Walley: I am not as reassured as the Minister might think. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

  VARIATION OR REVOCATION OF TOLL ORDER
  Amendment made: No. 40, in page 7, line 38, at end insert
  '; and a toll order which does not authorise the charging of tolls in respect of the whole length of the special road to which it relates may not be varied so as to extend the length of road in respect of which tolls may be charged.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 12

  EXTENSION TOLL ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 8, line 28, leave out 'and'.
  No. 30, in page 8, line 29, at end insert
  ',and
  section (Annual report on concession agreements and toll orders) (annual report by Secretary of State).'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 13

  FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO CHARGING OF TOLLS
  Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 8, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 9 and insert—

  993

  '(a) a police vehicle, identifiable as such by writing or markings on it or otherwise by its appearance, if being used for police purposes;

  (b) an ambulance as defined in section 4(2) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971;

  (c) a fire engine as so defined;

  (d) a vehicle exempt from duty under that Act by virtue of—

  section 4(1)(g) of that Act (invalid carriages),
  section 4(1)(kb) of that Act (vehicles used for carriage of disabled persons by recognised bodies), or
  section 7(2) of that Act (vehicles used by or for purposes of disabled person).'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
  No. 36, in page 9, line 3, at end insert—
  '(c) a vehicle diverted on to the concession road by a police constable.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 32, 78 and 79.
  Mr. Freeman: I can be brief because the hon. Gentleman to whom I would have been responding, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), is not in his place. Therefore, I shall record briefly that the amendments seek to provide, as we all wish, free passage for police vehicles, ambulances, fire engines, invalid carriages and vehicles used for the carriage on toll roads of disabled persons by recognised bodies which, of course, are exempt from vehicle excise duty.
  Individual toll orders could add additional categories, if that were appropriate. Amendment No. 32 and the equivalent Scottish amendment No. 79 essentially provide that the design of the toll routes should facilitate the free and unimpeded passage of these vehicles. These are uncontroversial amendments and I hope that they will be accepted.
  Ms. Walley: The main Government amendments are obvious, and we cannot understand why their provisions were not in the Bill. However, we are glad to welcome them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for pursuing the matter in Committee.
  We share the concern about safety which we understand has been expressed by the West Midlands police authority, whose general purposes committee thinks that the Bill should be amended to reflect the right of the police to direct traffic to toll roads in cases of emergency or other appropriate need without penalty to the drivers of the vehicles so directed. I understand that that view is shared by the Greater Manchester police authority.
  It is clear from the west midlands example that concesson roads could be designed to provide an alternative route for traffic that is currently using motorways. Does the Minister share our concern about that? In the interests of public safety, does he agree with the amendment?
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) also spoke in Committee to amendment No. 36. I understand the arguments in favour of the amendment, but I am not sympathetic to them because, as I hope I explained to members of the Committee, the police powers on roads are negative, not positive. At present the police cannot direct a motorist to use another road, although they can tell him that he cannot go any further because there has been an accident
  994
  or a fire. I do not want to amend the general law on police powers on roads. I hope that common sense will prevail when an accident occurs on a toll road. In any case, the hon. Lady knows that traffic often reverses down the carriageway of a motorway. Perhaps the hon. Lady is thinking about the M6 and the Birmingham northern relief road. If there is a major accident, there are well-established procedures for reversing traffic safely to the nearest exit point.
  I do not envisage that it will present a practical problem. To the extent that it presents a hypothetical problem, the common sense of the owners of the toll roads—the concessionaires—will mean that in practice they will permit traffic on to the toll road if there is a dire emergency. If the accident occurs just before the entrance to a toll road, I hope—and all reasonable people would hope—that that traffic would be allowed on to the toll road.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

  FACILMES FOR COLLECTION OF TOLLS
  Amendments made: No. 32, in page 10, line 29, at end insert—
  '() Those responsible for the design and construction of facilities for the collection of tolls, and those responsible for the collection of tolls at such facilities, shall have due regard to the need to avoid delaying the passage of such vehicles as are mentioned in section 13(2)(a), (b) or (c) (police vehicles, ambulances and fire engines).'.
  No. 33, in page 10, line 36, leave out 'valuation' and insert 'rating'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in line 39, leave out
  'may be necessary or convenient'
  and insert 'are reasonably required'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 73 and 80.
  Mr. Freeman: This is slightly more than a technical amendment. It tightens the definition of which part of the toll booths and the equipment necessary for tolling roads should be free from rates. It tightens the present provision which describes the part of the equipment that should enjoy that facility which was described as "necessary or convenient"—I think that that was the will of the Committee—and makes it that which is "reasonably required". I commend the amendment to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

New Clause 9

  REPORT ON TOLL ROADS AND TOLL ORDERS IN SCOTLAND
  '.—(1) In any calendar year in which there occurs an event to which this section applies, the Secretary of State shall in respect of that year lay before Parliament a report informing Parliament of that occurrence or, as the case may be, the number of such occurrences.
  (2) This section applies to the following events—

  (a) the Secretary of State enters into a contract for the design and construction of a road which is to be subject to a toll order;

  995

  (b) there is opened to public use a new road subject to a toll order for which he is the roads authority;

  (c) a toll order, or an order varying or revoking a toll order, is made or confirmed by him.

  (3) A report under this section shall contain such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders (whenever made) which are in force during that year or any part of it.
  (4) A report under this section shall be laid on or before 31st July in the following calendar year.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SPECIAL ROADS IN SCOTLAND
  '.—(1) In section 20A of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (environmental assessment of certain road construction projects), after subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) insert—
  "(2A) Any project for the construction of a special road which falls within Annex II to the Directive shall be treated as having such characteristics that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive.".
  (2) In section 55A of that Act (environmental assessment of certain road improvement projects), in subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) after the word "and" there shall be inserted the words "either the project is in respect of a special road or the project".'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 25

  TOLL ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 72, in page 16, line 11, leave out
  'and paragraphs 15 and 18 of Part III'
  and insert
  ',paragraphs 15 and 18 of Part III and Part IV".
  No. 73, in page 16, line 45, leave out from 'facilities' to 'for' in line 46 and insert
  'within the boundary of the road or on land adjoining the road as are reasonably required'
  No. 74, in page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (10). —[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 28

  EXTENSION TOLL ORDERS
  Amendments made: No. 75, in page 18, line 39, leave out 'and'.
  No. 76, in page 18, line 40 at end insert ', and
  () section (Report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland) (report by Secretary of State).'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 32

  VARIATION OR REVOCATION OF TOLL ORDER
  Amendment made: No. 108, in page 20, line 37, at end insert—
  '() A toll order which does not authorise the charging of tolls in respect of he whole length of the special road to which it relates may not be varied so as to extend the length of road in respect of which tolls may be charged.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 33

  TRANSFER OR TERMINATION OF ASSIGNATION
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
  '(6) References in this Part to the termination of an assignation are references to the termination of the rights assigned under the assignation.'.
  This a minor technical amendment. It merely makes it clear that the references to an assignation ceasing are interpreted as references to rights under an assignation ceasing which, in strict legal terms, is more correct. The amendment is necessary only to avoid any ambiguities and does not change the intended effect of any of the provisions.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34

  FURTHER PROVISION AS TO CHARGING OF TOLLS
  Amendments made: No. 78, in page 21, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 22 and insert—

  '(a) a police vehicle, identifiable as such by writing or markings on it or otherwise by its appearance, if being used for police purposes;

  (b) an ambulance as defined in section 4(2) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971;

  (c) a fire engine as so defined;

  (d) a vehicle exempt from duty under that Act by virtue of—

  section 4(1)(g) of that Act (invalid carriages),

  section 4(1)(kb) of that Act (vehicles used for carriage of disabled persons by recognised bodies), or

  section 7(2) of that Act (vehicles used by or for purposes of disabled person).'.

  No. 79, in page 23, line 29, at end insert—
  '() Those responsible for the design and construction of facilities for the collection of tolls, and those responsible for the collection of tolls at such facilities, shall have due regard to the need to avoid delaying the passage of such vehicles as are mentioned in section 34(2)(a), (b) or (c) (police vehicles, ambulances and fire engines).'.
  No. 80, in page 23, line 38, leave out
  'may be necessary or convenient'
  and insert 'are reasonably required'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

New Clause 7

  CHARGE FOR OCCUPATION OF THE HIGHWAY WHERE WORKS UNREASONABLY PROLONGED
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay a charge to the highway authority where—

  (a) the duration of the works exceeds such period as may be prescribed, and

  (b) the works are not completed within a reasonable period.

  (2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the undertaker to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable, for completion of the works in question.
  In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbitrator.
  (3) The regulations may provide that if an undertaker has reason to believe that the duration of works will exceed the prescribed period he may submit to the authority an estimate of their likely duration—

  (a) in the case of works in connection with the initial placing of apparatus in the street in pursuance of a street works licence, together with his application for the licence,

  (b) in the case of other works (not being emergency works), together with his notice under section 51 (notice of starting date), or

  (c) in the case of emergency works, as soon as reasonably practicable after the works are begun,

  and that the period stated in an estimate so submitted shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the undertaker that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the works—

  (a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,

  (b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or

  (c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,

  he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the time taken to complete the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works.
  Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the works are executed and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
  (6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.
  (7) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.
  (8) The first regulations for the purposes of this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Freeman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient also to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 53.
  Government new clause 11—Charge for occupation of the road where works unreasonably prolonged.
  Government amendments Nos. 109, 66, 67, 69 and 110.
  Mr. Freeman: We have now moved from toll roads to the street works portion of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will deal with some of the amendments but, with your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with the first group.
  New clause 7 represents the fulfilment of a commitment made in Committee to think again about the basis of charging for occupation of the road by statutory undertakers. It represents a major change and I have, as
  998
  promised, consulted representatives of local authorities and the statutory undertakers since the Committee stage. I hope that the new clause and the related amendments will commend themselves to the House.
  I shall explain as briefly but as accurately as I can the purpose of the new clause. First, it is designed as a permissive power. That means that the Secretary of State would bring into force by way of regulation and subject to affirmative resolution the power for highway authorities to charge for the occupation of roads only if he was convinced that it was necessary because there was an abuse. I think that we all want to expedite street works. We do not want roads to be dug up for longer than necessary.
  The second important point is that the payment to the highway authorities made by those undertaking street works would be stipulated as maximum charges. There would be the opportunity to waive or to reduce the charges if that seemed sensible—for example, because they were too small or because there were circumstances in which it was not sensible to pursue the matter. That would be for the judgment of the highway authorities. However, the payment would be made only after a minimum free period which could be, for example, a week—I use that period only for illustrative purposes—so that all street works, whether they are to dig up and repair a gas main, to lay cable television or to allow British Telecom to put in new works for telephone subscribers, would be covered by the same blanket minimum free period to be prescribed in regulations.
  Payment would start clocking up only on a per diem basis and perhaps on the basis of the extent to which the road was blocked, after the expiration of a reasonable period. That period which would have to be agreed between the highway authority and the statutory undertaker would clearly have to be greater than the minimum period. However, once the undertaker exceeded that reasonable period, he would be liable for a charge. The basis for the maximum charge would be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State if he were so minded and if there were evidence of continued abuse.
  Concern was expressed in Committee that we did not want all the statutory undertakers—the utilities and those that have a statutory right to dig up the road—to be clobbered for the excesses, misdemeanours or laggardliness of one or two. This mechanism means that the charge would be borne by the statutory undertaker responsible for the execessive delay and would not be a burden imposed on all which would be implied by a daily charge.
  The provision also covers skips in the road and scaffolding. How often have we seen scaffolding or builders' skips left unnecessarily for long periods on the roads—in traffic sensitive or non-traffic sensitive streets—merely because the contractor or the builder had either forgotten about them or found it convenient to park them on the public road or footway. We do not want that to happen unnecessarily and new clause 7 catches both examples.
  We want a powerful incentive for those who dig up the road or who have works on the road—the carriageway or the footway—to carry out those works as expeditiously as possible. We do not want to place a burden on all utilities—and hence on their customers—for all their work, some which will inevitably take some time and where a reasonable period can be agreed.
  Ms. Ruddock: We are dealing with the street works part of the Bill, which is the part on which we have been able to proceed with the most harmony. However, there were some sticking points and the clause that the Government seek to amend by introducing new clause 7 was one of the major difficulties encountered in Committee.
  It falls to me to congratulate the Minister on listening so well to the issues that were raised in our debates and on consulting—as I know that he has—in some depth with the local authority associations and with the utilities. Our concerns and, as I understand it, those of the local authority associations and of the utilities are met in new clause 7 and the consequent amendments. We are happy to support the new clause and the amendments. They achieve what we have sought all along—to make it clear that there is only a reserve power.
  I have only a few questions that seek assurances from the Minister on behalf of the local authority associations. They are concerned that the charging relief will be implemented only if the other anti-congestion elements of the Bill are shown not to be working. The Minister has suggested that, but it would be useful if he could clearly confirm it and put it on the record. Will the Department of Transport consult with the joint highway authorities utilities committee on any decision to implement the clause and on the detail of the regulations to be made?
  Will the Government work to ensure that the charging regime, if it has to be administered, is as easy to administer as possible? If the charges are introduced, will they be set at a level which will at least enable the highway authorities to recover any costs they incur in administering the scheme?
  If the Minister is able to respond to those few points, Labour Members will be more than satisfied.
  Sir Peter Maker: I declare an interest as chairman of a cable television company.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) spoke in the way that she did. There is harmony on both sides of the House about the merits of clause 70. As the hon. Lady said, the clause caused concern in Committee, as it did to the utilities, the Cable Television Association and to the highway authorities. They all support the Bill and they understand the purpose of clause 70, but as my hon. Friend the Minister said, it punishes the class for the misdemeanours of one or two of its members and that is especially relevant to the cable television industry which is at the beginning of a long programme of cable laying in the ground. That has to be done for understandable environmental reasons. The great danger of the clause as it stood was that it would endanger investment in the cable television industry.
  The utilities, the cable television industry and the highways authorities are happy with the new clause because it provides the incentive to those who dig up streets to behave properly and provides no disincentive to investment.
  I add to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Deptford to the Minister. In particular, the way in which he conducted the debates in Committee on this part of the Bill was a model of the way in which such proceedings should be conducted.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: In welcoming the new clause, I declare an interest as a consultant to British Telecom.
  1000
  The new clause has achieved in a straightforward and helpful manner all that was asked of my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee and in meetings outside. There were plenty of them and he listened attentively and took a constructive attitude. I thank him for that.
  The new clause has confirmed what the utilities in particular were seeking, which is that the power in the new clause should be a reserve power only, that the scheme will be essentially a charge for dilatory work rather than a broad rental fee and that free periods, when no charges are payable, will be prescribed. That was the heart of what was sought and it is at the heart of the new clause. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the help that he has given.
  It will be a much simpler scheme to administer than the one previously proposed. The administrative complications of the previous scheme would have got us all into a great deal of trouble. It would have taken time and would have been costly to implement. The system in the new clause should come into effect only on relatively rare occasions when undertakings have failed to live up to the commitments that they have made to the street authority.
  7.45 pm
  I hope that undertakings will make doubly sure that they do not bring down on themselves the need for the implementation of the new clause. It is in their own hands to ensure that they are not faced with additional difficulties.
  In Committee, we perhaps did not pay sufficient attention to the other side of the coin—the interests of road users. We considered the position of utilities and tried to ensure that their interests would be looked after as far as was possible. It is important to emphasise, however, that at no stage have hon. Members lost sight of the fact that one of the cardinal principles of the Bill is to ensure that road users have an easier right of passage along the roads of this country than has hitherto been the case, because of street works continuing for too long at the end of which the quality of the road is often impaired.
  I and other hon. Members who I believe speak for road users recognise that the new clause is a strong weapon to use against an undertaking which fails to consider the interests of road users by not attempting to remove itself from a road with the minimum possible delay. It is right that we should insist that the new clause, like the clause that it replaces, ensures that road users are inconvenienced as little as possible. The proposal to introduce charges for failure to achieve rather than charges for merely being on the road at all is not a diminution of our determination to ensure that road users are able to use roads uninterrupted by the activities of undertakers.
  With that point made clear, I give a warm welcome to the new clause.
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for having only recently entered the Chamber. I am sure that he will realise that I should have been delighted to be more involved, having tried unsuccessfully to take a small private Bill through the House which impinged slightly on the matters before us.
  New clause 7 and the amendments to schedule 8 seem —forgive me if I am wrong—to concentrate solely on charges. I support that; it is an admirable move. However, will the power to make provision by regulations enable the

  1001
  Secretary of State under schedule 8 to deal with a code of practice that might cover some of the safety factors that arise when, for example, skips are left on the road?
  In the past few years, in my constituency, skips have been left on the public highway as a result of street works, sometimes with no lighting or reflectors, and that has led to one or two nasty accidents. Responsibility for that tends to be shuffled around. The same applies to large holes in the road which result from street works. I have had constituents who do not know whether to claim compensation from the contractor, the local authority or the Ministry of Transport. Will the Minister explain whether the regulations in schedule 8 deal with such a situation and whether, in the broader context, the schedule states whether there should be road signs ahead of a skip left on the road? It is a little late when one comes round the corner and finds that there is a skip in the road, so prior warning is needed.
  I have been unable to find the necessary provision in the schedule, but am happy to be told that I am wrong. Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State deal with safety aspects when skips are left on the highway for any length of time?
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I add my thanks to the Minister for his reasonable reaction to questions and criticisms of various aspects of this part of the Bill? I declare an interest as a parliamentary consultant to Seeboard. In this instance, I should thank Seeboard for educating me on the points that should be raised at this stage.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minster give me an assurance on clause 91 which, although not presently under discussion, is related to the debate? It deals with statutory defences and the related question of prosecutions. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister's officials have had meetings with legal representatives and that they have agreed that clause 91, as it relates to this discussion, is perfectly acceptable, and that points of confusion that need clarification can be explained in relevant codes of practice or through drafting amendments to defence provisions.
  Will the Minister reassure me on those issues? I thank him, once again, for introducing the new clause.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for the comments on the way in which the Department of Transport has met concerns. The credit is entirely due to civil servants in the Department who have sought to respond to points raised in the Committee and subsequently. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon, (Mr. Coombs), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone).
  I give assurances to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on the four points that she raised. She need have no fear about any ambiguity.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and I could correspond about the problem of skips. Section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 already deals with the guarding and lighting of skips. I assure my hon. Friend that the voluminous codes of practice and guidance which will issue forth from the Bill and which will be the direct
  1002
  responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will, as far as possible, deal with the points that my hon. Friend raised. He sought to raise his concerns and those of his constituents about unlit and ill-placed skips and scaffolding. That is one of the reasons why I am grateful for his support on the new clause. We seek to have a financial penalty imposed on those who disregard common sense when expediting their work.
  I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes the assurances that he sought. We have had long and detailed negotiations with the Highways and Utilities Committee which, although it was not satisfied with the outcome of all of our discussions, was satisfied with most of the key issues. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes for remiding me of that procedure. May I tell HAUC, through my hon. Friend, that if it wishes to have further clarification—not on the Bill, which I hope will complete its pasage tonight—I should be glad to respond.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 3

  STREET WORKS LICENCES
  Amendment made: No. 41, in page 99, line 18, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  Sir Peter Blaker: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 99, line 26, leave out 'or'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 99, line 27, at end insert
  ',or.
  () requiring the Licensee to give security for the performance of his obligations under paragraph 8 or under section 78 (liability for loss or damage caused).'.
  Sir Peter Blaker: This is a paving amendment for amendment No. 14. It deals with a small but important issue on which I would welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister.
  Schedule 3(3) deals with the conditions that a street authority may attach to a street works licence. There seems to be a gap in those conditions, which amendment No. 14 seeks to fill. It enables the street authority to require a licensee to give security for the performance of his obligations. That is important because, under schedule 3(8), a licensee must indemnify the street authority in respect of any injury, damage or loss that his works may cause. Under clause 78, the licensee must compensate other persons—for example, utilities—whose apparatus in the roads is damaged by the execution of his work or by bursts or explosions. However, the licensee may be a person of no financial substance. Therefore, we must ensure that the street authority has the power to require a provision of security.
  I would welcome a statement from my hon. Friend the Minister about whether he thinks that such a power exists. It is not mentioned in schedule 3. The issue is made more important because, under clause 46(2), the licensee no longer has to have the consent of a utility before he starts work. That is a change from the provisions of the Highways Act 1980, under which he had to have the consent of the utility before starting work. Will the Minister explain whether the street authority already has that power and, if so, where it exists?
  Mr. Freeman: I hope that I can give my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) some reassurance. The amendment deals specifically with licensees—those who dig up the roads and are not statutory undertakers, such as British Gas or British Telecom. Rather, they may be companies laying computer cable across the road, which do not already have the statutory right to dig up the road. The question is whether the licensing authority—the highways authority—has the power to satisfy itself that those who dig up the roads and could damage the apparatus of statutory undertakers are not men of straw, but have sufficient financial security and safeguards. My advice is that street authorities have such powers and responsibilities in issuing licences.
  While not commending the amendment to the House, I should be happy to correspond with my right hon. Friend to clarify that issue. It is already the case, under existing legislation, that people can dig up the highway, damage the apparatus of others and be sued by them. They may not be people or companies of finanical substance, so we are not creating a new problem: it already exists. We are ameliorating it with the new controls over qualifications of supervisors and operators provided for in clause 63. We want to ensure that those who dig up the roads do so in a more professional way.
  I accept that licensees should be in a position to meet any claim that is made against them. They should have the necessary financial resources to defend themselves and compensate, where appropriate. However, my Department can see no evidence of that problem at present. If evidence of damage is produced, we shall certainly discuss licensing policy with HAUC, the Highways and Utilities Committee. We can give further guidance to the highway authorities about the procedure that they will Follow to give licences in order to avoid problems arising for the statutory undertakers.
  In summary, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will accept my offer to communicate further with him and substantiate my claim that the power already exists for the licensing authorities to make stipulations and requirements as they deem necessary. At present, it is not necessary to deal with the problem, but if it does arise we shall be the first to institute consultations.
  Ms. Walley: If the Minister is in correspondence with his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), will he send a duplicate copy of any letters to the Opposition so that we may be kept informed of all developments?
  Mr. Freeman: That goes without saying. I have always done that and will continue to do so.
  Sir Peter Blaker: In light of my hon. Friend's assurances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48

  EMERGENCY WORKS
  8 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 29, line 9, at end insert
  '(or which the person responsible for the works believes on reasonable grounds to be existing or imminent)'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 81.
  Mr. Freeman: I hope that I can be brief——
  Mr. Don Dixon: The Minister had better be brief if he wants to finish the Bill tonight.
  Mr. Freeman: I shall be exceedingly brief.
  The amendment relates to clause 48 and deals with the problem that arose when a foreman arrived at an emergency where a gas main was leaking. Members of the Committee and utilities felt strongly that there should be no doubt in the foreman's mind that he had to get on with the job—as I am trying to do—and solve the problem. The amendment inserts the words: "believes on reasonable grounds". I hope that that meets the point raised primarily by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and all the points that were made.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

  RESTRICTION ON WORKS FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL ROAD WORKS
  Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 32, line 5, leave out
  'which consists of or includes a carriageway'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 44 to 46 and 82 to 85.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will be glad to know that this is the last amendment with which I shall deal personally tonight.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was particularly interested in the amendment, as were a number of my hon. Friends. They were worried that the Bill did not seem to provide for circumstances related to footways, cycle tracks and pedestrian ways—in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was interested. They were concerned about what would happen when the highway authority had prepared not only the road but the footway and cycle track. I pay tribute to the high standard of maintenance of the roads and footways of Wandsworth, with which I was immensely impressed. The borough was also extremely helpful and courteous in giving me advice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea raised a fair point in Committee. We have sought to remove any doubt on the subject. We want the 12-month restriction, subject to the road having to be dug up in an emergency, to protect the work done on carriageways, footways and cycle tracks. The amendment also suggests that we should provide, in regulations, definitions of major works. We believe that the definition originally contained in the Bill was too prescriptive and we want to consult further on that. If, within the 12-month period, consent to dig up the carriageway, footway, cycle tracks or pedestrian tracks is withheld unreasonably, we believe that there should be a procedure for arbitration.
  Ms. Walley: We are grateful that there has been a further concession to cyclists and we welcome the progress that has been made.
  Mr. Frank Haynes: As a cyclist, I am particularly interested in what the Minister had to say. He

  1005
  bragged about what had been done in Wandsworth, but he should look at Westminster. I am a cyclist and I find all the holes. It is high time that the Government got stuck into Westminster. My local authority does a first-class job on its roads, but down here when I am on my cycle morning and night it is murder. I want the Minister to look at Westminster. It is no good bragging about another local authority—let us deal with Westminster, right on the job.
  Mr. John Bowis: If my hon. Friend the Minister intends to take up the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), will he insert a new clause in the Bill to protect the pedestrians of Wandsworth from the hon. Member for Ashfield on his bike, should he ever come across the river? If the hon. Gentleman sticks to his boat and looks from afar at the roads in Wandsworth, I am sure that he will endorse the glowing and worthy tribute that my hon. Friend paid to the council and workmen of Wandsworth for what they have achieved.
  I endorse what has been said by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his consideration in the consultation period between Committee stage and this stage, and the work that he has done to find solutions to the problems raised. I am also grateful to him for the progress that he has made on other parts of the Bill—and he should take it as read that those sentiments apply to any future progress he may make.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 44, in page 32, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—
  'For this purpose substantial road works means works for road purposes, or such works together with other works, of such description as may be prescribed.'.
  No. 45, in page 33, line 2, leave out
  '(which shall not be unreasonably withheld)'.
  No. 46, in page 33, line 9, at end insert—
  '() The consent of the street authority under subsection (5)(b) shall not be unreasonably withheld; and any question whether the withholding of consent is unreasonable shall be settled by arbitration.'—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 55

  GENERAL DUTY OF STREET AUTHORITY TO CO-ORDINATE WORKS
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 33, line 26, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 48, 86 and 87.
  Mr. Chope: The amendment is a direct response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) in Committee. After reflection, the Government have accepted the suggestion that he put forward.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56
  GENERAL DUTY OF UNDERTAKERS TO CO-OPERATE
  Amendment made: No. 48, in page 34, line 10, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Chope.]
Clause 57

  PROTECTED STREETS
  Amendments made: No. 49, in page 34, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  '() The consent of the street authority is required for the placing of apparatus by an undertaker in a protected street, except as mentioned below.
  The following are "protected streets" for this purpose—

  (a) any highway or proposed highway which is a special road in accordance with section 16 of the Highways Act 1980, and

  (b) any street designated by the street authority as protected.

  () Consent is not required for the placing of apparatus—

  (a) by way of renewal of existing apparatus, or

  (b) in pursuance of a street works licence, unless, in the latter case, the licence was granted before the street became a protected street.'.

  No. 50, in page 34, line 38, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Schedule 4

  STREETS WITH SPECIAL ENGINEERING DIFFICULTIES
  Amendment made: No. 51, in page 101, line 22, leave out
  'or part of a street'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 65

  WORKS LIKELY TO AFFECT OTHER APPARATUS IN THE STREET
  Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 38, leave out lines 24 to 34 and insert
  'take all reasonably practicable steps—

  (a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

  (b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it.'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 62, 64, 65, 91, 101, 103 and 104.
  Mr. Chope: The amendment is in response to points raised in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister undertook to consider further whether the additional defences of taking all reasonable care to comply with some provisions in this part of the Bill were required. The amendments arise from further consideration of those representations and have been discussed with the utilities and the local authorities.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I raised this point in Committee and am extremely grateful to the Government for taking it on board so reasonably. I use the word "reasonably" advisedly because that was the substance of the points that we raised, and of the amendments. It seems right that an undertaking which has shown that it has acted in a reasonable manner at all times should be able to put that

  1007
  forward as a defence against any accusation that it has failed to deliver on the agreements that it has made with the street authority. The Government have clearly thought carefully about that and come to the conclusion that that defence should be available. The amendments are the result of that consideration and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way that he has brought them forward.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70
  FEE FOR OCCUPATION OF THE HIGHWAY
  Amendment made: No. 53, in page 41, line 36, leave out clause 70. —[Mr. Chope.]
Clause 77

  DUTY TO MAINTAIN APPARATUS
  Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 45, line 34, leave out 'safety, the' and insert 'the safety and'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 55 to 57 and 92 to 96.
  Mr. Chope: The amendments respond to concern expressed in Committee about possible unwarranted interference by relevant authorities with an undertaker's apparatus and I hope that they meet the points raised.
  Ms. Ruddock: I wish to record our appreciation of the fact that the amendment has been tabled. Concerns were expressed, particularly by local authority associations and the utilities. Clearly, the amendments meet those points and we are grateful.
  Mr. Rathbone: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister again for taking into consideration the arguments made by the utilities on that subject and on the next group of amendments. Will he reassure the House that the issues raised by the utilities after the Committee stage, during the helpful discussions that his office had with their legal and practical advisers, have been met by these amendments? I think that they have, but I should be grateful for that reassurance.
  Mr. Chope: I am happy to give that assurance.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 55, in page 45, line 37, leave out 'in it' and insert
  'of the authority in the street'.
  No. 56, in page 46, line 1, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
  '(3) If an undertaker fails to give a relevant authority the facilities required by this section—

  (a) the street authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and

  (b) any other relevant authority may in any case, execute such works as are needed to enable them to inspect the apparatus in question, including any necessary breaking up or opening of the street.

  (4) If an undertaker fails to secure that apparatus is maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of a relevant authority in accordance with this section—

  (a) the street authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and

  (b) any other relevant authority may in any case, execute any emergency works needed in consequence of the failure.'.

  No. 57, in page 46, line 15, at end insert—
  '() Nothing in subsection (3) or (4) shall be construed as excluding any other means of securing compliance with the duties imposed by subsection (1):—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 78

  LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS CAUSED
  Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 46, line 18, leave out from 'any' to ', and' and insert—
  'damage or loss suffered by the authority in their capacity as such'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 59 to 61 and Nos. 97 to 100.
  Mr. Chope: Again, these are amendments in response to representations made on behalf of the utilities in Committee. I hope that they will meet with the approval of the House.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. The Government have recognised the case put by the utilities that the Bill, as originally drafted, would have left undertakings in the invidious position of being liable for economic losses which would simply have been uninsurable. The amendments will limit compensation for costs reasonably incurred in making good damage to apparatus. Again, that is a most helpful move by the Government in response to the approaches made and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 59, in page 46, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert
  'expense reasonably incurred in making good damage to that apparatus'.
  No. 60, in page 46, line 40, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'.
  No. 61, in page 46, line 43, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'. —[Mr. Chope]

Clause 79

  WORKS FOR ROAD PURPOSES LIKELY TO AFFECT APPARATUS IN THE STREET
  Amendment made: No. 62, in page 47, leave out lines 8 to 17 and insert
  'take all reasonably practicable steps—

  (a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

  (b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it.'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 81

  SHARING OF COST OF NECESSARY MEASURES
  Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 48, line 14, leave out from 'undertaker' to 'make' in line 28 and insert
  'in such manner as may be prescribed.
  (2) The regulations may make provision as to the costs allowable for this purpose.
  Provision may, in particular, be made for disallowing costs of the undertaker—

  1009

  (a) where the apparatus in question was placed in the street after the authority had given the undertaker the prescribed notice of their intention to execute the works, or

  (b) in respect of measures taken to remedy matters for which the authority were not to blame,

  and for allowing only such costs of either party as are not recoverable from a third party.
  (3) Where the authority have a right to recover from a third party their costs in taking measures in relation to undertaker's apparatus but in accordance with section 80 it is determined that the measures should be taken by the undertaker, the right of the authority includes a right to recover the undertaker's costs in taking those measures and they shall account to the undertaker for any sum received.
  (4) The regulations shall provide for the allowable costs to be borne by the authority and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.
  Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.
  (5) The regulations may require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him from the betterment or deferment of renewal of the apparatus resulting from the measures taken.
  (6) The regulations may'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 102 and 68.
  Mr. Chope: These amendments redraft the provisions contained in the Bill and I hope that they can be accepted without further debate.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 84

  BRIDGES, BRIDGE AUTHORITIES AND RELATED MATTERS
  Amendment made: No. 64, in page 50, leave out lines 13 to 24 and insert
  'take all reasonably practicable steps—

  (a) to give the bridge authority reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

  (b) to comply with any requirement made by them which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the bridge or for securing access to it.'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 88

  SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AS TO DISPLAYING OF LIGHTS
  Amendment made: No. 65, in page 52, line 20, at end insert—
  '() In proceedings for such an offence it is a defence for the undertaker to show that all reasonable care was taken by him, and by his contractors and by persons in his employ or that of his contractors, to secure that no such failure occurred.'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 90

  POWER OF STREET AUTHORITY OR DISTRICT COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE STREET WORKS
  Mr. Graham Riddick: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 53, line 17, at end insert—
  '() This section shall cease to have effect upon such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 117, in clause 149, page 86, line 28, at end insert—
  '() This section shall cease to have effect upon such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Riddick: Hon. Members will not be surprised that I have tabled these two amendments, because I expressed some concern about clause 90 on Second Reading.
  Clause 90 allows local authorities to carry out reinstatement work for the utility companies. I have discussed with some of my hon. Friends the desirability of dropping clause 90, but they pointed out that there would be certain practical difficulties with that and they felt that there should, at the very least, be a transitional period. I accept and hope that my amendments reflect those concerns. They would give the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland the power to bring an order before Parliament ending the right of local authorities to carry out street works on behalf of the utility companies.
  The Government are encouraging the trend that local authorities should be enabling rather than providing authorities. The Bill follows that pattern and effectively puts the onus on the utility companies to carry out reinstatement work, while turning the local highways department into enabling or, indeed, regulatory authorities. That is fine and I support that approach.
  However, clause 90 then allows local authorities to tender for that same reinstatement work. A potential conflict of interest is immediately created. It is possible that less scrupulous local authorities will abuse that regulatory role, so as to encourage the utilities to give the work to their direct labour organisations. I smelt a rat on Second Reading when the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) congratulated the Government on including clause 90 in the Bill. It is not really surprising that Labour supports it, as it believes in public rather than private enterprise and in maintaining the power and employment of the members of the National Union of Public Employees within DLOs.
  Having seen how some local authorities have gone out of their way to undermine competitive tendering in a number of fields to keep those functions in house, I fear that some of those authorities will abuse their new powers and will perhaps distort costings to submit artificially low tenders for reinstatement work under these arrangements simply to keep their DLOs in existence, to the disadvantage of local charge payers. The proof of that is already there for people to see. My local council, Kirklees, like many others, insists that it should carry out permanent reinstatement work on street works, as it is allowed to do under the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, despite the fact that experience suggests that it is not wholly competent to do it. Potholes in Kirklees roads are proof of that, as is the fact that nearly £4 million remains unclaimed from the utilities for permanent reinstatement work, which the council should have carried out in the past four years but has failed to carry out.
  By all means let the DLOs tender for reinstatement work, but let it be from the private sector, where they have to compete fairly and freely, without hidden subsidy.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my two amendments this evening and I suggest that it would be

  1011
  sensible to lay out a clear timetable for the transition to the new arrangements and to state that those powers will be exercised, perhaps around the end of 1992.
  I know that we want to make rapid progress with the Bill, and so I shall end my comments there. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments and I urge all my hon. Friends to support them.
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) says that the House will not be surprised that he has tabled the amendments. I am extremely surprised. I remember the hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech well, but, as he has consulted Ministers, it seems to me quite extraordinary that he should still table the amendments; they are quite unnecessary. It seems to me that he has tabled them simply to provide another opportunity to attack the local authority covering his constituency and the local authority workers.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Colne Valley is aware of what he is saying when he suggests that Kirklees council is not entirely competent to do reinstatement work. When he spoke on Second Reading he called British Gas in support of his speech. He talked about the fact that British Gas had problems with Kirklees council. I have information to the effect that Kirklees council has recently agreed a trial with British Gas in which Kirklees council will do British Gas reinstatements. If that trial is successful, Kirk lees is likely to be asked to do that work on a permanent basis and that is in the light of this Bill's passage through the House.
  Mr. Riddick: I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady has to say. All I know is that British Gas has a large sum of money held in an account waiting to be paid to Kirklees council, because the council has failed to carry out permanent reinstatement work, which it insists that it should do. We are not talking about a small amount of money—it is more than £1 million. I have talked to British Gas and I would be absolutely amazed if it puts its reinstatement work in the hands of Kirklees council. I am not suggesting that the DLO workers in Kirklees are not competent to do the work. If the hon. Lady had listened to my speech she would have heard me say that if they want to tender for the work that is fine, but they should do so from the private sector, and then there would be truly free and fair competition.
  Mr. Ruddock: I fear that there is not an ounce of logic in what the hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly, British Gas—a private company—has experience of local government workers' reinstating holes, and it seems to have confidence in them. The hon. Gentleman should take the matter up with British Gas. Discussions appear to be in progress about using a local authority to do the work in the way envisaged in clause 90.
  Mr. Riddick: When I tried to intervene on the hon. Lady on Second Reading she would not give way, although her speech ended two minutes before it need have done. Let me now ask the question that I wanted to ask then: will she urge the Kirklees councillors who oppose the Bill to accept its provisions?
  Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is straying very far from the point. The Bill is making progress; there is consensus between Opposition and Government. As I have said, we understand that Kirklees council is negotiating the possibility of carrying out such works as
  1012
  are envisaged in clause 90. The hon. Gentleman seems to have some ideological problem with the concept of public sector workers tendering for work. If he wants more public sector workers in his constituency to be unemployed, he should address that problem; certainly his electors will do so in due course.
  Clause 90 was introduced by the Government in another place. It was amended slightly on Report: its scope was extended to cover district councils as well as street authorities. We understand that the Government intended to clarify the position of local authorities in regard to the undertaking of work for utilities. As such, that was an extremely modest amendment whose aim was simply to make it clear that there was no legal impediment to a utility's inviting an authority to tender for a contract to carry out work on behalf of that utility. How could such moderation cause such offence?
  Clause 90 does not give local authorities the right to demand the ability to carry out a utility's work; it does not give them the right to demand to be included on that utility's tender list. In fact, it gives local authorities no new powers at all. It simply makes it clear that, if a utility wishes to employ a local authority to undertake work for it, it may do so.
  The Horne report, on which this part of the Bill is based, identified weaknesses and poor performance on the part of both highway authorities and utilities. There is no dispute about that. The Bill and the consensus surrounding it are directed towards a dramatic improvement in street works nationwide.
  A utility that was dissatisfied with a local authority's past performance would surely be highly unlikely to invite that authority to tender for its necessary works. The standard to be met will be exactly the same whether the work force is that of the utility, the local authority or any other contractor, private or public. No privilege will accrue to local authorities as a consequence of clause 90.
  The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to set a date, by order, after which clause 90 would not apply. It is difficult to see the reasoning behind it. The clause will be relevant only for such time as utilities consider it helpful to them to be able to arrange for work to be undertaken by a local authority. If no utility makes such an arrangement, the clause will be irrelevant.
  Surely it is best left to individual utilities, rather than the Secretary of State, to determine whether arrangements should be made with local authorities. Why should the Secretary of State seek to block such arrangements if utilities find that they represent an efficient, economic and effective means of meeting their responsibilities under the Bill?
  It is important to bear in mind the extent to which this part of the Bill represents a package, with pluses and minuses for both local authorities and the utilities. Both sides have accepted that package as a whole, and are obviously keen to see its early implementation. For the local authority associations, clause 90 represents an integral part of the package. Its amendment in the way proposed would seriously undermine highway authorities' confidence in the package, at a time when their commitment is essential. The legislation provides the bones of a new system, but the flesh will be provided by co-operation between the utilities, the highway authorities and the Department. The Minister for Public Transport has played a central role in holding those three groups

  1013
  together during the passage of the Bill. Trust and confidence are vital ingredients, which I believe the amendment would wholly destroy.
  We hope that the Minister will resist the amendment, which is opposed not only by us but by the local authority associations and the utilities. It is entirely unnecessary and its acceptance would send an unhelpful signal to highway authorities at a time when their commitment to the new street works regime is essential to the securing of its speedy and successful implementation. I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister will not accept such a destructive amendment.
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I support the amendment, but not for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—or, indeed, for the reasons attributed to him by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock).
  If clause 90 is not amended, I believe that a problem may arise for local authorities—not, perhaps, a legal problem, but a practical one none the less. Let us suppose that an undertaking sub-contracted works of reinstatement or repair to a direct labour organisation within the local authority. If that authority were at the same time the street authority, it might find itself having to take action against the undertaking for non-performance of the contract that it had sub-contracted to its own direct labour organisation.
  That strikes me as an extremely unfortunate position; indeed, an almost impossible position, notwithstanding the provision in clause 90(3) that
  "Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the authority or council apart from this section."
  The local authority would, of course, be expected to act properly in every respect, but it would be asking a great deal of any authority to expect it, when its own DLO had failed to deliver on a sub-contract, to embark on action that would inevitably involve the possibility of that DLO's being harshly punished.
  Surely it would be better for all the parties concerned—especially, dare I say, the road user—for us to pass the amendments, and thereby avoid the risk that I have described. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Minister shares my fear, he will accept them.
  Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) referred to the clause on Second Reading, and I said then that I expected to be able to return to the subject in Committee. I recognised that clause 90 was effectively an exemption in regard to the principle contained in the local authority goods and services legislation, and emphasised that there was therefore a strong onus on its supporters to show that it was necessary.
  Having considered clause 90 further, I think that it is necessary in order to facilitate an orderly transition from a regime in which local authority direct services organisations carry out almost all reinstatement work to a regime in which they will not do any. The power for local authorities to carry out private sector work should not be necessary beyond a point of transition.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has cleverly drafted an amendment that will enable the Government, after necessary consultation with the utilities
  1014
  and the local authorities, to say "We are now bringing this regime to an end and we shall carry on with the normal principles that apply", which, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) knows, are that local authorities do not tender or carry out work for the private sector.
  8.30 pm
  Things have moved on much since the Home report, because now all utilities are in the private sector. The principle is whether it is right that local authority DSOs should carry out work for private sector organisations, or whether it should more properly be done in the private sector.
  I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley about the principle that local authorities should be enablers rather than direct providers of service. That is even more important when local authorities are adopting a regulatory role—a point that was made cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).
  I hope that the House will accept the amendments, which will make the Bill more flexible. They will enable the Government to introduce regulations to end the right of local authority DSOs to carry out private sector work. For the reasons that I gave, it would not be right to exclude clause 90 from the Bill, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley urged on Second Reading.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 130. Noes 38.

  Division No. 152]

  [8.31 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Amess, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Forth, Eric

  Ashby, David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Freeman, Roger

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gorst, John

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Gregory, Conal

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

  Hague, William

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bowis, John

  Hannam, John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Christopher

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

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Hayward, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Butterfill, John

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Carrington, Matthew

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cash, William

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Irvine, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Jackson, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Cran, James

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knowles, Michael

  Dover, Den

  Knox, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Favell, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  1015

  Maclean, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Madel, David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Mans, Keith

  Shelton, Sir William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Speed, Keith

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stern, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Summerson, Hugo

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Portillo, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trippier, David

  Price, Sir David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Redwood, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Mullin, Chris

  Carr, Michael

  Nellist, Dave

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cox, Tom

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Cryer, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Sheerman, Barry

  Dixon, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fearn, Ronald

  Wallace, James

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Walley, Joan

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Lewis, Terry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  McCartney, Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  McMaster, Gordon

  Thomas McAvoy.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause 11

  CHARGE FOR OCCUPATION OF THE ROAD WHERE WORKS UNREASONABLY PROLONGED
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing road works in a public road to pay a charge to the roads authority where—

  (a) the duration of the works exceeds such period as may be prescribed, and

  (b) the works are not completed within a reasonable period.

  (2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the undertaker to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable, for completion of the works in question.
  In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbiter.
  (3) The regulations may provide that if an undertaker has reason to believe that the duration of works will exceed the prescribed period he may submit to the authority an estimate of their likely duration—

  (a) in the case of works in connection with the initial placing of apparatus in the road in pursuance of a
  1016
  permission granted under section 105 (permission to execute road works), together with his application for permission,

  (b) in the case of other works (not being emergency works), together with his notice under section 110 (notice of starting date), or

  (c) in the case of emergency works, as soon as reasonably practicable after the works are begun, and that the period stated in an estimate so submitted shall he taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

  (4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the undertaker that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the works—

  (a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,

  (b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or

  (c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,

  he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the time taken to complete the works and the extent to which the surface of the road is affected by the works.
  Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the works are executed and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
  (6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.
  (7) The regulations shall provide that a roads authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.
  (8) The first regulations for the purposes of this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 107

  EMERGENCY WORKS
  Amendment made: No. 81, in page 62, line 20 after 'imminent' insert
  '(or which the person responsible for the works believes on reasonable grounds to be existing or imminent)'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 113

  RESTRICTION ON WORKS FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL WORKS CARRIED OUT FOR ROAD PURPOSES.
  Amendments made: No. 82, in page 65, line 17, leave out
  'which consists of or includes a carriageway'.
  No. 83, in page 65, leave out lines 20 to 28 and insert—
  'For this purpose substantial works means works for road purposes, or such works together with other works, of such description as may be prescribed.'.
  No. 84, in page 66, line 15, leave out

  1017
  '(which shall not be unreasonably withheld)'.
  No. 85, in page 66, line 22 at end insert—
  '() The consent of the road works authority under subsection (5)(b) shall not be unreasonably withheld; and any question whether the withholding of consent is unreasonable shall be settled by arbitration.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 114
  GENERAL DUTY OF ROAD WORKS AUTHORITY TO CO- ORDINATE WORKS.
  Amendment made: No. 86, in page 66, line 39, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. [Mr. Freeman.]
Clause 115
  GENERAL DUTY OF UNDERTAKERS TO CO-OPERATE
  Amendment made: No 87, in page 67, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
Clause 116

  PROTECTED ROADS
  Amendments made: No. 88, in page 67, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  '() The consent of the road works authority is required for the placing of apparatus by an undertaker in a protected road, except as mentioned below.
  The following are "protected roads" for this purpose—

  (a) any road or proposed road which is a special road in accordance with section 7 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and

  (b) any road designated by the road works authority as protected.

  () Consent is not required for the placing of apparatus—

  (a) by way of renewal of existing apparatus, or

  (b) in pursuance of a permission granted under section 105 of this Act (permission to execute road works) or section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (permission to place and maintain apparatus under a road), except where the permission was granted before the road became a protected road.'.

  No. 89, in page 68, line 8, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Schedule 6
  ROADS WITH SPECIAL ENGINEERING DIFFICULTIES
  Amendment made: No. 90, in page 106, line 14, leave out 'or part of a road'.—[Mr. Freeman.]
Clause 124

  WORKS LIKELY TO AFFECT OTHER APPARATUS IN THE ROAD
  Amendment made: No. 91, in page 72, leave out lines 9 to 18 and insert
  'take all reasonably practicable steps—

  (a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

  (b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 129
  FEE FOR OCCUPATION OF A ROAD
  Amendment made: No. 109, in page 75, line 20, leave out Clause 129.—[Mr. Freeman.]
Clause 136

  DUTY TO MAINTAIN APPARATUS
  Amendments made: No. 92, in page 79, line 6, leave out 'safety, the' and insert 'the safety and'.
  No. 93, in page 79, line 9, leave out 'in it' and insert 'of the authority in the road'.
  No. 94, in page 79, line 18, leave out 'road, bridge or' and insert
  'works for roads purposes, major bridge works or major'.
  No. 95, in page 79, line 20, leave out subsections (3) aned (4) and insert—
  '(3) If an undertaker fails to give a relevant authority the facilities required by this section—

  (a) the road works authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and

  (b) any other relevant authority may in any case,

  execute such works as are needed to enable them to inspect the apparatus in question, including any necessary breaking up or opening of the road.
  (4) If an undertaker fails to secure that apparatus is maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of a relevant authority in accordance with this section—

  (a) the road works authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and

  (b) any other relevant authority may in any case,

  execute any emergency works needed in consequence of the failure.'.
  No. 96, in page 79, line 34, at end insert—
  '() Nothing in subsection (3) or (4) shall be construed as excluding any other means of securing compliance with the duties imposed by subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 137

  LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS CAUSED
  Amendments made: No. 97, in page 79, line 37, leave out from 'any' to and' and insert
  'damage or loss suffered by the authority in their capacity as such'.
  No. 98, in page 79, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert 'expense reasonably incurred in making good damage to that apparatus'.
  No. 99, in page 80, line 11, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'.
  No. 100, in page 80, line 14, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 138

  WORKS FOR ROAD PURPOSES LIKELY TO AFFECT APPARATUS IN THE ROAD.
  Amendment made: No. 101, in page 80, leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert 'take all reasonably practicable steps—

  (a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

  (b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 140

  SHARING OF COST OF NECESSARY MEASURES
  Amendment made: No. 102, in page 81, line 31, leave out from 'undertaker' to 'make' in line 45 and insert 'in such manner as may be prescribed.
  (2) The regulations may make provision as to the costs allowable for this purpose.
  Provision may, in particular, be made for disallowing costs of the undertaker—

  (a) where the apparatus in question was placed In the road after the authority had given the undertaker the prescribed notice of their intention to execute the works, or

  (b) in respect of measures taken to remedy matters for which the authority were not to blame, and for allowing only such costs of either party as are not recoverable from a third party.

  (3) Where the authority have a right to recover from a third party their costs in taking measures in relation to undertaker's apparatus but in accordance with section 139 it is determined that the measures should be taken by the undertaker, the right of the authority includes a right to recover the undertaker's costs in taking those measures and they shall account to the undertaker for any sum received.
  (4) The regulations shall provide for the allowable costs to be borne by the authority and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.
  Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.
  (5) The regulations may require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him from the betterment or deferment of renewal of the apparatus resulting from the measures taken.
  (6) The regulations may'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 143

  BRIDGES, BRIDGE AUTHORITIES AND RELATED MATTERS
  Amendment made: No. 103, in page 83, leave out: lines 22 to 33 and insert
  'take all reasonably practicable steps—

  (a) to give the bridge authority reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and

  (b) to comply with any requirement made by them which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the bridge or for securing access to it.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 147

  SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AS TO DISPLAYING OF LIGHTS
  Amendment made: No. 104, in page 85, line 30, at end insert—
  '() In proceedings for such an offence it is a defence for the undertaker to show that all reasonable care was taken by him, and by his contractors and by persons in his employ or that of his contractors, to secure that no such failure occurred.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 149

  POWER OF ROAD WORKS AUTHORITY OR DISTRICT COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE ROAD WORKS
  Amendment proposed: No. 117, in page 86, line 28, at end insert—
  '() This section shall cease to have effect upon such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by
  1020
  statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Riddick.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 25.

  Division No. 153]

  [8.43 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Jackson, Robert

  Arbuthnot, James

  Jessel, Toby

  Ashby, David

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knapman, Roger

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knowles, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Knox, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

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

  Lord, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bowis, John

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Maclean, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Madel, David

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

  Mans, Keith

  Butterfill, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Cash, William

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Chapman, Sydney

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Colvin, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Cran, James

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Portillo, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Price, Sir David

  Dover, Den

  Redwood, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Riddick, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Favell, Tony

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Freeman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Gale, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Shelton, Sir William

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Gorst, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Stern, Michael

  Gregory, Conal

  Stevens, Lewis

  Hague, William

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hannam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Trippier, David

  Hayward, Robert

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Viggers, Peter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Irvine, Michael

  Mr. Tim Boswell and

  Jack, Michael

  Mr. Timothy Wood.

  NOES

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Haynes, Frank

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fearn, Ronald

  McMaster, Gordon

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Meale, Alan

  1021

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Nellist, Dave

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr. Robert Wareing.

  Wallace, James

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 8
  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 66, in page 111, leave out lines 18 to 47 and insert—

  Builders' skips: charge for occupation of highway
  140A.—(1) The Minister may make provision by regulations requiring the owner of a builder's skip deposited on a highway maintainable at the public expense o pay a charge to the highway authority where—

  (a) the period for which the skip remains in the highway exceeds such period as may be prescribed, and

  (b) the skip is not removed within a reasonable period.

  (2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the owner of the skip to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable in the circumstances.
  In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbitrator.
  (3) The regulations may provide that if a person applying to the highway authority for permission under section 139 above submits together with his application an estimate of the likely duration of the occupation of the highway, the period stated in the estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the owner of the skip that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the occupation of the highway—

  (a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,

  (b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or

  (c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,

  he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the period for which the highway is occupied by the skip and the extent of the occupation.
  Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the place and time of the occupation and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
  (6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.
  (7) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.
  (8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.".'.
  No. 67, in page 112, leave out lines 14 to 49 and insert—

  ' "Works under s. 169 or s. 171: charge for occupation of the highway.
  171A.—(1) The Minister may make provision by regulations requiring a person carrying out any of the following works in a highway maintainable at the public
  expense
  1022

  (a) erecting or retaining a relevant structure within the meaning of section 169(1) above, or

  (b) depositing building materials, rubbish or other things, or making a temporary excavation, as mentioned in section 171(1) above,

  to pay a charge to the highway authority if the duration of the works exceeds such period as may be prescribed and the works are not completed within a reasonable period.
  (2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the person executing the works to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable in the circumstances.
  In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbitrator.
  (3) The regulations may provide that if a person applying to the highway authority for a licence under section 169 or consent under section 171 submits together with his application an estimate of the likely duration of the works, the period stated in the estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the person carrying out the works that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the works—

  (a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,

  (b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or

  (c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,

  he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the time taken to complete the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works.
  Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the description of works, the place and time at which they are executed and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.
  (6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.
  (7) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.
  (8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.".'.
  No. 68, in page 113, line 14, at end insert—
  '; and in subsection (15) (supplementary provision as to costs recoverable by highway authority), for "the cost of any works which are required by the said Act of 1950 to be executed" substitute "the cost of any measures needing to be taken in relation to undertaker's apparatus, in accordance with section 80 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991,".'.
  No. 69, in page 113, line 45, leave out from 'containing' to 'shall' in line 47 and insert—

  (a) the first regulations for the purposes of section 140A,

  (b) the first regulations for the purposes of section 171A as it applies in relation to erecting or retaining a relevant structure within the meaning of section 169(1) above, or

  (c) the first regulations for the purposes of section 171 A as it applies in relation to depositing building

  1023
  materials, rubbish or other things, or making a temporary excavation, as mentioned in section 171(1) above,'.

  No. 15, in page 118, line 19, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.
  No. 16, in page 123, line 46, leave out paragraph 61 and insert—
  '61. In section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits on roads other than restricted roads), for subsection (2) (authority having power to make order) substitute—
  "(2) The power to make an order under subsection (1) is exercisable by the traffic authority, who shall before exercising it in any case give public notice of their intention to do so.".'.
  No. 110, in page 128, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 129 and insert—

  'Charge for occupation of road
  61A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring a person who occupies a public road by doing anything to which this section applies to pay a charge to the roads authority if the duration of the occupation exceeds the longer of the following periods—

  (a) such period as may be prescribed; or

  (b) such period as is agreed by the authority and the person to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable in the circumstances.

  (2) This section applies to the occupation of a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of a roads authority under any of the following provisions of this Act—

  section 56 (works executed in or excavations under a public road);

  section 58 (occupation of road for deposit of building materials and erection of scaffolding);

  section 59 (placing or depositing anything in a road);

  section 61 (placing, leaving, retaining, maintaining, repairing and reinstating apparatus in or under a public road); or

  section 85 (depositing a builders' skip).

  (3) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, in default of agreement, the roads authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbiter.
  (4) The regulations may provide that if a person applying to the roads authority for consent or permission under any of the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) above submits together with his application an estimate of the likely duration of the occupation, the period stated in the estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (5) The regulations may provide that if it appears to the person occupying the road that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the occupation—

  (a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,

  (b) is likely to exceed the period stated in the previous estimate, or

  (c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,

  he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the roads authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.
  (6) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation and different rates of charge may be
  1024
  prescribed according to the purpose of the occupation and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
  (7) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.
  (8) The regulations shall provide that a roads authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.
  (9) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.'.
  No. 105, in page 130, line 30, at end insert—
  '(3) Where it is intended that the proposed toll order shall authorise the special road authority to assign their rights to charge and collect tolls, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the local roads authority shall make a statement containing such information as may be prescribed with respect to that assignation and the person to whom the rights are intended to be assigned and—

  (a) the statement shall be made available for inspection with the copy of the order to which the notice under subparagraph (1) or (2) relates; and

  (b) the notice shall state that such a statement will be so available.

  (4) In sub-paragraph (3) "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  No. 111, in page 130, line 43, at end insert—
  '14D.—(1) A toll order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure where—

  (a) the relevant special road scheme provides for the appropriation by or transfer to the special road authority of an existing public road comprised in the route prescribed by the scheme, and

  (b) the toll order authorises the charging of tolls for the use of that existing road or any part of it,

  unless the Secretary of State is satisfied as regards all classes of traffic entitled to use the existing road that another reasonably convenient route free of toll is available, or will be provided before the date on which the appropriation or transfer takes effect, and certifies accordingly.
  (2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to give such a certificate, he shall—

  (a) give public notice of his intention to do so,

  (b) afford an opportunity to all persons interested to make representations and objections, and

  (c) cause a public local inquiry to be held if it appears to him to be expedient to do so, having regard to representations or objections made,

  and before deciding whether to give the certificate he shall consider any representations and objections made and, if an inquiry has been held, the report of the person who held the inquiry.
  (3) As soon as may be after giving a certificate, the Secretary of State shall publish in the Edinburgh Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the certificate has been given.'.
  No. 112, in page 130, line 44, leave out '14D" and insert '14E'.
  No. 113, in page 130, line 47, at end insert—
  '(3) In paragraph 19 of that Schedule—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "1" insert "or 14A";

  (b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "above" there shall be inserted the words "or held under paragraph 14B above"; and

  (c) in sub-paragraph (c), for the words "and 13" there shall be substituted the words ", 13 and 14C".'.

  No. 114, in page 130, line 47, at end insert—
  '. At the end of Schedule 2 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (validity and date of operation of certain orders and schemes), the following paragraph shall be inserted—
  "6. The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 above apply in relation to a certificate under paragraph 14D(I) of Schedule 1 to this Act as in relation to a scheme or order to which this Schedule applies, subject to the following modifications—

  (a) the reference in paragraph 2 above to the notice required by paragraph 1 above shall be construed as a reference to the notice required by paragraph 14D(3) of that Schedule, and

  (b) in paragraph 4 above for the words 'made or confirmed' there shall be substituted the word 'given' and the words from 'and shall become operative' to the end shall be omitted.".'.

  No. 17, in page 131, line 2, at end insert—

  'Roads Act 1920 (c.72)
  . In section 10 of the Roads Act 1920 (powers of Secretary of State in relation to charges for use of vehicles on roads), at the end insert—
  "Nothing in this section applies to any sum payable by virtue of Part I or II of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.".'.
  No. 18, in page 131, line 3, leave out paragraph 97 and insert—

  'Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41)
  .—(1) The Fire Services Act 1947 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 3(2) (supplementary powers of fire authorities; provisions as to exercise of power to place fire alarms in public places), for the words from the beginning to "maintaining the road;" or, in Scotland, "of the roads authority;" substitute—
  "(2) Before exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1)(c) above in relation to a highway for which they are not the highway authority or, in Scotland, a public road for which they are not the roads authority, a fire authority shall obtain the consent of the highway or roads authority;".
  (3) In section 38(1) (interpretation)—

  (a) at the appropriate place insert— "'highway authority' has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;"; and

  (b) in the definition of "road" for the words "Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950" substitute "Part IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991".'.

  No. 106, in page 133, line 10, at end insert—

  'New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.16)
  . In section 8 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (acquisition of land for roads in connection with new towns), in subsection (2) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which he is the roads authority".'.
  No. 107, in page 133, line 21 after 'lines)' insert '—

  (a) for the words "road, other than a trunk road" substitute "a road for which the Secretary of State is not the roads authority"; and

  (b)'

  No. 19, in page 133, line 42, at end insert—

  'Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 (c.75)
  . In Schedule 3 to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 (the new towns code)—

  (a) in paragraph 1(4)(c) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority", and

  (b) in paragraph 2(2) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which he is the highway authority".'.

  No. 20, in page 135, line 17, at end insert—

  'New Towns Act 1981 (c.64)
  . In section 11 of the New Towns Act 1981 (acquisition of land for highways), in subsection (2)(a) (powers of Secretary of State) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which he is the highway authority".'.
  No. 70, in page 136, line 10, leave out '"upon,'" and insert "'in, on,".'.
  No. 21, in page 136, line 29, at end insert—

  'Transport Act 1985 (c.67)
  .—(1) The Transport Act 1985 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 7(12) (application of traffic regulation conditions to local bus services; requirement of consent of Secretary of State) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which the Secretary of State is the highway or roads authority".
  (3) In section 137(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of "trunk road".'.
  No. 22, in page 136, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 32 and insert—
  '112.—(1) Section 62 of the Airports Act 1986 (provisions as to telecommunications apparatus) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2) (cases in which highway authority or owner of subsoil may require alteration of apparatus), for paragraph (b) substitute—
  (b) for the improvement of the highway where the Secretary of State is not the highway authority,".
  (3) In subsection (4) (limit on effect of subsection (2)(b),'. No. 23, in page 137, line 22, at end insert—

  'Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52)
  .—(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 22A(3)(c)(i), omit the words "section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950".
  (3) In section 39 (provisions with respect to road safety)—

  (a) in subsection (3)(a) (duty of local authority as to study of road accidents), for "trunk roads" substitute "roads for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority (in Scotland, roads authority)";

  (b) in subsection (3)(b) (duties as to taking of measures in light of studies), for "roads for which they are the highway authority (in Scotland, local roads authority)" substitute "roads for the maintenance of which they are responsible".

  (4) In section 192(1) (general interpretation), for the definition of "highway authority" substitute—
  "'highway authority', in England and Wales, means—

  (a) in relation to a road for which he is the highway authority within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980, the Secretary of State, and

  (b) in relation to any other road, the council of the county, metropolitan district or London borough, or the Common Council of the City of London, as the case may be;".'.

  No. 24, in page 138, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 32 and insert—
  '119.—(1) Section 256 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (provisions as to telecommunications apparatus) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3) (power of local highway authority to require alteration of apparatus) for "highway, other than a trunk road" substitute "highway for which the Secretary of State is not the highway authority".
  (3) In subsection (4) (limitation of power under subsection (3))'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Schedule 9

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 141, line 36, at end insert—

  '1985 c. 67.

  Transport Act 1985.

  In section 137(1), the definition of "trunk road".

  No. 26, in page 141, line 40, at end insert—

  '1988 c. 52.

  Road Traffic Act 1988.

  In section 22A(3)(c)(i), the words "section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950".'.—Mr. Freeman.]

  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified].
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  8.54 pm
  Ms. Ruddoclk: I do not propose to detain the House for long. However, I want to place on the record the stage that we have reached in this Third Reading. We remain fundamentally and implacably opposed to the private toll road programme, and we do not intend to implement that programme when we are in government—something that we expect to happen soon.
  However, we are grateful to the Minister for having taken account of the many amendments and new clauses that we and others tabled in Committee. They have brought the procedures for private toll roads—should they ever be used—into a better form. There will be more accountability and more reporting in the public arena. More justice and fairness will be brought to bear on that procedure should it ever be used.
  I recall the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). Clearly it is to the detriment of the people of Skye that the only opportunity for their island to be joined to the mainland lies in the procedures in this legislation. It is our wish and it is undoubtedly theirs that they should have that modern infrastructure provided without recourse to a privately built and tolled road.
  There was much greater harmony on the second half of the Bill. The consensus has been reached after many years of hard work by the civil servants in the Department of Transport in meeting constantly, listening to and taking advice from representatives of the local authority associations and the utilities who, in their turn, have provided Opposition Members with much important information and assistance in drafting amendments which at their behest we tried to use to improve the Bill.
  I am glad to say that part II of the Bill has been substantially improved. We now know that we have perhaps the best possible regime in terms of improving the quality and speed with which street works are undertaken in this country. Poorly executed street works have been and are a major danger to pedestrians, cyclists and those who drive cars and public service vehicles. They are all inconvenienced, and there is often huge congestion and a variety of problems which the Bill seeks to end. We are glad about that, and we had hoped to conclude tonight's proceedings with real harmony.
  Unhappily, that harmony was ended by Government support for a completely unnecessary amendment that has removed from local authorities the possibility of their undertaking street works on behalf of the utilities. That measure was not only completely unnecessary but unwarranted. It suggests that local authorities and their direct labour organisations are not worthy of holding contracts for that work. We cannot agree with that measure and, in government, will not implement it.
  1028
  I thank the Ministers for the co-operation that has been afforded to us, for notes during our proceedings, and for the meetings that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) offered us, which we were glad to have.
  The Bill will now provide for immense improvements for safety and convenience on our highways. For that we are most grateful. However, we remain opposed to private building and to toll roads funding, as mentioned in parts I and II, in any part of England and Wales and particularly in Scotland, with reference to the Skye road bridge. We expect to be in government before too long. We will not allow those private toll roads to be built.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Fearn: I also welcome the Bill. Unfortunately, in Committee and on Second Reading, the Minister did not accept that the skill of management of Government has been used to bring two parts of the Bill together—one popular and one unpopular. The unpopular part relates to toll roads, with which we agree in principle, but which has many environmental problems. The second part of the Bill, which relates to street works, was agreed by most hon. Members, and very little controversy arose. We certainly now have a Bill that considers most people, but perhaps it should consider motor cyclists and cyclists even more.
  With those few words, I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage and is on the statute book before long.
  9 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join in congratulating both sides of the House on getting at least the agreed parts of the Bill into good order. I also congratulate those who worked on the Horne committee and those who worked in the National Joint Utilities group for many years—rather more years than they would have wished. It is quite clear that this measure will lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy. In time, many people should see the benefits of it.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The idea of direct labour organisations would be greeted with horror in the London borough of Greenwich, where my constituency is. On inspection, it turned out that the direct service organisation, the equivalent of what the hon. Lady was talking about, managed to make not a 5 per cent. return on capital, which is demanded of it, but a loss of 186 per cent. That £2 million loss a year would have been £3 million without drastic management action.
  Such a loss cannot be afforded by the highway authorities which look after 96 per cent. of our roads. It is important that we try to achieve cost-effectiveness in carrying out work as well as a system that works.
  Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: I do not want to give way to the hon. Lady, as it may lead to a debate that perhaps should have taken place earlier.
  Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way if the hon. Lady insists.
  Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry to insist, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here when we debated the clause to which I referred and in respect of which disharmony occurred. I said that the amendment was

  1029
  unnecessary. The clause allows only the possibility of a local authority tendering for work. It did not in any way give any benefit to a local authority, other than saying that it was not prohibited from being involved. The hon. Gentleman's points bear no relevance to the debate on clause 90 and the amendment to it.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady does not understand how much I know about national and local arrangements. Greenwich has acted as agent for the Department. If Greenwich was able to act as an agent for utilities as well, and if it was able to conceal its losses so that nursery classes, pavements, libraries and swimming pools went, to take the £2 million out of the accounts because it lost on its road works and white line painting, I am fully justified in making my remarks. If the hon. Lady refers to my remarks when the Official Report is published, she might tell other Labour authorities that we cannot afford their inefficiencies.
  The street works proposal is very important. I hope that we shall see vast improvements so that all those who use our roads, whether on foot or on wheels, benefit.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Haynes: It is a great pleasure to follow an ex-Transport Minister. He is talking differently from how he talked when he was at the Dispatch Box. He has changed his quarter or his corner, has the hon. Gentleman. I do not agree with him at all. I used to agree with him sometimes in the early hours of the morning. He used to bring orders in the early hours of the morning and keep us out of bed, but we were interested in transport, and road safety in particular.
  Here we go again. The Government are at it again. They do not like the public sector but they love the private sector, because of the profit motive.
  I believe that local authorities have done a marvellous job over the years, so why should they be criticised? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) criticised his local authority a few moments ago—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was not even here.
  Mr. Riddick: His council's incompetence is even greater than my council's incompetence.
  Mr. Haynes: I have really done it now.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Haynes: No. Sit down. I have not finished what I was saying. I may not be in the Chair, but I have the Floor. I did not realise that I would get the hon. Members for Eltham and for Colne Valley at each other's throats. The hon. Member for Colne Valley has the opportunity to make a speech, if he wants to criticise a former Transport Minister. The hon. Gentlemen are arguing between themselves when they have not even been called from the Chair.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: They are trying to wind you up.
  Mr. Haynes: I do not want any sarcasm from Selly Oak, either. The hon. Gentleman will get awkward in a minute or two, and we will have to deal with him. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but he will be dealt with.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I surrender.
  Mr. Haynes: I think that the hon. Gentleman should surrender now, and go. We do not want any difficulty after the debate.
  When the hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke to an earlier amendment, I could not help intervening. As I said then, I am a cyclist. I like cycling. We spend so much time in this place sitting down, and people need exercise. Many Members go to the gymnasium to exercise, but I exercise on my bike. Many a night when we have knocked off at the House late at night or in the early hours of the morning, I have passed you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, going to your London residence. I am on my bicycle trying to keep an eye on you, and on the road, and on the traffic. That is difficult in this area of Westminster.
  I do not cycle very far: I am only 15 minutes away—15 wonderful minutes on my bicycle—but that is enough for me to know how appalling the road conditions are round here. Yet Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards stand at the Dispatch Box bragging about Wandsworth and Westminster and all the things they do so cheaply. I know that Westminster council does things cheaply, because I have to cycle along dodging potholes in the blinking road, with traffic all over the damn place, and I have to watch where I am going. It is very difficult.
  Back home, we have a first-class local authority. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Transport is listening, so that I can tell him that my local county council does a first-class job looking after the roads. If it spends a little too much, it is criticised, but the money is spent in the interests of road safety, in consultation with many organisations, including the police. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) knows about the consultation that takes place about roads.
  A marvellous ring road was built in my constituency, with a cycle track. That is what the Government ought to encourage. Ministers often tell us that people should cycle more, and if they did so, more Raleigh cycles from Nottingham would be sold. That would be good for business and for the people who rode the cycles. But we need proper facilities to be able to cycle.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentioned motor cyclists. Motor cycling is another aspect of cycling. My county council puts a cycle track beside its new roads. I wish that Ministers would order all county councils to do the same; then we might get somewhere. There are far too many cars on the road.
  Not all that long ago, I was lucky enough to be in China. I heard the arguments about the Hong Kong business, the airport and the roads to the new airport. I saw many people cycling. They were as fit as fiddles. They could work any number of hours because they were fit from cycling. We ought to encourage more and more people to cycle in Britain, because we need facilities for cyclists.
  I should like to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) on a bicycle. If he had been on a bicycle, that rottweiler probably would not have attacked him. I was sorry for the hon. Gentleman when it happened, but at the same time I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) when he wanted to know if the dog was all right.
  I have said my piece. I hope that the Treasury Bench—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh,

  1031
  West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is laughing. It is a serious matter. I hope that the Scottish Minister has taken what I have said on board, because they cycle up in Scotland. We should provide proper facilities. I beg the Treasury Bench to do something about the problem and to order local authorities, when they plan to extend major roads and ring roads, to include proper facilities for cyclists.
  I plead on behalf of cyclists because there are a lot of us. Many organisations support cyclists. I hope that the Treasury Bench will do so. I do not need to say any more. I have made my appeal in the hope that at least the Government have listened.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Bowis: Before I ask the hon. Member for Ashheld (Mr. Haynes) for a lift home on the back of his bike, I wish the Bill well, with two brief comments. The first is on part I. In Committee, we spent a great deal of time talking about the environment. I wish the Bill well in the hope that it will provide an opportunity for the environment. Environmental groups may in future be able to advance their own ideas for a private road into which they put their own resources to avoid some of the problems that they have come across. I am thinking of Twyford Down and other places where there could be a real opportunity for the future.
  My second comment is on part II. I welcome the opportunity that it will give to my constituents and other people in the inner cities who have sat in traffic jams behind road works or had problems in walking along the pavements, or whose cycle has become stuck in a rut caused by road works. Those problems will be put right. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). He has steered the Bill through often by coming to see a problem. Having seen it, he has often come back with a solution.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Simon Coombs: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) by congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Minister, who has steered the Bill through with understanding and concern. We had some excellent debates on road safety in Committee. I hope that all those involved will accept the importance attached by all those who served on the Committee and by other hon. Members to enhancing road safety through some of the measures in the Bill.
  The Bill should be good for road users. For those who drive motor cars, there should be fewer humps and hollows to impede their progress and destroy their cars. For cyclists, there should be greater safety, not just because the surface of the roads will be improved. Some of the changes made in Committee will improve the chances that cyclists will find their way unimpeded. There are also benefits for pedestrians. Which of us has not had letters
  1032
  from pedestrians in our constituencies who have fallen down holes in the road or tripped over uneven pavements created by the poor quality of reinstatement of street works in the past?
  All the people whom I have mentioned should benefit from the Bill, and I hope that they will do so. I also welcome parts I and II of the Bill. They provide an opportunity for a new capital input into road building in Britain. That should generate better traffic flow in parts of the country where it is badly needed and therefore help to generate greater prosperity and assist industries which depend on the movement of goods by road for their well-being.
  I agree also with what has been said in this short Third Reading debate about the importance of ensuring that those responsible for new roads—indeed, all roads—take properly into account the need to preserve the environment, whenever and wherever that is possible.
  Before my hon. Friend concludes this brief debate, may I ask him to tell the House when he expects the new regime introduced by the Bill to come into force. Many people will want to know the answer to that question. They are looking forward to the day when our labours on the Bill are brought to fruition. I have no doubt that it will greatly benefit all the people of this country.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I thank the members of the Committee for their very hard work in Committee This is a workmanlike Bill. I also thank the officials and those outside Parliament who—rightly, constitutionally and perfectly properly—lobbied for and against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) played a leading role, in terms of the second part of the Bill, in accepting on behalf of the Government the Horne committee's recommendations. Both he and the whole House will now see those provisions on the statute book—I hope very shortly. For those who use our roads and highways, it will mean both safer and more expeditious use of carriageways and footways.
  There is a sharp difference of opinion between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government on toll roads. We shall bring into force the toll road provisions as quickly as possible, as well as the other provisions dealing with street works. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) gave notice that the Opposition would not bring into effect parts I and II by cancelling projects such as the Skye bridge, the Birmingham northern relief road and the western orbital road. That is the implication of what the Opposition propose to do. Either they will have to increase taxation to pay for those projects or they will have to cancel other parts of the road programme.
  I commend the Bill to the House. I know that, apart from those legitimate areas of political discord, it does a service to the people of this country. Parliament has done its work well.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  SEAT BELTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts in Rear Seats by Adults) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  COUNTY COURTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft County Court Remedies Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  VETERINARY SURGEONS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Table

  Percentages of Yearly Salary

  Number of years of service

  Age

  Under 10

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15 or over

  Under 50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  52

  54

  56

  58

  60

  51

  50

  52

  55

  58

  62

  65

  68

  52

  50

  54

  58

  63

  67

  72

  76

  53

  50

  56

  62

  67

  73

  78

  84

  54

  50

  58

  65

  72

  78

  85

  92

  55 to 64

  50

  60

  68

  76

  84

  92

  100

  65

  50

  58

  65

  72

  78

  85

  92

  66

  50

  56

  62

  67

  73

  78

  84

  67

  50

  54

  58

  63

  67

  72

  76

  68

  50

  52

  55

  58

  62

  65

  68

  69

  50

  50

  52

  54

  56

  58

  60

  70 or over

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  (3) In calculating for the purposes of paragraph (2) the number of years for which a person has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution, there should be disregarded—

  (a) any fraction of a year for which he has so served; and

  (b) if a grant was payable to him under this Resolution or any of the former resettlement grant Resolutions on any previous occasion, any period of service which was taken into account or disregarded on that occasion;

  and in this paragraph 'the former resettlement grant Resolutions' means the second Resolution of 20th December 1971, the fourth Resolution of 4th March 1980 and the third Resolution of 19th July 1983.
  We had a full debate on resettlement grants for older Members of Parliament on 31 January. I agreed then to put the issue to the Top Salaries Review Body. The motion before the House implements in full the proposals contained in the TSRB report that was made available to the House on 29 April. Since then I have found widespread acceptance of the TSRB's recommendations. I am sure that the whole House will wish me to place on record our

  BROADCASTING
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  That the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Question agreed to.

  Members (Resettlement Grant)
  9.17 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
  That in the opinion of this House, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament—

  (1) A grant should be payable to any person who is a Member of this House immediately before the dissolution and at the general election consequent upon the dissolution either does not stand for election to this House or, if he does, is not elected.

  (2) The amount of the grant in the case of any such person should be equal to the relevant percentage of a year's salary at the highest rate payable to Members of this House immediately before the dissolution, the relevant percentage for this purpose being that shown in the following Table in relation to—

  (a) his age at the dissolution; and

  (b) the number of years for which he has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution.

  gratitude to the chairman and members of the TSRB, both for the speed with which they responded and for the skill with which they have addressed the issue. I believe, therefore, that we have been able to meet very speedily the clear wishes of the House, as expressed both in an early-day motion and in the debate on 31 January. I commend the motion to the House.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: May I, on behalf of the Opposition, say that we support the motion and the decision of the Top Salaries Review Body. After extensive consultation, we believe that it has made a positive and reasonable proposal that will be in the interests of many Members of Parliament. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that previous proposals covered deceased Members of Parliament and their families—younger Members of Parliament benefited from the

  1035
  changes that the Government introduced, with our support. This is a limited but positive step forward. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the proposals.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The Top Salaries Review Body arrives at some incredible proposals for hon. Members and I do not welcome the proposal for a grant in the same way as some people. I have managed to scratch a few bob together and at this stage I am not concerned about my interest in the matter.
  A Member of Parliament who loses his seat, especially in his earlier years, faces real problems. Judges can retire on a full pension after 15 years because people think that they come to that job late in life. For the sake of the country, God forbid that we should get many 25-year-old hon. Members, who have done nothing before coming to this talking shop. Such people would have to be in the House for 33 years before qualifying for a full pension., and that is entirely wrong.
  My argument follows the line of what an MP should do. The most unemployable person in the world is an ex-MP who entered the House at the age of 25 or 30 and lost his seat after 15 years. Give or take a few bob, he will receive £15,000 under the current resettlement process. I do not object to changing the system for the golden oldies. Someone of 70 who leaves this place full of years and honour and, I hope, full of pension will get exactly the same, £15,000, as someone under the age of 50.
  A miner, an office worker or a worker in heavy steel can leave his job at 30 and become an MP. If he loses his seat he can go back to his former job and start again. When I was senior partner in my business 12 years ago I prided myself on the fact that I could do every job in my office. Now I am a consultant in that business and, because of mechanisation in the office, there is no way that I could run that business in the way that I did 12 years ago. Things move on and that applies to office and manual jobs.
  An ex-Chancellor, an ex-Prime Minister or an ex-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can sell our secrets and themselves for huge sums or they can sell their memoirs or get jobs in banks. They are all right, but the ordinary infantry, the Back Bencher, is what Parliament is all about. It is not about those who hold great office. They are part of the system, but the Back Bencher is part of the freedom of Parliament. If he has a family, a person of 50 is at the most expensive time of his life. He may still be paying off a mortgage or have kids at school and, even if they are not at fee-paying schools, we all know what children cost. He does not pay for a holiday just for Mutt and Jeff; he has to pay for four or five people. To lose one's seat at a time of such expenses is no laughing matter. [Interruption.] I welcome some of the proposed money going to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I know that hon. Members are keen to get away, but this is a serious issue. I have no genuine interest to declare except that I want to encourage people to come to this place, not just to seek high office but to play the insecure role of Back Benchers. This is an insecure job and if anyone thinks that those who leave here are highly desirable, he does not know some hon. Members as I know them. Some have fallen on very difficult times and the idea that they must go to a charity commission, which, I have no doubt, looks upon them kindly, is wrong.
  1036
  I am not saying that hon. Members should be paid much more per se, but if they stick to their guns and stick by an honourable attitude to the job of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament or if they lose their seat or feel honour-bound to leave the House, they should not find themselves in such a ghastly disadvantaged position.
  I do not think that people would begrudge the idea that the younger Members of Parliament—those under 55—should be dealt with more fairly. I know that some people have done their best with this resolution, but what they have done is typical of the civil servant top salary review cosy position. They have considered what they thought right, but they should consider what a Member of Parliament's job is. Members of Parliament should possibly be honoured more in the leaving than when they are here.
  Hon. Members are not always equal—some have safe seats where the votes are weighed, not counted, and some have seats with small majorities, so it is a roulette wheel. I urge the House to consider the type of people that we need. We need those who are willing to stand up for principles and to take enough risks to come here in the first place. The resolution does nothing towards that. It helps those who are older, which is a good thing, but it does damn all for the younger hon. Member. Although we honour those going into the sunset, the sunrise of Parliament lies with the young, not with the retiring.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. MacGregor: The short answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is that we are not making changes to the existing system of resettlement grants for those leaving at a general election and who are under 65 because no one suggested that in the debate on 31 January. There were no complaints at that time, but general approval of the system.
  The early-day motion showed that the concern arose for those over 65 and for the anomalies. That is why that issue was put to the Top Salaries Review Body. In paragraphs 6 and 9 of its report it makes clear the reasons why it believes that a change should be made in the form of the resolution. As the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, it is a comparatively narrow point but one about which many hon. Members felt strongly. It is dealt with very well by the TSRB, and I commend the resolution to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That in the opinion of this House, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament—

  (1) A grant should be payable to any person who is a Member of this House immediately before the dissolution and at the general election consequent upon the dissolution either does not stand for election to this House or, if he does, is not elected.

  (2) The amount of the grant in the case of any such person should be equal to the relevant percentage of a year's salary at the highest rate payable to Members of this House immediately before the dissolution, the relevant percentage for this purpose being that shown in the following Table in relation to—

  (a) his age at the dissolution; and

  (b) the number of years for which he has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution.

  Table

  Percentages of Yearly Salary

  Number of years of service

  Age

  Under 10

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15 or over

  Under 50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  52

  54

  56

  58

  60

  51

  50

  52

  55

  58

  62

  65

  68

  52

  50

  54

  58

  63

  67

  72

  76

  53

  50

  56

  62

  67

  73

  78

  84

  54

  50

  58

  65

  72

  78

  85

  92

  55 to 64

  50

  60

  68

  76

  84

  92

  100

  65

  50

  58

  65

  72

  78

  85

  92

  66

  50

  56

  62

  67

  73

  78

  84

  67

  50

  54

  58

  63

  67

  72

  76

  68

  50

  52

  55

  58

  62

  65

  68

  69

  50

  50

  52

  54

  56

  58

  60

  70 or over

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  50

  (3) In calculating for the purposes of paragraph (2) the number of years for which a person has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution, there should be disregarded—

  (a) any fraction of a year for which he has so served; and

  (b) if a grant was payable to him under this Resolution or any of the former resettlement grant Resolutions on any previous occasion, any period of service which was taken into account or disregarded on that occasion;

  and in this paragraph 'the former resettlement grant Resolutions' means the second Resolution of 20th December 1971, the fourth Resolution of 4th March 1980 and the third Resolution of 19th July 1983.

  Johnson Freight Services Ltd.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Boswell.]
  9.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of such an attentive House to the self-evident injustice which has happened to a company in my constituency, and we have it on the authority of Customs and Excise that it has happened to others.
  Usually, when something of this kind occurs—no doubt through a mechanical and unintelligent application of the rules—it is rectified when drawn to the attention of a more senior official. If even that fails, a Minister considers the issue with the eyes of someone outside the bureaucracy. If necessary, the rule book itself is amended.
  In my experience, virtually the only Government service where a manifest distortion of fairness and common sense is not rectified is in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which exercises its breathtakingly draconian powers as though it had never heard the word "accountable". I must say at once that I am not making a judgment about every official in the service. Some officials in Customs and Excise are manifestly fair and reasonable, but if one meets an official who is not, the officials will never admit that a fellow official may have been wrong. They even treat their Ministers, if I may say so, as word processors for those who wrote the departmental letters. I do not pretend that on this occasion anyone was crushed, just that people were treated with gross unfairness and insensitivity.
  Let me recount the facts so that the House may judge for itself. Johnson Freight Services Ltd. is a company of freight agents in my constituency. In April 1987, it acted as freight forwarders for a cargo of fabrics consigned by a company in Germany to a company in London known as Fashion First Ltd. In order that the goods could be cleared by customs, Johnson Freight Services paid the value added tax of £3,167 19. Before the goods were delivered, it transpired that Fashion First could not pay for them and shortly afterwards it went into liquidation. In order to avoid having to carry the goods back to Germany, the German company sold the goods to a company in Leicester—J and S Garments Ltd.

  1039
  In the normal course of events, when goods are imported VAT is paid on their value when they are purchased by the importer, who then marks them up and sells them at a profit. VAT is then paid on the retail value and the importer deducts as input the sum that was paid when they were imported. If J and S Garments had been the importer, it would have reimbursed Johnson Freight Services for the VAT paid on importation and it would have deducted that sum as inputs from the VAT which it paid on the sale. So Customs and Excise would have received from Johnson's the VAT due on the import price and would subsequently receive from J and S Garments the VAT due on the retail mark-up. J and S Garments would have paid the precise amount of VAT due and Johnson's would have received the money which it had advanced. That is exactly how the VAT system was always intended to work.
  All that was required was that Customs and Excise should have agreed to treat J and S Garments as the importer instead of Fashion First, but that was too simple for the bureaucratic mind. No, it said that J and S Garments was not the importer; the goods had already been imported when it received them. In effect, Customs and Excise was saying that if J and S Garments reimbursed Johnson's it would not allow that company to deduct the sum as input from the money that it sent to Customs and Excise. So Customs and Excise has twice received the money and Johnson's is out of pocket for that amount. Customs and Excise is untroubled by that and, in short, its attitude to Johnson's is "Hard luck, mate. We have your money and we are keeping it."
  The first argument of customs was that if agents pay money on behalf of importers it is a matter for Customs and Excise and the importers. That would be an understandable argument if the money had not been paid twice. If there is to be a loss. it should not fall on Customs and Excise—I accept that. The other parties should be left to sort out between themselves who is to bear the loss. However, in this case, there has been no loss—Customs and Excise has received its money. There has been a loss only because Customs and Excise received the money twice and it wants to keep both sums.
  Customs and Excise then said that the money would have been returnable if, instead of the goods being sold to J and S Garments, they had been re-exported. They could have been returned to Germany and, presumably, sent back to this country as a fresh importation. Johnson's might then have reclaimed the money, but someone would have had to pay the freight charges both ways.
  You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are perhaps simple about these matters, but would we not have thought it more sensible to sell the goods in this country rather than re-exporting them? In any event, even if Johnson's had known about that provision and re-exported the goods, it would not have availed the company because it would apply only if the transaction took place after 31 June 1988. Do not ask me why. Even if the provision had been introduced in 1988, there could have been no conceivable objection to a retrospective provision if it recognised rather than took away someone's right.
  Finally, when the only alternative would have been to change the mind of Customs and Excise, which clearly it was not possible to contemplate, Customs and Excise said that Fashion First Ltd.—the original importer—might reclaim the money which it had never layed out. As that potential liability existed, Customs and Excise could not
  1040
  repay it to anyone else. Johnson's solved that problem by procuring a letter from Fashion First, undertaking that it would not ask for the money. It was all to no avail—Customs and Excise was, and remains, immovable.
  It might be said that Customs and Excise was bound by the regulations. Perhaps beneath that bureaucratic jargon there beats something approximating to human hearts, but however unhappy Customs and Excise was at being unable to help, it was ruled by the statute. Alas, that is not the explanation. Customs and Excise has the power to make extra-statutory concessions where fairness requires them. Indeed, the possibility of reclaiming VAT paid on importations after June 1988, if the goods were re-exported, is itself an extra-statutory concession. But Customs and Excise is not prepared to change the wording of its own extra-statutory concessions. It says, "What we have written, we have written."
  The problem may be that such a situation has never arisen before, so there has been no time properly to consider it—except since 1987. But that was not the case. On 5 September 1988, a surveyor in customs at Dover wrote to Johnson:
  "Cases identical to this one where goods have been rejected by the importer and re-sold to another trader have been submitted to Headquarters in the past but no amendments have been allowed".
  That, it seems, concludes the argument. The Court of Appeal and even the other place in its judicial capacity may reconsider their former decisions, but not headquarters. We wither and perish, but naught changeth headquarters—it has spoken. The Minister will forgive me for saying that, when I wrote to her, she simply repeated the language of the oracle.
  Some hon. Members may wonder why this case has taken so long to reach the stage of an Adjournment debate. Johnson's has been trying since 1987 to get someone in Customs and Excise to listen. It wrote to Customs and Excise at Dover on 11 January 1988 enclosing all the required documents. On 27 January, Customs and Excise replied, "Your request is refused". The reasons given were, first, that the entry could not be changed to show a new importer after the goods had been cleared by customs—I follow the logic but not the common sense—and, secondly, that the original importer still retains the right to reclaim the VAT.
  After some oral consultations, Johnson's wrote again, saying that the matters were dealt with in the original documents. A letter came back asking Johnson's to resubmit the original documents, together with the letter of refusal from Customs and Excise. I can only assume that Customs and Excise failed to keep copies. Johnson's did that and then received the letter, dated 5 September 1988, to which I referred. It pointed out that, if the agency pays the VAT on behalf of the importer, that is a matter to be resolved between them. It said that headquarters had rejected similar applications in the past. I have already dealt with those two arguments.
  Johnson's then tried writing to headquarters—why should the company not go to the authority that had been cited against it? Headquarters answered that the original importer had the right to reclaim the money. So Johnson's obtained from Fashion First the letter renouncing its claim to the money. The reply was that no new information had been provided which altered the decision.
  Johnson's then approached me and I wrote to the Minister, who replied that the claim did not meet the

  1041
  current criteria, as though Customs and Excise did not have the power to change the current criteria. I knew that, and I am asking that the current criteria should be amended if they give rise to such manifest injustice. I have been given no reason why that cannot be done. This is the kind of crass, uncomprehending bureaucracy that gives, crass uncomprehending bureaucracy a bad name.
  I hope that it is still not too late for the Minister to stand back and consider what she is being asked to endorse. If such an incident can occur in respect of a modest sum, and the Department and the Minister cannot see what is unfair about it, perhaps it is time to circumscribe the powers of Customs and Excise before it does something much worse.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on the lucid and eloquent way in which he presented the Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government's position on this matter, despite the fact that I am not only a word processor, but an oracle.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has set out the chronological facts of this case, on those there is no dispute. As he said, in April 1987, Johnson Freight Services acted as forwarding agents for a consignment of fabric from Germany being imported by Fashion First Ltd. Johnson's completed the customs entry documents in the name of Fashion First Ltd. and paid to customs £3,167 VAT on its principal's behalf. It is common commercial practice for importers to appoint agents to deal with customs formalities and pay import charges in that way. In this case, however, the importer refused the goods and is believed to have gone into liquidation. The goods were not re-exported because the German suppliers resold the goods to another United Kingdom trader, J and S Garments Ltd.
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, Johnson's applied to customs first to change the importer's name on the import documentation, but that was refused because such changes cannot be made after goods have been cleared by customs and released. The reason for that is to avoid, as far as possible, the obvious possibilities that there might be for fraud.
  Johnson's subsequently applied to customs for reimbursement of the money which the company had paid on behalf of the original importer, but which it had apparently been unable to obtain from that importer. Customs refused that application, too, because the law did not provide for such repayment. The law is clear and tightly drawn, and only the importer can reclaim VAT as input tax. It is the legal responsibility of customs to collect all charges due—duty and import VAT—on importation. That is achieved by means of an import entry submitted to customs at the time of importation declaring details of the goods being imported.
  It is the importer's responsibility to have his goods entered to customs and pay any VAT or other import charges due. Only the importer can reclaim the VAT as input tax, subject to the normal VAT laws. The law on that is tightly drawn to ensure that two or more different
  1042
  entities should not be able to deduct, as input tax, VAT on the same transaction. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that.
  For most importations, import agents or freight forwarders are used. They will submit an entry for goods at the place of importation on behalf of the importer, but importers can submit an entry and pay the VAT if they wish. If an agent or freight forwarder takes it on himself to pay the VAT due on behalf of the importer, that is a commercial arrangement between him and his principal—the importer. Customs regard the payment as having been made by the importer, and have made that clear in its publication, "Notice 702: VAT—imports and warehoused goods".
  Mr. Archer: Before the Minister passes on to the next stage in her argument, will she take account of the fact that Fashion First has renounced any right to claim, so there will be no question of two people claiming the same amount of money. The company has said, "We are perfectly happy that you should pay the money to the people who originally paid it to you."
  Mrs. Shephard: I have taken account of that matter, but the point is that the contract was between Johnson's and Fashion First and that is where the complaint and the problem for Johnson's lies.
  What should have happened? Fashion First should have reimbursed Johnson's for the import VAT that the agent had paid to customs. There is no dispute about that.
  Fashion First should then have deducted as input tax on its next VAT return the import VAT paid but obviously it went into liquidation.
  Fashion First would properly have obtained the imported goods effectively tax free and would have accounted to customs for VAT on any onward supplies that it made. In respect of those goods, Johnson's could not have been entitled to deduct as input tax on its VAT return the import VAT paid on behalf of Fashion First, because Fashion First was the importer.
  As regards deduction of input tax, VAT registered traders can, subject to the normal VAT rules, treat as input tax the VAT that they have paid on goods supplied to them, or imported by them, where the goods are used or to be used for the purpose of their business. In the case of imported goods only, the trader who imports the goods for the purpose of his business has the right to treat the import VAT as his input tax. A freight agent who pays import charges on behalf of an importer cannot acquire the importer's right.
  What seems to have happened is this. Fashion First went into liquidation and failed to reimburse Johnson's for the import VAT that the agent had paid to customs. That is where the dispute lies—the failure of the contract between Johnson's and Fashion First.
  Fashion First may or may not have deducted as input tax on its next VAT return the import VAT paid, although, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, a copy letter dated 28 September 1989 from Fashion First to Johnson's states that such a deduction had not and would not be made.
  Mr. Archer: At the risk of being tiresome, I understand that in the first instance one would have expected Fashion First to reimburse Johnson's and then to deduct it from its VAT on onward sale. However, in this case that did not happen. J and S Garments simply stands in the same

  1043
  position as Fashion First for that purpose. Fashion First has renounced any interest in the matter. Customs have had the amount twice. Apart from a rather curious logic, why should one not treat J and S Garments as if it was in the shoes of Fashion First?
  Mrs. Shephard: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could allow me pursue my argument, I shall come to a clear exposition of the commercial arrangements that shippers and forwarders need to take into account when they enter into such contracts with importers. That is set out in VAT public notice 702.
  Fashion First refused the goods and the German supplier resold them to another United Kingdom trader, J and S Garments, so they kept on circulating within the United Kingdom and they were not re-exported.
  No VAT was charged on that transaction. J and S Garments neither paid import VAT on the goods, nor made a corresponding deduction of that VAT in input tax on its next VAT return. J and S obtained the imported goods as if it had both paid the import VAT and subsequently deducted it. In no circumstances would either Johnson's or J and S have been entitled to deduct as input tax on their respective VAT returns the import VAT paid on behalf of Fashion First.
  In law, only the importer who has imported the goods for the purpose of his business can reclaim the import VAT and he does so by means of normal VAT returns. An agent who enters into a commercial arrangement to pay import charges on behalf of an importer does not acquire his principal's right to reclaim the import VAT as input tax. That is stated unequivocally in the June 1986 edition of public notice 702. I shall read that in full, because it will help clarify the argument. The leaflet says:
  "If you act as a shipping or forwarding agent for importers and pay or defer VAT on their behalf, you cannot reclaim the VAT as input tax because the goods are not imported for the purpose of your business. Although Customs usually deal with agents in relation to the importation and clearance of goods, it is the importer's responsibility to ensure that the goods are properly entered and to pay VAT and other charges due. Only the importer can, subject to the normal 'rules, reclaim any VAT paid as input tax.
  If for any reason you decide to pay the VAT or defer it to your own account on behalf of the importer, you should remember that this is a commercial arrangement between you and your principal. Payment of VAT in these circumstances does not entitle you to make any reclaim to Customs in the event of difficulty. Customs regard the payment as having been made by the importer. Whether or not the importer has received the goods the importer has a legal right to reclaim the tax subject to normal roles.
  If the importer fails to pay you the VAT or goes into liquidation without reimbursing you, you cannot recover the money from Customs and Excise. Your only recourse is to the importer".
  I know that that is not the burden of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He is saying that that is the law, but we should see common sense and try to change it. My point is that nothing could possibly be clearer than the position laid out in those paragraphs. It is absolutely clear that if a shipper is not paid by an importer with whom he has entered into a contract, he cannot recover the money from Customs and Excise; his only recourse is to the importer. Johnson Freight Services, as an experienced forwarding agent, which undoubtedly provides services for merchants in the import-export business, would be aware of that.
  Mr. Archer: The hon. Lady has been extremely courteous and helpful in giving way. Does she accept that that provision is to protect customs against a loss? I accept that if there is a loss, it should not fall on customs. However, in this case there has been no loss; customs has received the money twice.
  Mrs. Shephard: I do not accept that. If two parties enter into a commercial arrangement, it is no part of customs to bail out either party in the event of the arrangement's failing. That is the point.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned extra-statutory concessions. Customs staff are not quite the hard-hearted and faceless persons whom he is trying to depict. I feel it incumbent upon me to defend them in their absence. An extra-statutory concession was introduced in 1988.
  VAT is a tax on the consumption of goods and services in the United Kingdom. If goods on which tax has been paid to customs at import are re-exported and have not entered the UK economy, it is clearly unfair to the agent who paid the tax on behalf of an importer that he should have to bear the cost should the importer not reimburse him. During 1988, agents and freight forwarders made representations to customs about that problem. In July 1988 the Minister then responsible for customs—my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—announced in the House an extra-statutory trial scheme for repayment to agents where certain conditions were met, and 30 June 1988 was adopted as the start time.
  It is deeply irritating to be caught on the wrong side of such a line. However, in this case, because one of the criteria is that the goods should have been re-exported in the same state, the extra-statutory concession would not have helped Johnson. It is specifically to deal with the case where goods have not entered into and are not being circulated in the United Kingdom economy. That is why that concession cannot apply to Johnson Freight Services. Sadly, it entered into a commercial arrangement with Fashion First that went wrong. If Fashion First has gone into liquidation, perhaps Johnson's first recourse should be to the liquidators.
  Normally, Adjournment debates offer a window of opportunity, but I have been limited to giving the clearest possible explanation of the Government's policy. VAT public notice 702 is clear. The fact that there might be a commercial risk involving VAT and customs is laid out clearly in the leaflet. It is clear that only importers can reclaim VAT on goods that are imported for the purpose of business and, if a problem occurs, the shipping agent, the freight forwarder, cannot have recourse to customs.
  Mr. Archer: I am criticising not the clarity of the notice but the injustice of it. Is the Minister saying that, under no circumstances, would customs or the Treasury consider amending the notice to take account of circumstances where customs has had the money twice?
  Mrs. Shephard: One can never say never. In the past, Treasury Ministers have considered aspects of VAT schemes and the way in which VAT works to see what injustices might be righted.
  The commercial position of freight forwarders is so clearly laid out in VAT public notice 702 that they are

  1045
  aware of the risk. Should a company with which they have a contract go into liquidation, they cannot have recourse to customs.
  I sympathise with the predicament of Johnson Freight Services and with the arguments that were advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with all the skill for which he is well known. In drawing up rules and legal arrangements for contingencies, it is important to ensure that the rules and regulations and risks are laid out clearly so that those who are entering into arrangements are aware of the risks that they may be running.
  1046
  It is important to protect the revenue. We are all rather grateful for the proceeds of VAT as national revenue. A tax-collecting system must be so arranged that the possibilities of fraud and mistake are minimised. I have much sympathy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and much admiration for the way in which he presented his case. I said that one never says never, but, as things stand, we must stick to the position laid out in VAT public notice 702.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  MV Derbyshire
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the full report produced by the marine accident investigation branch entitled, "Derbyshire: Review of New Material."

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The formal report submitted by the chief inspector of marine accidents and placed in the Library on 25 March set out all the reasons for the recommendation that the formal investigation should not be reopened.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning activities of private wheel clamping firms in operations directed against vehicles allegedly parked on private land.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received several letters from hon. Members who have received complaints from constituents.

  Nuclear Fuel Transport
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions each year since 1979 nuclear reaction fuel has been transported to Sellafield via Leeds; and what safeguard provisions covered the fuel in transit.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The timing and routeing of such consignments are matters for British Rail. However, I am informed that irradiated nuclear fuel would not normally travel through Leeds.

  B5356, Stretton
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has agreed to special motorway signs on the M56 in order to direct heavy goods vehicles away from the B5356 in Stretton, near Warrington.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes. We are now considering approval of the signs which the local councils wish to erect on local roads.

  Freight
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what planning his Department is undertaking to achieve the objective of moving freight from roads to railways; whether he envisages any specific targets over the next decade; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  We are reviewing ways in which industry could be further encouraged to make more use of the rail systems, given in particular the advent of the channel tunnel and developments in combined transport. I do not have specific targets.
  468

  Bus Lanes, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total mileage of bus lanes in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from London Transport that there are 47 miles of bus lane in the Greater London area.

ENERGY

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the progress of the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 May 1991, c. 87–88]: Experience with the first four months operation of the home energy efficiency scheme has confirmed that it meets a real need and is being well received. However, it has also shown that work must be closely monitored and controlled to maintain the high standards for which the scheme aims. I have today announced changes to the scheme designed further to protect those clients who make direct applications under the scheme.

  I have placed in the Library copies of a press release which gives details of these changes, which are designed to maintain the principle of customer choice whilst ensuring high standards.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing, for 1990–91 and 1991–92 separately for local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland (i) capital grants from central Government, (ii) other receipts, showing separately items of £0.5 billion or more, (iii) total receipts, (iv) current expenditure on goods and services, showing housing separately, (v) current grants and subsidies, showing housing separately, (vi) interest repayments, (vii) capital expenditure and net lending and (viii) total expenditure showing that on the basis of national accounts and public expenditure measurement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested on capital grants from central government to local authorities on a public expenditure basis is given in table 5.5 of the "Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm 1520. Data on capital grants on a national accounts basis cannot readily be split between terrritories. Data on local authority income from the community charge and non-domestic rates by territory are given in reply to a question from the hon. Member today. Detailed data on other local authority receipts in 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not yet available.

  The analysis of local authority expenditure requested is given, for 1990–91, in the table. The data are consistent with the economic category analysis of local authority expenditure given in table 5.7 of Cm 1520. Data on local authority debt interest cannot readily be split between

  469
  territories. Information on the public expenditure basis for 1991–92 and for both 1990–91 and 1991–92 on a national accounts basis is not yet available.

  Local authority expenditure1 in Great Britain by territory and economic category, 1990–91

  £ million

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Current expenditure on goods and services2

  33,255

  4,335

  2,057

  of which: housing

  309

  4

  13

  Current grants and subsidies

  5,981

  686

  340

  of which: housing3

  —

  2

  —

  Net capital expenditure4

  3,989

  816

  471

  TOTAL

  43,224

  5,837

  2,868

  1989–90

  Outturn

  £ billion

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Gross community charge/domestic rate income

  9·7

  0·4

  1·0

  11·1

  —

  Community charge benefit/domestic rate rebates

  1·3

  0·1

  0·2

  1·5

  —

  Net community charge/domestic rate income

  8·4

  0·3

  0·8

  9·6

  0·1

  Gross non-domestic rate payments

  9·8

  0·4

  1·2

  11·4

  Non-domestic rate rebates

  0·3

  —

  —

  0·3

  Net non-domestic rate rebates

  9·5

  0·4

  1·2

  11·1

  1990–91

  Estimated outturn

  £ billion

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Gross community charge income

  12·3

  0·5

  1·1

  13·9

  —

  Community charge benefit

  1·9

  0·1

  0·2

  2·2

  —

  Transitional relief

  0·3

  1—

  1—

  0·4

  —

  Net community charge income/domestic rate income

  10·2

  0·4

  0·9

  11·4

  0·1

  Non-domestic rate payments

  10·7

  0·4

  1·3

  12·5

  1 Less than £50 million.

  1991–92

  Forecast

  £ billion

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Gross community charge income

  8·5

  0·2

  0·9

  9·8

  —

  Community charge reduction scheme/transitional relief

  1·1

  0·1

  0·1

  1·4

  —

  Community charge benefit

  1·1

  1—

  0·1

  1·2

  —

  Net community charge income/domestic rate income

  6·4

  0·2

  0·7

  7·2

  0·1

  Non-domestic rate payments

  12·1

  0·5

  1·4

  14·1

  Note: community charge grant

  4·8

  0·3

  0·5

  5·6

  —

  470
  1 Excluding debt interest.

  2 Including pay.

  3 Excluding housing benefit.

  4 Including net lending.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish tables which reconcile to table 6.7 in the 1991 Financial Statement and Budget Report and which show separately for England, Wales, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom and for each of the years 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92 the following information on local authority transactions(a) gross income from community charge and domestic rates before deduction of (i) rate rebates, (ii) community charge benefit, (iii) transitional relief, (iv) community charge reduction scheme and (v) community charge grant, showing each item separately, (b) net income from community charge and domestic rates and (c) income from non-domestic rates.

  Mr.Mellor
  The following tables show the information requested:
  471
  1Less than £50million

  VAT
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, comparable to table 3 of appendix 7 to HC 289 of Session 1990–91 but expressed to the nearest £1 per year, of VAT payments by income decile group, showing separately the results for(a) all households in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and (b) retired households but continuing to attribute such retired households to income decile groups calculated on the basis of all households.

  Mr. Mellor
  The figures in the table referred to were derived from Central Statistical Office analysis of the family expenditure survey. Because the statistical adjustments made to the data for this analysis have been designed at the United Kingdom level, separate figures for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not available. Moreover the sample sizes for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be too small to provide reliable results. Figures for the United Kingdom and retired households on the basis requested are set out in the table.

  Estimated increase in VAT payments in 1991–92 as a result of the rise in the VAT rate to 17·5 per cent.: average by decile group of households ranked by disposable income: £ per year.

  All United Kingdom households:

  Of which retired:

  Bottom

  40

  32

  2

  52

  42

  3

  78

  69

  4

  114

  123

  5

  140

  142

  6

  164

  143

  7

  200

  195

  8

  232

  253

  9

  279

  Top

  369

  Average

  167

  79

  Notes:

  1. Based on the 1.987 Family Expenditure Survey uprated to 1991. Figures do not take account of any changes in the pattern of household expenditure which might follow on from a change in the VAT rate.

  2. In order to provide an estimate for a reasonably large sample, the figures for the retired households in the top three decile groups have been combined.

  Next Steps
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his department under the next steps initiative; and whether he has identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.

  Mr. David Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Minister for the Civil Service's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 30 April 1991, at columns 111–13. Within Her Majesty's Treasury the Chessington computer centre, which provides computerised payroll and other services to Government departments and other customers, is due to become an agency on 1 April 1993. Of the other Chancellor's Departments the Central Office of Information, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Royal Mint have been established as agencies. The Valuation Offices of the
  472
  Inland Revenue will be established as a single agency from 30 September 1991. The Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are implementing announced programmes of action which will enable them to operate fully on next steps lines.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table, consistent with table 2.1 of Cm 1520, showing for the years 1963–64 to 1990–91 and expressed to the nearest million,(a) local authority expenditure on a national accounts definition, (b) local authority expenditure on goods and services on a national accounts definition, (c) general Government expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds, (d) general Government expenditure on goods and services and (e) gross domestic product at market prices.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information up to the fourth quarter of 1990 is included on the CSO database in the following series—identified by their database code—and published in the "Statistical Supplement to Autumn Statement"—Cm 1520.

  (a)—ABAD:

  Local authority expenditure on a national accounts definition.

  (b)—GTEF:

  Local authority expenditure on goods and services on a national accounts definition

  (c)—Table 2.1 of Cm 1520:

  General government expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds.

  (d)—GTEG:

  General government expenditure on goods and services.

  (e)—CAOB:

  Gross domestic product (average estimates) at market prices.

  The CSO database is accessible in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Recycling
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what consultations he has had with the local authorities and their associations in Wales regarding the need for supplementary credit approvals specifically earmarked for the encouragement of recycling initiatives in Wales;

  (2) what provision he intends to make concerning supplementary credit approvals for local authorities and voluntary bodies in Wales for initiatives to encourage recycling.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Capital resources in Wales are distributed by means of unhypothecated formulae which have the support of the local authority associations. This method of distribution of resources was introduced so that local authorities can determine individually how the resources made available are spent.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had from local authorities and voluntary bodies in Wales regarding the absence of any funds earmarked for the encouragement of recycling initiatives.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Two letters have been received as well as a number of telephone inquiries.
  473

  South Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan training and enterprise council concerning the provision of(a) new offices and (b) training facilities for the TEC, both in the immediate needs and for the medium term.

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  First Aid
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will introduce an education support grant specifically for the training of first-aiders in educational establishments;

  (2) if any specific financial support is made available by his Department to ensure that the guidance in the Welsh Office circular entitled "Arrangements for First Aid in Schools and Colleges", and advice in other publications is implemented in schools and colleges.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  First aid provision in educational establishments forms part of the normal responsibilities of local education authorities. Their expenditure on such provision is supported by revenue support grant and I have no plans for further support by way of education support grant. The 1991–92 local authority revenue support settlement allows for a 7·9 per cent. increase in education spending at an all-Wales level.

  Next Steps
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his Department under the next steps initiative; and whether he has identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There is currently one executive agency within my Department, Cadw Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency. Work is proceeding in concert with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to establish the agricultural Development Advisory Service as a joint England and Wales Agency in April 1992. I am actively reviewing other functions discharged by my Department with a view to applying next steps principles to them.

  Welsh Language Bill
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received from the Welsh Language Board a copy of its final draft for a new Welsh Language Act; and on how many occasions since then he or an official of his Department, has met representatives of the Welsh Language Board to discuss that draft Bill.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend received a final draft copy of the Welsh Language Board's report on its legislative proposals on 9 January of this year. Welsh Office officials have subsequently been considering the board's proposals. We will be meeting the chairman of the board to discuss this matter on 23 May.

  Sheep and Beef Producers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total payment made last year to sheep and beef producers in Wales under the EC scheme for 474
  less-favoured area support; and how much more would have been paid if the United Kingdom Government had allowed such payments to be made to the full EC maximum permitted level last year, and not limited by the United Kingdom restriction level.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A total of £33·3 million was paid out to 15,103 hill livestock compensatory allowance claimants in 1990. The United Kingdom financial limits led to payments to 529 claimants being reduced by a total of £220,949—0·66 per cent. of the total expenditure. The amount that would have been payable if the United Kingdom had adopted the EC maximum limits could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Footpaths and Bridleways
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by year for the last 10 years, and for the current year to date, the number of(a) public footpaths and (b) public bridleways that have been (i) created and (ii) closed to the general public.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will state on what date he received a letter posted by Gwynedd county council on 12 March, concerning the community charge transitional relief and alleged inconsistencies in this scheme within the county of Gwynedd; on what date a reply was sent; and if he will make a statement on the issues raised by this letter.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The letter from Gwynedd county council dated 12 March 1991 was not received. A copy of the letter was received from the county council on 14 May 1991. A reply has been sent.

  Towyn Floods
  Sir Anthony Meyer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he intends to make further grant payments under the Bellwin scheme to local authorities in north Wales which were involved in carrying out emergency works following the flood emergency at Towyn.

  Mr. David Hunt
  As my hon. Friend will know, I have already made payments under the Bellwin scheme, amounting to over £2 million, to local authorities in Wales which were directly affected by the severe weather during the Winter of 1989–90. In the case of the north Wales flooding, one of the ways in which I recognised the exceptional nature of the problems was by extending the deadline for receipt of authorities' final audited claim forms to 30 June 1991.

  Parliamentary approval to payment of grant in respect of these claims is being sought in a summer supplementary estimate on the "rate rebates, community charge reduction grants and flood and storm emergency services, Wales" vote—class XVI, vote 11. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure on meeting mature claims will be met by a repayable advance of £500,000 from the Contingencies Fund.

  Opencast Mining
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the planning appeals relating to opencast coalmining sites in Wales currently under consideration by his Department.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 20 May 1991]: The information is as follows:

  Llanilid West, Mid Glamorgan

  Brynhenllys, Powys

  Bannel Bridge, Clwyd

  Park Slip West, Mid Glamorgan

  Graweth Farm, Merthyr Tydfil, Mid Glamorgan

  In addition, the planning application for an opencast coal mine at Pwll Du has been called in for determination by the Secretary of State. The cases are at various stages in their determination.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Agency Status
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his Department under the next steps initiative; and whether he has identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.

  Mr. Lilley
  The nine excutive agencies within the DTI are Companies House, the Insolvency Service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Engineering Laboratory, the National Physical Laboratory, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Patent Office, Radiocommunications Agency and Warren Spring Laboratory.

  I continue to consider the possibility of establishing further agencies in the DTI but I have not at the moment identified any candidates.

  For ECGD, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 19 July 1990, Official Report column 677.

  Company Liquidations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he takes where the liquidator of a company fails to file the statutory returns as required by section 595 of the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is an operational matter for Companies House executive agency. I have asked the chief executive to write direct.

  Date of appointment

  Name of company

  Type of inquiry

  15 June 1990

  Atlantic Computer Systems plc

  Section 432

  15 June 1990

  Atlantic Computers plc

  Section 432

  16 August 1990

  Astra Holdings plc

  Section 431

  31 October 1990

  London United Investments plc

  Section 432

  7 January 1991

  Norton Group plc

  Section 432

  476

  Traders (Monitoring)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will provide a list of the number of traders monitored by each of the authorised bodies under the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986.

  Mr. Redwood
  I understand from the Securities and Investments Board that the position on 8 May 1991, including interim authorisations, was as shown in the following table. Some authorised persons are members of more than one self-regulating organisation.

  Numbers

  Analysis of Authorised Persons

  Regulated directly by the Securities and Investments Board

  76

  Members of Self Regulating Organisations

  The Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers

  10

  The Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association

  7,126

  The Investment Management Regulatory Organisation

  1,249

  The Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation

  663

  The Securities and Futures Authority

  1,391

  Certified by Recognised Professional Bodies

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  6,047

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland

  536

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  183

  The Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  1,050

  The Law Society of England and Wales

  6,967

  The Law Society of Scotland

  932

  The Law Society of Northern Ireland

  421

  Insurance Brokers Registration Council

  1,595

  Institute of Actuaries

  31

  Prudential Corporation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will establish an inquiry into the manner in which Price Waterhouse acquired the audit of the Prudential Corporation.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Companies Acts (Investigations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the investigations carried out under various sections of the Companies Acts for the year to 31 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  During the year to 31 March 1991, a total of 178 such inquiries were commenced; one under section 431 of the Companies Act 1985, four under section 432, two under section 446 and 171 under section 447. The inquiries under sections 431 and 432 have been announced and are as follows:

  Companies (Suspended Shares)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any company whose shares are suspended has been investigated by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Investigations under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985 into the affairs of James Ferguson Holdings plc, BOM Holdings plc and Norton Group plc are in progress and have been announced. The stock exchange has advised that the shares of these companies are suspended. Section 447 investigations are kept confidential.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was paid by the Insolvency Service to accountancy firms in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Insolvency Service made the following payments in respect of additional work done by insolvency practitioners on disqualification applications made by the Secretary of State. Generally these payments are made to the accountancy firms in which the insolvency practitioners are partners or employees.

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  £7,814

  £25,429

  £29,021

  A payment of £23,500 was also made during the financial year 1990–91 in respect of consultancy work on computerised estate accounting.

  Bryanston
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received seeking the publication of the final report on Bryanston.

  Mr. Redwood
  The papers are being recovered from store. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any staff or partner from Ernst and Young is currently seconded to his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Two Ernst and Young staff are currently on secondment to the Department.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his responsibilities under the Fireworks Act 1951 and on his discharging of them.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Our responsibilities under this Act relate to sections 4 and 7 which deal with Health and Safety at work considerations under the terms of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Additionally, explosives inspectors appointed by the Health and Safety Executive during their visits to factories, magazines or stores have a power under section 1(1) of the Fireworks Act 1951 to take away for testing a sample of fireworks which they consider may present dangers when in the possession of the public. This power is enforced where appropriate and necessary.
  478
  The remainder of the provision in the Fireworks Act 1951 are properly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to require licensing of all fireworks to be used only for properly organised firework displays, put on by trained people, and set up a national training scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  The firework industry already has a training scheme for organisers of displays. Like the hon. Member, I want to see fireworks used properly so that there is pleasure rather than tragedy on bonfire night. Requiring licences would cut down the number of good organised displays open to people on bonfire night, but would not of itself guarantee safety.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent incidents have occurred involving category 4 fireworks; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards the control of such fireworks.

  Mr. Redwood
  I do not have a breakdown of accidents for different categories of fireworks. However, category 4—large display—fireworks should not be available in the shops. Most are imported and their import licence prohibits suppliers from selling them through the shops, while for their part United Kingdom manufacturers refrain from doing so.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy to place before Parliament annually a list of defence exports including details of equipment supplied, contract values and recipients.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. The hon. Member will be aware that following the Prime Minister's initiative for a United Nations register of arms transfers, urgent consideration is being given to such an international register.

  New Cars
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the pricing of new cars in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently investigating the United Kingdom car market, including car prices in the United Kingdom. When the commission's report is available, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to consider whether there is scope for any action in the light of it.

  Accountancy Practice
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy towards accountancy practice, standards and forms, in relation to corporate bodies.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government's policy on company accounting was debated at length during the passage of the
  479
  Companies Act 1989, which introduced a number of important changes. As regards accounting standards, the Government welcomed and support the new Financial Reporting Council and its subsidiaries, including the Accounting Standards Board.

  Shipbuilding
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the current operation and level of usage of the home shipbuilders credit guarantee scheme.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme has been in operation since 1967. The scheme offer United Kingdom-based shipowners, placing orders with United Kingdom shipyards for the construction, completion or radical alteration of merchant vessels, financing terms comparable with officially supported export credit terms available for orders placed with overseas yards. Vessels which may qualify for support under the scheme conform with the definition in the OECD understanding of export credits for ships. The scheme provides two elements of support:

  (i) a Government guarantee of up to 80 per cent. of the loan arranged by the purchaser of the vessel and repayable by equal half yearly instalments over a maximum of eight and a half years;

  (ii) a fixed rate of interest for the duration of the loan with the Government paying the difference between the fixed and commercial loan interest rates. The Government support conforms to the OECD Understanding.

  In the year to 31 March 1991, payments of interest support grants totalled £52 million. As at 31 March 1991, the amount of loan principal guaranteed under the scheme totalled £924–6 million in respect of 305 vessels. In the year ended 31 March 1991, a total of 40 new guarantees were given.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Ukranian Doctors
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any plans to fund training for Ukranian doctors on cancer-related illnesses.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have contributed, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to the international efforts to tackle the effects of the Chernobyl disaster, including by promoting specialist contacts with Ukranian doctors and scientists. We shall consider the possibility of further assistance in the light of the International Atomic Energy Agency report, due out on 21 May.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Employment Laws
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many prosecutions there were in the last 12-month period for which figures are available for contraventions of the child employment law.

  Mr. John Patten
  In England and Wales in 1989, there were 35 prosecutions for offences against employment of children Acts. Data for 1990 are not yet available. This 480
  information is published annually in volume 1 of the "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, Supplementary tables" copies of which are in the Library.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were committed and detected in the Walsall H division of the West Midlands police authority for each year since 1978.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is published in the annual reports of the chief constable of West Midlands police. Copies of these publications from 1980 are available in the Library.

  Parole
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of life sentence prisoners who were released each year since 1981; and what was the number in each year whose release was proposed by the Parole Board and turned down by him or his predecessors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The numbers of persons released from prison service establishments on life licence in each of the years 1979–89 were published in table 8.5 of "Prison statistics England and Wales 1989"—Cm. 1221—a copy of which is in the Library. The figures exclude those re-released following a period in prison after recall from a previous licence. In 1990, the latest year for which information is available, 81 people were released on life licence.

  Information on the numbers of life sentence prisoners recommended as suitable for release by the Parole Board and the numbers of those recommendations not accepted by Home Secretaries is published in successive annual reports of the Parole Board. For convenience the figures for 1980–90, which include re-releases following a period in prison after recall from a previous licence, are set out in the table. Parole Board recommendations of "suitable for release" have been for dates ranging from the immediate future up to two and a half years ahead.

  Life sentence prisoners recommended for release by the Parole Board 1989–90

  Year of recommendation

  Recommended

  Not accepted by Home Secretary

  1980

  102

  6

  1981

  147

  4

  1982

  144

  5

  1983

  121

  16

  1984

  112

  10

  1985

  94

  16

  1986

  120

  14

  1987

  147

  23

  1988

  91

  13

  1989

  119

  15

  1990

  138

  135

  1 A further 30 cases were still under consideration by the Home Secretary at the end of 1990.

  British National Party
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what request he has received from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to ban the British National party march planned to take place in Thamesmead on Saturday 25 May.
  481
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what request he has received from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ban the proposed marches by the British National party on the Thamesmead estate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No request has been made by the Commissioner for the Home Secretary's consent to an 482
  order under section 13 of the Public Order Act 1986 prohibiting the march by the British National party in Thamesmead on 25 May. The Commissioner is considering whether to exercise his power under section 12 of the Act to impose conditions on the route of the procession.

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of Home Office domestic properties there are throughout the United Kingdom and (b) the number unoccupied at the present moment, indicating how many have been unoccupied for six months, how many have been unoccupied for one year, how many have been unoccupied for two years and how many have been unoccupied for longer than two years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The best estimate of the total number of domestic properties owned by the Home Office prison service in England and Wales is at present 2,825, of which 355 are unoccupied for the following reasons:

  Numbers

  Vacant for security reasons or redevelopment

  94

  Vacant for reallocation to designated staff

  56

  Awaiting demolition

  63

  On market for sale

  112

  Awaiting disposal

  30

  355

  In addition the Home Office directorate of telecommunications has 20 properties, of which nine are vacant and for sale; the Fire Service college at Moreton-in-Marsh has 36 properties, all occupied; and the Emergency Planning college at Easingwold has 11 properties, all occupied.

  Information on the length of time properties have been vacant is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisons
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners there are in Britain and in each prison as of 10 May; and what is the capacity of each prison.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On 10 May there were a total of 45,302 prisoners in England and Wales, including 603 in police cells. The table shows the number of prisoners in each prison service establishment and the certified normal accommodation—the uncrowded capacity—of each establishment.

  Prison service establishments: certified normal accommodation (CNA) and population on 10 May 1991

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Local prisons and remand centres

  Bedford

  171

  264

  Belmarsh

  360

  283

  Birmingham

  575

  972

  Bristol

  379

  381

  Brixton

  739

  1,072

  Camp Hill

  461

  456

  Canterbury

  230

  324

  Cardiff

  338

  474

  Chelmsford

  244

  402

  Dorchester

  152

  185

  Durham (male)

  601

  843

  Exeter

  243

  393

  Gloucester

  200

  356

  Haslar

  105

  103

  Latchmere House

  127

  28

  Leeds

  627

  965

  Leicester

  205

  343

  Lewes

  230

  416

  484

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Lincoln

  391

  584

  Liverpool

  931

  1,165

  Manchester

  185

  175

  Norwich

  495

  486

  Oxford

  121

  165

  Pentonville

  754

  810

  Preston

  408

  479

  Reading

  184

  257

  Rochester

  306

  277

  Shrewsbury

  176

  286

  Swansea

  229

  287

  Wandsworth

  1,275

  1,351

  Winchester

  530

  521

  Wormwood Scrubs

  743

  837

  Brockhill

  161

  244

  Everthorpe

  304

  271

  Feltham

  874

  765

  Glen Parva

  854

  755

  Hindley

  323

  400

  Low Newton (male)

  131

  199

  Portland

  527

  446

  Stoke Heath

  360

  240

  Closed male training prisons

  Albany

  389

  362

  Blundeston

  410

  392

  Coldingley

  299

  288

  Dartmoor

  619

  546

  Frankland

  432

  433

  Full Sutton

  634

  417

  Garth

  512

  508

  Gartree

  320

  285

  Grendon

  225

  197

  Kingston

  150

  141

  Long Lartin

  432

  425

  Maidstone

  549

  518

  Nottingham

  218

  221

  Parkhurst

  239

  215

  Swaleside

  504

  500

  Wakefield

  753

  669

  Acklington

  676

  508

  Aldington

  127

  112

  Ashwell

  404

  396

  Blantyre House

  87

  87

  Channings Wood

  594

  577

  Downview

  286

  280

  Erlestoke

  218

  210

  Featherstone

  599

  580

  Haverigg

  351

  342

  Highpoint

  824

  768

  Lancaster

  186

  242

  Lindholme

  800

  771

  Littlehey

  593

  517

  Northeye

  249

  222

  Randby

  363

  320

  Risley

  326

  311

  Send

  101

  98

  Shepton Mallet

  175

  241

  Stafford

  606

  723

  Stocken

  393

  392

  The Mount

  484

  222

  The Verne

  600

  585

  Thorp Arch

  150

  148

  Usk

  240

  191

  Wayland

  580

  576

  Wellingborough

  344

  188

  Whatton

  161

  159

  Wymott

  816

  747

  Open male training prisons

  Ford

  568

  525

  Foston Hall

  98

  88

  Kirkham

  632

  583

  Leyhill

  410

  412

  Morton Hall

  168

  162

  North Sea Camp

  202

  177

  Rudgate

  300

  281

  Spring Hill

  210

  206

  485

  Establishment

  CNA

  Population

  Standford Hill

  384

  374

  Sudbury

  425

  423

  Male young offender institutions

  Aylesbury

  296

  238

  Castington

  300

  253

  Deerbolt

  404

  395

  Dover

  347

  221

  Eastwood Park

  134

  99

  Finnamore Wood

  116

  84

  Guys Marsh

  180

  113

  Hollesley Bay

  569

  309

  Hatfield

  180

  162

  Hewell Grange

  136

  112

  Huntercombe

  166

  161

  Kirklevington

  106

  86

  Northallerton

  146

  188

  Onley

  520

  454

  Swinfen Hall

  182

  182

  Thorn Cross

  300

  207

  Werrington

  110

  106

  Wetherby

  196

  174

  Female establishments

  Askham Grange

  134

  95

  Bullwood Hall

  119

  102

  Cookham Wood

  120

  120

  Drake Hall

  262

  189

  Durham

  39

  27

  East Sutton Park

  84

  75

  Holloway

  517

  489

  Low Newton

  36

  27

  New Hall

  122

  103

  Pucklechurch

  56

  51

  Risley

  91

  80

  Styal

  258

  186

  Total

  44,295

  44,699

  Police cells:

  —

  603

  Total population

  —

  45,302

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to change the present ratio of prison officers to inmates in centres for young offenders.

  Findings of guilt for failing to observe limits on hours of driving and duty, or rest requirements at magistrates' courts

  England and Wales 1980 to 1989

  Number of offences

  Sentence or order

  Year

  Total findings of guilt

  Absolute or conditional discharge or recognizance

  Probation or supervision order

  Fine

  Other1

  1980

  2,471

  221

  —

  2,250

  —

  1981

  2,143

  218

  —

  1,925

  —

  1982

  3,104

  97

  —

  3,006

  1

  1983

  5,030

  240

  —

  4,781

  9

  1984

  5,990

  354

  —

  5,617

  19

  1985

  6,778

  572

  1

  6,184

  21

  1986

  6,314

  446

  —

  5,828

  40

  1987

  3,910

  368

  —

  3,527

  15

  1988

  5,199

  320

  2

  4,844

  33

  1989

  8,304

  505

  —

  7,586

  213

  1 Includes a few cases committed to the Crown Court for sentence.

  Source: Offences relating to motor vehicles, England and Wales, Supplementary tables, Issues 1980 to 1989.

  Poland (Visas)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to end the requirement of visas for visitors from Poland; and if he will make a statement.
  486
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Between 1 April 1987 and 1 April this year, the ratio of prison officers to inmates in young offender establishments rose from 0·37 to 0·46 officers per inmate. Depending on changes in the prison population during the year, a further improvement in this ratio is likely to occur by April 1992 as a result of the recruitment of staff for new young offender establishments during 1991–92.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to improve the ratio of prison officers to inmates in the prison service.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Between 1 April 1987 and 1 April this year, the ratio of prison officers to inmates increased from 0·35 to 0·48 officers per inmate. Depending on changes in the prison population during the year, there is likely to be a further small improvement in the ratio of officers to inmates by April 1992 as a result of the recruitment of around 1,500 officers to staff new prisons.

  Lorry Drivers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by year for the last 10 years and for the current year to date(a) how many lorry drivers have been convicted of a motoring offence on the evidence alone of a tachograph fitted in the driving cab,(b) what was the offence committed and (c) what penalty was imposed on (i) the driver and (ii) the operator.

  Mr. John Patten
  The only offence for which the evidence of a tachograph alone is used is "Failing to observe limits on hours of driving and duty, or rest requirements" under sections 96(11) and 96(11A) of the Transport Act 1968. This applies only to drivers or operators of heavy goods vehicles.

  The table gives the information available for this offence. The latest statistics are for 1989; the table also includes data for the previous nine years. No breakdown is available centrally between drivers and operators.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his recent question on this subject on 8 May at column 477.
  487

  Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi or his wife, Kuldip, have been retained as interpreters by (i) the immigration and nationality department or (ii) the Metropolitan police since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Records of this kind are not held centrally and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I understand that Mr. Bedi and his wife have worked as casual interpreters on occasions for the immigration service and the police since 1968.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official invitations have been issued to Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi to attend official functions organised by his Department since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Records of invitations issued to individuals are not held centrally and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost, if at all.

  War Crimes
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when investigations into alleged war crimes will begin.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The War Crimes Act received Royal Assent on 9 May and the war crimes investigation unit established by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis will begin their investigations immediately. Parliamentary approval of this new expenditure is being sought in the supply estimates for the Home Office Vote for "administration, etc." for 1991–92—class IX, vote 3. Pending this approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £300,000 will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  Trespass
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his evaluation of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  We have now completed the thorough review of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 which was announced by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary on 26 October 1989. I am grateful to all those individuals and organisations who contributed their views, including members of this House.

  After considering carefully all the representations received, I have concluded that more needs to be done to secure a better understanding by all interested parties of the way in which the law should operate, but that no change to the law is necessary.

  I have therefore decided, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, to issue guidance to the police on the application of section 39. Whilst the decision whether or not to use the powers available under section 39 is an operational matter entirely within the discretion of the senior police officer present at the scene of
  488
  a trespass, the guidance aims to assist forces in coming to a more consistent application of these powers across the country in dealing with aggravated trespass. A copy of this guidance has been placed in the Library.

  I believe that it would be helpful to the interested parties to have available a simple guide to the law in relation to trespass on land. My Department is therefore publishing today, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of the Environment, a leaflet setting out the main provisions of the law. It covers, as well as section 39, the civil remedies open to landowners and the requirements in respect of the provision of official sites for travellers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. A copy of the leaflet has also been placed in the Library.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will continue to encourage local authorities to fulfil their duty under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide adequate numbers of sites for gipsies.

  I believe that these measures should do much to reduce uncertainty about the proper application of section 39 and will assist landowners in finding the most suitable remedy for trespass on land in the circumstances of each particular case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq (Economic Sanctions)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received concerning the United Nations Security Council appeal issued on 29 April for assistance to the 21 countries with special economic problems arising from their compliance with sanctions imposed against Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  None. Our policy on assistance for these countries was set out in the answer given to the hon. Member by the Minister for Overseas Development on 14 May at column 99.

  Medical and Dental Officers (Pay)
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces.

  The Prime Minister
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has submitted to me a supplementary report on the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces which recommends increases of between 7·5 and 11·4 per cent., with an average increase of 11·2 per cent. The Government have decided to accept the recommendations in full, though, in common with the pay awards announced on 31 January for the national health service doctors and dentists, with whom the pay of service medical and dental officers is closely linked, implementation will be staged, with 7·5 per cent. payable from 1 April 1991 and the balance of the award payable from 1 December 1991.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Services Committees
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will announce the composition of the four new social services committees which will replace the district committees disbanded on 1 April.
  489
  Mr. Hanley
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on 20 May,Official Report, column 379.

  Prescriptions
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list, over the last five years for which figures are available, the loss to the health service by improper prescription claims; and if he will make a statement in response to the complaints of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not possible to state accurately the loss to the health service by improper claims for exemption from prescription charges. Estimates based on sample surveys which began in 1986–87 are:

  £

  1986–87

  1,345,564

  1987–88

  2,220,000

  1988–89

  2,123,446

  1989–90

  2,323,736

  Improper prescription claims have been the subject of consideration by the Department of Health and Social Services and the Central Services Agency in the light of previous Comptroller and Auditor-General Reports. Arising out of this consideration the medical and pharmaceutical professions will shortly be consulted about a range of measures designed to counteract this problem without imposing undue restrictions on patients requiring medication. The specific criticisms made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General about weaknesses within the pharmaceutical branch of the agency are not directly linked with the improper claiming. The Department will consider with the agency the action which should now be taken on this aspect of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's 1988–89 report.

  Police Complaints Commission
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange for copies of the 1990 annual report of the independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland to be laid in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The report has been laid today. It is the third annual report from the commission which was established in 1988 by the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

  Detailed recommendations about the workings of articles 4 to 16 of the 1987 order, which provide for the handling of complaints from the public about individual police officers, were made by the commission in its comprehensive triennial review which was presented in a report to the House on 27 March 1991. In view of this the annual report is mainly a factual account of the commission's work during the year and an exposition of its role and functions. Nevertheless, it provides a valuable contribution to the important process of increasing public awareness of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland. I commend it to those interested in these matters and I am certain that this account of the commission's work will prove to be another important step in increasing the public's confidence in the police complaints system and in the commission's role.

  Goodman Meat
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the gifts given to staff within the Department of Agriculture from interests associated with the Goodman Meat firm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: Under the Northern Ireland civil service pay and conditions of service code only gifts of
  "a trivial or inexpensive seasonal nature"
  may be accepted by civil servants. To my knowledge only gifts in this category have been accepted by staff in the Department of Agriculture.

  At Christmas 1989 and 1990 some staff in HQ divisions of the Department of Agriculture received unsolicited gifts of alcohol from the Goodman Group. The group was contacted and told that staff could not accept such gifts but the group refused to accept their return. Accordingly, 10 bottles of spirits—nine in 1989 and one in 1990—were donated to the NSPCC which acknowledged their receipt to the Goodman Group.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list by year for the last 10 years the number of individuals who have qualified for legal aid; and what percentage of the population this represents.

  The Attorney-General
  Calculations are not made as a matter of course of the number of individuals falling within the eligibility limits for legal aid. It is estimated that in 1990 approximately 36 million people or 66 per cent. of the population were eligible on income grounds for non-matrimonial civil legal aid. For personal injury claims it is estimated that 38 million people or 69 per cent. of the population were eligible. No estimates are available of the percentage of the population eligible for matrimonial or criminal legal aid. The numbers of individuals obtaining legal aid are detailed in tables published in legal aid annual reports to 1988–89 the Legal Aid Board annual report for 1989–90 and "Judicial Statistics".

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list by year for the last 10 years the number of households eligible for legal aid in court proceedings and the percentage of those entitled who had to make a contribution to the costs.

  The Attorney-General
  Calculations are not made as a matter of course of the number of households falling within the eligibility limits for legal aid. In 1990 it is estimated that 18·5 million households were eligible on income grounds for civil non-matrimonial legal aid—19·5 million in personal injury cases. About 60 per cent. are estimated to have been eligible with a contribution.

  Free Legal Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement in respect of access to free legal services.

  The Attorney-General
  Those legal services, that are paid for under the legal aid schemes are available free of
  491
  charge to all those who satisfy the relevant merits test and whose means are such that they are not required to make a financial contribution towards their legal costs. Free legal advice and assistance is also available irrespective of means through the duty solicitor schemes at magistrates' courts and police stations.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list by year for the last 10 years the number of people entitled to free legal advice.

  The Attorney-General
  Calculations are not made as a matter of course of the numbers of individuals falling within the eligibility limits for free legal advice and assistance. In 1989–90, nil contributions were assessed in 917,882 of the 1,029,018 bills paid for legal advice and assistance. Figures for earlier years are contained in the legal aid annual reports.

  Mr. Mohinder Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi or his wife, Kuldip, were retained as interpreters by the immigration appellate authorities since 1984; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The immigration appellate authorities—IAA— have no record since 1984 of Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi or his wife Kuldip being included on the panel of casual interpreters used by the IAA.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions since 1984 Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi has appeared as a representative before the immigration appellate authorities to represent(a) appellants and (b) respondents; and if he will make a statement.

  1990–91 prices

  (a) NIACE £

  (b) UDACE £

  (c) NEGI £

  (d) REPLAN £

  1979–80

  95,134

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  98,507

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  104,003

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  144,036

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  118,810

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  114,625

  70,756

  —

  523,617

  1985–86

  122,325

  267,807

  —

  1,538,397

  1986–87

  125,831

  267,228

  —

  1,653,915

  1987–88

  124,384

  272,352

  —

  1,632,997

  1988–89

  170,693

  273,934

  57,308

  1,601,196

  1989–90

  161,553

  281,766

  53,875

  1,549,445

  1990–91

  195,280

  293,000

  53,000

  1,473,000

  The figures in the table result from adjusting the cash outturn figures for past years using the deflator for gross domestic product at market prices. The grant to UDACE excludes that to NEGI, which is shown separately.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of young people over the age of 18 years are in higher education in each of the 12 member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The figures in the following table represent participation at all ages, generally 18 and over.
  492
  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not readily available because the immigration appellate authorities—IAA—do not record statistics of the number of occasions unqualified representatives are granted leave to appear before them. The granting of leave to appear before them is a matter for the IAA judiciary.

  Ashworth Covenant
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what has been the cost to public funds of the relator action on the Ashworth covenant at Birtenshaw Farm, Sylvia Scotland v Barratt Manchester and what further relator actions he anticipates being brought.

  The Attorney-General
  Any assessment of the cost to public funds occasioned by Attorney-General ex rel. Sylvia Scotland v Barratt Manchester Limited and Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council must await the conclusion of those proceedings. No other applications have been received for consent to commence a relator action in respect of the Ashworth covenant.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Adult Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial contribution he has made to(a) the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education, (b) the unit for the development of adult and continuing education, (c) the national educational guidance initiative and (d) REPLAN since 1979, at 1990–91 prices.

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

  New entrants1 to higher education

  Country2 (main ages on entry)

  Latest year

  Participation rate3 Percentage

  Belgium (18–19)

  1987

  49

  Denmark (18–20)

  1987

  43

  France (18–20)

  1987

  34

  Germany, West4 (19–21)

  1987

  30

  Greece5

  1986

  33

  Ireland5 6

  1986

  29

  493

  Country2 (main ages on entry)

  Latest year

  Participation rate3 Percentage

  Italy (19–21)

  1987

  27

  Netherlands (18–20)

  1987

  39

  Portugal5 7

  1984

  14

  Spain (18–20)

  1987

  35

  United Kingdom7 (18–21)

  1988

  36

  1 Includes full-time and part-time students entering higher education for the first time, i.e. excluding postgraduate students and others already having a qualification in higher education. Not all other countries may adhere to this general definition.

  2 Compatible information is not available for Luxembourg since most higher education is undertaken abroad. Ireland figures partly estimated.

  3 To aid comparison and overcome the problem of the varying lengths of courses in different countries the participation rate is the percentage of all new entrants (defined above) related to a derived relevant single year group. The latter is calculated by taking the total populations for the ages providing at least 70 per cent, of the new entrants and dividing by the number of ages involved. For the United Kingdom this is the population of ages 18 to 21 divided by 4. OECD recommend this procedure.

  4 Partly estimated.

  5 Main ages on entry unavailable.

  6 Full-time only.

  7 Latest data available.

  8 Excludes the private sector and students from abroad. Includes nursing and paramedical students at Health Department establishments.

  Vacancy1 rates in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools by region: 1988–912

  England

  Vacancies as a percentage of teachers in post3

  Number of vacancies

  1988

  1989

  1990

  21991

  21991

  All vacancies

  1·2

  1·5

  1·8

  1·6

  5,584

  By region:

  North

  0·2

  0·6

  0·6

  0·7

  178

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0·8

  0·9

  1·1

  1·2

  489

  North West

  0·8

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  546

  East Midlands

  0·8

  0·9

  0·9

  0·9

  285

  West Midlands

  1·1

  1·1

  1·3

  1·3

  552

  East Anglia

  0·6

  0·7

  1·0

  1·2

  170

  Greater London

  3·2

  3·7

  5·3

  43·6

  1,686

  Other South East

  1·1

  1·6

  1·8

  1·7

  1,216

  South West

  1·0

  1·1

  1·8

  1·5

  462

  England excluding Greater London

  0·9

  1·1

  1·3

  1·3

  3,898

  Total vacancies (numbers)

  4,395

  5,540

  6,494

  5,584

  —

  1 Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments (or appointments of at least one term's duration). Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis.

  2 Figures for 1991 are provisional.

  3 Teachers in post include full-time regular teachers in (or on secondment from) maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools, plus full-time regular divided service, peripatetic, advisory, remedial centre and miscellaneous teachers.

  4 The 1991 percentage vacancy rates for the inner and outer London weighting areas are 4·7 per cent, and 2·4 per cent, respectively.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing(a) the capital bid for 1991–92, (b) the capital allocation for 1991–92 and (c) the percentage that (b) represents (a) for each local education authority in England.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total cost of designing, printing and implementing the standard assessment tasks for seven-year-olds, including the cost of the teachers' time involved.

  Mr. Eggar
  Up to 31 March 1991 the cost to the School Examinations and Assessment Council of securing the design, printing, distribution and evaluation of the standard assessment tasks for seven-year-olds was £5,661,755. The standard assessment tasks have been designed to be delivered by a single teacher using existing resources, and—apart from the individual reading test—to take no more than 30 hours, although the exact time will vary according to the circumstances of each class.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list by(a) region and (b) for each local education authority the number of teacher vacancies in January 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991; and if he will show this figure also as a percentage of the total teaching force in each area.

  Mr. Fallon
  Provisional vacancy figures for 1991 were published on 17 May and are summarised in the table.

  The 1991 figures are provisional and a breakdown by local education authority is not yet available. I am arranging for a copy of the numbers of vacancies by local education authority for 1988 to 1990 to be placed in the Library. Comparable figures for 1991 will be placed in the Library when available.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Details of local education authority capital expenditure bids and education annual capital guidelines—ACGs—for 1991–92 are set out in the table, together with bids and allocations for work at voluntary aided and special agreement schools. No local education authority has ever expected to receive its ACG bid in full, and authorities bid on the basis that they will receive an ACG or allocation to the extent that the bid
  495
  matches national priority criteria. There is therefore no direct connection between the size of the bid and the level of the ACG or allocation distributed. The percentage figures in the last column are therefore devoid of any real significance.

  Annual capital guidelines are not the only source of capital funding available to local education authorities.

  Local education authority bids and ACGs for 1991–92 county and voluntary controlled schools and FE colleges

  LEA

  Total bid £000s

  Total1 ACG £000s

  ACG as percentage of bid

  Barking

  5,449

  573

  11

  Barnet

  5,884

  803

  14

  Bexley

  6,976

  1,891

  27

  Brent

  9,208

  1,233

  13

  Bromley

  8,564

  3,656

  43

  Croydon

  23,427

  1,996

  9

  Ealing

  12,634

  1,362

  11

  Enfield

  19,437

  1,971

  10

  Haringey

  8,045

  1,018

  13

  Harrow

  3,934

  1,057

  27

  Havering

  4,558

  1,945

  43

  Hillingdon

  10,218

  1,005

  10

  Hounslow

  5,128

  1,516

  30

  Kingston

  5,346

  1,303

  24

  Merton

  8,305

  1,304

  16

  Newham

  15,546

  8,587

  55

  Redbridge

  4,484

  752

  17

  Richmond

  5,269

  954

  18

  Sutton

  10,812

  3,364

  31

  Waltham

  10,818

  3,386

  31

  City

  0

  2

  n/a

  Camden

  4,133

  885

  21

  Westminster

  7,441

  624

  8

  Greenwich

  2,310

  676

  29

  Hackney

  8,206

  1,992

  24

  Hammersmith

  6,697

  1,235

  18

  Islington

  6,166

  1,010

  16

  Kensington

  7,995

  1,846

  23

  Lambeth

  9,067

  1,152

  13

  Lewisham

  10,318

  2,512

  24

  Southwark

  6,061

  1,258

  21

  Wandsworth

  15,632

  1,374

  9

  Tower Hamlets2

  34,963

  14,619

  42

  Birmingham

  23,060

  11,083

  48

  Coventry

  8,962

  2,180

  24

  Dudley

  12,969

  9,508

  73

  Sandwell

  9,498

  1,313

  14

  Solihull

  5,198

  1,883

  36

  Walsall

  4,414

  1,410

  32

  Wolverhampton

  6,714

  2,067

  31

  Knowsley

  6,249

  1,173

  19

  Liverpool

  18,286

  5,763

  32

  St. Helens

  8,522

  2,823

  33

  Sefton

  6,465

  4,208

  65

  Wirral

  6,057

  3,379

  56

  Bolton

  3,925

  899

  23

  Bury

  2,598

  1,254

  48

  Manchester

  29,609

  4,697

  16

  Oldham

  14,498

  8,522

  59

  Rochdale

  14,718

  8,071

  55

  Salford

  8,198

  3,433

  42

  Stockport

  3,048

  1,919

  63

  Tameside

  2,871

  1,744

  61

  Trafford

  6,786

  3,683

  54

  Wigan

  11,797

  7,462

  63

  Barnsley

  2,383

  806

  34

  Doncaster

  1,686

  375

  22

  Rotherham

  4,433

  1,039

  23

  Sheffield

  5,123

  1,371

  27

  Bradford

  28,244

  9,355

  33

  Calderdale

  2,720

  1,661

  61

  Kirklees

  7,170

  3,797

  53

  Leeds

  46,141

  16,372

  35

  Wakefield

  12,479

  2,275

  18

  Gateshead

  10,582

  2,840

  27

  496

  LEA

  Total bid £000s

  Total1 ACG £000s

  ACG as percentage of bid

  Newcastle

  10,634

  2,332

  22

  North Tyneside

  4,759

  729

  15

  South Tyneside

  8,228

  1,988

  24

  Sunderland

  9,854

  3,072

  31

  Isles of Scilly

  215

  16

  8

  Avon

  22,096

  4,945

  22

  Bedfordshire

  9,812

  1,974

  20

  Berkshire

  10,312

  3,282

  32

  Buckinghamshire

  15,555

  7,124

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  32,006

  8,536

  27

  Cheshire

  12,008

  5,257

  44

  Cleveland

  12,555

  2,979

  24

  Cornwall

  20,719

  6,828

  33

  Cumbria

  19,610

  9,629

  49

  Derbyshire

  29,640

  21,330

  72

  Devon

  25,298

  7,715

  30

  Dorset

  13,915

  2,605

  19

  Durham

  24,188

  6,911

  29

  East Sussex

  32,015

  16,761

  52

  Essex

  75,926

  22,210

  29

  Gloucestershire

  16,106

  6,442

  40

  Hampshire

  42,960

  16,517

  38

  Hereford and Worcester

  14,373

  6,774

  47

  Hertfordshire

  16,162

  6,524

  40

  Humberside

  25,167

  8,371

  33

  Isle of Wight

  7,006

  2,263

  32

  Kent

  51,039

  23,773

  47

  Lancashire

  36,626

  22,789

  62

  Leicestershire

  15,209

  6,922

  46

  Lincolnshire

  26,069

  10,016

  38

  Norfolk

  11,444

  2,779

  24

  North Yorkshire

  6,903

  4,575

  66

  Northamptonshire

  13,987

  8,641

  62

  Northumberland

  5,565

  3,545

  64

  Nottinghamshire

  12,741

  5,167

  41

  Oxfordshire

  24,896

  6,601

  27

  Shropshire

  17,455

  6,582

  38

  Somerset

  12,397

  4,979

  40

  Staffordshire

  12,391

  8,644

  70

  Suffolk

  20,681

  9,989

  48

  Surrey

  13,332

  5,538

  42

  Warwickshire

  6,696

  1,644

  25

  West Sussex

  14,956

  3,508

  23

  Wiltshire

  16,446

  4,973

  30

  1 This column represents the ACGs announced in December 1990. Some supplementary credit approvals have been and will be issued during the course of the year.

  2 The ACG for Tower Hamlets includes £3·7 million which will be issued as an SCA during the course of the year.

  Voluntary aided and special agreement schools 1991–92 total capital bids and allocations

  LEA

  Total bid (£000) 1991–92

  Total allocation (£000) 1991–92

  Allocation as per cent age of bid

  City of London

  97

  —

  —

  Camden

  1,055

  226

  21

  Greenwich

  201

  36

  18

  Hackney

  442

  195

  44

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,357

  1,295

  95

  Islington

  181

  173

  96

  Kensington

  3,580

  2,640

  74

  Lambeth

  937

  70

  7

  Lewisham

  329

  65

  20

  Southwark

  1,616

  861

  53

  Tower Hamlets

  597

  334

  56

  Wandsworth

  203

  49

  24

  Westminster

  346

  324

  94

  Barking

  1,955

  1,955

  100

  Barnet

  3,605

  718

  20

  Bexley

  2,341

  305

  13

  497

  LEA

  Total bid (£000) 1991–92

  Total allocation (£000) 1991–92

  Allocation as per cent age of bid

  Brent

  196

  35

  18

  Bromley

  429

  198

  46

  Croyden

  3,051

  1,814

  59

  Ealing

  315

  —

  —

  Enfield

  812

  302

  37

  Haringey

  1,412

  1,163

  82

  Harrow

  172

  —

  —

  Havering

  311

  147

  47

  Hillingdon

  405

  20

  5

  Hounslow

  236

  53

  22

  Kingston

  646

  —

  —

  Merton

  228

  98

  43

  Newham

  284

  134

  47

  Redbridge

  3,399

  116

  3

  Richmond

  902

  195

  22

  Sutton

  3,374

  2,354

  70

  Waltham Forest

  1,800

  300

  17

  Birmingham

  3,539

  1,113

  31

  Coventry

  1,570

  1,369

  87

  Dudley

  2,385

  2,006

  84

  Sandwell

  351

  7

  2

  Solihull

  687

  55

  8

  Walsall

  400

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  614

  61

  10

  Knowsley

  1,288

  571

  44

  Liverpool

  6,120

  4,493

  73

  St. Helens

  2,299

  2,149

  93

  Sefton

  2,233

  1,750

  78

  Wirral

  1,037

  631

  61

  Bolton

  984

  436

  44

  Bury

  830

  574

  69

  Manchester

  1,305

  827

  63

  Oldham

  609

  174

  29

  Rochdale

  756

  436

  58

  Salford

  567

  343

  60

  Stockport

  341

  291

  85

  Tameside

  136

  35

  26

  Trafford

  781

  715

  92

  Wigan

  2,126

  1,108

  52

  Barnsley

  25

  25

  100

  Doncaster

  145

  145

  100

  Rotherham

  385

  158

  41

  Sheffield

  945

  127

  13

  Bradford

  1,002

  873

  87

  Calderdale

  634

  444

  70

  Kirklees

  326

  218

  67

  Leeds

  12,628

  12,288

  97

  Wakefield

  346

  180

  52

  Gateshead

  449

  64

  14

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,050

  847

  81

  North Tyneside

  454

  203

  45

  South Tyneside

  59

  21

  36

  Sunderland

  523

  116

  22

  Avon

  1,342

  619

  46

  Bedfordshire

  1,127

  600

  53

  Berkshire

  723

  358

  50

  Buckinghamshire

  2,401

  2,207

  92

  Cambridgeshire

  825

  79

  10

  Cheshire

  3,324

  1,997

  60

  Cleveland

  884

  398

  45

  Cornwall

  508

  369

  73

  Cumbria

  1,464

  869

  59

  Derbyshire

  1,106

  889

  80

  Devon

  2,951

  567

  19

  Dorset

  6,734

  3,985

  59

  Durham

  1,103

  718

  65

  East Sussex

  1,319

  1,065

  81

  Essex

  1,264

  1,010

  80

  Gloucestershire

  1,694

  1,229

  73

  Hampshire

  2,994

  1,926

  64

  498

  LEA

  Total bid (£000) 1991–92

  Total allocation (£000) 1991–92

  Allocation as per cent age of bid

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,580

  1,356

  53

  Hertfordshire

  2,302

  1,656

  72

  Humberside

  1,400

  46

  3

  Isle of Wight

  260

  210

  81

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  7,737

  2,837

  37

  Lancashire

  6,534

  4,051

  62

  Leicestershire

  967

  598

  62

  Lincolnshire

  1,753

  276

  16

  Norfolk

  587

  13

  2

  North Yorkshire

  2,005

  775

  39

  Northamptonshire

  400

  27

  7

  Northumberland

  1,175

  747

  64

  Nottinghamshire

  1,359

  135

  10

  Oxfordshire

  2,952

  2,526

  86

  Shropshire

  423

  238

  56

  Somerset

  2,135

  2,041

  96

  Staffordshire

  2,001

  979

  49

  Suffolk

  890

  345

  39

  Surrey

  2,965

  839

  28

  Warwickshire

  3,112

  788

  25

  West Sussex

  2,129

  1,875

  88

  Wiltshire

  1,677

  1,068

  64

  South West London College
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what discussions he has had with the governors of South West London college as to their views on the future of this college; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had with the director of education of the London borough of Wandsworth as to the views of the council on the future of South West London college in Tooting; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will meet the hon. Member for Tooting and representatives of staff and students of South West London college, Tooting, before any decision is taken as to the possible closure of this college.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The governors of South West London college wrote to the Department on 10 May 1991 about the future of the college. The director of education of the London borough of Wandsworth wrote on 15 May about its further education provision. I am meeting the hon. Member. My right hon. and learned Friend will be considering all the views expressed before reaching his decision.

  Brighton CTC
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science at what price the site of Brighton city technology college, referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn of 3 May 1990,Official Report, column 627, is now being offered for sale; what is the difference between that price and the total cost of purchase including agents' and legal fees; and what will be the total anticipated loss to the public purse, after taking account of interest forgone on the moneys used to make the purchase.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The site that was purchased for use as a city technology college in Brighton is being offered for sale with a guide price of £2 million on the advice of agents. The original cost of purchase was £2·3 milion net, in addition to which £54,000 was spent on legal fees. As no
  499
  sale has yet been agreed for the site, it is not possible to calculate the loss or gain to the public purse as a result of its purchase and resale.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether Mr. Revere was required to repay any interest earned by him, or forgone by the public purse, in respect of the commission charged by him in respect of the purchase of the site of the then proposed Brighton city technology college, referred to in the answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn of 3 May 1990,Official Report, column 627.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. The commission was repaid in full upon its discovery.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether his Department has been involved in any discussions with the East Sussex police about the charging by Mr. Ivor Revere of commission on the purchase of the site of the then proposed Brighton city technology college; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State referred the handling of the purchase of the property to the appropriate authorities for investigation. The investigation has been completed and I have been advised that no further action is contemplated by these authorities.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps have been taken to improve the financial control of the city technology college programme following the discovery of financial improprieties in respect of the then proposed Brighton city technology college.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The financial procedures of the CTC programme are subject to continual review and improvement by my Department.

  Students (Maintenance)
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what support will be given from public funds towards students' maintenance in the academic year 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary regulations, the maximum rates of loan for the academic year 1991–92 in the United Kingdom will be as follows:

  Full year rate £

  Final year rate £

  Students living away from home:

  In London

  660

  480

  Elsewhere

  580

  425

  Students living at home

  460

  335

  As already announced, the main rates of maintenance grant for mandatory award holders from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and their equivalents in Scotland, will be the same as in the current academic year. The rates for England, Wales and Northern Ireland are shown in the table; Scottish rates are slightly different.
  500

  £

  Students living away from home:

  In London

  2,845

  Elsewhere

  2,265

  Students living at home

  1,795

  These grant and loan rates will enbable full year student support in the United Kingdom to increase by 6 per cent next year.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the distribution to the research councils, the Royal Society and the Fellowship of Engineering, of the sums that were left unallocated when the science budget planning figures for 1992–93 and 1993 were indicatively distributed.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have received further advice on the distribution of these unallocated sums from the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and have decided to accept the board's recommendation that, subject to approval by Parliament of the estimates in due course, the following additions should be made to the indicative allocations already announced for 1992–93 and 1993–94:

  £million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  3·1

  3·5

  Economic and Social Research Council

  2·1

  2·7

  Medical Research Council

  5·6

  6·2

  Natural Environment Research Council

  3·8

  4·4

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  120·8

  122·5

  Royal Society

  0·9

  1·1

  Fellowship of Engineering

  0·2

  0·2

  Total

  36·5

  240·6

  1 SERC's figures includes £5 million in each year for enhanced supercomputing facilities for use by research councils and institutions of higher education.

  2 The ABRC has not yet considered the distribution of £17·3 million of the unallocated sum for 1993–94.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Clubs
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, how many people(a) were members of job clubs on 1 April 1990, (b) have joined job clubs, from 1 April 1990 to the latest possible date and (c) have left job clubs, from 1 April 1990 to the latest possible date; and what were the destinations of those job club leavers, showing how many entered jobs;

  (2) if he will give the destination, ethnic backgrounds and numbers of people who have left job clubs since 1 April 1990, broken down to show (a) the results for each region and for Great Britain as a whole and (b) the results for people leaving either external or internal job clubs.

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

  Restart
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have attended a restart interview since 1 April 1990, to the latest available date, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; and what were the results of those interviews, broken down in the manner of the answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) of 18 December 1990,Official Report, column 148.

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

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were refused unemployment benefit in the Blyth Valley area under the actively seeking work rules since 1990.

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

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any proposals to enable or encourage greater co-operation between chambers of commerce and training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My Department is keen to encourage the greatest possible degree of co-operation between training and enterprise councils (TECs) and all the key players in the local business support network. Working closely together in concert avoids wasteful duplication of effort, and makes the best use of both public and private sector funding. I am pleased to report that many TEC plans make working with their local chamber of commerce a leading priority. In many cases, TEC board members are directors of their local chamber of commerce, and vice versa.

  Pneumoconiosis
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now undertake to review the working of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers'

  Table 1

  Numbers of reported occupational injuries1 in the East Midlands region 1986–87 to 1989–90 (provisional)

  Standard industrial classification 1980 sector

  Fatal

  Non-fatal major2

  Over 3 day3

  Total reported

  1986–87

  Agriculture

  5n.a.

  41

  148

  189

  Energy4

  1

  53

  632

  686

  Manufacturing

  6

  677

  5,427

  6,110

  Construction

  8

  138

  909

  1,055

  Services

  7

  2,019

  3,967

  5,993

  All industries6

  22

  2,928

  11,083

  14,033

  1987–88

  Agriculture

  5n.a.

  72

  182

  254

  Energy4

  1

  228

  1,829

  2,058

  502
  Compensation) Act 1979 with a view to establishing whether certain categories of claimants have failed to secure reasonable compensation under the terms of this Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have no current plans to review the working of the compensation scheme which this Act provides. It considers that the Act has well served, and continues to serve, the original purpose intended by Parliament in providing a measure of compensation to sufferers from certain dust diseases who have little chance of obtaining compensation through the courts because the relevant employer is no longer in business. The Government has fully met its commitment to Parliament to review the compensation paid with the aim of maintaining its value.

  Sick Building Syndrome
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what research the Health and Safety Executive has carried out into sick building syndrome; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is to commission a comprehensive and critical review of current published literature on sick building syndrome to enable it to consider the production of a guidance leaflet. The results of this review are expected to be available by the end of the year.

  The HSE is also evaluating a proposal from an external research unit concerning possible epidemiological studies on this subject.

  Work Accidents
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total number of injuries as a result of work activities reported to enforcement authorities in the five counties of the east midlands region for each year since 1986–87 in the categories (i) fatal, (ii) non-fatal major, (iii) over three days and (iv) total reported in(a) agriculture, (b) energy, (c) manufacturing, (d) construction and (e) services.

  Mr. Forth
  The available information for the whole of the east midlands region is provided in table 1. Analysis by individual counties could be provided only at disproportionate cost for all injury severities. However, table 2 provides such analysis for the reported fatalities which have been aggregated for the four years since 1986–87 in view of the small numbers involved.
  503

  Standard industrial classification 1980 sector

  Fatal

  Non-fatal major1

  Over 3 day3

  Total reported

  Manufacturing

  6

  714

  4,822

  5,542

  Construction

  9

  148

  884

  1,041

  Services

  11

  1,806

  4,129

  5,946

  All industries6

  27

  2,968

  11,846

  14,841

  1988–89

  Agriculture

  1

  73

  193

  267

  Energy4

  5

  242

  2,672

  2,919

  Manufacturing

  9

  680

  5,409

  6,098

  Construction

  7

  171

  954

  1,132

  Services

  7

  1,852

  4,166

  6,025

  All industries6

  29

  3,018

  13,394

  16,441

  1989–907

  Agriculture

  4

  58

  165

  227

  Energy4

  8

  208

  2,128

  2,344

  Manufacturing

  9

  607

  5,886

  6,502

  Construction

  5

  199

  1,235

  1,439

  Services

  19

  2,027

  4,332

  6,378

  All industries6

  45

  3,106

  13,762

  16,913

  Table 2

  Numbers of reported fatal injuries (a) in the East Midlands region 1986–87 to 1989–90 (provisional)

  Standard Industrial Classification 1980

  County

  Derbyshire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Northamptonshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Sector

  Agriculture5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Energy

  3

  2

  —

  —

  10

  Manufacturing

  6

  3

  4

  4

  13

  Construction

  5

  6

  10

  1

  7

  Services

  6

  8

  9

  9

  12

  All Industries

  21

  19

  23

  14

  46

  1 Injuries to employees, self-employed persons and non-employed persons injured in a working environment, reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1985 (RIDDOR), to all enforcement authorities excluding HSE's Railway Inspectorate.

  2 As defined under RIDDOR

  3 Injuries causing incapacity for work for more than three days.

  4 Excludes injuries reported to HSE's inspectorate of mines and quarries.

  5 Analysis by county of fatal injuries reported to HSE's agricultural inspectorate in 1986–87 and 1987–88 not available.

  6 Including a small number of injuries not classified by industry.

  7 provisional.

  n.a. not available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made on the proposed new airport development in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation as regards the proposed airport development plan in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Hurd
  Talks with the Chinese Government on Hong Kong's airport project resumed on 18 May. We and the Chinese Government agree that Hong Kong needs a new airport and we are making intensive efforts to secure Chinese support for the project.
  504

  Antarctica
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of Antarctic treaty parties in Madrid.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Madrid conference on the future of Antarctica.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) in which he stated that the Government warmly welcome the outcome of the Madrid meeting and hope that the draft protocol tabled there will provide the basis for comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment.
  505
  Further, the Prime Minister indicated that of particular importance are the provisions for a ban on mineral activity for 50 years, and mechanisms for review of the ban after 50 years, or before if everyone agrees.

  The results of these provisions would be that there can never be mining in Antarctica unless all the present consultative parties agree.

  Weapons Control
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on 24 April at column 1072.

  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to clarify the Soviet disarmament figures.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our NATO partners are continuing to press the Soviet Union to ensure the full and early implementation of the CFE treaty.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in controlling the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are working to strengthen existing regimes of restriction and control. We have already reinforced and widened the scope of our export controls on chemical weapons precursors. We are considering urgently how to improve the regimes to prevent the export of technology and materials for biological weapons.

  We shall also be working:

  for further accessions to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty

  to strengthen the international safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency

  to harmonise and improve existing export controls through the Zangger committee, nuclear suppliers group and Australia group

  to secure a commitment to the early negotiation of a chemical weapons convention and the strengthening of the biological weapons convention at its review conference in September

  and to strengthen the missile technology control regime.

  Albania
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Albania.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Her Majesty's Government have decided in principle to re-establish diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Albania, in response to the offer made when the Albanian Foreign Minister called on me on 13 May. We are in touch with the Albanian authorities about the form and timing of an announcement.

  Taiwan
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has plans to make an official visit to Taiwan.
  506
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to do so.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom-Bangladesh relations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have very good relations with the newly elected democratic Government of Bangladesh and are working closely with them in the relief effort following the recent cyclone.

  Poland
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Poland to discuss its entry into the European Community.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no present plans to visit Poland. We believe that the option of full membership of the European Community should be available to Poland when she is able to meet the political and economic obligations it entails.

  Iraq
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of relief operations in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The relief operation is going well. Refugees are coming down from the mountains in increasing numbers. With the assistance of allied forces, many are returning to their homes. United Nations staff are now also working in the area.

  Israel
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Israel and the occupied territories; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Israel and the occupied territories.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend last visited Israel and the occupied territories in October 1990. Since then we have stayed in regular contact with the Israeli Foreign Minister. I visited Israel and the occupied territories from 6 to 9 May. I had detailed discussions with leading Israelis and Palestinians on the peace process. I urged both sides to show the flexibility necessary for Mr. Baker's initiative to succeed.

  Middle East
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the middle east.
  507
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome continuing American efforts to restart the middle east peace process. With our EC partners, we have given them our full support. There has been some progress towards acceptance of the idea of a peace conference. Important differences remain but there is enough encouragement to all of us to wear down those differences in order to get a conference under way.

  Cuba
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Cuba to discuss restrictions on British trade with Cuba.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has no such plans. We have normal trade relations with Cuba.

  South Africa
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to visit South Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs plans to visit South Africa during the summer.

  China
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts the British Government are making to improve relations with the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We want to have a full and constructive relationship with the People's Republic of China. We are seeking to intensify our co-operation over Hong Kong in order to bring about the full implementation of the joint declaration. Since the October Foreign Affairs Council's decision to relax most of the EC Twelve's measures against China, we have restored a number of areas of contact and cooperation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' visit to Peking in April was a further step in this process.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his visit to Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) on 8 May at cols 473–75.

  Third World
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with other Foreign Ministers to discuss third world matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs regularly discusses third world matters with other foreign ministers.

  President Aylwin
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit to the United Kingdom in April of President Aylwin of Chile.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  President Aylwin visited the United Kingdom from 10–15 April. Among others, he met Her Majesty the Queen and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. His Foreign Minister, Mr. Silva Cimma, signed a memorandum of understanding with me on co-operation against drugs. The visit served to underline Chile's return to democratic government.

  Agency Status
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those bodies currently with agency status within his Department under the next steps initiative; and whether he has identified any further candidates for agency status under the initiative within his Department.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not so far set up any "next steps" agencies. However, it has been agreed that the Wilton Park conference centre will be established as an agency. Our aim is to launch it on 1 September.

  The Overseas Development Administration (ODA) has one agency—the National Resources Institute. The ODA has no further candidates under consideration at present.

  Visas (Bombay)
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that applicants attending for interview for visas do not have to queue for long periods of time in the main road outside the British high commission in Bombay.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British Deputy High Commission in Bombay is moving to new accommodation on 23 May which will provide better facilities for applicants waiting to apply for visas. An improved lay-out and a larger waiting area inside the building should ensure that applications are processed more quickly.

  The new address is:

  Maker Chambers IV

  222 Jamnalal Bajaj Road

  (PO Box) 11714

  Nariman Point

  Bombay 400 021

  Egypt (Christians)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation has been made to the Egyptian Government regarding the treatment of Moustaffa Mohammed Said al Sharkawi, Mohammed Hussein Sallam and Hassan Muhammed Ismael Muhammed and others who have embraced the Christian religion.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the matter with the then Egyptian Foreign Minister in Cairo on 1 May. He told Dr. Abdel Meguid of the widespread concern in Britain at the detention of the three Christians.

  Miss Valerie Howell
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Mr. H. C. Barnes, a constituent of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, has received no replies to his inquiries of 28 February and 7 April concerning the death of Miss Valerie Howell in Zimbabwe; and what disposition has been, or is being, made of the late Miss Howell's effects.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As the inquiries to which my hon. Friend refers were addressed to the authorities of another sovereign state, of which Miss Howell was a citizen, I am not in a position to explain the absence of replies.

  I have no information about the disposition of her effects. This could best be pursued through legal channels in Zimbabwe and details of local lawyers have been sent to Mr. Barnes.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the high commission in Zimbabwe about the murder in October 1990 of a British citizen, Valerie Howell, in the area of Northwood, Harare; and if Her Majesty's consul in Harare has been in contact with the Zimbabwean CID in respect of its investigations and undertaking to report via the Zimbabwean high commission in London to the late Miss Howell's relative Mr. H. C. Barnes, a constituent of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As a Zimbabwe/British dual national who had made a form of renunciation of British nationality to the Zimbabwe authorities, in Zimbabwe law the late Miss Howell was a Zimbabwe citizen only. Under international convention Her Majesty's consul in Harare has no standing to receive or request information about matters relating to her.

  The High Commission in Harare is aware only that Miss Howell died at her home in Zimbabwe on 27 October 1990 and that murder was suspected.

  Iraq
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the leaders of the Kurdish people in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I last met representatives of Iraqi opposition groups on 22 April 1991. These included three representatives from Kurdish organisations. The delegation expressed their gratitude for Britain's support for Iraqi refugees.

  European Community
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards increasing the number of countries in membership of the EC.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The Community has agreed that there should be no decisions on enlargement until 1993. We support enlargement thereafter to include those countries which are qualified to join and able to take on all the obligations of membership.

  Turkey
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning article 39 of the treaty of Lausanne and the Kurdish language.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We have not made representations to the Government of Turkey regarding article 39 of the treaty of Lausanne. We have noted the recent decision of the Turkish Cabinet to ease restrictions on the use of the Kurdish language.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Turkey, concerning the theft of emergency supplies from Kurdish refugee camps in Turkey by members of the Turkish army; and to what extent such incidents have occurred.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  No representations have been made to the Turkish authorities, who have formally denied press allegations of the theft of emergency supplies by members of the Turkish army. We are not aware of any other reports of any looting of relief aid.

  Mr. Mohinder Singh Bedi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many invitations have been issued to Mr. Mohinder Paul Singh Bedi since 1979 to attend official functions organised by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have checked records available to us and can find no trace of a recent invitation. However, information as far back as 1979 is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States of America and the European Community about the creation of comprehensive multilateral arms export control regimes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in discussion with them on how to promote a more responsible multilateral approach to arms sales, and we are pursuing with them my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal, launched at the European Council in Luxembourg on 8 April, for a United Nations arms register.

  Angola
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in Angola and Her Majesty's Government's policy towards achieving a political settlement there.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We congratulate the Government of Angola and UNITA on reaching a ceasefire agreement and hope that this will formally enter into force on 31 May. We have strongly supported the peace process and will play our part in helping Angola find her feet again.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing (i) for each of the years 1970–71 to 1991–92 an analysis by class of authority within standard region of non-domestic rateable values, average poundages, actual payments, and uncollected non-domestic rate revenues and (ii) for each of the years 1970–71 to 1989–90 by class of authority within standard region of domestic rateable values, gross rates, rates net of rebates, and uncollected domestic rate revenue.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have arranged for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each local authority in. England the number of persons accepted as homeless in each year since 1979 inclusive.

  Sir George Young
  I have today placed in the Library a table giving the numbers of households for whom local authorities accepted responsibility for securing accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the Housing Act 1985, for each year from 1981 to 1990.

  In a majority of cases, the main immediate reasons for acceptance by local authorities were that their relations or friends were no longer willing or able to house them or as a result of the breakdown of a relationship. Those accepted will either have been rehoused directly, found temporary accommodation, or enabled to stay in existing accommodation until suitable permanent housing was found.

  Information for the years 1979 and 1980 is available in edition No. 54—table 14—edition No. 61—table 11—and edition No. 62—table 13—of "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library.

  A new reporting system was introduced for non-metropolitan districts in the fourth quarter of 1980 and for metropolitan districts and the London boroughs in the third quarter of 1982, so that the figures are not directly comparable over the whole period.

  Refuse Collection
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue new guidelines to local authorities for the collection of refuse from composite premises.

  Mr. Baldry
  My predecessor and I have both issued clear guidelines on this matter. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 15 January this year. We intend to amend the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988 to reinforce this guidance as soon as is practicable.

  County Hall, London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what use is currently being made of county hall.

  Mr. Key
  County hall is currently unoccupied pending its intended disposal by the London residuary body.

  Thurrock Borough Council
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an order declaring Thurrock borough council to be in default of its duties in respect of public health by its decision to end its service of emptying cesspools in part of its area, and ordering it to resume these functions within one month.

  Mr. Baldry
  No: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to do so. It is acceptable for local authorities to nominate private contractors, by means of competitive tender, to empty cesspools on their behalf. I understand that Thurrock borough council is merely mainatining a list of contractors willing to provide a service: this would not in my Department's view be sufficient to discharge the council's legal obligations to provide a service on request on payment of a reasonable fee. My officials have drawn these views to the council's attention.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against the uniform business rate have been lodged in the areas covering the parliamentary constituency of Blyth Valley.

  Mr. Key
  By 31 March 1991, the valuation office had received 836 proposals to alter the 1990 rating list in respect of the area of the parliamentary constituency of Blyth Valley.

  Chromium Compound Emissions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of industrial sites known to his Department which emit chromium compounds into the atmosphere; and what is the damage to public health from these substances.

  Mr. Baldry
  The major potential sources of chromium emissions must be registered on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Alkali etc. Works Regulation Act 1906.

  Certificates of registration have been issued for the following such works.

  Name of discharger and Location

  Ferro-Alloys and Metals Limited—Glossop, Derbyshire

  Murex Limited—Rainham, Essex

  Harcros Chemicals UK Limited—Eaglescliffe, Cleveland

  London & Scandinavia Metallurgical Co. Limited—

  Rotherham, South Yorkshire

  Additionally a number of industrial processes may emit small quantities of chromium. Such processes will be progressively controlled, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, during the next five years.

  The effect of airborne emissions of chromium compounds on public health is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Fire Regulations
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration has been given to the concern fire officers, insurers and others expressed for the safety of life and property in response to the original consultation paper of March 1990 in preparing the revised England and Wales Building Regulations (Fire).
  513
  Mr. Yeo
  Officials will shortly be meeting representatives of the chief fire officers to discuss their concerns about the proposals which have been put forward for the revision of part B—safety in fire—of the Building Regulations 1985. Similar meetings have already been held with other representatives of the fire service, with fire insurers, and with a considerable number of other bodies who have commented on the proposals. Together with the written comments, the views expressed at these meetings will be fully taken into account when final decisions on these proposals come to be taken.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the results of consultation on the England and Wales Building Regulations (Fire) will be announced.

  Mr. Yeo
  The detailed outcome of the review of part B—safety in fire—of the Building Regulations 1985 is likely to be anounced in the autumn.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to ensure that the introduction of any new England and Wales Building Regulations (Fire) does not result in higher costs due to higher insurance premiums.

  Mr. Yeo
  There have been discussions with fire insurers about the proposals for the revision of part B—safety in fire—of the Building Regulations 1985. Their views will be fully taken into account when final decisions on these proposals come to be taken. However, the primary purpose of the regulations is to protect the health and safety of people, while fire insurers are also concerned with the protection of property. The regulations represent minimum requirements. There is no reason however why buildings should not be constructed to higher standards to meet any insurance requirements related to the protection of property.

  Common Land
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves),Official Report, 26 March, columns 352–53, if he will set out the reservations expressed by each interested party on common land legislation; if he will place copies of written representations from each interested party in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the discussions held with all major interests following the Government statement of 26 July 1990, views were sought both on the content of prospective comprehensive common land legislation and on the alternative of a short Bill to prevent deregistration. Apart from the national access bodies, the majority of the interests consulted indicated opposition, in varying degrees, to the latter.

  After various amenity bodies wrote to Ministers in October 1990 suggesting that the Government introduce a short Bill, the Countryside Commission, the Government's statutory adviser on this matter, confirmed in writing its continued lack of support for this proposal, and the National Farmers Union wrote confirming their opposition. We have no authority from these bodies to place their representations in the Library.

  Society of Fire Protection Engineers
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation there is on the committee advising him on the England and Wales Building Regulations (Fire) from the Society of Fire Protection Engineers.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on 21 February,Official Report, column 201.

  EC Labelling Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) of 26 March,Official Report, column 354, whether there has been any progress on development of an eco-labelling scheme for the United Kingdom; whether he has received any notification from the European Commission on the development of a Community-wide labelling scheme; what is his policy on whether such a scheme should be voluntary; and when he considers implementation of such a scheme might commence.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have made it clear they support the introduction of a voluntary eco-labelling scheme, and that they would prefer this to be part of an arrangement covering the whole of the European Community. However, if there is undue delay in agreeing a Community scheme we will go ahead with introducing a national scheme. We want an official eco-labelling scheme to be in place as soon as possible, and expect the first labels to be awarded during 1992.

  House Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing by fifths, sevenths and tenths the value of dwellings and of households incomes before tax.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is not available.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local housing authorities in England who have put forward schemes under the Housing Act 1988 to provide council tenants with a cash grant to help them buy a home in the private sector; how many houses have been purchased to date under the provisions in each of those district council areas; what was the minimum and maximum level of grants paid to each area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authority cash incentive schemes can be a valuable means of helping tenants into home ownership while releasing vacancies for reletting to homeless people. Table 1 lists schemes approved to date and gives the maximum grant payable under each scheme. Further schemes for 1991–92 are under consideration.

  Authorities report annually on the outturn of their schemes. Table 2 gives the number of properties bought with assistance under 1989–90 schemes and average grants paid: information on maximum and minimum grants paid is not readily available. Reports on 1990–91 schemes are still being received.
  515

  Table 1

  £ thousands

  Local authority

  1989–90 Maximum grant available

  1990–91 Maximum grant available

  1991–92 Maximum grant available

  Eastern

  Aylesbury Vale

  11·000

  20·000

  24·000

  Broxbourne

  —

  —

  28·000

  Colchester

  10·000

  20·000

  20·000

  Dacorum

  —

  —

  25·000

  East Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  27·500

  Harlow

  10·000

  10·000

  —

  Huntingdon

  —

  13·000

  —

  North Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  14·000

  Luton

  13·000

  13·000

  15·000

  Maldon

  —

  12·500

  —

  Peterborough

  —

  5·000

  5·000

  Rochford

  11·250

  11·250

  26·700

  St. Albans

  13·000

  25·000

  25·000

  South Buckinghamshire

  11·000

  11·000

  —

  Southend

  —

  15·000

  15·000

  South Norfolk

  —

  —

  13·000

  Stevenage

  —

  —

  15·000

  Three Rivers

  —

  7·000

  7·000

  Watford

  12·000

  13·500

  15·000

  East Midlands

  Amber Valley

  —

  5·000

  —

  Charnwood

  —

  10·000

  —

  Daventry

  —

  10000

  —

  East Northants.

  —

  6·000

  6·000

  South Kesteven

  8·000

  8·000

  —

  London

  Barnet

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Brent

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Bromley

  13·000

  13·000

  13·000

  Camden

  —

  20·000

  25·000

  Croydon

  13·000

  22·000

  22·500

  Ealing

  13·000

  15·000

  22·000

  Enfield

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Hackney

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  18·000

  20·000

  Haringey

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Harrow

  12·500

  25·000

  25·000

  Havering

  13·000

  16·000

  16·000

  Hillingdon

  —

  26·554

  26·554

  Hounslow

  —

  15·000

  20·000

  Islington

  —

  25·000

  25–000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  25·000

  33·000

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  20·000

  Lambeth

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Lewisham

  —

  15·000

  15·000

  London

  Merton

  —

  27·000

  28·000

  Redbridge

  —

  28·000

  28·000

  Richmond

  —

  25·000

  20·000

  Southwark

  —

  10·000

  15·000

  Sutton

  —

  —

  18·000

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  21·000

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  25·000

  Wandsworth

  13·000

  22·000

  22·000

  Westminster

  13·000

  20·000

  20·000

  South East

  Adur

  10·000

  10·000

  16·000

  Arun

  10·000

  10·000

  10·000

  Basingstoke and Deane

  —

  25·000

  —

  Bracknell

  —

  —

  22·500

  Brighton

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Canterbury

  —

  22·500

  24·500

  Cherwell

  —

  12·500

  10·000

  Chichester

  —

  —

  24·000

  Dartford

  —

  —

  24·000

  Dover

  —

  22·000

  22·000

  Eastbourne

  —

  —

  20·000

  516

  Local authority

  1989–90 Maximum grant available

  1990–91 Maximum grant available

  1991–92 Maximum grant available

  East Hampshire

  —

  10·000

  25·000

  Eastleigh

  —

  —

  21·600

  Elmbridge

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Fareham

  —

  21·495

  21·000

  Gillingham

  8·000

  15·000

  15·000

  Guildford

  —

  —

  28·800

  Gosport

  —

  —

  18·000

  Gravesham

  10·000

  10·000

  10·000

  Hart

  8·000

  25·000

  25·000

  Hastings

  —

  10·000

  10·000

  Havant

  —

  15·000

  15·000

  Horsham

  —

  17·000

  17·000

  Hove

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Lewes

  —

  10·000

  —

  Maidstone

  —

  25·000

  25·000

  Mole Valley

  —

  —

  25·000

  New Forest

  10·000

  17·000

  15·000

  Oxford

  —

  15·000

  15·000

  Portsmouth

  —

  20·000

  15·000

  Reading

  —

  20·000

  25·000

  Reigate and Banstead

  —

  20·000

  20·000

  Rochester

  8·000

  —

  —

  Rother

  —

  23·000

  23·000

  Runnymede

  —

  14·000

  20·000

  Rushmoor

  8·000

  12·000

  15·000

  Shepway

  13·000

  21·600

  20·800

  Slough

  13·000

  13·000

  12·5000

  Southampton

  —

  15·000

  15·000

  South East

  Spelthorne

  12·000

  24·000

  24·000

  Tandridge

  12·000

  12·000

  12·000

  Test Valley

  10·000

  10·000

  10·000

  Thanet

  —

  —

  20·000

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  —

  25·000

  —

  Tunbridge Wells

  12·000

  24·000

  22·000

  Vale of White Horse

  —

  15·000

  15–000

  Wealden

  6·000

  20·000

  20·000

  West Oxfordshire

  —

  20–000

  —

  Woking

  —

  13·500

  25·000

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  25·000

  Worthing

  —

  15·000

  15·000

  South West

  Bournemouth

  —

  10·000

  —

  Carrick

  5·000

  10·000

  —

  Exeter

  —

  10·000

  10·000

  Kennet

  10·000

  10·000

  10·000

  Mendip

  10·000

  10·000

  10·000

  North Cornwall

  7·500

  7·500

  —

  North Wiltshire

  —

  10·000

  —

  Poole

  7·500

  7·500

  8·500

  Purbeck

  —

  10·000

  —

  Salisbury

  —

  10·000

  —

  South Somerset

  —

  10·000

  —

  Stroud

  —

  —

  10·000

  Taunton Deane

  10·000

  10·000

  —

  Teignbridge

  7·500

  7·500

  —

  Woodspring

  —

  —

  10·000

  West Midlands

  Malvern Hills

  —

  —

  10·000

  Solihull

  —

  8·000

  —

  Stafford

  —

  10·000

  —

  Wyre Forest

  —

  —

  10·000

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Hambleton

  —

  10·000

  10·000

  517

  Table 2

  Local Authority

  1989–90 Schemes

  Average grant paid (£)

  Properties purchased

  Eastern

  Aylesbury Vale

  11·0

  1 (1)

  Colchester

  8·3

  9 (9)

  Harlow

  8·3

  3 (1)

  Luton

  0·0

  0 (0)

  Rochford

  10·0

  1 (1)

  St. Albans

  13·0

  1 (0)

  South Buckingham

  9·0

  1 (1)

  Watford

  0·0

  0 (0)

  East Midlands

  South Kesteven

  6·6

  8 (8)

  London

  Bromley

  10·5

  92 (52)

  Croydon

  13·0

  1 (0)

  Ealing

  10·8

  39 (19)

  Harrow

  12·5

  16 (8)

  Havering

  11·5

  20 (8)

  Wandsworth

  11·4

  29 (5)

  Westminster

  12·8

  55 (0)

  South East

  Adur

  10·0

  12 (12)

  Arun

  10·0

  1 (0)

  Gillingham

  8·0

  2 (1)

  Gravesham

  10·0

  1 (0)

  Hart

  8·0

  1 (1)

  New Forest

  7·4

  9 (7)

  Rochester

  6·2

  5 (1)

  Rushmoor

  7·0

  2 (0)

  Shepway

  10·4

  4 (3)

  Slough

  12·0

  2 (0)

  Spelthorne

  0·0

  0 (0)

  Tandridge

  12·0

  12 (2)

  Test Valley

  10·0

  3 (1)

  Tunbridge Wells

  11·0

  2 (2)

  Wealden

  6·0

  4 (2)

  South West

  Kennet

  10·0

  3 (3)

  Mendip

  10·0

  12 (7)

  North Cornwall

  7·5

  2 (2)

  Poole

  5·5

  4 (3)

  Taunton Deane

  8·8

  24 (20)

  Teignbridge

  7·5

  1 (0)

  Note: Numbers in parentheses relate to properties purchased within the boundary of the local authority.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to recieve the report of the second public inquiry on the east London river crossing; and when he will announce his decision.

  Mr. Yeo
  When the inspector has completed his report and when my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Transport have considered it.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress achieved with the European Community programme preventative environmental protection approaches in Europe since 1990.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the research programme of the International Council of Scientific Unions on global warming and climate change.

  Mr. Baldry
  The scientific staff of the global atmosphere division of the Department of the Environment already have a set of reports from the International Council of Scientific Unions published as "The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme: a Study of Global Change", and another set is on order for the department's library.

  West end Scheme, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether any city grant has been approved for 3Ds Ltd., for the west end scheme in Bradford; whether all the published criteria have been met for the application; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether any second application for city grant has been made or is pending from 3Ds Ltd. for any further extension of the west end scheme in Bradford.

  Mr. Key
  No city grant has yet been approved. The first phase of the development is still under discussion with 3D Ltd., and further details have been requested from it prior to proceeding to full appraisal. No details are available about further applications arising from this current proposal.

  UN Environment Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether any British civil servants have been seconded to work at the secretariat of the United Nations conference on environment and development Rio 92 office in Conches, Switzerland.

  Mr. Baldry
  In January my Department seconded an official to the United Nations conference on environment and development secretariat and he has been appointed senior programme officer. We are also supporting a British United Nations volunteer who will be working for the secretariat later this year.

  Ministers' Cars
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether particular cars or cars from a pool are allocated to Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  For security reasons, it would not be appropriate to provide information about the use by Ministers of Government car service vehicles.

  Planning Permission
  Mr. Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to amend article 18 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 so as to require local planning authorities to consult the National Rivers Authority on the availability of adequate water resources before granting planning permission for any development that is assessed as being likely to lead to a significant increase in water consumption in the area concerned.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so, but he keeps the General Development Order under constant review and pays close attention to any comments or proposals which the National Rivers Authority may make to him.

  In addition to the existing statutory consultation requirements in article 18 of the General Development Order, the National Rivers Authority is already a consultee under the environmental assessment regulations. Local planning authorities also consult the National Rivers Authority on a non-statutory basis in preparing development plans and about planning applications which have implications for flood defence and land drainage; the Department's circular 17/82, which deals with these matters, is under review.

  Local Government (Standing Orders)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his conclusions as a result of the consultation exercise on the implementation of sections 8 and 20 of the Local Government and Ho using Act 1989.

  Mr. Portillo
  My Department and the Welsh Office have very carefully considered the comments received on the report produced by the joint local/central government working group on the implementation of sections 8 and 20 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which provides powers for the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales to require local authorities to adopt standing orders regulating the appointment and discipline of staff and various procedural matters. The Government have decided to implement only standing orders which will serve to underpin the independence of local authority chief officers. The consideration of any further action must await the conclusions of the general review of local government.

  My Department will, therefore, be consulting the English and Welsh local authority associations on the content of draft regulations and the timing of their implementation, which would provide for compulsory standing orders on the appointment and dismissal of chief officers.

  The proposals would require procedural safeguards on appointment, including a certificate from the monitoring officer, appointed under section 5 ,of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, and discipline, including the introduction of an independent person to ensure that unreasonable disciplinary action is not taken. These measures are essential to enable chief officers to continue to serve local authorities with maximum effectiveness.

  On the procedural questions which were proposed to be covered by the compulsory standing orders we have also
  520
  concluded that, in present circumstances, we should not impose new rules. The local authority associations will however also be consulted on a number of minor matters concerning procedural standing orders with a view to addressing certain ambiguities in the existing legislation on council procedures.

  Wath Recycling
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information has been reported to him of the results of visits paid to the premises of Wath Recycling by officials of the South Yorkshire hazardous waste unit since June 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: I have received regular progress reports about the Department's liaison with the South Yorkshire hazardous waste unit over that unit's monitoring of the site and about various options for dealing with the waste. But this has not required detailed reports on specific visits by the unit which has the regulatory responsibility.

  Drinking Water (Lead Levels)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the lead levels in drinking water supplied by each undertaking in the Northumbrian Water Authority area; what action is being taken to reduce lead levels in drinking water in the Northumbrian Water Authority area; and how many tests on lead levels in drinking water of the Northumbrian Water Authority area have been made and how many are proposed to be made in 1991–92.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The public registers kept by all water companies contain details of lead levels in drinking water and the number of samples taken. The number of samples to be taken is set by the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 and depends on the results of previous analysis of samples, and either the volume of water distributed for domestic purposes in a water supply zone or the population supplied in the zone. All water companies in England and Wales are carrying out surveys to establish whether there is a risk that lead levels in drinking water will exceed the standard set in the regulations of 50 micrograms per litre after it has left the company's pipes. The surveys should be completed in June and companies will then decide what measures, if any, they need to take.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the report on his Department's survey into motorists' attitudes to the use of unleaded petrol will become available.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report, entitled "Survey of barriers against further uptake of unleaded petrol", was published today and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The findings of the report are being considered by my Department.

SCOTLAND

  AIDS
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Government's financial assistance to voluntary bodies dealing with AIDS in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In respect of 1991–92 The Scottish Office has so far offered financial assistance to AIDS voluntary bodies in Scotland totalling approximately £108,000. Health boards may also provide assistance to such bodies in respect of services provided in their areas from their AIDS allocations, which total over £17 million in 1991–92.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the AIDS unit allocations made to each of the three host health boards in(a) cash and (b) constant prices for 1990–91 and 1991–92, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: The following table shows, at cash prices, the allocations made in 1990–91 to Lothian, Greater Glasgow and Tayside health boards in respect of their AIDS units. It also shows these amounts adjusted to 1991–92 prices using the GDP deflator.

  Allocations made in 1991–92 in respect of the revenue costs of the units have been subsumed in the general AIDS allocations made to the boards concerned. A capital allocation of £542,000 has been made to Lothian health board in 1991–92 in respect of its unit.

  £ thousands

  Health board

  Cash prices 1990–91

  Adjusted to 1991–92 prices

  Lothian

  Capital

  1,310

  Revenue

  2,560

  3,870

  4,141

  Greater Glasgow

  Capital

  260

  Revenue

  1,550

  1,810

  1,937

  Tayside

  Capital

  —

  Revenue

  1,380

  1,380

  1,477

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the allocations for HIV-AIDS treatment care and prevention to each of the Scottish health boards in(a) cash and (b) constant prices for 1990–91 and 1991–92 respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 May 1991]: The table shows AIDS allocations made to health boards in respect of 1990–91 and 1991–92 at cash prices and adjusted to 1991–92 prices using the GDP deflator.

  A revised method has been applied for the allocation of AIDS resources in 1991–92. It is based mainly on the estimated care and treatment costs of people with HIV and AIDS in each health board area; but it also makes provision for expenditure on non-care and non-treatment activities (eg local HIV prevention initiatives); and it provides that the estimated revenue and, where appropriate, capital costs of the AIDS special units
  522
  operated by Greater Glasgow, Lothian and Tayside health boards are met in full. It has the effect of directing the bulk of available resources to those health boards which are carrying the heaviest burdens arising from HIV and AIDS.

  Health board

  Cash prices

  Adjusted to 1991–92 prices

  £ thousands

  £ thousands

  Argyll and Clyde

  1990–91

  565

  605

  1991–92

  503

  503

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1990–91

  445

  476

  1991–92

  424

  424

  Borders

  1990–91

  131

  140

  1991–92

  134

  134

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1990–91

  216

  231

  1991–92

  203

  203

  Fife

  1990–91

  412

  441

  1991–92

  418

  418

  Forth Valley

  1990–91

  387

  414

  1991–92

  402

  402

  Grampian

  1990–91

  731

  782

  1991–92

  598

  598

  Greater Glasgow

  1990–911

  3,757

  4,020

  1991–92

  3,959

  3,959

  Highland

  1990–91

  310

  332

  1991–92

  262

  262

  Lanarkshire

  1990–91

  657

  703

  1991–92

  595

  595

  Lothian

  1990–911

  5,096

  5,453

  1991–921

  7,706

  7,706

  Orkney

  1990–91

  24

  26

  1991–92

  25

  25

  Shetland

  1990–91

  28

  30

  1991–92

  29

  29

  Tayside

  1990–91

  2,101

  2,248

  1991–92

  2,361

  2,361

  Western Isles

  1990–91

  42

  45

  1991–92

  42

  42

  1 Includes capital provision in respect of AIDS unit.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department first learnt of the outbreak of Legionella resulting from contaminated water supplies in Greater Glasgow health board premises.
  523
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Legionellosis became a notifiable disease in Scotland on 1 October 1988. Since that date Greater Glasgow health board have informed the Scottish Office Home and Health Department on the occasion of any outbreak.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospitals have been affected by the Legionella outbreak in the Greater Glasgow area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  During 1990 the Glasgow Royal Infirmary and the Glasgow Western Infirmary both recorded cases of Legionnaire's disease. There are currently no outbreaks in the Greater Glasgow health board area.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to avoid further outbreaks of Legionella in Glasgow health board premises.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is an ongoing programme of water systems disinfection, maintenance and upgrading throughout Greater Glasgow health board's premises along with a programme of reserch into the proliferation of the legionellae becterium. Over the past two years £0·25 million has been spent on these measures and an allocation of £0·5 million has been made for 1991–92 to continue the programme.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many isolates of Legionella species have been found in the water supplies of Greater Glasgow health board premises.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1 October 1988 Legionella pneumophila serogroups 1 and 6 have been isolated from the water systems in Greater Glasgow health board's premises.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when was the last case of water contaminated by Legionella species detected in the greater Glasgow area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Legionellaceae, the family of Legionella bacteria survive and multiply in water. It is widespread in natural fresh water including rivers and ponds, and may also be found in wet soil. There is a strong likelihood of very low concentrations of the bacterium existing in all open water systems, including hospital water systems, at almost any time.

  In the main, through the control of water temperature, appropriate disinfection and avoidance of water stagnation, the proliferation of the bacterium can be satisfactorily contained.

  Currently, there is no outbreak of legionnaire's disease in health board premises in the Greater Glasgow area.

  Scottish Institute of Adult and Continuing Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial contribution he has made to the Scottish Institute of Adult and Continuing Education in each year since 1979, at 1990–91 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Grant (at 1990–91 prices) £

  1979–80

  18,075

  1980–81

  17,796

  1981–82

  25,494

  524

  Year

  Grant (at 1990–91 prices) £

  1982–83

  30,462

  1983–84

  36,519

  1984–85

  36,821

  1985–86

  37,568

  1986–87

  35,414

  1987–88

  33,621

  1988–89

  32,070

  1989–90

  30,148

  1990–91

  41,000

  1991–92

  39,253

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Forestry Commission will adopt a policy of offering sites of special scientific interest in its ownership which are considered for privatisation on a first refusal basis to nature conservation or heritage organisations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Forestry Commission has had such a policy since its programme of land sales began in 1981. Details of the arrangements followed are set out in appendix IX, paragraphs 15–17, of the Commission's 1989–90 annual report.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Forestry Commission's policy towards land which is designated as a site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  It has long been the Forestry Commission's policy to agree plans with the Nature Conservancy Council and its successor bodies for the management of sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) on commission land and to consult with them over all grant-aid and felling applications affecting SSSIs on privately-owned land.

  Nurses (Appeals)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses in(a) the Argyll and Clyde health board, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole had regrading appeals outstanding at 31 March.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: Information on the number of nurse clinical grading appeals outstanding at 31 March at health board level is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The information at Scottish appeals committee level and at negotiating council level is given in the following table.

  Scottish appeals committee

  Negotiating council

  Argyll and Clyde health board

  148

  17

  Strathclyde1

  684

  43

  Scotland

  1,861

  83

  1 Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire health boards and Glasgow and West of Scotland blood transfusion service.

  Audiology
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what training programmes exist for physical measurement technicians in audiology; how many places are annually available; what budget is provided for the training currently and for each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The training of physiological measurement technicians in audiology involves mainly in-service training, with further education colleges providing the necessary external input. The trainees are salaried. Information on individual health boards' training programmes, and their current and previous budgets since 1979 is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average waiting list for(a) children under 16 years, (b) adults and (c) pensioners to obtain hearing assessments; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the average waiting time for the supply of hearing aids to (a) children under 16 years, (b) adults and (c) pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The information requested is not held centrally.

DEFENCE

  Polaris
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will obtain a copy of the report published by Greenpeace entitled "Bring Polaris Home" for his Department's library;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his response to the report by Greenpeace entitled "Bring Polaris Home", a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence has received a number of copies of the report by Greenpeace entitled "Bring Polaris Home", one of which has been passed to the Department's library. Our resolution class Polaris submarines, like all our other nuclear-powered submarines, have been subject to a programme of inspections, set in hand as a prudent precautionary measure following the discovery of a technical defect in one of the Royal Navy's hunter-killer submarines. As I have indicated to the House before—Official Report, 8 February 1991, columns 264–65, our nuclear submarines operate, and are maintained, in accordance with rigorous safety standards and with the endorsement of the nuclear-powered warships safety committee. The Ministry of Defence attaches the greatest importance to nuclear safety and we would not allow any submarine to go to sea if we considered it unsafe to do so. Our intention remains to keep resolution class submarines in operation until they are replaced by the Vanguard class Trident force.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the repair and maintenance programme for Polaris nuclear submarines; and whether work is proceeding on developing remedial work on the nuclear reactors which will avoid radiation dosages to workers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Details of the repair and maintenance programme for Polaris nuclear submarines 526
  are classified. Radiation exposures are authorised only to the extent that they are justified, that they are within departmental and statutory limits, and that they are as low as reasonably practicable. They are kept under continuous review.

  Radiation Exposure
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to ensure that radiation exposure of personnel undertaking nuclear safety inspections and repairs to operational Resolution class submarines at the Clyde submarine base have been as low as is reasonably possible.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  All practicable measures are being taken to ensure that occupational exposure to ionising radiation throughout the Ministry of Defence, including Clyde submarine base, is as low as reasonably practicable. In the case of those so exposed as a result of tasks being carried out on nuclear submarines, such measures may include decontamination, shielding, work sharing and modification to procedures, as appropriate and depending upon the particular tasks involved.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many additional personnel have been employed to carry out nuclear safety inspections and repairs to operational Resolution class submarines over the last 18 months;

  (2) what has been the cost of repairs to operational Resolution class submarines over the last 18 months;

  (3) what has been the cost of nuclear safety inspections to operational Resolution class submarines over the last 18 months.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to comment on details of submarine refit, repair or maintenance programmes.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 256, if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the higher figures for the Clyde submarine base, as set out in his letter to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The increase in radiation dose figures for the Clyde submarine base for 1990 over those for previous years is due to a fluctuation in the workload. Although levels of individual dose are higher, all doses are within the statutory limits.

  Air Crash, Cardigan Bay
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the incident involving a pilotless aircraft which crashed on land near his Department's range on Cardigan bay at about 1800 hours on 14 May; whether his Department has launched an inquiry into the cause of the incident; and if he will publish its results.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A Jindivik unmanned aircraft crashed on its approach to the Defence Research Agency's Llanbedr airfield following a routine operational sortie. Debris resulting from the crash hit a car occupied by two people, one of whom sustained superficial injuries. A local board of inquiry has been set up by the aerospace division of the Defence Research Agency, the results of which will be published in the form of a military aircraft accident summary in due course.

  RAF Training
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what differences exist between the first stage of training for a Royal Air Force fast jet pilot and the first stage of training for a civil pilot.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no single, standard route for training for either civil or RAF fast jet pilots. However, a typical civil trainee may expect to be awarded his commercial pilot's licence after approximately 170 to 200 hours of flying training, normally on a light piston engined aircraft. An RAF fast jet trainee will carry out around 147 hours of basic flying training on the Tucano before going on to the Hawk. During this training, both will have carried out general flying, including circuit work, stalling, instrument flying and navigation. However, the civil training will have concentrated on instrument flying and navigation in airways, whereas the RAF pilot, although carrying out some airways training, will have concentrated on low-level navigation. It would also be very rare for a civil trainee to do aerobatics or formation flying, whereas these disciplines form very major elements of RAF training.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will provide a declassified summary of the programme of training for(a) fast jet pilots, (b) helicopter pilots and (c) transport aircraft pilots.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Due to the different flying backgrounds of personnel entering the RAF for training, it is not possible to give a single definitive programme. Some pilot recruits will have no previous flying experience whereas some may have received flying training at one of the university air squadrons, or may have considerable previous civilian experience, including commercial licences. Their training pattern will depend to some extent on this previous experience. For an entrant holding a private pilot's licence, his training up to the award of wings, and following completion of initial officer training, for the three specialisations mentioned would typically be:

  a. Fast jet

  147 hours on the Tucano, taking 46 weeks.

  75 hours on the Hawk, taking 22 weeks.

  b. Helicopter

  64 hours on the Tucano, taking 26 weeks.

  80 hours on the Gazelle, taking 18 weeks.

  63 hours on the Wessex, taking 14 weeks.

  c.Multi-engine

  140 hours on the Tucano, taking 40 weeks.

  50 hours on the Jetstream, taking 20 weeks.

  After award of wings, pilots will go on to complete specialised training for the specific type of aircraft they will fly operationally, which in the longest case will be a further 40 weeks. During the whole of this period, their flying training will be integrated with ground instruction in specialist and general service training.

  Type 23 Frigates
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to place orders for Type 23 frigates.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 192.

  Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards Dutch participation in the local area missile system study.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No aproach has been received from the Netherlands about joining the local area missile system study. Any approach would require discussion among the collaborative partners in the family of anti-air missile systems programme, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Italy.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the successful bidder in the advanced short-range air-to-air missile contract.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I hope to be in a position to make an announcement next year.

  Over-the-Horizon Radar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the considerations which influenced the cancellation of the plans to base relocatable over-the-horizon radar transmitters at St. David's airfield and at Blakehill.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The decision was taken in the light of competing calls on the defence budget and various representations made to me over the last 12 months.

  Airborne Stand-off Radar
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the results of the airborne stand-off radar demonstration programme; and what factors he will take into account in deciding whether the programme will be further developed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The results of the technology demonstrator programme will be considered towards the end of this year. Decisions on the future of the programme will take account of all relevant factors including the results of the demonstrator programme, operational requirements and affordability.

  Hunt Class Minehunters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the updating of Hunt class minehunters will commence; what improvements will be made; when the updating is expected to be concluded; and what effect there will be on the capability of the vessels.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Hunt class minehunters are modern and capable ships. The most recent of the class, HMS Quorn, entered service in 1989. We are considering whether, as with other ships, they should eventually be updated as technology develops. No decisions are required for some time.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a study into the contribution made to successful United Kingdom operations in the Gulf war by logistical support.
  529
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All aspects of the Gulf conflict are currently being considered.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards Anglo-French co-operation in the development of a new generation SSN.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No decisions have yet been made concerning a new generation SSN for the Royal Navy. The scope for Anglo-French co-operation will continue to be kept under review.

  Search and Rescue Services
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the terms of the unsolicited offer received by his Department for the contractorisation of part of the search and rescue services presently provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. This information is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to have completed consideration of the unsolicited offer received by his Department for the contractorisation of parts of the search and rescue operations presently provided by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The provision of military search and rescue cover around the United Kingdom is being reviewed as part of the MOD's work on the "Options for Change" proposals. It will not be possible to consider the potential for contractorisation until the outcome of this work is clearer.

  Coastal Patrol Boats
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fast coastal patrol boats are in service with the Royal Navy; and when he expects to place orders for additional vessels.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Royal Navy does not operate a type of craft known as a "fast coastal patrol boat". It does, however, have a number of patrol craft, among them the Peacock class Hong Kong patrol craft, Bird class large patrol craft, the Attacker and Archer class training craft. There are no current plans to place orders for patrol craft.

  British Marines, Turkey
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning members of the British Marines, following a dispute with a Turkish provincial governor at a refugee camp in Yesilova, Turkey.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is regular contact with the Government of Turkey on all aspects of the coalition humanitarian operation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited Turkey last week and met President Ozal for discussions on mutual co-operation.

  Occasional misunderstandings between the different forces and authorities involved in the operation, such as
  530
  the minor incident at Yelisova, are almost inevitable in the difficult circumstances of the refugee camps, but relations between British and Turkish forces and officials on the ground have been and remain good.

HEALTH

  NHS Low Income Scheme
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the responsibility for the NHS low income scheme.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 10 April 1991, responsibility for the national health service low income scheme has been consolidated within the Department of Health. Claims for charge remission will continue to be dealt with by the health benefits unit—previously the agency benefits unit—at Newcastle but with the unit working directly to the Department of Health on the basis of a service agreement.

  During 1991, the Department of Health will undertake a review of the administration of the low income scheme. The review will aim to produce proposals by the end of 1991 for simplifying the claim form AG1 and other administrative procedures.

  Thalidomide
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the pharmaceutical drug Thalidomide still has a product licence; for what purposes its use is recommended; and what safeguards there are to ensure that it is not taken by pregnant women;

  (2) if any drug trials are currently taking place involving the pharmaceutical drug Thalidomide.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Thre are no current product licences for Thalidomide in the United Kingdom.

  The medicines control agency of the Department of Health has been notified under the doctors and dentists exemption scheme of one clinical trial involving the use of the drug Thalidomide in the United Kingdom.

  Clinical trials with Thalidomide may be approved which do not involve women of child-bearing potential. There is interest in testing it for use in severe orogenital ulceration—Behcet's syndrome—and serious skin conditions—actinic prurigo and skin disease of leprosy.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the projects in Yorkshire and Trent regions studying the extension of general practitioner fundholding to the community care services; when he expects the project to be complete; and what other extensions of the general practitioner fundholding concept are under consideration.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Yorkshire project is exploring the benefits to patients of co-locating health and social care services in a fundholding practice. The Trent project will consider the options for including within the general practice funding scheme community health services, some aspects of social care and other hospital services. The second year of this project will pilot some of the options developed in the first year.
  531
  Both projects are expected to be complete in spring 1993. We are also piloting the extension of the fundholding scheme to practices with a list size of less than 9,000 patients.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the level of expenditure on(a) the national health service and (b) the hospital and

  NHS expenditure (gross)

  HCHS expenditure (gross)

  Year

  Adjusted by the GDP 1990–91 prices

  Adjusted for input unit costs 1990–91 prices

  Adjusted by the GDP 1990–91 prices

  Adjusted for input unit costs 1990–91 prices

  A

  B

  A

  B

  1973–74

  14,074

  —

  —

  8,992

  —

  —

  1974–75

  15,526

  18,045

  —

  10,663

  —

  12,594

  1975–76

  16,285

  18,447

  —

  11,126

  —

  12,807

  1976–77

  16,373

  18,617

  —

  11,187

  —

  12,846

  1977–78

  15,912

  18,889

  —

  11,009

  —

  13,235

  1978–79

  16,460

  19,606

  —

  11,407

  —

  13,873

  1979–80

  16,766

  19,418

  —

  11,644

  —

  13,736

  1980–81

  18,459

  19,699

  —

  12,966

  —

  14,116

  1981–82

  18,875

  20,635

  —

  13,054

  —

  14,403

  1982–83

  19,217

  21,107

  —

  13,128

  —

  14,567

  1983–84

  19,550

  21,361

  —

  13,207

  —

  14,587

  1984–85

  19,955

  21,650

  —

  13,282

  —

  14,570

  1985–86

  20,029

  21,778

  13,592

  13,274

  14,943

  14,594

  1986–87

  20,826

  22,041

  14,125

  —

  15,031

  —

  1987–88

  21,741

  22,462

  14,816

  —

  15,306

  —

  1988–89

  22,464

  22,671

  15,294

  —

  15,363

  —

  1989–90

  22,747

  22,821

  15,414

  —

  15,378

  —

  1990–91

  23,751

  23,751

  16,114

  —

  16,114

  —

  NHS expenditure (net)

  HCHS current (net)

  Year

  Adjusted by the GDP 1990–91 prices

  Adjusted for input unit costs 1990–91 prices

  Adjusted by the GDP 1990–91 prices

  Adjusted for input unit costs 1990–91 prices

  A

  B

  A

  B

  1973–74

  13,603

  —

  —

  8,889

  —

  —

  1974–75

  15,123

  17,577

  —

  10,568

  —

  12,482

  1975–76

  15,932

  18,047

  —

  11,040

  —

  12,708

  1976–77

  16,001

  18,194

  —

  11,091

  —

  12,737

  1977–78

  15,537

  18,444

  —

  10,914

  —

  13,120

  1978–79

  15,824

  18,849

  —

  11,064

  —

  13,456

  1979–80

  16,100

  18,647

  —

  11,324

  —

  13,336

  1980–81

  17,722

  19,170

  —

  12,623

  —

  13,742

  1981–82

  18,084

  19,770

  —

  12,701

  —

  14,014

  1982–83

  18,386

  20,195

  —

  12,773

  —

  14,173

  1983–84

  18,578

  20,351

  —

  12,829

  —

  14,170

  1984–85

  18,972

  20,583

  —

  12,905

  —

  14,157

  1985–86

  19,027

  20,688

  13,200

  12,898

  14,512

  14,180

  1986–87

  19,694

  20,843

  13,715

  —

  14,594

  —

  1987–88

  20,526

  21,206

  14,397

  —

  14,872

  —

  1988–89

  21,098

  21,292

  14,860

  —

  14,927

  —

  1989–90

  21,389

  21,459

  14,955

  —

  14,920

  —

  1990–91

  22,403

  22,403

  15,629

  —

  15,629

  —

  Note: Figures in column A have been adjusted to reflect the transfer of the Family Health Service Administration, Disablement Services Authority and the Family Health Services cash-limited spending to the HCHS (and also take account of changes since publication of the Departmental Report, CM 1513). Figures in column B do not reflect these transfers and are therefore not comparable with those for later years.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Payment Delays
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for SDcial Security what is the delay in the processing of claims relating to disability benefit payments and backdated reduced earnings allowance, made by citizens resident in
  532
  community health services current budget, for each year since 1973–74, expressed in 1990–91 prices, adjusted by (a) the gross domestic product deflator and (b) changes in input unit costs;

  (2) what was the level of net hospital and community health services current and net NHS expenditure adjusted by changes in input unit costs in each year since 1973–74.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 21 May 1991]: The information requested is given in the table.

  the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow; and what are the reasons for the differences in the levels of payments that have been made to such people in different areas.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, columns 467–68, if he will now provide similar information regarding those living on incomes less than 50 per cent. of the national average in each of the same years.

  Mr. Jack
  Information in precisely the form requested is available only for the years for which "Households Below Average Income"—HBAI—has been published. Other information is available for earlier years, but the methodologies and definitions used differ substantially and it is therefore not appropriate to make direct comparisons throughout the whole period.

  It is also important to remember that real personal disposable income per head in the United Kingdom has risen substantially during this period. Consequently, the percentage of the population who were living on incomes below any constant threshold will show a very different picture. Thus, for example, the numbers of people living below 50 per cent. of the 1979 national average equivalised

  Source:

  HBAI

  RoI

  RoI

  FES Report

  Income:

  Equivalised

  Household

  Household

  Household

  Measure:

  Household disposable

  Disposable

  Final

  Gross

  Unit analysed:

  Persons

  Household

  Household

  Household

  Coverage:

  Great Britain

  United Kingdom

  United Kingdom

  United Kingdom

  Percentage with less than 50 per cent. mean income

  1988

  116·8

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  14·3

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  9·2

  25

  —

  —

  1980

  27·7

  23

  —

  —

  1975

  —

  22

  20

  —

  1970

  —

  —

  21

  23

  1965–66

  —

  —

  —

  20

  1960–61

  —

  —

  —

  20

  1 Source: Select Committee HBAI

  2 Average of figures for 1979 and 1981

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each means-tested benefit, each of those other benefits which are taken into account in assessing its value.

  Benefits to be taken into account

  Benefit being assessed

  Income support

  Family credit

  Housing benefit

  Community Charge benefit

  Income support

  —

  Yes

  No

  No

  Family credit

  No

  —

  No

  No

  Housing benefit

  No

  Yes

  —

  No

  Community charge benefit

  No

  Yes

  No

  —

  Generally attendance allowance—other than for those in residential care or nursing homes—and mobility allowance are fully disregarded in all the income related benefits, as is the first £10 of war widows pension, war disablement pension and other analogous payments. Child benefit, including one-parent benefit, is disregarded in the assessment of family credit. Most other social security benefits are taken fully into account in calculating entitlement to the income-related benefits.

  Full lists of items which are disregarded in whole or in part are contained in regulation 40(2) of, and schedule 9
  534
  income—before housing costs—fell from 3.8 million in 1979 to 2·5 million in 1987 and remained at 2·5 million in 1988.

  Sources are the Central Statistical Office's annual redistribution of income articles and the published family expenditure survey reports; the estimates listed in the table are made from the most appropriate published source for each year. All the pre-HBAI analyses are in terms of numbers of households rather than population, and none of them used equivalisation to adjust for differing household sizes and compositions. This makes a considerable difference to the percentage shown as having below half average income. The pre-HBAI household income distributions show many households with relatively low incomes merely because there are few people—perhaps only one person—living in these households. The HBAI figures in the first column use equivalisation to adjust for this, and thus give a meaningful indication of the income distribution and of relative living standards.

  Various different definitions of income have been used, and the one from the FES reports in 1960–61 and 1965–66 is a pre-tax gross income measure.

  All the figures are derived from the family expenditure survey and thus cover only the household population.

  Mr. Jack
  There are four income-related benefits. These are income support, family credit, housing benefit and community charge benefit. The treatment of these benefits in assessing entitlement to each of the others is set out in the table.

  to, the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987; regulation 24(2) of, and schedule 2 to the Family Credit (General) Regulations 1987; 29(2), 31(2), 33(2), 36(3) and 38(2) of, and schedules 3, 4 and 5 to, the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 and regulations 23(2) of, and schedule 3 to, the Community Charge Benefits (General) Regulations 1989.

  Family credit is paid at the same rate for a fixed period of 26 weeks. If a claim for income support is made within

  535
  this period, family credit is taken into account in the calculation of the income support for the remainder of the 26-week period.

  Press and Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91 and budget for 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 30 April 1991]: The Department has no separate public relations section. Functions commonly associated with public relations are carried out by information officers as part of their duties in the Department's information division.

  I refer the hon. Member to the replies, given to him on 19 November 1986 at column 794, on 4 November 1987 at columns 785–87, on 14 January 1988 at column 402, on 13 March 1989 at columns 30–31, for information for 1979–80 to 1989–90.

  Estimated total expenditure by the information division in 1990–91 is as follows:

  £ million

  Publicity

  12·843

  Staff

  1·354

  Running costs

  0·603

  The 1991–92 budgets for the information division in the Department of Social Security headquarters and the Benefits Agency are as follows.

  £ million

  DSSHQ

  Benefits agency

  Publicity

  12·992

  8·70

  Staff

  0·658

  0·54

  Running costs

  0·550

  0·05

  Care Homes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the maximum rates of benefit for each category of residential care and nursing home in April 1987 and 1991, both in cash and real terms.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 8 May 1991]: The table shows the national limits for April 1987 and 1991 in cash and real terms, using April 1991 as the base and applying movements in the retail prices index to convert the April 1987 limit into 1991 terms. The comparison should be treated with caution because the RPI is only a measure of price movements generally.

  April 1987

  April 1991

  (cash)

  (real)

  (cash and real)

  £

  £

  £

  Residential care homes

  Elderly

  130

  170

  160

  Very dependent elderly

  145

  190

  185

  Mentally ill

  130

  170

  170

  Drug/alcohol dependent

  130

  170

  170

  Mentally handicapped

  150

  196

  195

  Physically disabled under pension age

  190

  248

  230

  536

  April 1987

  April 1991

  (cash)

  (real)

  (cash and real)

  £

  £

  £

  Others

  130

  170

  160

  Nursing Homes

  Elderly and others

  175

  229

  255

  Mentally ill

  180

  235

  255

  Drug/alcohol dependent

  180

  235

  255

  Mentally handicapped

  200

  261

  260

  Physically disabled under pension age

  230

  301

  290

  Terminally ill

  230

  301

  275

  Greater London Extension

  Residential care homes

  17·5

  23

  23

  Nursing homes

  17·5

  23

  33

  Claimants, Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many tenants in Blyth Valley are in receipt of rent rebates and poll tax rebates.

  Mr. Scott
  At February 1991, the latest date for which information is available, the housing benefit caseload in the Blyth Valley borough council area was 6,994. Of this total, 5,358 households were in receipt of a rent rebate and 1,636 households were in receipt of a rent allowance. At the same date, approximately 18,000 individuals, including tenants, were in receipt of community charge benefit.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the duties and responsibilities of the Under-Secretaries of State in his Department following the creation of the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  The duties and responsibilities of Under-Secretaries of State are contained in the list of ministerial responsibilities, a copy of which is available in the Library. Ministers remain fully accountable to Parliament for the work of the Department, including its executive agencies.

  Family Support
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes are intended in support for less well-off families in 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last October, child benefit rose by £1 a week for the eldest eligible child in each family this April. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer anounced in his Budget statement, child benefit will rise by a further E1 a week for the eldest eligible child in each family in October, with an extra 25p a week for other children. The Government are taking all steps necessary to make sure that families at all income levels will gain from the October increase.

  The income support personal allowances for single people under 25 who claim independently will also be increased in line with the children's rates.

  These October increases will be in addition to the April uprating of all the income-related benefits.
  537
  As my right hon. Friend said in his Budget statement, Government are committed to increasing the new rates of child benefit in line with the movement in the retail price index each year, starting in April 1992. We will announce
  538
  in the uprating statement the allocation of the individual the amounts between the eldest eligible child and other children.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Earl of Dundonald The Earl of Dundonald —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to visit the judges and staff at Staines and Slough County Courts on Friday 7th June, 1991. Accordingly, as these arrangements were made before it was known that this House would be sitting on that day, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence for Friday 7th June.

Lord Denham: Tributes
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, it is unusual to pay tribute in this House to one of our colleagues until he has gone to another place—and I do not mean along the corridor to the other end of this building! However, this is a very unusual occasion. Today my noble friend Lord Denham is resigning as Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms and Government Chief Whip, having served as such for 12 years and as Opposition Chief Whip before that.
I have known my noble friend for a long time. I know his fads and his foibles, and I have even read his books—well, one of them. I was his opposite number in another place for some years and I know how he fought tenaciously for the rights of this House and for all he believed in.
My noble friend has given conspicuous service to his party, to his Government and to his country. He is a great character who loves this place and has added lustre to it. He will not be sorely missed because I am sure that he will not go missing. We shall see plenty of him in the future, and thank goodness for that.
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw is unable to be present today but he has asked me to associate him with this tribute. He gives his personal thanks to my noble friend for all the help that he gave him when in government and as Leader of this House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Leader of the House has paid a suitably warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for his years of service both as Government Chief Whip and before that as a member of the Whips' Office.
In contemplating the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I cannot help but think of the old song—and I do not propose to sing it:
"We've been together now for 30 years and it don't seem a day too much".
232
The noble Lord has decided that 30 years is enough. I believe that we all sympathise with him, although we shall miss him from his high office.
Throughout, the noble Lord has been a loyal servant to this House and to his party. He has stood up for the traditions and conventions of the House of Lords and in doing so has helped those of us who have entered here from another place to adapt to its atmosphere and to respect its ways. We shall continue to see the noble Lord and he will be able to pursue his many interests outside politics.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, mentioned that the noble Lord is an author and we look forward to reading more of his books. I understand that the title of his next volume will be, The Mystery of the Lost Divisions. We shall also study his future Division record with great care. Most important, we wish Lady Denham and the noble Lord many years of happiness.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I echo the opening words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. This is the first occasion in my relatively short experience of your Lordships' House on which I have had the opportunity of paying tribute to a man in his presence. Mostly such occasions are rather melancholy. However, this is not melancholy except that we shall miss the noble Lord when he is not sitting in that familiar place in which he sits today. We hope to see much of him in other places and in other parts of the House.
His style of whipping and leadership has never been melancholy. It has been rumbustious and invigorating. He has provoked many varying reactions but he has never bored or depressed us and has left a stamp on our conduct of business. I thank the noble Lord and wish him well.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, the Cross-Bench Peers would also like to thank the noble Lord for his 12 years of very active service. We hope that the unwhippable and unpredictable 250 Cross-Bench Peers, not counting the Bishops and Law Lords, have not been too much of a thorn in his flesh. As far as we are concerned, he has always done his duty, enabling us to play an active part as both dogs and bitches in this revising Chamber! We hope that he will go on writing books. I gather that the latest is called The Mystery of the Lost Divisions. I hope that there will be plenty of them in the Library for us to read. On a personal note, I hope that the noble Lord will start this Recess with a very tight line and catch lots of fish.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am delighted to add a brief tribute from these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Whips do not come out very well in the Bible, if I remember rightly. We are told that we will be chastised with whips. It is recorded that Christ used whips to drive the traders out of the temple. Therefore, I did not know quite what to expect when coming to meet a Government Chief Whip for the first time. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the Lords Spiritual when I say that we have always valued tremendously his friendliness, kindliness and the way in which he has helped us along the road in this House. He has a wonderful knack of

233
drawing attention to the ways in which he would like us to go. I remember that not long after I became a Member of this House he took me gently by the arm and said, "Bishop, I do not think that you have quite discovered every place in this House. For example, the way to vote for the Government is over there". I hope that I have not disappointed him too much over the years. If I have, then I am sure that it has been made up for by many of my colleagues. We wish him every blessing in the time to come.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is given to few corpses to have the privilege of being able to listen to their own obituary, let alone to say a word of thanks for it. I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and the right reverend Prelate. I also thank every Member of this House both past and present for the forbearance and kindness that they have shown over the past 30 years and particularly over the past 12 years. Thank you very much indeed.

Road Safety and the Handicapped
2.45 p.m.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they plan to improve safety standards for blind, deaf and other handicapped persons when crossing main roads in major cities; and whether they intend to ensure more standardisation of traffic lights.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Department of Transport has issued advice to local authorities on dropped kerbs and the use of a tactile surface at controlled crossings. The department will shortly be issuing further advice on the use of these surfaces at uncontrolled crossings. Signals have been developed to assist blind and deaf/blind persons. Three new traffic advisory unit leaflets will be published to encourage their use. New methods of improving pedestrian safety at crossings are being developed. Standardisation of traffic lights is achieved through the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1981 and a type approval process.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that extremely helpful Answer. Is he aware that I am a patron of the Greater London Fund for the Blind, which will be extremely pleased to hear what he has said? Is he also aware that it is not only in the cities that there are problems with crossing at traffic lights but in country towns and villages? In the part of Surrey near Leatherhead where my wife and I live, there is the Royal School for the Blind and several other places for physically and mentally handicapped persons. Will my noble friend accept that what he has said will be of great comfort to such people?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those words. At the moment we
234
have two new provisions coming forward which will be of great benefit to the blind and others who have difficulty in crossing the road. The pelican crossings will soon be fitted with the new infra-red device. That will mean that pedestrians will get as long a crossing time as is necessary. There will also be a new audible signal for dual carriageway crossings.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure in further consideration of this matter that the department will keep in touch with the Greater London Association for Disabled People, which produced a report on the difficulties that handicapped people have in the metropolis and which has many valuable suggestions to make?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I know that the department consults widely on these matters with the groups concerned with the disabled and blind. I shall ensure that the organisation referred to by my noble friend is among them.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not only the physically handicapped who have difficulty in crossing the road but those who are more able and active? If they have difficulty, how much more difficult must it be for the handicapped? Is the noble Lord aware that the little green man who flashes, now flashes for an ever shorter time? Is he also aware that it is very difficult even for active people to get across in time such roads as the Strand and outside Buckingham Palace? Will he look into the matter?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can do better than that. The new system will come into action fairly shortly. I refer to the infra-red system which I described, which will give as much time as is needed. The system will be able to detect when a person is on the crossing and it will therefore give as much time as is necessary.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Opposition welcome what he has said in response to this very helpful Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland? In the consultation process in which the Minister has been engaged, has he taken into account the highway authorities, including the local authorities, and whether once the new regime is agreed it will be given suitable publicity? Publicity is the key to success in this matter.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly. We work very closely with the highway and local authorities in these matters. They are the people who will be initially in receipt of our new advisory leaflets. For the most part, they will be the people who have to install the new devices. I shall endeavour to make sure that good publicity is given to the matter.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, will the new regime allow for traffic lights at the top of Constitution Hill on to Hyde Park Corner? Most of us dread going to Hyde Park Corner, including, I understand, taxi-cab drivers.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot comment on individual traffic lights in London.

Local Government Tax
2.50 p.m.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider basing the new local government tax on the type and size of a house rather than its value.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the Government believe that a banded system, based on the market value of domestic property, will be simple to administer, easily understood and cheap to collect and is therefore the right way forward.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he not agree that the banding of the type of property by its type and not its value, such as semi-detached or detached, three or four bedrooms, and so on, would be much more descriptive? That would be less likely to arouse the envy of those who say that people in the South East can afford to pay more on their properties and therefore should do so?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the banded system involves no need to value each individual house. There will be no need at all for regular revaluation. Therefore, it will be simple, cheap, and also fair to administer.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that historically the old rateable system was very unfair and there was a severe imbalance? For example, some people could never understand why flats were always rated higher than larger houses on ground floor level. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be no imbalances that will operate unfairly under the new system?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do know that the plan of the Labour Party is immensely complicated—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords,—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we have aimed at simplicity. There is not only an advantage in simplicity, there is also an advantage in banding. If there are a number of bands the effect of moving from one band to the next is not traumatic in itself. One can only move a certain distance and that is another recommendation for the system.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there are houses of identical size in the North which compare with houses in small villages in Cornwall and Devon where prices are highly inflated due to second home ownership? At the moment people in those villages cannot afford to buy homes in the area because they have very high rates which are quite out of proportion to their ability to pay.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the top banded house will attract a council tax 2.5 times higher than a house in the bottom band. Therefore, the difference between
236
the cheapest house and the most expensive will be far less than under the old rating system. One of the great criticisms of the old rating system was that an unacceptable burden was placed on a person who might be living in the suburbs of a town on his or her own, in a property which was very highly valued. The result was that he or she had to pay a very large sum of money for limited services. The system we propose will be much simpler and much fairer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the banding system proposed unduly restrictive in that it will have only seven bands? Will that not mean that people living in much smaller properties, in poorer parts of the country, will pay more than they should while other people living in large houses in more prosperous parts of the country will pay a lot less? Should not the system be much fairer than that?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there are many great virtues in simplicity. Of course, one could have a proliferation of bands, but the more bands there are, the more complicated the system becomes. Surely it is preferable to have a system such as the one we set out in our consultation document than to have a system which involves no limits whatever on local authority expenditure and the setting up of regional authorities with the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy. The total cost of that puts the Question posed by the noble Lord into proportion. Labour's plans would mean vastly increased expenses for local authorities.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, as one of my noble friend's supporters, and as one who has suffered grievous bureaucratic difficulties over the poll tax, and remembering the advocates of that tax saying how simple it would be to operate, can the Minister give me an assurance that we have got it right this time?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that I certainly believe so. It is a very much simpler system than the poll tax. Surely it is a very much simpler system than going back to the old rating system and eventually changing yet again to a tax that is based not on the capital value of a property but on a value based on building costs, repair costs, rental values and capital value lumped together.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the valuation of property on which these bands are calculated is done by the Inland Revenue in England and by independent assessors in Scotland? The variations in valuations are great. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be some uniformity in standards of valuation covering the United Kingdom?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is certainly the intention.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the population will be appalled at the suggestion that there should not be regular revaluations of bands related to individual properties? It should be borne in mind that one of the major problems caused by the old rating system was the fact that properties were not revalued regularly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, one of the attractions of the banded system is that it is not necessary to have regular valuations. Assuming that some sort of reasonable relationship still applies between the bottom band and the next band and the band after that, all that has to be done is to apply the same tax at a higher £age. One will get precisely the same result.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord is falling into the same trap as the poll tax argument to which he has referred. His argument totally gets away from the fact that the housing market, as a market, is enormously complicated and we cannot just take values for granted. My question to the Minister is: will the tax, assuming we have to suffer it, at least allow local democracy to survive? In particular, will local authorities be able to set their own rate of tax apropos of the value?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, if the noble Lord is asking whether we are going to abandon capping, then the answer is certainly not. I am quite sure that when the people of this country grasp the fact that it is part of Labour's policy that there should be no limits whatever on local authority expenditure they will not vote Labour.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember the argument on poll tax; that if a local authority taxes too much the electorate will get rid of it? What happened to that argument? It seemed to fail with the poll tax; is it also going to fail this time round?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord wants it both ways. If, indeed, he is right that the accountability arguments did not result in restraint in expenditure by local authorities, I am saying that that adds to the argument for capping. It does not detract from it.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord insists that this tax is fair. Is his concept of fair that a person with a house worth £1 million pays the same as a person with a house valued £160,000?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I only have to remind the noble Lord of the criticisms which were made of the old rating system. The principal criticism made was that a completely unfair burden was placed on people who occupied what in these days might be considered quite moderately valued houses. Therefore, some decision must be made as to the relationship between what is paid by the person living in a small house and what is paid at the top of the scale.
One should bear in mind that under this scheme the person at the top of the scale. will pay 2.5 times as much for local authority services to his local authority than the person at the bottom of the scale. On top of that, the remaining 80 per cent. of the cost of local authority services will be paid for by central government, which operates under a steeply graduated system of direct taxation. I think the noble Lord will concede that that system will be fair.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, under the new scheme, will there still be standard spending assessments to tell local authorities what they are allowed to spend?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, there will be standard spending assessments in order to assess what grants should be paid to local authorities. That is certainly correct. How else could it be? There must be some way in which one apportions grant between one area and another so as to make sure that as near as possible a person living in one part of the country receiving a standard level of service pays about the same as someone in another part of the country receiving the same service.

Health Visitors
3 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will recruit more health visitors, or make more assistance available to them in the performance of their duties.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Government are involved in a number of measures to help with the recruitment and retention of health visitors, but it is for individual service units to decide on how many health visitors and supporting staff they need in order to fulfil their contracts with district health authorities and other purchasers. The role of district health authorities is to ensure that those contracts adequately reflect the community health needs of their resident populations.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that the real complaint of health visitors is against the regional health authorities which they feel are not carrying out their duties? The regional health authorities have had the money from the Government so to do but are not spending it on health visitors. The general medical profession regards health visitors as the first line of defence. They play a vital role. The Health Visitors' Association acknowledges the abilities of its members but believes that their talents are not being fully utilised.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise the valuable service provided by health visitors. They have an important role in giving general family support. It is vital in terms of the progress into community care and to the plans to integrate primary and secondary care. However, we believe that the reforms will help greatly in this area by providing delivery mechanisms and in the sense that the region is now responsible both for FHSAs and district health authorities which form two important elements in this provision.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the new system seems to be totally falling apart? She says that there is great merit in it and that the opportunities for district health authorities are there. I am told by the Health Visitors' Association that the new system—working under Working Paper No. 10

239
—does not seem to have produced as much as a half of the expected number of people in training. The secondments are not coming through. Is it the case that they are being held up by the regions? What is the problem? Is she further aware that, if there is no increase in the number of health visitors, there will be a crisis? There has been no increase in the complement of health visitors over the past few years.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in terms of training, which is the point that the noble Lord is getting at, during the year ending 31st March 1990, 847 students entered health visitor training in England. This represented a 2.9 per cent. increase on the previous year. In terms of safeguarding the future training of health visitors, we have asked that post-registration professional training for nurses, including health visitor training, should for the time being at least be funded from the separate and protected regional budget. We have also asked regional health authorities to identify current investment in this training to form the initial baseline for a budget in the next financial year. "That perhaps goes some way to meeting the concerns expressed by the noble Lord.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I heard the assurance but I ask the Minister to look into the matter very carefully. The Health Visitors' Association says that the number of people now being transferred for training; is very low indeed, at about 50 per cent. of what is needed. Will the noble Baroness look into the matter personally?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I shall most certainly look into it and also refer it to my honourable friend the Minister for Health. We are concerned that there should be adequate provision of health service workers for the community care plans.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that health visitors have made a magnificent contribution in serving the community in a variety of ways? Many GPs say that hospital waiting lists would be much longer if it were not for health visitors. Health visitors want to contribute more to the community. They believe they have great talents and think that more of them can help the National Health Service, the country and those who need some form of help but do not necessarily need to go into hospital. The Health Visitors' Association believes that health visitors can make this contribution and it is proud of the talents of its members. Will the Minister be good enough to look into its complaints? It wants to do more to make the National Health Service even more efficient
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already given an assurance that I shall look into the matter. I refer the noble Lord to the findings of the Roy Report, published last December, which was commissioned to look into this whole area. It very interestingly sets out
240
five different organisational models for the organisation of community nursing, including GP-based practice nurses. There has been a phenomenal increase in the number of GP-based practice nurses.

UK Ships: Flagging Out
3.6 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What United Kingdom based shipping lines have indicated in 1991, and especially since the last Budget, that they intend to "flag out" UK-registered ships; how many ships and how many seafarers' jobs are involved; and what has been Her Majesty's Government's response.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, from January to April 1991, 19 trading vessels have left the United Kingdom register. Of those, four have gone to other British registers. In the same period, 13 vessels have come on to the register. I understand that Cunard, Blue Star and P&O Containers are currently flagging out a total of five vessels and that P&O has announced that it is considering further moves. These are commercial decisions. It is too early to say what the effect of such action would be on the crews of the vessels involved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, when the Minister refers to them being commercial decisions, is he not aware that P&O and indeed others have attributed their decisions directly to the fact that no fiscal help whatever has been forthcoming from the Government to meet their pleas for a restructuring of a very old British fleet? Is he further aware that the Government's response in the Budget in particular has been rather like throwing a drowning man both ends of a rope? When will the Government do something to assist this vital British industry upon which our country significantly depends?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, so far as concerns fiscal measures, my right honourable friend the Chancellor explained in the Budget Statement that there is a limit to the extent to which the tax regime can be manipulated to meet the specific needs of individual industries. He did, however, reduce corporation tax from 35 per cent. to 33 per cent., which makes it, with Luxembourg, the lowest level in the European Community and among the G7 countries. That will benefit shipping as well as other industries. Shipping also benefits from the 25 per cent. depreciation allowance. A vessel with a life of 15 to 20 years can be written down in just eight. In recognition of the strategic value of British seafarers, the Chancellor also announced an extension to the arrangements under which seafarers can in some circumstances be exempt from United Kingdom tax on foreign earnings.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not correct that recent reports in the press have indicated that British shipowners operate at a disadvantage as against other shipowners in the world, especially in

241
Europe? British shipowners should not operate at a disadvantage as against their competitors. What will the Government do to protect this valuable asset which may, if we are not careful, disappear altogether?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to Europe. We are working hard in Europe to encourage the reduction of subsidies. We believe that subsidies distort the economic decisions and are not the way to encourage a healthy and competitive industry. We are pressing the European Commission to apply to shipping the state aids provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, from the defence point of view, do the Government feel any anxiety about the running down of the British Merchant Navy, which in certain foreseeable situations might be of considerable defence importance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, of course we recognise the contribution that the Merchant Navy makes in times of crisis. Indeed, we monitor the fleet and manning levels accordingly. For that reason, we introduced relatively recently two measures of assistance to the merchant fleet. One of them, which has been most successful, concerned the training of officers and the other involved help towards crew relief costs.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, in order to try to put some flesh on the balance of that particular answer, can the Minister inform us, in terms of either the number of ships which are UK-owned and registered, the gross registered tonnage under the Red Ensign fleet, or the total number of British seafarers and officers—or any combination of those factors—at what point the Government's anxiety about flagging out will take the shape of positive action comparable to that taken by our competitors, to support the British fleet? Alternatively, are we to assume that when the last British ship has been flagged out, the Government will still show the same lack of concern that they are showing now?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that my original Answer indicated that at present the situation so far as concerns flagging out is not that critical. In fact, only a small net number of vessels had left the register at the beginning of this year. We have introduced various measures of assistance to the merchant fleet over the past two or three years. I hope that they will be successful in encouraging the fleet.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend will recall that as president of the General Council of British Shipping and chairman of P&O, I chaired jointly the working party on the shipping industry last year. Is he aware that the group's findings in its report were unanimous that British shipping was a vital national asset? Does he also remember that the report stated that it was fast accelerating towards extinction, and that it was feared that many ships would flag out if something was not done? It was also
242
found that British shipping was a necessity and had been the fourth arm of defence for about 400 years. I alone represent a fleet operating 200 ships at sea.
I believe that the number of ships that will flag out will accelerate. Does my noble friend agree that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in his Budget speech that he fully recognised the strategic need of the Red Ensign fleet, in practice he said that measures would be required to meet that need? Does he also accept that as those measures will not be forthcoming, the Government will he presiding over the demise of the Red Duster?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend's great experience in the matter. As he said, he was the joint chairman of the working party. Most of what my noble friend said is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The report of the working party contained five main recommendations to help the British fleet. All of those have either been acted on or will be acted on.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, with an election looming in the wings, now is the time to go one step further down the road in addition to the constructive measures that the Government have already taken with regard to our merchant fleet? Will he further agree that the zero option in relation to a merchant fleet, as practised by Canada unsuccessfully some years ago, is no option at all when it comes to the Red Duster?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I very much hope that that is not an option. I agree with the noble Lord. That is why, as I said, we have introduced various measures during the past few years to encourage the merchant fleet.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the minimum tonnage under the British flag that the Government will tolerate before they take some action?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have taken action. I cannot give the noble Lord an answer in terms of minimum tonnage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister suggesting that the situation regarding the British fleet is looking up? I suppose that we might even agree with that view: it is actually flat on its back; it has no alternative.

Business of the House: Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill
3.15.p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that it has been decided through the usual channels to take the Second Reading of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill off the Order Paper for tomorrow. It will be set down again for Friday 14th June.
It would be wrong of me not to acknowledge that this Bill's Second Reading is now being moved for the

243
second time. I apologise to the House for that. Interest in the Bill has grown progressively since it arrived here from another place, and the usual channels have attempted, therefore, to find time for a substantial debate in the face of the other pressures on the programme before the House. I hope that I can undertake to the House now that the Bill will not be moved again.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, for acceding to our request that this Second Reading should be postponed, as he rightly said, for the second time. I can assure the noble Lord that, from our point of view, we shall not attempt to move it again. I am very glad that we now have a day upon which I hope that many speakers who wish to speak cm the Bill, but who would be unable to do so tomorrow, will be able to do so.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that the phenomenon in relation to the Bill has been the growth of opposition to it which was not sufficiently noted at the time of the Gulf War when it slipped through the other place? However, having said that, we on these Benches also welcome the opportunity to debate the matter more thoroughly.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we are not here this afternoon to debate the merits of the matter; I am here to give the House what I understood it wanted. I am most grateful for the thanks that have been afforded to the Government for having given way. I am sure that the noble Lord will wish to thank the Government in as magnificent a way as did the noble Lord opposite.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords; after the debate on fixed term Parliaments and before the debate on inner cities, my noble friend Lord Reay will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on dangerous dogs.
I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. On the principle that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit for either debate. However, I am sure that noble Lords will agree that speeches should still be confined to limits compatible with the spirit of these short debates.

Llanelli Borough Council (Burry Port Harbour) Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Heathrow Express Railway (No. 2) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Business of the House: Debates, 5th June
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Baroness Ewart-Biggs set down for 5th June shall each be limited to 2i- hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Waddington).
On question, Motion agreed to.

Fixed Term Parliaments
3.18 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham rose to call attention to the case for fixed term parliaments, following the practice of many other democracies, to avoid the economic and political effects of sustained speculation about the dates of general elections; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a minute or two ago during Question Time the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, spoke about an election looming. In a sense he provided the text for the Motion which we propose from these Benches today. It is: to draw attention to the need for fixed term Parliaments.
I do not think that anyone can doubt that this is a topical and timely issue. I shall attempt to explain why I think that it is also an important issue which will be well explored in your Lordships' House. It is not a new issue. In 1931, Professor Ramsay Muir, in his evidence on the triennial and septennial Acts, described what had become by then the personal prime-ministerial prerogative of calling an election at a time of his political convenience as an "unsound constitutional doctrine". I shall return to the constitutionality of the matter later.
However, I start by asking your Lordships a common sense Question. It is a question which may be best addressed to those who support what I shall call the "floating" date as opposed to the "fixed" date for the general election. To those who support the idea of a floating date, my Question is: why does the British electorate have to endure every few years a coy guessing game about the date of the general election? It has become the electoral equivalent of that childish game of peekaboo: "Now you see it, now you don't!" At least once a month since January of this year, the Government's Back-Benchers have been marched

245
grumbling up to the top of the hill, perched on the verge of a general election, and then marched unceremoniously down the other side of the hill. We know that the opinion polls are scrutinised with all the feverish anxiety of a hypochondriac. The Conservative Party Chairman raises and lowers expectations every day like a political barometer.
One might say that that is all good clean fun, and so it would be if it were an obscure private game, but it is not. General elections are about renewing the power and re-establishing the legitimacy upon which democratic government rests. So in a very real sense, elections should belong to the voters rather than in any sense belonging to or being manipulated by the Prime Minister and the Government. If that is not so, it is to give to the Prime Minister and his party what, in American politics is known as an incumbency advantage. It is a travesty of serious democracy when Messrs. William Hill and Ladbroke give odds not just on the result of the election—that is fair enough—but on the date of the general election. One can place a wager on the date upon which the general election will be held as if it had all the unpredictability and charm of a horse race.
The bad effects are not confined merely to lowering standards of democracy, they affect everyone. In industry, industrialists hold back on investment until the political outlook becomes clearer; markets dance to political calculations; and civil servants now spend much of their time on contingency plans of one sort or another. Ordinary citizens, let alone Members of Parliament, begin to wonder what is the best time at which to take their annual holidays. What is more crucial is that the management of the economy tends to become coloured, and some would say controlled, by manipulation of the election date. Can anyone doubt that the current debate within the government party, and between it and the Governor of the Bank of England, on interest rates, or the debate and negotiation on economic and monetary union with our European partners—both decisions being crucial to the country's future prosperity—are not being pervasively and daily influenced by consideration of the various options of the date of the general election?
We have a curious system. It is said that the British contribution to world civilisation is to invent games; that we have a genius for inventing games. I cannot believe that this is one of our better contributions. What would people think about a race in which the Prime Minister is allowed to approach it with his running shoes in one hand and his starting pistol in the other? Can that be thought to be fair in any real sense? Let alone it being unfair, is it suited to the complexity of the modern world?
Business and industry require predictability and rationality so that they can function effectively. They do not want the second-guessing and gamesmanship to which we are exposed with a floating-date system, with the consequences of what the Financial Times last week described as the "election blight on economic policy". I refer the noble Lord the Leader of the House to the leader published in the Financial Times last Friday.
A fixed date every four years, as in Germany and the United States, or every five years, as with the European Parliament, would be infinitely superior to a floating date. I readily acknowledge that one should not over-emphasise the virtues of a fixed-term parliament. It is not a panacea that will solve all problems. No one ever will or should try to take politics out of electioneering, or to take the economics out of politics; but at least with a fixed-term parliament and a set date for elections both would be in proportion and in their proper place.
The problem is sometimes raised—I am sure that it will be raised by other speakers in the debate—that if a parliament has ceased to be viable, there has to be some escape hatch through which an earlier election can be sought. That problem is not insoluble. In the Bundestag in West Germany that problem is handled by providing that any vote of no confidence must also involve an expression of positive support for an alternative Chancellor. Both parts of the proposition of that constructive vote of confidence are voted on together. It is only when that procedure fails and in exceptional circumstances—as in 1972, which is the only case in 40 years in West Germany—that under Article 68 of the West German constitution a straight vote of no confidence is taken and the parliament is potentially dissolved earlier; but even then discretion remains with the German president to use a 21-day cooling-off period to see whether there is an alternative Administration within the Parliament.
The consequence of making it more difficult for politicians to call elections when it suits them, and making them, like everyone else, conform to certain rules and expectations, is that elected politicians cannot then rush for the exit, however much it may happen to suit them. They are forced to consider whether there is an alternative government within their midst. That could become important if there were to be a balanced parliament some time in the future. Your Lordships may think that I am predicting that outcome from these Benches, but it is important to note that even with the first-past-the-post voting system we have balanced parliaments from time to time. If there were to be electoral reform, we should probably have them more often. In 1964 and 1966, and between the two elections in 1974, there was the inevitable temptation under our system for the Government to try to play for time and avoid the necessity to muster the full confidence of a long-term Parliament. If we had a fixed term, the House of Commons would ultimately control its own destiny. I mean the House of Commons as a whole and not merely the Prime Minister.
What is the public's attitude to that reform? There is irritation in the country which may perhaps in some quarters —possibly among frequent television viewers —border on fury at the pre-election war of nerves and the premature and sometimes nearly hysterical electioneering which is going on at a time when we understand we may be months or even a year away from a general election. It is an example of crying "wolf!" If we carry on like that, we shall begin to devalue the whole political process and the election itself, whenever it finally comes.
It is not surprising that a MORI opinion poll carried out for the Joseph Rowntree Social Services Trust and called the "State of the Nation Poll" a month ago showed that there was over 2:1 support among the public for a fixed date for general elections. Fifty-six per cent. supported it, 24 per cent. opposed it and 20 per cent. did not know. Interestingly, among young voters£ 18 to 24 year-olds—the majority was 3:1. Fifty-nine per cent. supported it, with only 19 per cent. opposing it.
Speaking from these Benches, I feel that it will no doubt occur to some noble Lords that this is part of a wider constitutional reform agenda. Again, I wish to acknowledge that a fixed term parliament would connect on the economic front with Liberal Democrat proposals for greater independence for the Bank of England, both of them promoting greater stability of economic management.
Equally, I wish to acknowledge that a fixed term parliament would connect well with a more open and rational system, were we to reform our electoral system, have proportional representation and reform parliamentary procedures. Ultimately, however, the arguments for a fixed term parliament stand free and unconnected with any other considerations. I maintain that it would be a worthwhile reform in itself.
I do not level my criticism at the present Prime Minister in particular—it is a game that has been played by all who have held that office—but why should the prime minister of the day have peculiar and particular powers over the date of the general election? Is it fair? Is it rational? If not, could it readily he reformed? If the answers to those questions are that it is unfair, it is irrational and it could readily be reformed, then I believe it is a proper matter for Parliament to consider.
On Sunday, the Observer newspaper called in a leading; article for a levelling of the electoral playing field and an end to what it called "this absurdity". I look forward very much to hearing the views of other noble Lords who will speak in the debate. In that spirit, I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that this is not a new subject. It is trotted out from time to time, together with proportional representation and other nostrums which appeal particularly to those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. However, it has been thrashed out again and again in our history. So far, at any rate, it has not succeeded in establishing itself as a sensible variant to our constitutional system and its workings.
The reasons for this are fairly clear. It is very difficult indeed to relate a system of parliaments of a fixed length of time to a system under which the government of the day, if they lose the confidence of another place, either have to resign or appeal to the electorate for a new mandate. It is all very well to refer, as the noble Lord did, to the system in the United States, but there the presidency and headship of the government are the result of direct election from the
248
electorate. Any disagreement that may arise—as it often does—between the president and Congress cannot in any event produce the resignation of the president. The system is totally different.
I was interested when the noble Lord tried to cite the German precedent. He had to admit that under that system there was an escape clause if it proved politically to be impossible for the strict period of time to elapse for which the parliament was supposed to have been elected. The noble Lord now suggests that, come hell or high water, we should have a parliament elected for four years, regardless apparently of what happens during that period. I do not know why he believes that that would prevent anxiety about elections. On the contrary, surely it would mean that, as the date of the election was known years ahead, for quite a considerable time a general election would cast a shadow of uncertainty over the economy. However, under our system, with only limited notice given of the date of an election, that period—and I agree that it is not a period of great advantage to the economy—is much shorter. Therefore, the noble Lord's proposition would secure that the doubt and uncertainty preceding an election should operate for a considerably longer period than at present.
I come to the more important point of the working of the system. If there is a fixed four-year term for parliament, what happens if the government of the day are defeated on a question of confidence? Must the government resign, although they still have a majority in another place? Is somebody else supposed to take over the government as prime minister, with, ex hypothesi, no majority in another place and so in permanent minority? Surely that is a recipe for futile and ineffective government. It is the merit of our system that the government of the day have to secure and have to continue to secure the confidence of another place. If they lose it, they have the alternative of going back to the people and asking the electorate to restore them to power or of resigning and leaving it to Her Majesty to send for the leader of the next largest party. That is a far more flexible and effective system.
Then we ask your Lordships to consider, if we have a fixed duration for a parliament, what is to happen if the government of the day lose on major issues of confidence. One need not look at this solely theoretically. What would have happened in 1966 if, with their minute majority and all the difficulties they had to face, the Labour Government had not been free to appeal to the electorate for support? Whether or not one welcomes it, that appeal was granted. After the 1966 election, there was a government with full authority to govern and a full majority.
What would have been the situation in 1974 when Mr. Heath felt unable to stand against the onslaught of the miners and wished to appeal to the electorate? The fact that his appeal was not successful is surely the best possible evidence of the flexibility of our system. In a situation in which the government of the day face real difficulties and problems, an immediate appeal to the electorate was and is possible.
If we accept that the electorate is the body with ultimate authority, it seems to me extraordinarily

249
unwise and undemocratic to produce a system under which—whatever happens in parliament, politics or public affairs—that electorate is mute, helpless and can do nothing until the four-year period has elapsed. I can conceive of nothing more calculated to produce a breakdown in the system of parliamentary government.
That is why I personally regard the proposal so delightfully put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, as dangerous. Our system works with admirable flexibility. There is a major issue and Members of another place have to face the question of whether they will support the Government, whether they believe the Government are right in what they are doing, or whether Members are prepared to see a change of government and, very likely, a general election to support and secure that change.
That is what happened in 1966 and 1974. I shall not weary your Lordships by recapitulating other episodes of our history. It has happened throughout the whole working of our system. It occurred in 1911 when the original Parliament Act—to a certain extent that has been in our minds recently for other reasons—was passed. The Liberal government of the day properly dissolved Parliament and appealed to the electorate for support for their policy of reducing the powers of your Lordships' House. That was the right and constitutional way to proceed. They could not have had any justification for passing that Act unless they had obtained the assent of the electorate. A fixed four-year term would mean that one would eliminate entirely the possibility of the government of the day referring a contentious and important matter to the electorate for their decision.
The noble Lord discussed all kinds of difficulties which certainly occur in a pre-election period. However, I believe that those difficulties would occur to a greater extent if the election date were certain and if one knew months and months ahead that, for example, 10th October or 15th September were the election date. A pre-election situation would occur, not as the noble Lord suggested for a shorter time, but for a much longer time than under the present system because the election date would be universally known well in advance.
A system of a fixed four-year parliament where the parliament could not be changed during those four years would give us the worst of both worlds. Undoubtedly there would be more of the worry and uncertainty of a pre-election period and the government of the day would be denied the opportunity to appeal to the electorate for support for their policies. Above all, one would deny the electorate the right to be consulted and the right to decide major and contentious issues. With great respect I must say that I hope we shall hear no more of this discussion about parliamentary terms being fixed with absolute rigidity. I hope we shall appreciate the flexibility of our present system and appreciate that in this respect, as in so many others, it is a system of which we should be proud.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I support the Motion put forward so impressively by my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham. We have just heard a contrary view from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The noble Lord is well known to us as a compelling orator. In taking the opposite view he used all his skills of oratory. He made two points. I say with respect that I consider his first point totally invalid. He represented that my noble friend had not accepted that if, during a fixed term, a government were to lose a vote of confidence, that government could not continue in power. It was not my impression that my noble friend ever suggested that. Any government who lose the confidence of Members in another place would inevitably have to go to the people. There is no doubt about that, and I believe that that is what my noble friend said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as the noble Lord challenged me, I shall reply to him. I did not say that a defeated government would have to remain in power. I said that either the government would have to remain in power or the Opposition could take office without a majority. The noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, did not say that if a government were defeated, they would have the right to dissolve. I ask the noble Lord to deal with the following point. If that is now the story —although it was not the story of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham—what would be the position as regards elections? There would be an additional election. Does the four-year period run from that election or does the government run on for a couple of years, say, until the end of the original four-year term?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the latter point, I should say that if a new government were elected, they would run for their elected term which would be four or five years as agreed in the new arrangements. There is no question whatever: if any government were to lose a vote of confidence, that would be an occasion for turning to the electorate to test public opinion. That was the first point the noble Lord made.
Secondly, he said that the flexibility of our system has worked over the years and therefore we should continue with the present system. All I can say to that is that the time comes when one needs to learn from the experience of others. We may be the mother of parliaments—that is a wonderful role to have—but we have many children. There are many other parliaments which have adopted other systems. Who are we to say that the system adopted in Germany, France, Belgium or Holland, where fixed term Parliaments apply, is in any way inferior to our own? On the contrary, those countries have had more stable governments and more stable policies than we have had in recent years. They have benefited from that. We should look seriously at the proposition.
I wish particularly to consider the economic implications of our present system. Does the uncertainty created by our system of not knowing exactly when an election will be called—leaving aside the Question of lack of confidence—jeopardise the

251
economy and make its conduct less satisfactory? That is a perfectly fair and proper question to ask. The present position is that for at least a year before the term of a government expires, speculation begins and uncertainty is generated. While that may be of interest to the bookmakers, such uncertainty and speculation are of no interest whatever to business. Uncertainty weakens confidence and therefore business operations suffer. Worse still, it gives rise to all kinds of fanciful speculation. I draw your Lordships' attention to The Times of 16th May. On the first page of that esteemed newspaper a heading stated:
"Major ready to defer election to help Lamont".
That may or may not be true. We do not always have to believe what appears in the press. But it is extraordinary to discover that the newspaper also reported that Mr. Patten, the chairman of the Conservative Party, was said,
"to be keen to see early interest rate cuts to bring down mortgage payments and induce a feeling of economic wellbeing, so keeping open the option of an October election".
Those were two totally contrary propositions. A usually reliable newspaper informed us on the one hand that the Prime Minister supported the Chancellor in seeking to defer the election, but on the other hand informs us that the chairman of the party was keen to keep the option of an early election open. Who knows what validity any of those propositions contained? However, particularly since Sir Bernard Ingham has gone to press, we are familiar with the way non-attributable press briefings work in this country. It is difficult to believe that there was not some non-attributable press briefings which led to those reflections in an important newspaper.
I do not know whether it is right that we should be subjected—and that the business community in particular should be subjected—to these extreme uncertainties as regards the Government's economic policy. Economic policy is far too important to be manipulated a year or more ahead of an election. If we had a fixed date, everyone would know the date the Government were going to the polls, and every government approaching the end of their term would be justified in making their best efforts to persuade the electorate that they should be re-elected. That is the stuff of democracy. What is not necessarily the stuff of democracy is to have a number of false starts and a number. of uncertainties. Are the Government going to cut interest rates in order to have an early election, or are they going to listen to the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and defer interest rate cut s in order to strengthen the currency and go for a later election? What is the lesson to be learnt from that by business? What is it to do about its investments? Investment these days depends very much on the cost of money. Is the cost of money going to be made cheaper now or later? Will it be made cheaper now in order to have an early election or later in order to have a more distant election? That certainly does not seem to me to be the right way to run the business of the country.
If we had a fixed term, consistent policies could be pursued. Everybody would know when the election was to come, leaving aside Questions of confidence. The Government could organise their policies in such
252
a way—and they would be perfectly entitled to do so —as to achieve the maximum impact by the date of the election. Governments are, of course, human and in a democracy we would expect them to do everything they could to be re-elected. However, to have the opportunity of manipulating their policies in order to choose a propitious date in my opinion is no longer relevant to the way in which modern democracies are run. It is certainly not done on the Continent.
It is difficult to see who gains from the present situation. Governments do not necessarily gain. In recent history governments have made mistakes about the dates on which they have sought re-election. Certainly, business does not gain from the protracted uncertainty. I believe that the public become confused and eventually bored, which is not good for democracy.
To have a clear date on which the renewal of the people's mandate to the government of the country or a change of government is determined seems to me to overcome those basic uncertainties. Therefore, I very much hope that your Lordships will regard this as an opportunity seriously to review one of the aspects of our generally very satisfactory political system which may now have reached the time when it could, with advantage, be changed.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, two major points were made against the proposition of my noble friend by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The first was that the four or five-year period would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, described it, absolutely fixed. The noble Lord misunderstood my noble friend. That was never his suggestion. In fact he specifically denied that the four or five-year time was absolutely fixed. It could be changed if the Government lost a vote of confidence. It would then be open for Parliament to be dissolved and new elections held. The points were made well by my noble friend Lord Ezra, and I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Holme will return to the matter when he speaks again.
The second major point was that the period of uncertainty would be even longer if we had fixed terms than if we retained movable dates for general elections.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, since the noble Lord referred to my argument perhaps I may ask whether he is saying—as I did not understand his noble friend to say—that under the proposals the government of the day would retain the right to have a dissolution if defeated in the other place whether or not the four-year term was up. Was he saying that?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, no. Emphatically my noble friend did not say that the Prime Minister and the governing party should have that right. He said that Parliament should have that right. That is the point of what we are saying. We do not deny that we are taking away the privilege of the Prime Minister to decide such matters. We justify that on democratic grounds, on grounds of practicality and on the grounds of removing the uncertainties which my noble friend Lord Ezra mentioned.

253
The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made was that the period of uncertainty would be greater if there were four or five-year fixed terms. That argument cannot stand up. We do not for a moment deny that prior to a fixed-term election the parties will not resort to their party games. We are not so naive as that. If an election were required statutorily in October next we accept that Mr. Major would, as now, postpone awkward decisions, announce personally the banning of dangerous dogs and keep unpopular Ministers off television. We agree that all the things that are going on now would go on if there was a fixed term for an election. However, we say that the prime minister can only play that trick once during the period of a parliament. As the position now stands he can start playing those tricks in the first year of government, in the second year, in the third, fourth or fifth year of government. Research would probably show that over the years one-third or half of the period of a parliament has been marked by uncertainty caused by not knowing whether or not the prime minister is going to call an election.
Here I disagree slightly with my noble friend Lord Ezra. I think that it does pay the governing party to have an indeterminate date. It pays more now because of the greater accuracy and comprehensiveness of public opinion polls which register not only the present and future standing of the political parties but also the relative popularity or unpopularity of particular courses of action. Undoubtedly it pays.
It does not pay the opposition. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. It may be that the Labour Party will put a brave face on this, but the fact is that the system bears particularly hard on the chief opposition party. It must prepare for a general election not three or fourth months before a statutory date; it must prepare for a general election three or four months before practically any date in the calendar. It cannot afford to be taken by surprise.
We see the effect of that now. Issues such as health and education are not discussed on their merits but are treated simply as an election football with parties accusing each other of lying and so on. That reinforces the already widespread feeling that politicians and political parties are simply out for themselves and say and do things not for the public good but simply as a short-term exercise in an effort to improve their election prospects.
I find an extraordinary lack of arguments of substance against the proposal. The proportion of Conservative and Labour Members of this House who are prepared to speak against it in this debate is remarkably low. All honour, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. However, that limits somewhat the duties of those who are to wind up the debate.
I can think of three classes of people who gain from the present system. The first class has been referred to as the bookmakers who like to make a book on the date of the general election. There is a widespread
254
feeling, which I believe is shared in all parts of the House, that if misfortune is to fall upon anybody it might just as well fall upon the bookmakers.
The second class of person to gain from the present system are the political journalists. We should not assume that what the political journalists write about the possible date of a future general election is any more interesting or valuable than what they would have written about something else if we had fixed term parliaments. My view is rather the opposite. I think that what they write about the possible date of a future general election is even less valuable and interesting than what they write about other subjects.
The third class of people who profit are prime ministers. We must ask ourselves what chance there is of enacting any reform which prime ministers and governing parties think is not in their interests. The answer is that while they think that it is not in their interests, the reform will not be enacted. Water does not flow uphill, nor do governing parties support constitutional reforms that lead them to have fewer members in the other place.
What, then, can we do? There is good hope because the electors are already increasingly alerted to the truth. It is slowly entering the minds of thoughtful Conservative and Labour people that if they support the reforms—not only reforms regarding a fixed term but electoral reforms—instead of opposing them, that will help their ratings. I believe that before long we shall see the Labour Party, or the Tory Party, or both, seeing the light on those constitutional reforms. Better still, we shall see a government partly or wholly Liberal Democratic in nature and we shall then have a constitution which is fairer and more practical and democratic.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put a question to him. I do so because he indicated dissatisfaction with the interest being shown in the debate by Members sitting on this side of the House. I can assure him that I have listened with great attention to the arguments that he and his colleagues have put forward. They do not seem to me to hold water. I therefore feel bound to put this point to him. Once he admits that a parliament might be dissolved before the four years have expired, is he not arguing simply for a reduction in the period of a parliament from five years to four years? That is a perfectly reputable argument whether you agree with it or not because, if he remembers, one of his predecessors reduced it from seven years to five years.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I think that noble Lords who occupy that Bench have once again failed to understand the case put by my noble friend. We are not saying that a parliament should necessarily go for four or five years. We are saying that new elections should be held only with the positive support of parliament and not as a result of the tactical decision of the prime minister.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Motion refers to the practice in many other democracies. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that some countries have adopted

255
systems other than ours. They may be right and we may be wrong. Looking at research work which was undertaken in connection with lower chambers in other countries, we see that 25 have fixed periods of four years in office; 24 have fixed periods of five years in office; only four have a fixed three-year period; and two have a six-year period, but there are none longer than that.
Reference was made to one or two countries. Perhaps I may elaborate on that aspect. Countries with a statutory four-year term of office for their lower Chambers include Germany, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands and Spain. Those with a five-year term of office include France, Canada, India, Ireland, Luxembourg and Italy. I understand that most if not all of Close countries provide for an earlier dissolution should that be considered desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, rightly said that the position in the United States is different, but there are fixed terms for members of the Senate and for members of the House of Representatives. In so far as the executive president has to stand every four years, that is almost a fixed term too.
The Labour Party has not declared any straightforward Policy on this issue. Members on the other side of the House may smile, but we have clearly stated our policy review in a document of 88 pages. It was revised in March of this year to a document of 51 pages, taking changed circumstances into consideration. I mention those facts in order to indicate the care and attention that the Labour Party has exercised in this matter and the fact that it has put down its proposals in black and white so that people can see exactly what its future programme is. Without referring at length to recent arguments, there is no need for people to use unparliamentary language about Labour Party statements. I hope that no one will make such references to the documents produced by the Labour Party.
The Motion deals with one aspect of suggested democratic change. The Labour Party's document incorporates issues designed to develop democracy for the individual and the community. It includes proposals not for a Bill of rights, but for a charter of rights. A separate document of 16 pages is devoted to that important Question.
In addition, noble Lords are aware that the Labour Party has appointed a working party to look into the Question of electoral reform, of which I and my noble friend Lady Hollis are members. It has an open mind and will determine exactly what recommendations to make the Labour Party's National Executive Committee. I stress that point because, as I said earlier, the Labour Party has no declared view on the Question of fixed parliamentary terms. I have therefore been given complete freedom to present a personal view.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has done the House a service in bringing forward this matter For consideration. I am inclined to go towards the proposal for a fixed term, a view that is shared by quite a number of my colleagues. I shall endeavour to put the arguments for both sides.
256
Reference has been made to the MORI poll, an important poll in which people are clearly asked whether there should be a fixed parliamentary term, thus removing a government's power to choose the date of the election. If my memory serves me correctly, there were not 24 per cent. "Don't knows" but only 5 per cent. "Don't knows". I understand that 56 per cent. were quite definitely in favour of a fixed term. That is the view of a large number of respondents. Whatever one thinks about opinion polls, everyone recognises that MORI is an efficient and well-conducted polling organisation.
Only as recently as last Friday, there was a debate in the other place on constitutional reform which was opened by Mr. Archie Kirkwood. He gave details of the MORI poll on the state of the nation and referred to the fact that, as has been said, more than half the respondents were in favour of a fixed parliamentary term. Strangely enough, the debate took five hours —longer than we shall take this afternoon—and covered 82 columns. Save for the reference made by Mr. Kirkwood and for the speech made by my honourable friend Mr. Tony Banks, no other speaker referred to that important Question. The Minister spoke for 53 minutes, but he made no reference to that point. Mr. Banks reminded the other place that in February 1987 he introduced into Parliament a Private Member's Bill to provide for a fixed parliamentary term.
What are the arguments for change? First, the present system confers an undue and unnecessary power on the prime minister of the day. Secondly, it also confers a distinct advantage on the party in office. I acknowledge completely —so must anybody who thinks clearly about the matter and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does so—that with a fixed term parliament there must be provision for an election in the event of loss of confidence; that is to say, a vote of lack of confidence in the Government. There must be provision for an election if the country is in a state wherein Parliament finds it almost impossible to operate. However, it must be done by consent of the House of Commons, by resolution by the House of Commons and by nobody else.
As for opposition to any change, it is argued that in effect by virtue of the Parliament Act 1911 the United Kingdom already has fixed-term parliaments in that a parliament may not continue beyond five years. In practice most elections seem to be held in this country at four-yearly intervals. It is argued that to introduce a fixed parliamentary term would undoubtedly mean an increase in the amount and duration of electioneering. That was the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. My personal view, which is shared by a number of colleagues, is that even without a fixed parliamentary term there is already a substantial degree of electioneering. That intensifies until the government decide to call an election. We are going through a period of electioneering now and have been for some months.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the system works with admirable simplicity. For whom? I have been the national organiser of the Labour Party and because we were in opposition we

257
have not known when to spend money, not knowing how long we had to undertake a campaign. We had to ask: dare we fund a campaign over the next three months? We might find that no election was called and have to find money for another period of three months. The same thing will happen to the Conservative Party when it is in opposition, as it will be very shortly. The system works with simplicity if one is in government and can decide when to have an election and when to prepare for it. That is simplicity.
I do not believe that any prime minister solely should have the power to determine when there should be an election. I take that view not from any party political angle but considering the essence of democracy and the rights of Parliament. Why should the prime minister be able to decide on an election when he or she feels that it is the best time for his or her party? The prime minister in fact does not decide the matter alone; he or she discusses it with colleagues. Therefore a cabal decides when there will be an election and indeed when there will not be an election. The time may not be good for an election.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, says that mistakes may be made in preparing or not preparing for an election. But why should it be possible for economic and financial matters to be manipulated in order to assist such a decision? It is no good saying that these things do not happen and that there is no economic or financial manipulation. I have been in politics now for 61 years and I know that every party, including the Labour Party, will decide when is the best opportunity to have an election and if necessary will work towards that end. What is the best time not to have an election? Mistakes may occur when deciding that Question. Once past a certain point there is no return. This Government will find, when they have passed a certain point, that there will he no possibility of return. Therefore, everything will be done in a certain number of months to try to put right some of the terrible economic messes in the country and make some financial adjustments.
Reference was made to this issue in the leading article in Sunday's Observer. Rather than read just one sentence to the House, I should like to end my remarks by quoting the whole of one paragraph:
"Our present ramshackle electoral system, which allows a Prime Minister to call an election whenever it suits him within a five-year period, is an absurdity in a modern economy and looks more and more out of touch with democratic developments elsewhere in Europe. The case for fixed term parliaments, subject to a Government retaining the confidence of the House of Commons"
that is the important point—
"is a powerful one. If an election has to be held every four years, legislation could be progressed more efficiently".
That surely is a point that has not been made but which needs to be emphasised. It goes on:
"Whitehall, industry and the business community could plan ahead, and—no less important—the electoral field would be levelled. All this, alas, seems likely to remain wishful thinking until we have a Government committed to electoral reform".
I do not believe that this issue needs to be linked to electoral reform and proportional representation. It is an issue that needs to be considered on its own.
258
Speaking for myself, I hope that fixed-term parliaments will be introduced into this country at the earliest opportunity.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, this debate will linger in my memory if only for the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. He said that the Labour Party has not declared any straightforward policy on the issue. Not only on this issue. I humbly suggest.
We ought to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for having initiated what has turned out to be a short but very interesting debate. He will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with the conclusions that he has reached. I certainly do not believe that it is a very great mischief if people bet on the date of a general election. At the end of the day it depends on what is meant by fixed term parliaments. That is why it is quite difficult to follow some of the arguments advanced during the course of the afternoon. It is also the reason why I take with a pinch of salt the replies given to pollsters. I cannot believe for one moment that those who are asked whether they believe in fixed term parliaments understand all the niceties of the matter and all the distinctions which people have tried to draw today.
It could be said that Parliament has a fixed term under our present system, in the narrow sense that there is an upper limit beyond which a parliament may not run without a change in the law. Very few democracies have fixed term parliaments in the sense that there is no possibility of a dissolution before x number of years have expired, with no circumstances under which that term of years can be extended. Japan, Norway, the United States of America and possibly Switzerland are the only examples among Western or Western-syle democracies. Many other countries with what we would recognise as a democratic system of government make provision in their law or constitution for an early dissolution of their parliament or legislature in certain circumstances. Indeed, every single member of the European Community has a parliament with a fixed duration of four or five years; but earlier dissolution is possible in every single case, including Germany, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, acknowledged. The dissolution is usually effected by the head of state on the advice of the prime minister or head of the government, not because parliament itself decides that it wants to dissolve itself, as was suggested ought to be the case by the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Underhill.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to West Germany. Although he is quite correct to say that it is the president and head of state who grants the dissolution, the chancellor—in our terms the prime minister—has to put the proposition to a vote of the Bundestag that there should be an election. It is on that vote and that vote only that the matter goes forward to the president.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my understanding is that there can be a dissolution by the president if the Bundestag fails to elect a chancellor or if there is the

259
loss of a vote of confidence. But that is only one country among all the countries of Europe. In Austria, the parliament can be dissolved by the president. In Belgium, if the government have lost the confidence of parliament they can request the King for a dissolution. In Denmark, the monarch dissolves parliament on the advice of the prime minister of the day. In France, parliament can be dissolved by the president after consultation with the prime minister. In Greece, parliament can be dissolved by the president in circumstances where there is a loss of confidence in the government. In Ireland, the president can dissolve parliament on the advice of the prime minister of the day and has no power whatsoever to refuse to dissolve parliament when the prime minister so advises. Parliament is dissolved in Italy on the advice of the president. In the Netherlands, the monarch dissolves parliament it the two chambers are in conflict.
It is difficult to think of a single case which matches the formula that is being put forward from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Many countries allow their parliament to prolong its own life, but that, as with ourselves, is usually in wartime or in another national emergency.
The circumstances in which a parliament can dissolve itself or seek a dissolution by the head of state obviously vary from country to country. Most commonly perhaps early dissolution is allowed if the government lose a vote of no confidence. If I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Holme, correctly, this would be allowed under the system which he envisages.
However, it is not difficult to think of other circumstances in which an early dissolution of parliament would be desirable, if not essential, for the good of the country. It is quite conceivable, for example, for a government with a workable or even large majority to lose the confidence of the electorate or lose confidence in themselves and yet survive any vote in another place. There would justifiably be calls on all sides for such a government to resign and for a general election to be called. I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would be wrong for a parliament or government who are clearly dead in the water to be forced to linger on until their allotted term is at an end. That would be bad for the country and bad for democracy.
It is also conceivable that a general election may be desirable following a change of prime minister. The example of 1955 may be apt. Sir Anthony Eden sought a personal mandate at the 1955 general election after he had taken over from Sir Winston Churchill. The parliament elected in October 1951 had run for only three-and-a-half years. At the time it seemed only right that he should be able to go to the country, perhaps because he was taking over from such a dominant personality as Sir Winston and the new government were bound to be very different from the old. I cannot remember at that time that there was the slightest feeling in the country that it was wrong that Sir Anthony Eden should go to the country and seek a mandate of his own.
Lastly, it seems right that a government should be able to seek a dissolution if they find themselves or will
260
find themselves unable to govern effectively because they lack a majority. That is where we are bound to disagree most fervently with the case put forward from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, argues that a government in those circumstances should seek the co-operation of one or more of the other parties. However, I do not believe for one moment that the experience of the Lib/Lab pact is all that encouraging. Which really is better? Is it better for a government unable to govern to go to the country to try to obtain a new mandate or for the same government to spend their time fixing up deals in which the unfortunate electorate has no say whatsoever? In the same way they would have no say about which government were to be formed under a system of proportional representation, the whole issue being carved up behind closed doors by the party managers. I say this. The people not the parties should decide who governs.
I adopt the argument of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. There can be no merit whatsoever in rendering the electorate mute and helpless in a situation such as that created by the 1974 election. What conceivable benefit would have come to this country if after the February 1974 election Parliament had to try to form a series of shifting coalitions in order to keep that parliament alive?
I have set out some of the circumstances—there are no doubt others—in which a government should be able to call an early general election. They provide compelling reasons for the law not to say that a parliament must last for a fixed term. It could of course be argued that a system of fixed term parliaments could allow for earlier dissolution in a prescribed range of circumstances. That is what is being suggested by the Liberal Democrat Benches. If so, in what true sense could the term still be said to be fixed?
The fewer the number of exceptions to the fixed term rule, the greater the risk of keeping alive a parliament for no reason. The greater the number of exceptions, the more difficult it is to understand what on earth would be gained by introducing a fixed term in the first place. The system would not differ in reality from the one that we have at present. That is the dilemma.
No one is suggesting that there should be a fixed term parliament. Those on the Liberal Democrat Benches suggest that there should not be a fixed term parliament but fewer circumstances—they suggest a list of them—in which there could be a dissolution prior to the expiry of the five years. That is the difficulty. How long should the list be? It is difficult to compile. The longer the list, the less realism there is in the debate, because eventually one has an unnecessarily long list which makes a mockery of suggesting that one has a fixed term parliament system.
It has been suggested by noble Lords that our present system gives an unfair advantage to the governing party and that the power it has to dictate the date of dissolution leads to distortion of the economy and of the process of government in general. I do not deny that the ability to decide when a general election is to take place represents a significant tactical

261
advantage to the government of the day. However, I have noted that no opposition have ever sought to relinquish this advantage on coming to power themselves.
It is also true that governments tend to introduce unpopular measures early in their term of office and arrange their programme so that measures which are more likely to court popularity with the electorate come to fruition when a general election is in prospect. The introduction of fixed term parliaments would not change that. Indeed, it might make it easier for the government of the day to plan their legislative programme to their own electoral advantage if they knew with certainty when the next election would take place.
It is difficult to argue that any post-war general election has been timed primarily in order to catch the opposition unprepared. In every case impending dissolution has been well canvassed. In many if not all these cases of course the opposition were themselves pressing the government to go to the country.
It is then said that speculation and uncertainty about the timing of the next general election are inherent in the present system, with unnecessarily protracted electioneering by the political parties and harmful economic effects. I am not sure whether one can prove such harmful economic effects under our system as were suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. However, it is absolutely certain that a fixed term parliament would not in itself ensure stability and continuity of economic policy. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, under a fixed term system the possibility of the return of, say, a Labour Government could cast a baleful shadow over the economy for months before the fixed election date. Why should not a government be tempted to try to rig the economy, thereby endangering long-term economic prosperity, in order to have the maximum support when the fixed term ends? I find it difficult to accept the argument advanced by the noble Lord.
With regard to party electioneering, one has only to look at what happens in the United States, where the government's term of office is rigidly fixed. The American system is so different from our own that comparisons can be misleading, but campaigning there never seems to stop. Once one presidential election campaign is over, the parties prepare themselves for the next.
What it all amounts to is this. A strong system of fixed term parliaments, rigidly adhered to, would be undesirable. On the other hand, a weak system, incorporating numerous qualifications and exceptions, would differ little from the system that we have at present. That system, for all its defects, is the one which this Government, like those before them, prefer.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for the seriousness with which he has taken the debate. He will hardly expect me to agree with his conclusions. I also thank all other noble Lords who have taken part.
262
I was grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Mayhew and Lord Ezra. The comparative statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, were extremely helpful. Any sadness that I feel because the Labour Party have not yet embraced the policy of a fixed-term parliament is more than compensated for by the fact that the noble Lord and several of his noble friends informed us that they now support the concept of a fixed-term parliament. I hope that the contagion will spread rapidly through the noble Lord's party so that it too can support us on the reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the Leader of the House, raised a substantive point which I wish to clarify. We on these Benches propose fixed-term parliaments. However, if a parliament becomes unviable there should be an escape hatch. What should it be and how should it be triggered? Rather than repeating the debate, I say merely that it should be a last rather than a first resort. It should be possible only by an affirmative vote of Parliament so that the onus rests with Parliament and not with the prime minister of the day. That system works in West Germany where only once in 40 years has that exceptional circumstance been resorted to rather than being the stuff of everyday politics, as is the case in this country. Since the Second World War British parliaments have lasted on average for three and a half years against a theoretical maximum time of five years.
The subject is important and will not go away; we shall hear more about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Dangerous Dogs
4.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on dangerous dogs which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
"As we are all aware, there have been a number of recent attacks by dogs which have left their victims badly injured.
The first of these was the horrific attack on 8th May by two pit bull terriers on Mr. Frank Tempest, which has left him with severe facial and other injuries. The second was an attack on a two year-old child by a pit bull terrier owned by her grandparents. The third incident, which took place last Saturday, left a six year-old Bradford girl, Rukhsana Khan, very seriously injured. The whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of these dreadful attacks and our wishes for their recovery.
"These most recent attacks were of a different degree of seriousness altogether than the great majority of dog-biting incidents.
"All three were carried out by American pit bull terriers. The American pit bull terrier is a

263
cross-breed dog, specifically bred for fighting and, in many cases, trained to be aggressive. As has been tragically shown, it is capable of vicious and sustained assault without warning or provocation. Once a pit bull terrier has started an attack, it has been shown to be impossible for full-grown adults to prevent the dog from causing horrific injuries.
"The public are increasingly concerned about attacks by these vicious dogs and are entitled to look to the Government to take action to tackle the problem. I have therefore decided to bring before the House as soon as possible this Session legislation which will ban the breeding and ownership of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred especially for fighting. Also included in the ban will be the Japanese Tosa, a dog bred for fighting which, apparently, can weigh up to 17 stone.
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, we have taken action to ban the import of these dogs as from midnight last night.
"I emphasise that the ban will initially apply only to these breeds of fighting dogs, but it is clearly important to prevent new and dangerous breeds coming in to replace dogs which have been banned from domestic ownership. The legislation will therefore include powers to add other types of fighting dogs to those which are banned.
"It is essential to rid the country of the danger from such dogs. As my right honourable friend said in the House yesterday, they have no place in our homes.
"Owners of these fighting dogs may be able to return them to their country of origin.
"It has been put to me that it would be possible to make these dogs safe by neutering them. I am advised that this policy is unlikely to be effective. I am ready to consider further evidence on this point with experts, including the veterinary profession. If that will not be effective, the ban on dogs bred for fighting will mean, sadly, that these types of dogs have to put down.
"The RSPCA and the veterinary profession have also suggested that there could be some specific and very tightly drawn exemptions to the ban and I will be considering that suggestion. I am also considering the question of compensation for owners whose dogs are destroyed.
"There were many attacks by dogs last year. The types of dogs responsible for these attacks are numerous, and include breeds such as alsatians, Rottweilers. terriers and collies. Many of these attacks, unfortunately, can be laid at the door of irresponsible owners. The Government have always recognised this. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 made the law to control dogs more effective. Courts can now guarantee the destruction of any dog which has shown itself to be dangerous and, as a result, they are quickly put down. That is an important step forward.
"Last year the Government issued a consultation paper on the control of dogs and proposed a number of measures to bring about the safer control of dogs and powers to penalise the
264
irresponsible owner. The response to the consultation paper shows an encouraging measure of support for such action.
"This includes a tougher criminal offence to penalise dog owners, whatever the breed, who fail to keep their dogs safely under control in public, as well as a power to allow a court to specify the control of a particular dog of any type. This could include muzzling.
"The right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House yesterday that the Opposition would co-operate in getting such measures onto the statute book as quickly as possible. I hope the right honourable gentleman will confirm that in his response today.
"Dogs, Mr. Speaker, can provide companionship, friendship and comfort. But there is a clear distinction in the public's mind between the domestic pet and a dog bred to fight and kill. I hope that our proposals to ban these most dangerous of dogs will therefore command the full support of the House and pass quickly into law."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the statement.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches associate ourselves with the sympathy which the Minister expressed for the victims of the horrific attacks. We wish them a speedy recovery and extend that sympathy to their families.
We support the measures outlined by the Minister this afternoon. They are necessary in order to protect members of the public, in particular children, from attacks by such vicious dogs. However, I must ask the Minister yet again why the Government are resisting the all-round pressure to set up a compulsory registration scheme for all dogs.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Does the Minister agree that the task of destroying a large number of fighting dogs, if that becomes necessary, will be made a great deal more difficult in the absence of a dog registration scheme? How will the Government identify such dogs and their owners? Will the Minister elaborate on how the venture which the Government are rightly introducing will be facilitated without the framework of a dog registration scheme? Is the Minister able to inform the House of the latest estimate of pit bull terriers, Tosas and Rottweilers in this country? Perhaps he can also say under what timescale owners will be required to dispose of their dogs.
Will the Government plug the loopholes in the present law which allow those owners who have their dogs put down immediately after an incident to escape prosecution? Will the law be changed by the measures which the Minister has brought forward?
We entirely agree that something has to be done about those dogs which are trained as fighting dogs and which do not have it in their make-up to be

265
friendly to a child or adult. They are not pets. They should not be allowed to mingle with the public as they do at present.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Statement, may I join him in expressing deep regret that children have been hurt. The reason, I believe, why the Statement has been made now, and why it was not made months ago when other children were savaged by dogs, is that on this occasion a photograph appeared in a number of tabloid newspapers demonstrating the scale of the injuries. That is why legislation is to be introduced.
I do not believe it sensible, following a Statement of this sort, to respond in detail to every proposal that the Government are making. After all, the Government have had several days to consider what to do: some of us will want to consider the matter also for a number of days before coming to a final conclusion on the proposals. Quite apart from anything else they are not in final form.
In the Statement the noble Lord indicated a number of matters on which the Home Secretary has not made a final decision—the question of compensation and the question of tightly drawn exemptions, as they are described. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell us when the Bill will be presented.
At first glance it seems that one of the most urgent matters, apart from the question of imports on which the Government have rightly taken immediate action, is the crucial question of the owners, not of the dogs specified this afternoon but of the other dogs such as alsations which also attack children and cause horrific injuries. It seems clear that the criminal penalties involved should be increased, and some form of third party insurance should be considered so far as the owners of all dogs are concerned.
On the substance of the measures announced, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, in saying that the Government have adopted an extraordinarily rigid view in the past on the question of a dog registration scheme. If the view of this House had prevailed, we would have had dog wardens in the streets and some of these attacks would not have taken place. It is as simple as that.
In conclusion, there are slightly ominous words in the Statement about the co-operation of the Opposition. We shall do everything we can to ensure that the legislation is discussed seriously in this House. I hope however that we will not be presented with the suggestion that the legislation should be put through in one day or two days. The fact is that when we had a previous piece of legislation dealing with alcohol at sports grounds—not one of the most sensible pieces of legislation presented to us—we were asked first to do this in a single day. Only as a result of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did the Government retreat from that position and agree to more time.
All I am asking of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the government business managers, is an indication that this House will have a proper opportunity of discussing this matter with a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage, if necessary, and a
266
Third Reading, and that we will not be presented with the suggestion that anyone who insists on detailed consideration of the Bill is in some way trying to prevent it reaching the statute book.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful at least to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for implying that they will be supporting the legislation when it is brought before this House. If I may take up immediately a Question on which we are bound to differ—the Question of registration—I do not believe that registration would make dangerous dogs any less dangerous. The justification for a registration scheme is that it enables one to trace dogs. But in the last three incidents, there was no difficulty in tracing the owners. Therefore registration would not in this case have added anything to the situation.
I recognise that there are strong views on the subject of registration. However, I hope that that issue will not sidetrack us from the problem that we face now, which is how to get rid of fighting dogs that are in the country. That is not a matter which now can be advanced by a registration scheme.
The noble Baroness asked whether there was to be a period of grace when the legislation was introduced. Obviously there will be a period of time to allow pit bull terrier owners to bring in their dogs for putting down. The noble Baroness also asked me about the numbers. We do not have exact numbers. We are talking of between 3,000 and 10,000 pit bull terriers on the best estimate. To put that in context, it should be borne in mind that the RSPCA destroys some 40,000 dogs a year. So far as Tosa dogs are concerned, so far as I know there is only one such dog in the country but that is no cause for complacency. They are large and dangerous dogs, and we know from experience of pit bull terriers that the numbers of fighting dogs can multiply very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, raised a point about other dogs which will not be covered by the legislation but which may nevertheless cause bad injuries. There is a clear distinction between dogs which are bred to fight and those which, if not adequately controlled, can be dangerous but are not bred for fighting purposes. Responsible organisations, such as the RSPCA and the Kennel Club, who support a ban on the ownership of pit bulls, would not support a ban on Rottweilers which are a recognised breed of dog. We are not convinced that Rottweilers fall into the same category of unpredictable viciousness as the pit bull terrier. But we recognise the concern, and that is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has proposed a power to allow courts to impose a muzzling order on a dog of any type which they judge potentially or actually dangerous.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I have a reply to the question I put about the amount of time that will be available in this House to discuss the legislation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me about the promised legislation. All I can say is that it

267
will be introduced after the Whitsun recess. I cannot answer now any of the other questions which the noble Lord has raised.
4.49 p m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the length of time frittered away last year on this subject through indecision and dilatoriness? Does he recall the debates we had on the protec:ion of the environment Bill? Does he recall what this House decided on registration? Does he recall ..what happened in another place on the same subject? Does he recall the crisis that occurred just before the Christmas recess when the Government were trying yet again to resist the views of this House?
Why is it that this shocking record of indecision and shiftiness on dogs should be brought to this kind of culmination? Why are the Government waiting to be pushed? Do the Government realise that I produced a report on dogs in society 16 years ago, which was followed by an inter-departmental committee on the same subject? Nothing has been done about what we said at that time, and now it is panic stations. The Government are up against it. There have been grievous and dreadful incidents. The Government are now going to determine the whole policy towards dogs. Does the noble Lord not think it a great shame that the Government themselves have built up an anti-dog ethos in the community which seriously prejudices our approach to legislation on this matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there is certainly no anti-dog ethos within the Government. The Government have had to take unpalatable action but we believe that it has been made necessary by the tragic events seen recently. Perhaps I may add to what I said previously to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, with regard to the legislation. We have no plans to rush it through in one day.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will my noble friend congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the Statement which has just been repeated? Will any legislation be extended to include a definition of owner responsibility as regards these dugs and any potentially dangerous dogs? Will he urge my right honourable friend the Home Secretary not to introduce legislation which is either unenforceable or which makes it so expensive that poorer members of the community and elderly persons will not be able to afford to keep dogs?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend makes wise cautionary remarks which I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister not accept that the prospect of paying compensation to the morons who have created this problem will receive very little support from many people? Will he not further accept that the distinction between pit bull terriers and other dogs is fallacious? All large dogs are potentially lethal. The problem lies not with the dogs but wits the breeders and owners of the dogs. Would it not be more efficacious to direct very severe
268
penalties at those people who demonstrate their inability to control the animals they own and any persons connected in any way with activities involving any form of dog fighting?
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord Reay: My Lords, I note the remarks of the noble Lord regarding compensation and the noises of support which he received from other quarters of the House. No estimate has been made of the amount of compensation involved. That is a Question which my right honourable friend is considering. He recognises that some people may have bought the dogs in good faith however one may Question their judgment in doing so.
We are not impressed by the argument that the dogs may be worth a lot of money. Much of that is due solely to their value as fighting dogs—an illegal and thoroughly deplorable activity.
Definition is not easy. Cross-breeds are very difficult to define scientifically or legally. My right honourable friend has consulted experts about definitions and plans to specify in the ban the type of dog commonly known as the pit bull terrier and the Japanese Tosa together with other dogs which appear to have been bred for fighting. That is the essential characteristic which they must have. Those definitions make sense to the layman. There are bound to be cases where there is doubt about a breed of dog but much will depend on the common sense of the police and the courts in enforcing the law. My right honourable friend will be given power by the Bill to change those definitions.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I compliment the Government on the Statement apart from the compensation aspect. I hope that the Government will not be influenced by some of the discussions which I heard on the radio this morning about how sad it will be to destroy such dogs bearing in mind that every year we destroy thousands of innocent dogs which end up in Battersea Dogs' Home. The dogs under discussion should never have been in this country. When did the law change so that people in council flats are permitted to keep, perhaps, three dangerous dogs? When I was on the local authority people in flats were not permitted to keep cats, which are fairly harmless. When did the law change? We must take action. Monetary compensation can never compensate the mother of that child. The child will be scarred and terrified for life.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her unequivocal support for the Government's present course of action. She is right that the animals are unpredictable fighting dogs and potential killers. Three people have been seriously injured. According to their doctors, they are lucky to be alive. The Government believe, therefore, that they must act on that situation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend take on board that the tight definition of "fighting dogs" may not be wholly satisfactory to deal with the substance of the evil; for example, the

269
exclusion of Rottweilers and other dogs? In Germany owners of such dogs are subject to compulsory insurance so that if the dog causes damage medical fees and so on are paid for. This is not the time to go into detail. However, I ask the Government to take on board that the tight definition of a "fighting dog" bred for fighting will not dispose of the danger to children.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I dealt with that when I referred to the action which it will be possible to take in regard to dogs other than fighting dogs to which the ban applies. I agree with my noble friend that the Question of definition is not easy in this sphere. We believe that we have found the right definition in the circumstances.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the Government settle all the details, will they bear in mind the probability that quite a number of owners of pit bull terriers will, before D-day, take their dogs 10 miles away, push them out of the car and lose them? They will thereby leave them free to savage children in another locality. Will the Government consider whether there is a way of reducing the danger which may be caused by that probability.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that would be an act of criminal irresponsibility. For that very reason my right honourable friend is making it a criminal offence to permit a banned dog to stray. Those who act in that way would risk going to prison and would thoroughly deserve to do so.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, did the noble Lord hear a police officer on the radio this morning say that the biggest problem is that if a dog is put down immediately after it has savaged a person, the owner cannot then be charged with any offence? Surely if an owner has been in charge of a dog which has done these terrible things, he should be charged as if the dog had not been put down at a certain time.
Lord Reay: My Lords, that is a matter for the police.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, surely it is a matter for the law.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises a matter which will have to be considered when the Bill is before the House.

Inner Cities: Neglect
4.57 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear rose to call attention to the social and economic consequences of the continuing neglect of the inner cities, and the need for new policies based on partnership between public, private and voluntary sectors to promote regeneration; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may say how delighted and honoured I am that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has
270
chosen this debate on which to make his maiden speech and how much we all look forward to benefiting from his remarks to us.
Throughout history and across the globe, people have voted with their feet in favour of cities. They are attracted to the bright lights and to the possibilities of interesting living. Indeed, the word "city" links with our idea of civilisation. Throughout time the greatest developments of the human spirit have come from cities. One can think of the names of great cities: Alexandria, Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, Vienna, Paris and even London. Civilisation has developed in those places and people have rejoiced in the benefits which have come from it. It should still be the same today. Cities are intrinsically good places in which to live.
That makes it all the worse that today we are talking about our inner cities as serious problems. No part of a city should be a problem. Yet it is undoubtedly true that that is what inner cities are. We need to do something urgently. I am not denying that over the past 10 years, when we first started talking about the problems of the inner cities, a number of initiatives have been taken and attempts launched to deal with the problems. The attempts have been so numerous that it would be impossible to mention them all this afternoon. In many cases they have not been particularly well co-ordinated. Quite a lot of money has been put into the schemes and a large number of well-meaning people have attempted to improve conditions.
I am not denying that progress has been made in some places: there has been progress. Nonetheless, the outcome of all the work that has been done recently has left us still with an acute problem inside the inner cities. Today, just as 10 years ago—I am not trying to produce exact and comparable figures because they do not exist—unemployment in the inner cities is far higher than in the country as a whole. Homelessness and deplorable standards of housing are far worse in the inner cities than in the country as a whole. Crime rates are far higher. In the great majority of cases educational opportunities for children born in inner cities are far inferior to those for children in the rest of the country. That cannot be a record of which we can be proud if we are claiming that we have attempted to do something about the problem over the last 10 years.
Some of the inner cities have reached such a deplorable state that, as an internationally known expert on the subject put it not long ago, they are places where the Rottweilers go around in pairs. That being so, surely we have to accept that new initiatives are required if we are to break out of this tragic and despicable situation.
The debate is timely, for we read only this morning that the Government are launching, I believe tomorrow, a new inner city initiative. We do not know yet what it will contain. No doubt the articles and the information of which we have been informed have pressed the Government and convinced them that further action is now necessary. We look forward with great expectation and modified hope that what the Government will now bring forward will produce better results than we have had in the past. One must

271
continue to hope. I notice that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench shake their head. But one must never give up hope.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Wait and see.
Bareness Seear: We need to learn from the experience of the past 10 years. It is absolutely essential that any developments in the inner cities and any attempts to improve the position must be based on the understanding that the people resident there have to support the efforts. They have to feel that the developments are what they themselves want and are prepared to support, that their ideas and proposals are seriously considered and that they are directly and personally involved in any changes. Surely that is one of the lessons we have learnt—namely, that anything which is imposed from the outside, even with nominal consultation and some degree of nominal agreement, is not the same as finding ways in which people living in the areas can themselves say what they want done and participate in seeing that it is done.
We also have to recognise that the policy of trickle-down simply has not worked; the idea that, if the rest of the community improves and has a higher standard of living, growth rates get better and prosperity grows, somehow or other out of that will come comparable improvements in the inner city areas. That has not happened. It is part of the over-simplification of the market theory that it can just be left to the market, ignoring the many obstacles that stop the market working, apart from anything else. That policy stops the market having the results that we wish for in the inner cities. Let us abandon any idea that the problems can be left to the policy of trickle-down.
If that is so, it means that there must be organised and accepted ways of channelling more resources into the inner cities to be used in a way which is acceptable and approved by the people in those areas. The need for more resources is inevitable. It cannot be said that it can be left alone and that developments will nevertheless follow if special action is not taken. Special action has to be taken.
It will be said that such action has been taken in the past. Up to a point that is so, but not successfully. We need organised local development agencies in order to supervise and channel the resources that can be made available for the development of the inner cities. They should be along the lines of what is available in Scotland and Wales for development in those larger regions. An organisation of that kind is necessary if the inner cities are to recover.
The organisation must concern itself with the much more successful development of the partnership which we all talk about as being essential and to which we all pay lip service—the partnership between the statutory, private and voluntary sectors. They must work together under the direction of a development agency in order to resurrect the inner cities. They must work closely with organisations that already exist in the inner cities, particularly those which have been set up by he people who live in them. I also suggest
272
neighbourhood councils of one kind or another which can be connected to the work of development agencies.
There has to be a real partnership. That has not existed in the past. If partnership means anything, the partners have to be able to trust each other. All the partners should be consulted, including the private and voluntary sectors, whether they really have trust in the partnership with the public sector at the present time. Often the greatest difficulty experienced by the private and voluntary sectors is in knowing which government department they can go to and on whose word they can rely. A one-stop shop in the government departments would be tremendously helpful. At present one department gives one story, the inquiry is passed on to another and one does not know where one stands in trying to get a scheme going.
Even more important is this. When there is support from a government department and from the statutory sector, it is necessary to know that it will continue for a reasonable period of time, and a reasonable period of time is not just 12 months. No private sector body or voluntary organisation can pursue plans satisfactorily if at the end of 12 months, or even before that, it cannot be sure that the resources will be renewed. That has been the situation again and again. Long-term contracts are needed, backed by government departments on which reliance can be placed. I know that other speakers today will go into more detail about the position of the private sector.
I wish to speak in particular about the voluntary sector in relation to the inner cities. Short-term contracts have wrought havoc with that sector. If one is to be successful in the inner cities one has to use the voluntary sector, just as the Government have recognised that they have to use non-governmental organisations in overseas work. I refer in particular to the parts of the voluntary sector rooted in the inner cities which are doing work of special importance to the inner cities.
One area of particular importance is the provision of training of the kind that is needed for disadvantaged people in inner city areas. In proportion to other parts of the country, inner cities are heavily loaded with people who in one way or another are disadvantaged: disadvantaged members of ethnic minorities; disadvantaged because of physical disabilities; or disadvantaged because of social disabilities. Those people need special help with training because without training they cannot get jobs and as long as they stay in the inner cities they will be a burden on that area rather than helping in its further development.
However, the voluntary sector organisations which have been providing training—NACRO, APEX and the Rathbone Society —have all had their resources so cut back that they have had to decimate (perhaps that is an exaggeration) or in many cases have had to reduce by half, the people whom they employ to do this work. The schemes that they have launched and which have been working satisfactorily have had to close. That is no way to develop the inner cities. If we accept this collaboration, this partnership, it must be

273
on a long-term basis which can be sustained and which will survive and where all the partners have confidence each in the other. That, frankly, does not exist at the present time.
I am especially asking the Government to look at the position of the voluntary organisations and the work that they are doing in the inner cities. Perhaps it is not too late to reverse the damage that has been done by the cut-back in resources to those organisations. If they mean business with the inner cities they must mean business with the voluntary organisations. That is the major line of advance if we are to get anywhere in the regeneration of the inner cities.
I have talked about special schemes which have to be introduced to help revive the inner cities. These ought only to be temporary arrangements. Our main objective must be to develop inner cities so that they again become—and I mean again—places where people want to live: people from all sectors of the community and of all levels of income and interest. Then there will again be various rich communities in those areas which will provide the finance—a great deal. depends on money—and the leadership to make those cities again a delight to live in. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.12 p.m.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has drawn attention in her persuasive speech to the serious needs of the inner city. Her command of the facts and her passion in presenting them provide a lesson for any preacher, and I have great admiration for her. As she has already shown, the problems in our inner cities are vast and growing. I feel a passion for this subject since I am a product of the inner city and feel a deep commitment to it. I inherit from my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, a continuing concern to follow up the report Faith in the City which he commissioned. But even more than that, I want to affirm the sheer presence of the Church in the areas we are talking about, the day-by-day ministry of the clergy and their congregations, whose loyalty to their communities and to God bring hope to places which are otherwise depressing.
A day or so after my enthronement at Canterbury just a month ago, one of my family heard the service referred to as the Archbishop's "entombment". I was rather attracted by that description, for Christian ministry must involve cost and death if the hope of resurrection is ever to be preached. But too many people in our inner cities and outer housing estates often feel entombed, trapped in a downward cycle of poverty and deprivation which they seem unable to stop, and which soon leads to life being drained from them. Deprivation leads to lethargy and despair and no Christian can be content with that.
All of us here in this Chamber today share that discontent. In dealing with it I find myself attracted to two words in the Motion of the noble Baroness—partnership and regeneration. Indeed, she has already charted out the direction of my speech. It is right to see
274
any solution to this problem in terms of partnership. In this I promise the full co-operation of my Church. We are there on the ground, sometimes struggling, but not giving up even when the going gets difficult. There has been a shift of resources to help our ministry in recent years through the projects—there are now more than 360 of them—established with the help of the Church Urban Fund.
In these projects central government, local government, ecumenical bodies, voluntary societies and business all co-operate with the local church. These are local initiatives given wider backing to encourage hope in the city. Let me give noble Lords a few examples: there is a drop-in centre for homeless families in North London which cares mainly for Bengali mothers; there has been help in Liverpool for an enterprising church which has opened 10 workshops for small businesses; there is a community kitchen in Rochdale to give heart to an estate bereft of facilities for communal care. One clergyman living on a large housing estate wrote to me:
"We are a small and fairly impoverished congregation ministering in the midst of a large council estate which is slowly but surely going down the hill. The estate has few community resources; the local council has no money to invest in the area …part of our gospel for our community is to say that this is not a hopeless situation and to work with others in the community to prove this. And we are successful. We have recently been able to appoint a youth and community worker, partly funded by the Church Urban Fund. Here is very real and tangible evidence of our concern for our community—indeed the concern of a wider Church of England".
I could go on with other illustrations. None of these many projects does anything but add to our basic commitment to share our faith with others. Indeed, some of them are overtly evangelistic, and all of them exist because of our faith and are a demonstration of it.
All this is good, but none of it can replace the commitment of central government to urban regeneration. There is encouragement in recent government initiatives to alleviate the problem of, for example, single homeless people. Three other examples spring to mind—the "empty property" project which has assisted many other homeless families; the work done by the inner city task forces; and the improvement in people's sense of security which I hope will be brought about by the safer cities initiative. I understand, as the noble Baroness has already said, that tomorrow we will learn of a further initiative in which central government funding will give resources to local authorities towards the most imaginative schemes for urban renewal. I await the details with interest, but this appears to be a move in the right direction of sound and constructive partnership, and that I welcome.
The problems, however, are huge so we have to work together. Recently a colleague informed me of the threatened closure of four important community projects in his district—a Bangladeshi advice centre, an urban farm, a neighbourhood centre and a lively youth club. The loss to that deprived district of these voluntary sector activities is most damaging. It is in just such projects that local pride can be revived. Cut backs can be explained in terms of central government

275
or local government policies, but for the people on the ground cuts are cuts by whatever name and their sense of powerlessness is sadly reinforced.
I am aware that the success of any partnership is inextricably linked with the prosperity of our nation. We have to support enterprise, both economic and social. There is a link between the economic success of our country and the needs of the inner city. However, I want to suggest—and the noble Baroness has already charted this course for me—that in my view the trickle-down theory that the inner cities will benefit from generally increasing prosperity is unsatisfactory. It suggests that the working people of our inner cities are only beneficiaries and not creators of wealth. That is not true. And it has the weakness of suggesting that we do not need a strategy and policy for resourcing our urban priority areas. I submit that we do. The partner ship for which I am calling, and on which I am sure we are all agreed, requires a commitment all round to resource, properly and fairly, local government and voluntary sector initiatives in our inner cities and outer estates.
A second word in the Motion, regeneration, attracts me too because it suggests that we need to work towards a vision for the inner cities. Why should we accept the idea of "the soullessness of the city?" And yet it is so easy to see why such a term comes quickly to our lips because of the depressing surroundings we often meet in the city and the sense of hopelessness and futility we find there. Last week I visited one of our many inner city primary schools, less than a mile from this House. It was a joy to see the bright faces of the children, black and white together. There was such potential and life within them. I was visiting to launch a project called Growing in the City, part of the Church Urban Fund. There might not be many trees or plants in the inner city, but people are certainly growing there—but to what end; what vision is there to inspire them?
Noble Lords may recall that Winston Churchill once referred to our great institutions and buildings as "lengthened shadows of man". He was drawing attention to the spirituality, the sense of dignity and worth given to the spirit of human kind—the sort of thing, I want to suggest, expressed in this fine building, in the traditions of this House and in its history. It may be lard to find poetry, beauty and art in the inner city at the present moment, but the potential is there in our people. We do not have to look far below the graffiti, the squalor and the sense of hopelessness to find courage, dignity and human worth.
It is for that very reason that it is important to stress the need for well directed policies both from the public and the private sectors. The conditions of our urban environment must remain a priority of government policy if the deterioration we see all around us is to be arrested. Any vision will inevitably include the inter-relatedness of our society. We are our brother's and sister's keepers; our society is linked by our persona relationships. We separate at our peril urban, suburban and rural communities because a society like ours can never have any of its parts existing alone without detriment to the rest. Whether we like it or not, those who suffer the trauma of unemployment,
276
homelessness and inadequate facilities are our fellow citizens and they suffer because we have yet to recover a vision for our society which includes them.
Last week, as I arrived at that school in Lambeth, a colleague was taking my robes into a classroom when one of the little children asked him very innocently, "Has God arrived yet, sir?" I am finding such expectations very difficult to meet. But when I heard that, the thought rushed quickly into my mind, "God is already there". Christians always have hope for the city because God is always found in the people.
As I conclude my maiden speech in this House, I want to leave your Lordships with an analogy which I find in our common Bible. The first picture one sees in the Bible is one familiar to us; it is that of humankind in a garden, the epitome of rustic peace, contentment and retirement. Its final picture in the Revelation of St. John is that of a city, the city of God —a city where the spiritual, economic and artistic values of human beings are focused in a single vision. That vision may elude our grasp in this world—it is a vision of the heavenly city—but it may be an encouragement to us all to aim as high as possible. Yes, the challenge is daunting, but partnership is surely the path to regeneration and the way to build a society to which all are privileged to belong and in which all may share its resources.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Joseph: My Lords, I rise with diffidence to speak after the most reverend Primate. I am from the other wing of what is called the Judaeo-Christian culture. There are a few differences in our beliefs—they are few but important—but there is a huge number of beliefs which we share. That is why I feel entitled on behalf of the House to congratulate the most reverend Primate on his maiden speech. Even he, with his charm and with his apparent ease of manner, may have been daunted by addressing this House for the first time—most of us in this House were certainly daunted—but he gave no impression of flinching. He spoke with ease, simply and sincerely. I am sure that the whole House can agree with what he said.
I want in particular to agree that the Church has an enormous part to play in the regeneration of the inner city and indeed in regeneration more widely. I was especially glad to welcome his acceptance of the link between the revival of the poorer parts of the country and national prosperity. However, I wish to argue—I hope that the most reverend Primate will allow me to do so—that sometimes an opinion leader has to say things that are not altogether fashionable if they are to achieve what are undoubtedly his sincere purposes.
Among the unfashionable things that need to be said is, for instance, that international competitiveness is necessary for this country—inner city and everywhere else—if we are to have jobs, let alone prosperity and decent public and social services. At the heart of international profitable competitiveness is rising productivity. There is enormous scope for more productivity. That means good management, not just slogging hard work. There is also the need to recognise that, while some single women embark on bringing children into this world rationally after assessing the

277
consequences, some perhaps do not assess the consequences for them. It may be necessary, though unfashionable, for opinion leaders to urge them to take into account the implications for them and their children of embarking prematurely upon the glory of childbirth rather than waiting until conditions are more favourable. The most reverend Primate spoke with sympathy of single parent households, but some of them may need advice before embarking on that condition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke, as always, with sincerity and with knowledge of the subject. I am glad that she recognised the efforts that have been made over the past decade. Of course there is more to be done. The noble Baroness wanted active involvement by residents. Indeed it would be very desirable, as the most reverend Primate emphasised too. But we all remember what happened when Lyndon Johnson, in his great crusade for the cities in America, tried to secure that active participation. Senator Dan Moynihan wrote a book in which he recognised that Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding had resulted. Active participation is an aspiration devoutly to be wished but it is difficult to achieve.
I wish to recommend to your Lordships who are interested in this subject the report of the Economic and Social Research Council, published in 1981 by that very sensible man, Professor Peter Hall. He and his committee did not identify unique sets of problems that distinguished the inner city. He said that the inner city suffers no more poverty, no more unemployment and no larger numbers of single parent families than many other parts of the country. He was telling us that conditions in the inner city very largely reproduce national conditions. If we are to cure the inner city, we may find that we shall have to tackle the same conditions throughout the country. If noble Lords wish to read that section, they will find it on page 132 of the report. I recommend them to read it.
In the report, Professor Hall very healthily reminds us that in the mid-19th century the inner city was also at the top of the agenda. At that time, the inner city was even more appalling than we picture it now. Those of us who have seen the Gustave Doré prints of the time have a vivid picture of what it must have been like. It was overcrowded and full of intense poverty and wretchedness. However, those inner cities were magnets to the world. For example, in the 1840s Irish peasants poured into Liverpool and Manchester—appalling though conditions were—to escape the famine in Ireland. Essex farm labourers swarmed into London after the agricultural depression of the 1870s, and the Jews, who were received by this noble country after fleeing from Russian persecution in the 1890s, poured into East London.
In those days, inner cities were places of opportunity. They were seed beds of enterprise, innovation and self-improvement. They were intensely competitive. Indeed, there were ladders for those who wished to strive for self-improvement. They were centres of hope; they were not centres of despair, even though there was great wretchedness. These days inner cities are much less crowded, they are less
278
wretched and less poor. There are still ladders, but enterprise and innovation have faltered. Moreover, for worse or better—as surely all of us in this House want to see other countries escape from poverty—there are more formidable competitors overseas than there were in the 19th century.
I should point out at this stage that present conditions make things worse. The House knows that a misjudgment in the late 1980s, when the growing boom was not recognised and moderated early enough, led to a re-ignition of inflation and the need for the high interest rates and, alas, the recession which the Government had to introduce in order to abate inflation. Of course, that makes conditions harder; but it is necessary if we are to return to the earlier state of improving prosperity.
The inner city about which we are talking with understandable gloom today was described in the 18th century by the analyst David Donnison, whom I believe Members on all sides of the House can respect, as "the Good City". I am not confusing that with the City of God. Professor Hall's report states that Donnison leads us to understand that now, because of this weakening of enterprise and innovation and despite the decreased overcrowding, poverty and wretchedness, and all our good intentions, we no longer have "the Good City" so far as concerns our inner cities.
Of course, the Good City in the 19th century had perhaps the benefit of the firmer attitudes of parents, schools and churches which were influenced by contemporary culture. I am not saying that such attitudes were always wholly without error. However, they may have played a part in increasing the degree to which people tended to use the ladders which were available to escape from poverty, whether in the cities or outside of them. With our good intentions, we have tried to improve life; but sometimes, to our mortification, we have seen the unintended ill consequences of our good wishes apparently make things worse.
Let us take for example the new towns. I took part in their creation while working at the relevant department. But what did they do? They created new and thriving centres. But how, and from where, did they get their residents? They got them by tempting the most enterprising, vigorous and competent people away from the cities. Of course we meant well; but did we do well? Only the social historians can give us the answer.
Let us take the further example of slum clearance. I was a great slum clearer in my time. I believe that it was someone called Young, in a book about Bethnal Green, who told us that in fact what we had done was to distribute the extended family. Of course, we felt that it was an absolute moral necessity to put damp-proof courses outside people's living conditions. However, did we have to destroy the slums and the communities where granny lived in the next street? Did we do right? As I said before, only the social historians will be able to tell us.
Then there is the 20th-century attitude towards rent control. It was brought in as a temporary measure in 1917 and it is still with us. Once again, it is a matter

279
of good intentions. But what does it do? It stifles supply and inflates demand. I know very well why it was kept on; it was kept on for fear of the reintroduction of Mr. Rachman. I was the unfortunate Minister who had to defend the Government of Harold Macmillan against an attack by the then Harold Wilson, now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. He accused Mr. Macmillan and myself of being the subjects of the two portraits on Mr. Rachman's mantelpiece. It was a painful job at the time. However, the real way to get rid of "Rachmans" is to have lots of landlords; in other words, a choice of landlords for tenants. Because we flinch from changing the law about rent control, we condemn millions of people. Who are those people? They are the least prosperous people as regards any choice of housing. Again, I say that we may, with the best of intentions, have gone along the wrong route in respect of inner cities and elsewhere.
Therefore, what must we do for inner cities? Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, recognised, and as some of my noble friends will no doubt be emphasising shortly, some of the Government's measures have achieved moderate success. We hope that they make good progress in the future. Indeed, we have all read about the new initiatives which are planned. I am sure that the ladders will continue to tempt the more vigorous people away from the inner cities, thus making the job of securing reinvigoration much harder for the Government.
But what is it that the nation needs? Above all, I believe that there are two things which we need. First, we need more sense as regards where jobs and prosperity are to come from; and, secondly, we need a firmer supporting culture so that people do not make more trouble for themselves and their progeny than is necessary. The first is less hard to provide than the second.
We need more entrepreneurs. I use that word because I have searched unsuccessfully for an alternative. Indeed, I have spent the afternoon hunting through dictionaries, in Partridge, in the slang dictionaries as well as Oxford and Chambers, and all the others, to see whether I might use the phrases "barrow boys" and "barrow girls" in your Lordships' House. I did so because that, writ large, is what an entrepreneur needs to be. After all, what is a barrow boy? I do not mean anything disreputable by using that phrase. I simply mean someone with a keen eye for a market. That is what we need if we are to recover our home market as well as the markets abroad. It is only on that condition that we shall have jobs and prosperity and enough taxable resources to provide decent public and social services. As I said, we need entrepreneurs. However, sad to say, the snobbery against trade and entrepreneurship, though less than it was, is still active in this land.
I note that in Bradford, where there are many ethnic minorities, the Roffey Park Management College is seeking to identify what qualities of entrepreneurship can be taught to those from ethnic minorities who have never tried it before. Of course, it is true that some ethnic minorities need no guidance.
280
I am glad to say that the Indians and the Pakistanis are doing this country, and I hope themselves, much good. Others need leadership and guidance.
We need to accept—this may still be difficult for some people, despite what is happening in Eastern Europe—that capitalism, subject to the law and to competition, although of course not perfect—of course it is not perfect—is the least bad way to serve all our purposes that has yet evolved. Capitalism involves the decentralisation of ownership and decision making, entrepreneurship, higher productivity and innovation. The Government understand that, and Mr. Lilley, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, made a magnificent speech on the subject yesterday. We need more training. The Government are trying to provide it. We need better education. The Government are trying to provide it. We need to be internationally, profitably competitive if we are to have jobs, rising earnings and the resources for good public and social services. We need to sort out—this is difficult —the tax traps, the poverty traps and the why-work? traps in the overlap between the welfare archipelago and the tax net.
We need to recognise, as does the Peter Hall Report —I have read all the aftermath, and it does not change the thesis—that the problems of the inner cities these days are the problems of the country as a whole. Let the inner city again be the Good City. Let it not be just the inner city but the whole country. There are widespread social ills: inadequate parenting at all levels of income; inadequate schooling; a lack of jobs and a lack of role models, especially male role models, in many parts of the land. I wish that politicians and opinion leaders spoke more clearly on some of those subjects. The problems are national as well as inner-city. If we solve them nationally, the inner cities will benefit. We cannot solve them for the inner cities alone. If we do not solve them for the nation, we shall all live in inner cities.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I find myself in my usual position of speaking after my noble friend Lady Seear and therefore having part of my speech made irrelevant because someone far more articulate than I has already covered the subject. The most reverend Primate, in an excellent maiden speech, then covered other sections of my speech, to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who dealt with still further aspects of it. I am reduced to emphasising some of the points made and putting a different perspective on them.
The problem with the inner cities, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, pointed out, is that they are a microcosm of our society. There is a concentration of poverty, unemployment and a lack of training in the inner cities. The trickle-down process was mentioned by the most reverend Primate and by my noble friend. It is an odd process. Some traditional working class areas—for want of a better expression—for example, the East End of London, are becoming more prosperous. People are moving into those areas. A nice square that has a Grade II preservation order on it is bought up by outsiders. The inner city is being

281
pushed towards the edges of London. It is being squeezed between the suburbs and the heart of London. I am told that that is happening in other cities as well.
I must express a certain amount of ignorance. I was brought up in the city of Norwich and went to university in the city of Aberdeen. Those cities have fortunately not been hard hit by traditional inner-city problems. London is the only large conurbation of which I have any experience. In times of recession, the inner cities are the hardest hit. The people living there are unfortunately the most vulnerable. They suffer from the lack of training which still dominates our society. That means they cannot obtain jobs. They have no work tradition.
If we are to regenerate those areas, we must concentrate upon the people who live there. After all, a community is made up of individuals. The problems of the individual are ultimately the problems of that society writ large. To achieve regeneration it is essential that the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector work together. That is the only way to deal effectively with individuals. One must deal with them all, but unless one remembers that they are individuals the problem will be fractionalised and pushed somewhere else. The person who makes good will move from the inner city. Those who have not succeeded will be left behind.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, gave the example of the new towns. Those able to do so left the inner cities, but they left other people behind to stew. The noble Lord said that in more eloquent terms, but that is what happens. The Government must look long and hard at how the voluntary organisations that my noble friend mentioned have been affected. Disadvantaged people are prevalent in the inner cities. If they are left to themselves they will form a sub-culture. The voluntary organisations have been hit hard by the new training policy.
I must declare an interest. Until recently, I worked with the Apex Trust. Its funding was slashed so that it had to lose 50 per cent. of its trainees. They are generally former offenders. They have the most problems. They are invariably educational failures the first time round. They have not succeeded in conventional society and have thus turned to an alternative. That alternative is generally the criminal world or the black economy which may lead to criminal activity.
A training organisation such as the Apex Trust tries to help those people look realistically at their position. The human capacity of bluffing oneself into believing that one can get by is amazing. When I first became involved with the organisation I took part in a counselling session for people on pre-release courses. Many of the people in the room were desperately trying to convince themselves that they did not need any help; they were okay. We talked about how they would disclose their convictions when they applied for a job. I remember someone saying that he would say that he lived in France for about three years and that that was why he had not had a job. He was asked a
282
question in French, and he could not answer. That is an example of how people fail to face up to their problems. They must allow others to help them.
There is always the exceptional individual who can manage on his own, but if we had only to deal with the exceptional individuals, there would be no problem in the first place. They are exceptional because they stand out from those around them. We must help the inadequate people. We must encourage them to confront their problems and then ensure that they are given the right training. They will often require far more back-up and support than other trainees. They are much more difficult to train. They have no work culture and do not understand the self-discipline that work requires. Such a person has been institutionalised to the extent of being told when to get up in the morning, when to go to bed, when to take recreation, when to have leisure time and what to do with it, because of the limited choices. It is virtually impossible overnight for him suddenly to say, "I shall start to regiment myself, I shall turn up at certain times and take a job". Even if such people are offered a job, they do not have the skills. Therefore, we must train people in skills and how to employ them.
Due to the nature of the problem, only specialist organisations can untangle the difficulties with anything like a realistic level of success. Someone may think he is doing well if he arrives within half an hour either way of the start of a class. It is virtually impossible to train him in a conventional setting. We must give specialist help to these individuals.
At the moment the TECs are not in a good position to deal with the problem. The Government must take a long, hard look at their funding of the specialist training centres and try to get them to work. I am totally convinced that to people in this situation a regular job with a form of stability is the first step towards bringing them into the mainstream of society. Until such people are there, even at a low level, we cannot start to help them better themselves with a realistic long-term approach.
The Government must make sure that they provide their share of funding for these courses. They must also provide the private sector with all the support they can. It may only be a co-ordinating role but there must be concentrated long-term planning with, for example, at least help at the start of a project which the private and voluntary sectors may well be able to run afterwards. The Government should put in an essential minimum to make the projects work but they are not flexible in dealing with problems. Employers know about the people they are trying to train and the voluntary sector knows what to aim at so that they are a good combination. The Government may have to channel them together. It is no good hoping that eventually they will join up through the invisible hand of the market-place. Sometimes they will, sometimes they will not. We cannot take a chance on it.
Unless the Government accept this long-term co-ordinating role, then, despite the best intentions, the private and voluntary sectors will never achieve anything like the same degree of success as if the Government took their rightful position at the helm.
5.53 pm.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for initiating this debate. It gives us an opportunity to express our views and in my remarks I shall draw attention to the benefits that have recently come to Merseyside and Manchester. It is also a privilege to be involved in a debate during which the most reverend Primate made his splendid maiden speech. I congratulate him; it is marvellous to have him with us, and we look forward to hearing from him on many occasions.
The most reverend Primate referred to the spirit of the people. All great cities are created from the spirit of the people and the goodness and greatness that come from them. Noble Lords have already said that recent history has seen the movement of leaders out of cities into other opportunities which have been established for them, with wealth created in other parts of the country and the world. We must also accept that great cities were founded in the last century because of their good communications and the opportunities which at that time brought wealth to them. Those opportunities have now moved to other areas and the wealth has moved with them. The leaders of the cities also moved and left behind people with fewer opportunities who are less able and have less finance to regenerate the areas. Pressure on local authorizes became greater and greater and resources were more difficult to find.
Noble Lords all referred to the need for the Government to become involved and to bring together all the people necessary for the regeneration of cities. I believe that there has been no better opportunity than the development corporations to bring about those improvements. My own experience has been with the Merseyside Development Corporation and the Manchester Development Corporation. I wish to draw attention to the enormous benefits that have been gained from what has taken place.
Merseyside Development Corporation was established in 1981. Its first important achievement was the Garden Festival. That did a great deal to draw people's attention to the new opportunities on Merseyside to bring in money and to create further jobs, as well as to clear much of the derelict and unsightly areas. The results really happened since then, in the late 1980s and during the past year. As a direct result of what the development corporation did, in 1989 and 1990 £81 million in private investment went into the Merseyside development area. That would not have come about unless there had been sufficient confidence for investors to invest their money.
Even this year, 1991, in a more difficult period when we might not have expected any development, £70 million of private money has been invested in the Merseyside area. That is a relatively small drop from the £80 million invested the previous year. As a result, we have 780 new homes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made the point that one of the important aspects of regeneration is to encourage people to return and live there. If she goes to see the new dockside development, she will find that she can no longer buy an apartment. When the
284
buildings first went up we thought, "These apartments will never sell". Now no one can get one because people saw the opportunity, they thought it was a lovely place to live and the area has been regenerated. It has been a great asset in bringing people back to the city.
In addition, 7,000 training places have been assisted, attracted by the development corporation into the area in the past two years. Over 1,500 new jobs have been created there. These are proper jobs, not ones which will exist only for the short term, but creative jobs where people will be employed in development.
On a more personal note, from time to time I visit the Philharmonic Hall. I was there last Saturday night when a new work which had been commissioned by the Philharmonic and Granada Television was performed. It was about the most awful piece of music that I have heard for a long time. Even so, because it was new, artistic and exciting, the hall was full. Everyone cheered enthusiastically. As the most reverend Primate said, there is a great feeling in these cities of being involved in art, new experiences and being excited about innovations.
As we drove away from the Philharmonic at the end of the performance, feeling that a drink was a great necessity, we found we could not get in anywhere, everywhere was full. The main streets of Liverpool were booming, full of young, well-dressed people, full of excitement. There was no fear, no feeling of threat or that one might get coshed. The centre of Liverpool is a place where anyone can go. Anyone can invest in it with enthusiasm and confidence in the future. This has all come about because of the regeneration that has taken place through the development corporation.
Then we come to Manchester, which is a city that I have known all my life. I have seen sights there of great dereliction; bombed sites have existed since the war. Something needed to be done. The local authority was not carrying out its responsibilities. It had neither the resources nor the ability to bring together all the activities that were needed to make something happen. There had to be a trigger mechanism to stimulate people and give them the confidence to become involved. Manchester Development Corporation has achieved that.
Perhaps I may tell the House some of its achievements: over 670 new homes have been built in the centre of Manchester where people now live. When the corporation started work in 1988, the Government's target was to attract £188 million of private investment in five to seven years. The development corporation attracted £180 million in the first three years. The confidence generated has brought a spin-off to all kinds of areas. The development corporation spent over £4 million on improving the environment. No other body could have provided the money to do that. It has created 2,000 jobs.
Only the other day I went to Salford. I know that there is at least one Member of your Lordships' House present today who has probably been to Salford. However, I do not know of any other noble Lord who often visits Salford. There has been a fantastic change

285
in Salford. It used to be a derelict area of broken-down warehouses and disappointed people. Now it is bursting with new energy, new businesses and people wanting to do all kinds of exciting things. I have just become involved with a group of businessmen who are not just concerned with making money but want to put something back into the area. They wish to provide facilities for people with disabled children, particularly one-parent families. They are now trying to raise £250,000 to enable Dr. Barnardo's to buy a house so that parents with disabled children can go there and meet others in a similar situation. The parents can rest while someone else looks after their children. New opportunities have been created in that area and they have resulted from that trigger mechanism of the Government setting up new initiatives in the area.
I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to a phenomenon that in my opinion could not have occurred without the intervention of the development corporation. There is a site on the west side of Manchester which used to contain the gas works. The site used to contain the gas works in one part and bombed out, derelict buildings in another part. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, knows that site well. The site has remained in a derelict state since the war. No one has been able to tackle it and no one really knew what to do about it. The development corporation heard that the British Council was thinking of relocating out of London. The development corporation persuaded the British Council to relocate to this site. The development corporation helped finance the clearing of the site and facilitated the planning and other regulations that must be fulfilled before the site can be developed. The city council could have taken years to process the planning application but with the intervention of the development corporation the necessary work was done in a matter of months.
The development corporation encouraged the people who work for the British Council to relocate from London to Manchester. We now have a splendid new office building standing in nearly nine acres of ground and a development opportunity worth some £27 million. That has been created on a spot that was formerly a derelict site. Some 350 people who used to work in London and add to the congestion there have moved to Manchester. That must be a benefit to everyone concerned although it may take those people some time to reach the heights of the resident people. However, they will acquire those heights in time no doubt. We have converted what was once a derelict, unhappy place into a site that will boom and grow and will lead to further regeneration.
If we are to regenerate large areas and bring God back into such places, we must realise that God sometimes needs mammon to make a success of such areas. The development corporations have resuscitated potential, people's ingenuity and opportunities in formerly derelict areas. That has also brought God back to those areas.
6.4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, we are all deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for giving us an opportunity to debate this Motion. We are particularly grateful for the emphasis placed on partnership. I wish to speak to that aspect primarily. I apologise most sincerely to the noble Baroness that I was not present at the start of her speech. She is far too efficient to get caught up in a traffic jam of taxis, but I am afraid that happened to me. However, I was present to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend the most reverend Primate. I was delighted to hear that maiden speech. However, if I am too complimentary about it, the danger is that he will accuse me of keeping on the right side of one who is in one sense my boss, or of trying to present the picture that the Church of England is united. That is too much for your Lordships to believe.
I wish to join with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and others in congratulating the Government on many of the initiatives now being undertaken. I had the opportunity of meeting the Minister responsible for inner cities in my part of the world. We walked round two of the most depressed areas of the city of Manchester and also of Salford. What impressed many of the people the Minister met was that he genuinely listened to them. That shows a change in opinion from 1979 when many people in inner city areas had the impression that the Government were not listening to them. I am glad to see that people now feel differently. I hope that that will continue.
One of my inner city clergymen paid the Government a remarkable tribute when he said that he thought central government were listening to what people had to say more than the city council was. That is the first time that has been said in a long time. We are grateful for some of the things that are happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, drew attention to the remarkable regeneration being achieved by development corporations. I endorse much, but not all, of what he said. I was delighted with the warm tribute the noble Lord paid to Salford, where I live, and the picture he painted of a vibrant community. However, I am afraid that that is only one side of the picture and I shall have to paint the other side in due course.
I dissent from one or two things the noble Lord said about local authorities in the area. The local authorities have not only suffered from a lack of resources but from the lack of a sense of partnership with central government in helping to give them the management skills they need, particularly in crucial areas such as housing. Instead, central government have attempted to cut local authorities out of the process. I believe that that has been a tragic mistake and I am glad to say that it appears that that mistake is being remedied now. We want to see a partnership between central and local government, development corporations and voluntary bodies. We also want a partnership with the people living in the area. If there is one thing that must be stressed above all, it is the need to listen to the people who live in the inner cities.
Regeneration is taking place, but so often the benefits do not trickle down to the people living in some of the most depressed areas of our inner cities.

287
Your Lordships will have to forgive me if I speak primarily about Manchester and Salford or the Lancashire towns in the diocese for which I am responsible. However, I believe my remarks have a general relevance as they are echoed in speeches made about other areas. We are grateful for the remarkable development of Manchester airport, which means so much to the whole of the North West and to Manchester and Salford in particular. We are glad that the Metro-link is going ahead as that will make it easier for people from inner city areas to travel to obtain employment.
There has been regeneration also in east Manchester under a steering group led by the chamber of commerce. That steering group is doing excellent work. AII these signs of regeneration are encouraging, but the problems are immense. Those problems are gravely exacerbated by unemployment. The trouble is that many in the inner cities are simply not sharing in the prosperity which has come to some other parts. In April this year, 30,000 Manchester residents were registered as unemployed and claiming benefit. That represents some 14 per cent. of those who are economically active in the city. However, that kind of overall figure does not give a full impression of what is happening because in certain areas the concentration of unemployment is inevitably much higher. Moss Side and Cheetham Hill are two areas of Manchester that have achieved regrettable notoriety in recent weeks due to the activities of drug gangs. Guns are carried in those areas and dangerous situations are developing.
It is impossible to believe that there is no connection between the way in which the grey economy—believe we are supposed to refer to it as the grey economy and not the black economy has grown up in such areas and the very high incidence of unemployment and poverty. In Manchester, 83,000 people received income support last year.
There are imaginative efforts at regeneration in certain parts of our city. The problem is how they are to be related to other people living in those parts of the inner city where there is so much vandalism, such a high proportion of crime and a situation of which many people in Britain have no idea at all, even though the problems are widespread.
I spoke to the headmistress of one of our inner city schools. She told me that a very high-powered car had been stolen and driven away from the centre of Manchester. It ended up on waste land outside the school. She phoned the police. By the time the police got there the car was burnt out. The youngster who had driven it away was aged 11 and the youngster who had set fire to it was eight. That is outside the comprehension of many people in other parts of our country. It needs to be understood.
Therefore we have to recognise that all the pictures given of what is happening in these areas are inevitably imperfect, including the picture that I am giving now. The situation is patchy. There are signs of hope, regeneration and the kind of vibrant life which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, described. However, there are other signs which are much less happy.
288
Perhaps I may quote from one of our inner city clergy. I am sorry if my speech appears somewhat church centred, but your Lordships will understand that the professional people living in inner cities are the Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy, and also some clergy from other churches. Hardly anyone else among the professionals lives in those areas. That is one of the features of inner city life.
This is what was said about the Ordsall Salford Quays development, of which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has painted a good picture:
"The newest office blocks of Salford Quays now loom over Ordsall, inescapable on the horizon at the head of Dock 9 and down by Trafford Bridge. When the Quays development started, Ordsall folk asked first of all, 'What's in it for us?' It has not meant many jobs; it has meant extortionate, London-level prices for beer … By now many Ordsall people prefer to ignore the Quays, to regard it as an alien intrusion, unfriendly, unwelcoming, 'not for us'. It is a different world, representing different values and lifestyles. You know what a need there is for a Church to he a mediator, a reconciler, in this context, bringing people together."
That is what we try to do.
It is very important for those who are engaged in the regeneration of these areas, with all their professional expertise and background, to appreciate that there can be an enormous gap between that regeneration and the people who live there, some of whom feel imprisoned in those areas. The need to listen to those people is immense. That applies to all of us—to central government, to local authorities, the Churches, the police, the press and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, made one of the most interesting contributions to our debate, as always. I was interested in what he said about the need to speak—he did not use this word but it is perhaps a prophetic word—about lifestyles to people living in the inner cities. Questions of illegitimacy, high levels of smoking, diet and other aspects come into it. The trouble is that people are caught in a cycle. Those who are best equipped to speak to them are not necessarily the people who live in comfortable Britain, who speak from a distance. They will not be heard.
We have to have the greatest sympathy with the difficult job which the police are called to do, with crimes and vandalism pressing upon them. There is a difficult dilemma here. The local people want the police to do their job. They need protection; they need security; they need to be removed from a situation in which they feel prisoners in their houses, especially the elderly, the housebound and children, who are becoming increasingly fearful. The trouble is that when the police adopt high profile methods of policing, that simply increases the rift that often exists between the police and the community, especially young people and young blacks. That is a factor which requires great understanding by the police.
I believe that senior policemen are aware of that, but they have difficulty in implementing policies which listen and consult. There is that awkward dilemma which faces us. Incidentally, I am sure that all of us would wish Mr. David Wilmot well on his appointment as Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, the largest police force outside London, in succession to Sir James Anderton.

289
The press also need to listen. It has been interesting to hear one or two people from the inner cities say that one of their biggest problems is the press. Why? Because the press are always on the lookout for sensational stories. Stories of the good things happening in inner cities simply do not make news. There was a typical example of that the other day when in inner city Moss Side—and your Lordships know how much that has been in the news—there was a joyful event at the Church of the Ascension which celebrated its 25th anniversary. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York came, the Lord Mayor was there and there were people from every section of the life of the city. What appeared in the Manchester Evening News, our leading newspaper? Two column inches headed, "VIPs at Viraj church". More than half the report was about Viraj Mendis, who had lived there for two years. There was not a word about the positive side of what happened on such an occasion. If there were time I could give your Lordships other examples, but I shall refrain from doing so.
A balance is what is needed. I know that the press have a difficult job to do. They are there to report what happens. When there are grim and frightening episodes in the city, of course they have a duty to report them. However, we are asking for a far better balance.
Housing is critical. I shall quote again from an inner city clergyman in Salford:
"For the last fortnight I have had a family of husband and wife and five children camping out in our parish room here. I discovered them sleeping in a car in a district nearby. The local authority housing department judged that they had made themselves homeless and despite the fact of the mother's pregnancy, was unwilling to offer accommodation. For fourteen days … we pursued vacant properties unsuccessfully. Finally from Church Funds we paid … for a vacant property to let and the family moved in last Saturday."
He added that there is nothing unusual in that but that it is made all the more unacceptable by the fact that in that district there are a large number of vacant flats and maisonettes.
The clergyman concerned admits the poor management record of many local authorities in the housing field. However, the point is that we now need housing for poor families. They need money to heat and light their homes and feed and clothe their children. Rather than eliminating the local authority as a provider of low cost housing, we need to ensure that local authorities have properly trained housing staff who see their work as a major social service concerned not only with property but people. That, I believe, is a lesson which perhaps central government have still to learn. I see the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, shaking his head. I shall have an argument with him over a drink afterwards.
The last point that I have time to make to your Lordships now is simply this. The noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has spoken of the need for a supporting culture. How warmly I agree with that. That is why those of us from the Churches give such high importance to the maintenance of congregational life in face of great difficulty, preaching values and teaching them in these inner city situations. However,
290
we are out of touch with large numbers of the people who live there. So we need that supporting culture of social morality in inner city areas.
One of the difficulties is that so many of the natural leaders have departed from these areas over the years. That is one critical difference between the situation today and what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, described in the 19th century, when they were seen as places of opportunity. There were many more natural leaders living among those communities. We need to develop inner cities in such a way that people are prepared to stay there, whether or not they have a bit of go about them.
I conclude by saying that we must welcome many of the good things which are happening but realise that this is a very patchy picture and all of us have a long way to go.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I return to these Benches after five years with considerable pleasure for many reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity to take part in this debate. I must take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Cross-Benchers and their convenor for the hospitality that they gave me when, as a vicar of two parishes, I reckoned that I should probably sit on the Cross Benches, particularly given that those two parishes persistently voted Liberal in local government affairs and that I was not able to come to the House at all for five years. Looking after two parishes in the commuting area does not allow you to come to the House of Lords when there are late-night debates and votes that you wish to attend.
However, after five years serving those parishes. I have returned to talk about a subject which has always been one of my interests and with regard to which I have tried to make an input; namely, the field of poverty. I share that interest with my parishioners. One may think that they are not particularly interested or affected in leafy Kew. But my churches were full of people with guilty consciences because they had things that they wanted to do and they did not know how to do them. When it came to the point, they did what they could. Even in Richmond we have problems of homelessness. There is an organisation there which is largely backed by the churches and looks after the single homeless. Just three weeks before I left, the laity of one of the churches that I served—I mention particularly the laity because, having two churches, I had to go on from one service to another and had to leave them to make the decision—made the nearly unanimous decision to offer hospitality to the tramp or homeless man, whatever one likes to call him, who sought a home in our church porch. We are not one of those churches that can make special arrangements because the demand is not sufficient. However, someone had come to stay; he had been there the year before; and he had come back again. There were problems. Archdeacons are not very keen on that kind of thing, particularly with an interregnum coming up. However, when the parish got down to discussing what they should do, they decided that the only Christian action was to offer hospitality.

291
One problem which arose, which I do not think has been mentioned this evening, related to an interesting part of the substructure of the area that we are discussing; namely, the provision of lavatories. That was the major problem that we had to face. We now see those no doubt admirable new loos in which you have to insert 10 pence. But what happens if you do not have 10 pence? What happens if you are old and incontinent? There is a great shortage in the substructure necessary to support the poor, the needy and the homeless.
The churches are doing a great deal at the voluntary level. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark I understand why he has chosen not to speak; it would have meant a debate dominated by clergymen—is one of the people who has done most in the Hot. se in that respect, and the House will miss him when he shortly retires.
In the voluntary sector, Church Action on Poverty, of which I have been a member for seven or eight years, has this year produced a new initiative, Breaking the Chains of Poverty. CAP does magnificent work, but it is very short of money and cannot see how it will continue. Although there are strict rules about asking questions of maiden speakers, I understand that there are no rules about bringing to maiden speakers' attention the needs of organisations. Church Action on Poverty is in desperate need if it is to continue its valuable work. I am sure that the most reverend Primate will take that aboard.
I wish now to move from the local and voluntary level to the statutory level. I have come back to these Benches in order to wage campaigns as to how this country should be governed, not just to mouth platitudes. As a great many people have said, one of the urgent things to do at the statutory level is to revive a sense of urban pride. In a recent paper on London. Ralf Dahrendorf made some suggestions on that subject. I am delighted to see that the Labour Party has just made a declaration about the return of a Greater London Council in some form or other. I look forward to studying the details, but I am certain that such a step is needed so that local pride and responsibility can be expressed by people who speak for London as a whole.
At a lower level, pride and responsibility come from being involved in small, local areas. The more I look back over my life in politics, the more it seems to me that all the reforms that we have made in local government have been totally wrong, ending with the abolition of the GLC but starting with the amalgamation of the old boroughs, into the new treble-sized boroughs. In the old, smaller boroughs, with their smaller responsibilities and loyalties, one was able to get things done and encourage people to respond. We should perhaps think about that. We must certainly think about the restoration of council housing n some form or another, although perhaps not in the old form. We must certainly encourage co-operatives and ways in which people can look after their own houses, perhaps even build their own houses. To have taken the ability to build houses away
292
from local government was one of the most wicked and disastrous things done in politics in the last few years.
Finally, we cannot get away from the fact that money must be injected although it must not be wasted or frittered away. There must be safeguards. In these days of being kept short. we are learning how to be frugal and to use money in better ways. But time and time again one comes across an initiative which is dying or in danger of being throttled because of lack of money. I give a small example. One of the problems in the diocese of London is that of dealing with the refugees, including Kurds, who are coming in from different parts of the world in small numbers at a time when local councils are cutting back on expenditure and when the teaching of English as a second language is becoming a problem. These people and their children, if they settle here—and they probably have nowhere else to go—will grow up not as part of our society but as strangers speaking strange languages. Money must be put in. The rich must help the poor. No one suggests for a second that this is not a rich country these days. Money must be channelled towards helping the poor.
There has been a certain upbeat attitude in this debate. In some ways that is good because it means optimism and determination. I am afraid however that I do not share that feeling. Cities are and should be great things—I certainly support the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about that—but a cancer seems to affect them when they become over large. The solutions are not easy. They are long-term. But unless the problems are tackled head-on in a major way we are doomed to disaster. New York, Calcutta—the great cities of the world—are set fast on the way to disasters such as we have not yet seen. There is no reason why London should follow their path. To avoid it will require determination, love, co-operation and generosity. Unless we have those things, London will go that way too.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for introducing this important debate this afternoon. I also offer my sincere congratulations to the most reverend Primate on his excellent maiden speech which was fascinating to listen to. This is an afternoon for congratulations so may I also congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench, whose promotion I have just seen on the ticker-tape outside.
I have to declare an interest. I work for a company based in the West Midlands which is actively involved in the regeneration of the Birmingham heartlands in the Black Country. Throughout the world inner city areas suffer from many problems, as do such areas in this country. As my noble friend Lord Joseph said, the problems have been there for many years and although in many cases matters would seem to be improving, there is still a long way to go. A great amount of help has been forthcoming from the Government. I believe that they are to be thoroughly congratulated on doing an excellent job.

293
However, years of neglect have ensured that the job of regeneration is now much more difficult. It takes a very brave developer indeed to have a go, as it were, at present. My speech is centred on the subject of developing the regeneration of the inner cities. Costs of regeneration have risen steadily over the past few years. Sadly it is very often the case that it is not economically viable for a developer to become involved in such regeneration. Couple with that the problems of static and falling values of property and lack of interest from the end-user and one is faced with a very difficult situation.
In the early 1980s the Government created a number of enterprise zones in rundown urban areas. I believe that it was a superb and thoroughly worthwhile move which in most cases has been highly successful. The lack of planning controls, provision of rate-free periods and other financial incentives have ensured the creation of new jobs in those areas, new working environments and the clearance and use of previously derelict land. I suggest to my noble friend that we need more enterprise zones.
One of the main incentives of developing on enterprise zone land has been the 100 per cent. industrial building allowance scheme, which is presumably very expensive to the Exchequer, but as an incentive to creating jobs is a very certain winner. As I mentioned, the inner city areas with which I am concerned are in the Black Country and the West Midlands. That region suffered very badly indeed from the recession of the early 1980s. I am probably teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but historically the Black Country economy was chiefly based on engineering products and the production of steel and allied goods, manufactured in the main by small firms. Many of those businesses went to the wall in the 1980s. Many jobs were lost and the consequences were empty factories and other buildings, large areas of derelict land and, I hate to say, 27 per cent. unemployment when it was good.
In 1984 the Government created two enterprise zones in the Dudley area—one at Dudley and one at Brierley Hill—which were and still are being developed by the company for which I work. They are based on the site of an old steel works which, when it went out of business in the early 1980s—I believe in 1981—suddenly threw 10,000 people onto the dole queues. It was disastrous for that area. When the enterprise zone status comes to an end on this particular site (or two sites) in 1994, the projects developed on those sites will have created in excess of 12,000 jobs, adding substantially to the local economy. Owing to the risk taken by these type of partnerships with these kind of developers—I might add in this particular case when nobody else was keen to become involved—and through the foresight of the Government, this area has been vastly upgraded and indeed transformed. It is a major success story.
Moving slightly further afield, an excellent job is being done in the Sandwell area in the Black Country by the Black Country Development Corporation. Earlier I was fascinated to hear my noble friend Lord Wade give his opinion of development corporations.
294
He mentioned that very few noble Lords had probably been to Salford. I happen to be one of those who have been there. Salford Quays is a superb area, quite different from what it was five or six years ago. The BCDC was set up in 1987. It has transformed a previously rundown area and is successfully bringing in new business together with much needed jobs. But it is not easy and nobody would pretend that it could be. I am delighted that Miss Jean Denton who is the deputy chairman of the BCDC will shortly join your Lordships' House. She will bring with her a vast wealth of experience in many fields, not least that of the inner cities. It is in fact sad that she has not yet taken her seat because she would have been someone very welcome to listen to in this debate. So there are success stories in the inner cities, although times at present are difficult.
Turning briefly to other points, there is an infrastructure problem in some of the areas of urban renewal, especially roads. Although the Government have earmarked nearly £1 billion for major local road schemes and developments, such as the Birmingham heartlands spine road, I understand that some other schemes are suffering delays and in particular, the one of which I have knowledge; namely, the Black Country spine road. The delays are partly due to increasing cost which nobody seems able to pin down to one particular amount of money. Sadly, there is often a considerable gap of time as well from the inception to the completion of such road schemes. These particular areas of urban renewal cannot afford to wait. Waiting and delay means less incentive for companies, businesses and indeed individual householders or potential householders to relocate to those areas. Without a proper and efficient infrastructure these areas are simply not able to compete with other areas that are perhaps slightly wealthier and better served. This afternoon I ask my noble friend if possible to make every effort to ensure that those schemes are speeded up.
Secondly, there is a feeling that out-of-town shopping centres are detrimental and not to be encouraged. I believe that the way of thinking is that in the future they should not be encouraged because they threaten the vitality and viability of many inner city areas. That is not true. It might be true in some cases but certainly not in the vast majority of cases. The developments provide jobs. That is what we are talking about—the creation of wealth and the creation of jobs. They boost the local economy by attracting from a wide area shoppers who would not normally spend their hard earned cash in that area. These are clean, safe and pleasant places in which to shop.
Certainly in the enterprise zone at Dudley—I do not have to declare an interest in this because we have sold it—the Merry Hill Centre has created some 5,000 jobs and has transformed a previously ugly and derelict area into something of quality, of which the region is justifiably proud.
Thirdly, I strongly suggest to my noble friend on the Front Bench that a great incentive to the private sector—we are talking about creating partnerships between the public and private sectors and indeed the voluntary sector—would be the availability of 100 per

295
cent. initial building allowances. I believe that it is very important indeed to attract the private sector. But it has to be allowed to make a profit and companies must be seen by their shareholders to be doing something that is viably economic. I believe that they should be taking part in urban renewal. If they are prepared to accept the risks involved—they are considerable—then the provision of something like 100 per cent. IBAs should be their reward.
As my noble friend Lord Wade said, the National Garden festival programme has been a major success. It has breathed new life into areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Gateshead. The festival park at Stoke-on-Trent with which I am acquainted is now a vibrant and successful place. The enthusiasm of the Government, Stoke City Council, and indeed the private sector, has played a major role. Long may those initiatives continue.
Finally, I unequivocally support and applaud the initiatives being taken by the Government and other bodies in helping inner city areas to revitalise and renew. Funding is the cornerstone. Although £4 billion of Government support will be available for action For cities' initiatives in 1990–91, I believe that more is needed, together with faster provision of infrastructure and less red tape. Perhaps planning control; could be relaxed. In my neck of the woods undue delay over planning applications has resulted in developers losing money through high interest rates. Sometimes they pull out altogether. That is not a happy situation for anyone. Perhaps I may urge the Government to consider carefully before committing the lion's share of those funds to the South East. There is in fact a corner of this green and pleasant land called the Black Country which is alive and kicking; and it deserves increasing support.
6.41 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I say anything else, I should like to congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on an excellent maiden speech. The more often we can hear him in the future the happier we shall be.
I welcome back to our Benches the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I do so with some hesitation. He has attended on these Benches long before me. He may well feel that he ought to be welcoming me instead. His speech illustrated, as did that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the excellent good health of the Church on behalf of which the most reverend Primate speaks. Its contribution to this debate has been distinguished.
It is a memorable occasion in the history of the House in another way. It marks the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, from the post of Government Chief Whip. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord. The lines which come into my mind are those of Belloc:
"Those regal Dons!
With hearts of gold and lungs of bronze,
Who stout and bang and roar and bawl
The Absolute across the hall".
I am sure that the noble Lord—I know that he loves Belloc even as I do—will take the point.
296
It is also the occasion of the promotion to Minister of State of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I welcome that very warmly indeed. The noble Baroness and I have enjoyed many debates and will enjoy many more to come. I congratulate her warmly.
In this debate, I confess to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, that I speak as a Londoner. I cannot help it. However, even the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will agree that Lancashire cannot have it all its own way.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, why not?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am an inner Londoner too; and I am very definitely not tired of life. Considering the mood of London I am sometimes reminded of 1963, although there does not seem to be quite so much faith in the alternatives as there then was. I apologise for introducing a party note into the debate. I shall keep it as brief as I can. It seems to me that party philosophies are a handicap in the debate when considering what needs to be done. London does not seem to run according to free market principles; it needs those of crowd control. One aspect that illustrates that more clearly than anything else is London Transport. That was described by yesterday's Evening Standard as an international disgrace. I do not believe that it was an overstatement.
I am not in general an admirer of graffiti. However, I cannot help remembering one example at Kentish Town tube station. The escalator was of course out of order. London Transport deeply regretted that and assured everyone that every effort was being made to repair it as quickly as possible. Written underneath —and one could almost hear the Hampstead voice —were the words, "I find that difficult to believe". I think that we all do. If one considers international comparisons, it emerges that one cannot run an efficient system of urban public transport without subsidy. London has less than any other major city in the world of which I am aware.
I also agree very strongly with my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley about urban pride. I was interested to notice in this morning's paper that London was unable to put in a bid for a site for the Olympic Games in the year 2000 because the bid is not legal unless it is signed by the city council; and we do not have one. There seems a lack of a sense of the magnificence of a capital city. The Evening Standard complained that we have no one to speak for us in the way that M. Chirac speaks for Paris. I believe that we lose out through that lack.
There is a continual problem of unawareness of London costs. The paper drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on behalf of the University of London seems to have implications which stretch well beyond the universities. London costs are much greater than any of our present funding systems allow for. At my son's school a new headmaster was appointed about 18 months ago. He did not turn up. About six months later it was announced that he had been forced to decline the post because he could not afford a house within reach of the school. If that is happening to the headmaster, no wonder there is a shortage of teachers lower down the scale. I am perpetually being told by my dentist that in inner London dentists simply

297
cannot make a living on the current dental contract. It is the same problem. London costs, especially those of premises, are grossly undercalculated.
There is a real problem of failure to recognise London as a unit. I shall not forget in a hurry the speech of my noble friend Lord Ezra in a debate on London Transport about 18 months ago. He said that if one wishes to get through a proposal for organising transport in London, one has to consult 39 authorities. One might believe that it was a programme devised by John Buchan.
On the other hand, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said about the need for competitive prosperity and a keen eye for a market. We shall not make inner cities live without work. We shall not have work without an effective market. If we believe, as it appears do most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, that there is an urgent need for ideas to come from the bottom upwards as well as from the top downwards, that means that there must be scope in city centres for small businesses. They respond much more quickly to the immediate needs and interests of an area. Since they are smaller, they can be planned more quickly; they have a smaller turning circle.
Last week I was the guest of the National Federation for Self-Employed and Small Businesses. Although I have spoken on the subject previously, I was surprised by the depth of feeling about the uniform business rate. When one considers what is happening to premises in central London, to shops in South Molton Street and Bond Street, I cannot understand how we can have prosperity in our city centres until the uniform business rate has gone.
However, the best illustration of the difficulty caused by party philosophies is housing. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, said about rent control. I agree with him. I shall listen to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will say about housing. I shall not be surprised if I agree with that too. The basic problem of housing has been that for many years the minimum rent at which the landlord can make a profit was higher than the maximum rent the tenant can afford to pay and still have enough to live on. Each party has been aware of half that story and has made perfectly valid points. Neither has listened to the other. Nothing has been done about closing the gap.
In a private capacity I wish to put forward a suggestion about how that should be done. The landlord should be allowed a tax deduction for the money that he spends on repairing his house. It is in the public interest that houses should be repaired. If they are not we must build more, which will cost even more money.
One of the matters that sticks in my mind is the conclusion of the Milner Holland Report published in 1965. When I read it I thought that it could have been written yesterday, with its emphasis that the need was for a common approach to the problem and for a fully considered development of policy based on an understanding of the whole housing situation and purged of irrelevant prejudice against landlords,
298
tenants or any other groups of the population. The housing problems confronting London as they confronted other great cities would not be resolved by market forces nor by the provision of more housing alone. They were of a long-term, perhaps permanent, nature. The report's conclusion dwells on the need for a partnership between the public and private sectors. That might have been incorporated almost without alteration in the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lady Seear. The report was a non-party voice and my party agrees with it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley, drew attention to the need for local authorities to provide housing for rent. The trouble with a free market in housing is that in free markets £1 is equal to £1 and not one person to one person. In providing low-cost housing, the free market will always be in danger of being an inefficient instrument. Whether the traditional council house is the right answer is a different question.
There is concern about all the traditional problems; for instance, the inability to control repairs, anxiety about redecoration and the keeping of dogs. I am aware that that is a controversial subject to mention today and I need not go further. In such a system there is a tendency for the planning to come from the top downwards and not from the bottom upwards. We on these Benches do not feel happy about that situation. The Labour Party has a weakness for thinking from the top downwards. A caricature example of that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Do not quote it!
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry but I shall. I was told about it at dinner only last night. The secretary of a local tenants' association, who is a friend of ours, notified the local councillor that she was calling a meeting which she thought he might wish to attend. He replied, "You can't organise a meeting here. I'm the elected representative!". That is not the spirit that we wish to see. Calling in voluntary groups, as was said by the most reverend Primate, is most important. In that context we should learn something from the confusion there has been this year about the London Boroughs Grants Scheme. There was a cap on the scheme but no one has ever thought whether some local authority spending needs a floor as well. The most that was being argued for, the highest estimate put forward, was for a standstill budget. Some people would not agree even to that. I do not see how with that kind of spirit one can have the kind of partnership that is needed. If people are not prepared to spend any money on a scheme, it will not work. Things have a true cost and if you do not pay that you may as well spend nothing.
6.54 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to speak on this desperately important subject. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on introducing the debate and on the way in which she did so. The only comment with which I am bound to disagree related to her optimism about the Statement likely to be made tomorrow. I am not a betting man, but I should not like to put much

299
money on the chance that the amount of extra funding due to he declared will come from new money rather than from a relaunch of the urban programme. When I compare the amount of money likely to be available with, for example, the £330 million spent this year on London Dock lands alone, I believe that it will not be as impressive as she hopes.
I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her elevation to the rank of Minister of State. I am glad to see that at last the Government have recognised the ability that has been obvious to Members on these Benches since she joined the Government Front Bench. I wish that it would bring with it changes in policy, but I hope at least that her more authoritative position will lead to the elimination of some of the worst absurdities of Department of the Environment policies.
It is a privilege to welcome from these Benches the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is a natural. A reading sometimes given at funerals describe s the deceased as having gone into the next room. The most reverend Primate has come into our room a id he appears to be willing to talk with us rather than at us. He is most welcome and we look forward to hearing from him again.
I wish to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and begin by telling a story against myself. In the mid-1970s I was appointed by the Greater London Council as vice-chairman of the Spitalfields project in Tower Hamlets. The theory behind 1;he project was this. The confusion in local government as between the Greater London Council, the Inner London Education Authority and Tower Hamlets Borough Council (then Labour controlled) had led to some of the multiple deprivation then evident n Spitalfields. It was believed that if we got together there would somehow be an improvement in the conditions of life for those in the Spitalfields area. It was, and I am afraid that it still is, one of the most deprived areas in London and therefore in the country.
Instead of having meetings with 20 officers, there were 60 officers. Various worthwhile projects were put forward by the joint committee. It pioneered the idea of having directly elected representatives from the community able to vote, sitting alongside the elected councillors. It achieved a number of worthwhile objectives. For instance, it started an adventure playground, dramatically increased the provision for child care and provided the funds for the conversion of the great synagogue into a mosque, which was needed much more by the community. However, after several years of the experiment it was clear from our public meetings that we were only scratching the surface of the problems. What those people needed and what: they were entitled to was better homes at prices that they could afford and jobs paying wages that would enable them to live in decency. They had neither of those. Such initiatives in a limited area, with limited resources, cannot make a sufficient difference to enable us to do anything effective about the inner cities.
I am not against partnership. That was an early example, which was no bad thing. However, it only
300
scratched the surface of the serious economic problems of our inner cities which no amount of new organisations or initiatives from the Government or anybody else can do much more than touch at the fringe.
The theme of what I want to say concerns what we were told in Spitalfields. It is about homes, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, might have expected, and about jobs. It seems to me that over a considerable period we have been pursuing housing policies for the whole nation which have had a peculiarly damaging effect upon the inner cities. I am talking not only about the provision of new housing. It is common knowledge that the starts and completions of new housing in this country are very much lower than they could be with our physical resources, and indeed than they were at the peak of house building after the war and in more recent years. What houses are being built are not being built for those most in need, and, above all, for those in the inner cities. That means that progressively it is becoming impossible for those who have to work in inner city areas to live there at a price that they can afford.
The example of the headmaster which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave is a very good one, but there are thousands and thousands of others. Unless we restore, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, rightly said, a positive programme of public housing, by which I do not mean council housing in the old way, but public housing, which includes the co-operatives and the housing associations, we shall not have a balanced community in our inner cities where people can live as well as work, because that is a key to a city which is a good city.
A good city is a city which has neighbourhoods; which is not empty at night and full of commuters in the day, or indeed empty during the day, because people have to work elsewhere, and full of people who come back only to watch television at night time. Our housing policy is drastically damaging the prospects of regeneration of the quality of life in our inner cities.
I want to say something too about jobs. The people of Spitalfields, many of them being recent immigrants from Bangladesh, have done a very good job for themselves, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, rightly said, he hopes for the country as well, in finding jobs. Many of those jobs are in terrible physical conditions and probably at very poor rates of pay. But nevertheless I do not want to criticise the spirit of enterprise which is particularly evident in immigrant communities in our inner cities. That spirit has been a feature of our immigrant communities ever since—looking back at Spitalfields—the Huguenots came over in the 17th century, and probably even earlier than that.
But the provision of jobs by entrepreneurs is again only scratching the surface of the major problem. We are living in a country where unemployment has gone up by nearly 200,000 in the past two months and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is perfectly satisfied with that. We have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who says that this is an acceptable price to pay for bringing down inflation. If that is an acceptable price to pay —and I do not accept for a moment that high

301
unemployment, whether acceptable or not, is a necessary concomitant of low inflation—and if the increase in unemployment which has been happening and which is bound to continue is to be allowed as a matter of government policy, all the talk about initiatives in the inner cities is so much hot air, because we shall be depriving the people in those communities of what they most need.
What I fear about government policy over the past 12 years —and I can criticise it because I have criticised it in my own behaviour in the 1970s—is that it is a series of policy gestures rather than a series of policies. We have things like the enterprise zones, the housing action trusts and the urban development corporations. I am not saying that they have not done good work in many places, and I listened with interest to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and others about urban development corporations. But what they are doing, particularly with the enterprise zones, is seeking to highlight the very limited amount of money which the Government are making available for the inner cities by concentrating it in very small areas.
The other lesson that we learnt about Spitalfields was that, if we had done something effective about homes and jobs and not simply scratched the surface of the problems, there would rightly have been an outcry from the next bit of Tower Hamlets, the next bit of Hackney, the next bit of Southwark or the next bit of Newham. They would have asked, "Why is it that those areas are being favoured when we are not?"
I am afraid that the lesson of enterprise zones, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, is that you take a very small area, you encourage investment and all that happens is that the investment is drained from the area immediately next-door. What then happens is that, because there are no rates, the rents go up close to the level which they would otherwise have been, and the benefit is to the landlords and not to the economy of the area as a whole. The noble Earl may disagree with that in his own case, but that is the experience of enterprise zones all over. So it is a whole succession of policy gestures which I fear are contrary to any real hope of investment in the inner cities.
The present Secretary of State, in his first incarnation, was a great one for policy gestures; a great one for dressing up, landing in helicopters and striding around parts of the inner cities. Some of it was clearly a great revelation for him and I admire him for it. But if he is to come back in his second incarnation and continue with this substitution of policy gestures for policy, then he will be disappointing—I would say even betraying—the hopes of those who are looking for some more effective action.
The subject of this debate is also concerned with partnership, and I agree with everything that has been said about partnership. I particularly want to draw attention to the role of local authorities in partnership. Partnership, after all, is not just between organisations
302
—voluntary organisations, central government, employers, the business community and so on. It it is also a partnership of people, and it is a partnership of people represented by local authorities.
I want to emphasise the role that local authorities can have and should have in the regeneration of the inner cities. I am not just talking of local authorities participating in partnership work, although I could. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will know of the Cariocca project in Manchester, where, with the black community, there has been investment by the local authority and with Department of the Environment money in work space for black people. There is the example in Hackney of collaboration with city employers in recruitment; the example in Coventry with co-operation between the council and the clothing manufacturers of the city; the example in Barnsley of business innovation centres, in collaboration with the chamber of commerce and with the European Community. There are many examples of where local authorities can participate in partnerships. But much more important is the role of local authorities and what they should have to contribute in terms of their housing policies; in terms of what they can provide by planning, by the sensible use of land that is available; in terms of the infrastructure that is required, the education, the social services and so on which are necessary for the revival of the inner cities.
What is tragic is the extent to which the role of local authorities has been devalued over the past 12 years as an act of deliberate policy by this Government. Over and over again we have seen powers taken away from local authorities so that they can no longer act, and we have seen resources taken away from them when the Government do not have the guts to take away powers literally.
A classic example was the attempt in the 1989 Local Government and Housing Act to affect local authorities' powers to engage in economic development. The way in which this was presented was that it was now becoming a specific responsibility of local government rather than being forced onto the old Section 137 of the Local Government Act. The practice was that the Government took powers for the first time to say, "If we do, not approve of the economic development that you are undertaking, you cannot do it at all". I suspect that when the money is given tomorrow to local authorities to promote regeneration of the inner cities it will be said, "You can have money but only for projects which the Secretary of State in Marsham Street approves or. In other words, there is no local autonomy whatever left.
It is a noble tradition of the Conservative Party to criticise the two nations which have existed in this country long before the time of Disraeli. What I fear about the policies of this Government is that they are increasing the differences between the two nations. That is particularly to the detriment of our inner cities. In the past 12 years, which has not been a period of economic advancement but rather a vast consumer spending binge for which we shall have to pay in due course, the rich have got richer and the poor have got

303
poorer. That has happened especially in the inner cities. That is why we need a change of government in order to make things better.
7.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I join with all noble Lords in giving the most reverend Primate a hearty welcome to our Benches. His speech was quite inspiring and we welcome the spiritual dimension in this House.
The most reverend Primate referred to the soullessness of our inner cities. Because we are not prepared to accept such a premise, the Government have positively addressed the problems of the inner cities. I hope that what I say this evening on behalf of the Government will encourage noble Lords. Perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who have been kind enough to congratulate me on my promotion.
I welcome the opportunity presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, to debate this important issue. We were faced today with a substantial subject and I have listened very closely and with a great deal of interest to the comments of all noble Lords. Anxiety has been shown for the problems facing inner city areas and the people who live and work in them. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to reinforce the Government's wholehearted determination to tackle those inner city problems and to outline some of the real progress that is being made.
I fully endorse the emphasis the noble Baroness's Motion puts on the need for:
"partnership between public, private and voluntary sectors to promote regeneration".
That has always been a key factor in the Government's approach to urban regeneration. But I challenge her charge of the,
"continued neglect of the inner cities".
That ignores the very real progress that has been made in many areas. The 1980s were a remarkable decade of achievement in the Government's programme of urban regeneration.
In the past 12 years, this Government have introduced a wide range of measures designed to tackle the needs of the run-down areas of our older towns and cities. We have tackled that head-on, with imagination and flexibility. Inner city policies permeate down through all departments. Our programmes—urban development corporations, city action teams, city grant, inner city task forces and garden festivals among others—reinforce our partnership approach to urban regeneration. I sat on the board of a development corporation in Peterborough. The work carried out by that organisation benefited not only newcomers to Peterborough but substantially benefited the indigenous population, a point made by my noble friend Lord Wade.
Working with local government, the private and voluntary sectors, inner city areas have attracted billions of pounds of private sector investment and thousands of jobs have been created. The transformation of the inner city landscape has been very exciting to watch.
Under the action for cities initiative, the Government are investing some £4 billion per year in
304
the inner cities. There are main programmes such as education, health, housing, transport and so on; but there are many Government incentives specifically administered in the urban areas. Moreover, they are not all DoE programmes.
The Department of Education and Science, for example, provides grant support for open learning centres and to increase the supply of trained youth leaders, and has pioneered city technology colleges. The Department of Employment is pushing ahead with its expanding programme of training and enterprise councils and the employment service provides increased help to unemployed inner city residents through jobclubs, job interview guarantees, and employment training. The Government's proposals for education and training—through developing vocational qualifications, the introduction of diploma awards and training credits—will provide a sound foundation and give increased flexibility for all young people over the age of 16 to take advantage of the training and education opportunities available.
The Home Office has a number of safer cities projects running, and grants have been given to tackle ethnic minority needs in education, social services, enterprise support and other areas; the Department of Trade and Industry has 16 inner city task forces—also with sponsor Ministers—working with local people improving life and work in inner cities.
My own department has a full range of urban programmes, including estate action for run-down council housing; derelict land grant; enterprise and simplified planning zones; as well as the urban programme, city grant and urban development corporations. My noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton was kind enough to outline some of the benefits of that work. Investment is now running at over £10 billion.
We must recognise and not forget the important role of the Church in these matters and the work of the Church urban fund. That dovetails not only with Government projects but also with local, community and voluntary projects.
All those programmes are designed to promote an active and genuine partnership between all those with an interest in the welfare of their areas. The list of players is impressive from local government, the private and voluntary sectors and the local people.
On the rather cynical remarks made about local government, when I was a member of a board of a development corporation, I saw excellent cooperation between local government and the development corporation. All vested interests in politics were submerged. We had a mission which was taken up by all the players, who included local politicians of all persuasions. The response on the ground has been marvellous; the co-operative action of all the various interests has produced some impressive results. Perhaps I may give some examples.
At the Wavertree Technology Park on Merseyside 60 acres of severe dereliction have been transformed into a highly successful modern hi-tech business park. That partnership between central and local government, and the private sector, in which the Government injected over £6 million in grants, helped to achieve

305
£30 million of private development and investment, bringing 1,500 jobs. Some of the firms there now say that they would rather recruit in Liverpool than anywhere else. They find the workforce reliable and efficient. That is not the familiar and damaging image of Merseyside. Again, my noble friend Lord Wade made that point.
Some of your Lordships may be familiar with the Cruddas Park/Loadman Street initiative in Newcastle, which will transform a run-down area of housing. This project was initiated by The Newcastle Initiative, a team of local business leaders working together with the local major public sector bodies to pursue the revitalisation of the city and its region, and business in the community. The objective of the project is to improve the Cruddas Park and Loadman Street estates socially and economically by working with the community, the private sector and the appropriate private agencies. We should like to see co-ordinated action of this sort in more areas, including the involvement of the private sector.
Teesside, also in the North East, was until recently, an area which was run-down; and perceived by some as without hope. But just look at that area today. It is alive with activity as developers move in to take advantage of the conditions we, through the UDC, have created. A particular project on the old Stockton race course—now to be a site of mixed development —used £27 million of public money to lever in £80 million private sector investment. Confidence remains good.
The Birmingham heartlands initiative, familiar to some of your Lordships I am sure, is a good example of partnership: the city council, private companies and central government coming together to regenerate East Birmingham. It shows that partnership can take different forms and that the Government will back those who join public and private sector together in a strategy for regeneration.
The lace market in Nottingham has been the site of much government and private sector investment in recent years. My department has assisted in its regeneration through both the urban programme and the city grant regimes. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that these are just gestures. They are not gestures, but real achievements. They have transformed landscapes and benefited real people. Under the city grant six schemes have been approved with £3 million of government funding attracting over £13 million of private sector investment. New business and employment opportunities have been created as a result of this co-operation between the Government and the private sector which is leading to the revival in fortunes of this major provincial city.
The urban development corporations' impact on large run-down areas, such as London Docklands, has already been substantial. The Government are investing some £470 million through the 11 UDCs this year. In general, each UDC works with business interests in securing land for development, providing infrastructure and creating a climate in which enterprise can flourish. The most impressive fact about the UDCs is the amount of private investment
306
that they have secured for inner city regeneration. Public sector money amounting to £1.5 billion invested in UDCs since their creation has generated over £10 billion of private investment.
The role of the private sector—firms of all sizes —in inner city regeneration is vital. And I am glad to say that industry and commerce are increasingly becoming involved in the development of their cities. Many firms are supporting local enterprise agencies and seconding personnel to work in the community. They are providing training for unemployed people, work experience for pupils and support for schools and industry compacts. Business leadership teams have been set up in a number of areas. Using their management and business skills, these leaders are working with the public authorities in shaping and inspiring the regeneration of their areas.
Last but not least is the role of the voluntary sector in the partnership equation. The voluntary sector is a vital element in the regeneration package, and has been so for many years. The sector has a unique combination of features which makes it well suited to playing an integral part in inner city revival. Voluntary action is often the first time that many people have a chance to influence the sort of place they live and work in, or the sort of employment skills to which they have access, or their local environment. There are many examples: in building or converting workshops to suit the needs of small local businessmen; in combining training for employment with providing much-needed local services; or environmental improvements.
A number of noble Lords have raised the Question of housing policy in the inner cities. I must commend to the House the work done by my honourable friend Sir George Young, the Minister for Housing in another place. Our ultimate objectives for housing in the inner cities are the same as they are throughout the country: that is, to ensure that decent housing is within the reach of all families, and to promote choice for owner-occupiers and tenants alike.
One difference between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is that we believe that local authorities are not the only providers of local housing. Local authorities are spending around £2 billion a year on the renovation of their own stock, which is nearly double the level of 10 years ago in real terms. Many authorities are also working with housing associations, private landlords and developers to increase the supply of low-cost housing.
We have increased the public resources available to housing associations for developing subsidised housing from £1.1 billion last year to over £2 billion by 1993 and changed their grant arrangement to enable them to attract private investment.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I do not believe that local council housing is the only way of providing housing. I object that the Government do not believe that it has any part at all to play.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I profoundly disagree with the statement just made by the noble Lord. I shall repeat it because it is very important. Local authorities are spending £2 billion a year on renovating their own

307
stock. They are still building houses and their grant has increased. The level of grant is nearly double that of 10 years ago in real terms. Many authorities are also working with housing associations.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, is it not true that Liverpool Corporation wanted to build 3,000 houses for rent, but that the Government's financial strictures gave rise to all of Merseyside's financial problems?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the specific point made by the noble Lord detracts from the main point that I am making; namely, that it is a combination of local authority provision, housing association provision, private sector provision and the voluntary sector. They are all involved in the provision of housing. We are talking about the number of houses that are built irrespective of who makes the basic provision.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, if I detracted from the noble Baroness's main point, then I apologise. I was merely asking a question. Does the Minister not know that Liverpool Corporation embarked on a programme of building 3,000 houses, which were badly needed, but that Government restrictions put the corporation in a situation where financial problems arose which became almost insurmountable?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very specific point about Liverpool. I do not have time to go into the specific detail. Liverpool is not an authority known for low spending.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, that is not a very nice answer. Will the Minister write to me when she has details of the problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, of course I shall write to the noble Lord. Together, these measures will permit a sustained increase in output by housing associations from 27,000 last year to around 40,000 by 1993–94, Deregulation of the private rented sector is also helping to make more properties available for rent, eating pressures across the market as a whole.
Of course, many of the worst housing problems are concentrated in the inner cities. We are addressing the problem through a series of measures. We are targeting capital resources and housing revenue account subsidy more effectively on the authorities with the greatest needs, including inner city areas. Three-quarters of local authorities' capital spending power derives from allocations based on assessed need, compared with one-third under the old system. A system of targeted management and maintenance allowances was introduced for this year. The ring-fencing of the housing revenue account—stopping cross-subsidy from local taxpayers—has also put pressure on local authority housing managers to improve their management and level of service and efficiency.
In addition, estate action schemes, worth £268 million in 1991–92, are revitalising run-down council estates, many in inner city areas. Housing action trusts can focus resources and expertise on some run-down areas of predominantly local authority housing where
308
the problems are beyond the capabilities of the authority. The first trust, announced last month, is to be in Hull. A proposal for Waltham Forest is under active consideration.
The need to reduce homelessness underlies all our housing policies. An extra £300 million is available over two years to local authorities and housing associations in London and the South East for measures to reduce the use of bed and breakfast accommodation. This is, of course, in addition to mainstream housing capital investment approaching £4 billion this year. The programme aims to provide about 16,000 new lettings for homeless families through bringing empty properties back into use and cash incentives schemes to help existing tenants to buy a property in the private sector.
We are also spending more than £100 million over three years to provide more accommodation for homeless people in London, and to support voluntary organisations throughout England who offer homeless, and potentially homeless, people advice and practical help. Our current initiative is already having considerable impact. The number of young and not so young people sleeping rough in the main areas of central London have halved from a figure of 1,000 in January to fewer than 500 at present.
I could not possibly do justice to the debate by addressing all the individual points raised by noble Lords, but I shall attempt to address some of the main points that have been raised. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was quite rightly concerned about Manchester. He made sure that we understood not just the positive but the downside of some of the problems in that area. Perhaps I may reassure him about Moss Side. The Government are well seized of the difficulties in that area. The right reverend Prelate probably knows that a great deal of activity has been initiated by the Home Office, my own department and the Department of Education and Science. My understanding is that the safe cities' programme is addressing some of the problems relating to drugs in that area.
I understand that over 1,300 crime prevention measures have been initiated and some of the signs are promising. However, the problems are horrendous for that particular part of Manchester, and I refer now to Salford Quays, which I have visited. I accept much of what the right reverend Prelate said, but he referred to a gap. The development has been a marvellously exciting project. Manchester—and Salford in particular—would be a poorer place without that development. It would not be as equipped as it is now to face some of the problems of the recession. It is our firm belief that economic buoyancy is an essential prerequisite for the well-being and health of people in the area.
The right reverend Prelate referred to a family camping out in a church in Salford and to the problems of that family. I cannot comment as I do not know the details; but if the local authority made the judgment and determined that the family was intentionally homeless, I have to assume that the

309
family must have left some accommodation voluntarily. We must make sure that our advice is more appropriate to help young people and families in that situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was rightly concerned about training needs, particularly those of special interest groups. Again, I do not have a specific answer to that question. The statements made in the House earlier this week, together with the way in which the TECs are now co-ordinating, not just across education and the public sector, but with the voluntary organisations, means that it is their responsibility to co-ordinate appropriate solutions for the training of people with special needs. However, I shall address that point in writing to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the statutory level and said that his particular interest was the revival of suburban and, I think he said, urban pride. That has been a particular preoccupation with my Secretary of State since he took office. He has a reputation, going back more than a decade, of being concerned about bringing back pride, especially to our inner cities. I do not believe that the mother of all GLCs—which I believe is the new proposal to resurrect London government—is a solution to that particular problem.
My noble friend Lord Joseph is always a stimulating speaker. I should like to spend a great deal more time answering his points but, sadly, I do not have the time. He made some very special points about the moral and spiritual well being of the nation and the ways in which appropriate role models could be encouraged and activated to become involved in practical ways to resolve some of the problems in the community. He and I both know of an organisation called Crossroads where mature people who have had families and who, happily, have been free of social problems are bringing those talents and that experience to bear on families who can use their advice and help. There is scope for another debate on much of what my noble friend said.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a local tenant who wished to call a meeting but who was met with a rather resistant and inexplicable attitude from a local councillor. That was my experience when I visited some council flats in Southwark. I was depressed at the enormous unspent energies of the people who lived in the flats and who wanted to become involved. They said, "Our councillors do not want us to become involved". Again, I believe there is much scope for improvement there.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that targeting resources deprived non-targeted areas of resources. Resources are finite, and if they are spread too thinly then clearly they do not have as much effect. If there is to be any sustainable help, the Government believe that we must target and tackle the worst areas in a way that has an impact, and under a rolling programme which addresses all the problems of those areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the need for one-stop shops. I can be encouraging there. Government city action teams in our major cities
310
provide such a service. Their role is to co-ordinate Government departments and programmes at local level. In Whitehall we also have the action for cities co-ordination unit, which is based in my department and which serves as a focal point for those wishing to understand the programmes available. We have a presence in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Doncaster, Granby, Hartlepool, Leeds, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Spitalfields, North Peckham, North Kensington —I could go on. The point is an important one. We wanted to find a way of bringing all those elements together, and that is an attempt to do just that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that the inner cities have not enjoyed the recent prosperity seen in other parts of the country. Again, I do not believe that that is entirely true. For example, on Teesside in the North East, the UDC would claim that its area has backed the market and that demand has not fallen off during the recession. Indeed it has continued to grow stronger. The economy is cyclical and it differs as between regions. However, economic buoyancy benefits everybody.
I am happy to say to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury that the Black Country is alive and kicking. Like him, I too will welcome Jean Denton to these Benches. She is a good friend. She will be a welcome addition to the House.
In response to the specific point about the Black Country spine road, I have to say that a six kilometre route through the heart of the UDA would link the M.5 to the M.6. It was developed by Sandwell, Walsall and Wolverhampton Councils, and funded by a 100 per cent. Department of Transport grant. There has been an escalation of costs from £140 million in 1989 to £245 million in 1990. Therein lies the problem. However, it is being grappled with. We are aware of the concern and we are actively pursuing a way forward with the DoE and the Department of Transport.
Let me assure the House that we are not claiming that the battle has been won. The conditions today in some parts of our cities—and they are not all in the inner cities—are still unacceptable. A major challenge we face in the 1990s is to bring new hope to those pockets of deprivation that still remain after the successes of the 1980s.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that what he wants to see in future is locally-led solutions, based on a local vision of the way forward for a city or town. Authorities should be encouraged to bring forward plans for redevelopment of areas where there are particular problems or opportunities, drawn up in consultation with the private sector and with local communities. The best and most imaginative of those plans should be rewarded by a commitment of Government resources. The Government are at present looking at ways of encouraging developments along these lines as part of their stock-take of inner cities policies, and a Statement is imminent.
My Lords, there is much to be done—we are not complacent. This Government's achievements are

311
considerable—we have brought about huge physical change, new economic activity and renewed confidence within the depressed areas such as Docklands, Manchester, the garden festival sites and other areas. Despite what some noble Lords have said today, for the first time in decades conditions in our cities are getting better. Recent years have demonstrated that any area—whatever the condition of dereliction—can be revived. We must never be without hope. We have the techniques to do it; there is nothing permanent about decline. We now have a strong foundation of successful policies to build on. An essential ingredient will be to unite the local authorities, local industry and commerce, the academic institutions, the voluntary sector and the individual citizen in common cause to bring alive and enrich our inner cities.
I end with reference to the most reverend Primate who referred to the essential elements of the vision spiritual, economic and artistic. We shall not duck that challenge. We shall, in a spirit of partnership, take it head-on with vigour and with imagination.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, my first job is to thank all the speakers who have taken part in what has been a useful and worthwhile debate. It has been good to have speakers from the Conservative Benches. On some previous occasions when we have had a Liberal Democrat inspired debate they have been conspicuous by their absence. It is sad that on this occasion, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, it was Labour speakers who were conspicuous by their absence. That was surprising in view of the nature of the subject and surprising too because the debate has shown that there is a great deal of agreement about the seriousness of the problem and about what needs to be done. If only we could get beyond the wrangling of parties we could bring about a great deal of determined and agreed planning.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I think the lady doth protest too much. I was timing her speech and I was waiting for her to tell us that not everything in the garden is lovely. At the end of her speech she admitted that there is still a little way to go. Perhaps the difference between us is that we think that that way is rather longer, harder and more expensive than she is able at this stage to admit. We shall know by tomorrow. Despite the words of warning from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I still hope that tomorrow will bring a gleam of new hope.
The emphasis has been on partnership, which is right. I am sorry that I did not get a better response from the noble Baroness about the plight of the voluntary organisations. Perhaps she does not realise how strongly they feel nor how let down they feel. I should like to make another plug for the importance of continuity. The plans that are put forward and agreed -may not be perfect but it may be better to continue; with a plan that is less than perfect than to chop and change and alter and thus make people feel that they cannot think ahead because they do not know what tomorrow will bring.
That is all I want to say about the debate. It remains for me to make one or two more agreeable comments.
312
First and foremost, perhaps I may say again how fortunate we have been to hear the maiden speech of the most reverend Primate and to say how helpful and understanding he was in what he said. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on her promotion. I shall avoid the party point that I might have made. It is always good to see a woman gain promotion. There is still some vestige of truth in the old saying that a woman has to be half as good again as a man in order to reach the same position. I am not making any comment on her male colleagues when I say that. However, I think it can be said in this case. The noble Baroness works very hard. Perhaps I may say to her that she will have to be extremely careful that her colleagues do not turn her into a beast of burden. I notice that whenever there is a job to be done the noble Baroness is trotted out to do it. Women put up with too much, Lady Blatch!
Finally, it is a great pleasure to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I still do not understand why he thought that because he had two parishes he could not sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I really do think that the Churches should not be ashamed to declare their political affiliations. No one has ever been worried about the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, sits determinedly on the Labour Benches. I have seen one or two Anglicans sitting on the Tory Benches. However, a late repentance is better than none. We are glad to see the noble Lord back. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill
7.44 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill seeks to replace certain provisions in Section 5(2) of the Radioactive Substances Act 1948 with a new and modern set of powers enabling the Secretary of State for Transport to implement the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency's regulations for the safe transport of radioactive materials by road. Present powers do not allow this in full. Although the Bill is modest in scope, it is nevertheless important. I am glad to say that it enjoys wide support in the industry and in another place where it was introduced by my honourable friend the Member for Kensington, Mr. Fishburn.
The International Atomic Energy Agency—a specialist agency of the United Nations—of which the United Kingdom is a leading member was set up in 1959 to advise on all aspects of the civil nuclear industry. The agency's recommended regulations set out the minimum standards with which packages and packaging used to transport radioactive material must comply. It is important to appreciate the general philosophy underlying the IAEA regulations. The philosophy is to build safety into packages used in the transportation of radioactive material, a philosophy which the IAEA and its member states have operated effectively for the past 30 years or so. In other words,

313
the design, make up, fabrication, maintenance and storage of packages, and not merely the transport element alone, are subject to the IAEA regulations; hence the necessity of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers.
The IAEA regulations are subject to a continuous review process, leading to a comprehensive revision every 10 years. The last full revision was in 1985. Member states of the agency are under an obligation to implement the regulations by way of domestic legislation as soon as this is possible and practicable. The provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that the regulations made under it reflect the provisions laid down in the latest edition of the IAEA recommended regulations which are already being adopted worldwide. It is important therefore that the United Kingdom is seen by the international community to adopt the provisions as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.
Under Clause 1 the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to help in implementing the Bill and enforcing any regulations made under it. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations covering all aspects of the transport by road of radioactive materials and embraces the areas to which I referred a moment ago. It will be an offence to contravene any regulations made under the clause.
Clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which an inspector or an examiner appointed under Section 68(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 may stop a vehicle being used to transport radioactive packages and the circumstances in which an inspector may prohibit the transport of a radioactive package or the use of a component in the packaging of a radioactive material. The clause also deals with the purpose, duration, form and content of prohibitions. These powers are at present unavailable to the Department of Transport's enforcement staff although they are possessed by other enforcement agencies working in the field of radioactive material, such as Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution in the Department of the Environment. Contravention of a prohibition notice issued under this clause, or failure to comply with directions given in conjunction with such a notice, would be an offence.
Where an inspector believes that a person is failing or is likely to fail to comply with regulations concerning the manufacture or maintenance of packaging components, he will be able, under the provisions of Clause 4, to issue an enforcement notice. The notice will specify the failure or likely failure and the steps to be taken to remedy it. Again, this is something other enforcement agencies have available to them; so no new ground is broken. Failure to comply with a notice will be an offence.
Clause 5 gives powers of entry and sets out the circumstances in which inspectors may enter vehicles and premises, and examiners may enter vehicles, with or without consent. It also specifies when an inspector or an examiner may seize evidence. The obstruction of an inspector or an examiner in exercising any power conferred by this clause, or a warrant issued under it, will constitute an offence. The clause contains another
314
important provision. I refer to the fact that any inspector or examiner who discloses information obtained while exercising the power conferred by the clause, other than in the performance of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.
Clause 6 sets out the penalties for offences and allows for a prosecution to be conducted in either a magistrates' court or a Crown Court. That is dependent upon the severity of the offence. The clause also allows for the prosecution of officials of a corporate body where that body has committed an offence by the act or neglect of those officials. With those provisions, the Secretary of State will be able to ensure that, when made, the regulations can be effectively enforced.
Clause 7 deals with expenses to be allocated by Parliament. Clause 8 provides for corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. Clause 9 deals with the Short Title, repeals, which are set out in the schedule to the Bill, and the commencement of the Bill.
As I said, the Bill will bring the Secretary of State's powers in relation to the transport of radioactive material by road into line with those already available in other areas of the radioactive materials industry. In so doing, it will enable him to comply with international obligations. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.52 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his exposition of the Bill, which was most helpful. I know that he will forgive me if, rather than deal with the useful comments he made, I refer to certain important issues by way of background to the Bill.
On 15th May I wrote to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—who is the sponsor of the Bill—in order to give them prior notice of many significant points that I wished to raise in today's debate. I have subsequently followed that up by forwarding a number of supplementary questions to which I shall refer later. I should say at once that I do not oppose the Bill; indeed, I welcome it. However, although the Minister responded to my letter, I must say that I am not wholly satisfied with the replies that I have received. There are additional matters of concern to which I shall allude later.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency, of which the United Kingdom is a member, are required to transpose into their domestic legislation the recommended regulations made by the agency for the safe transport of radioactive material. Previously that has been done by general regulations in the form of statutory instruments, but the circumstances which have given rise to the rapid expansion in the industrial and medical uses of radioactive material and the corresponding increase in the volume of transport renders that procedure inadequate. Hence this Bill.

315
However, the trouble is that the Government's timetable for adhering to this requirement has slipped very badly. We were under an obligation to legislate on the issue last year, but the Government failed to meet that deadline. Moreover, the Government have acknowledged that fact. What they have done is to persuade a Member in another place to introduce a Bill which in truth is most clearly a government Bill; it implements an international obligation. That is the business of government and not the business of Back-Benchers.
I suppose that the Government may contemplate using the Bill as a precedent for implementing other international obligations. Perhaps they will seek the services of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to transpose European Community directives. I hope that he: will resist those blandishments. I believe that he has already gone beyond the call of duty. However, I do not blame him for that.
The Government have argued that they are put into an invidious position and that because of their "heavy legislative programme" it has not been possible to find space for such a modest but important Bill. But in the other place they are frequently going home early; indeed it happens every week. They have plenty of time. Government business is not in any way filling the agenda there, or, for that matter, in this place. Of course it is true that there are many transport Bills. I know that as well as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, does. However, that is no answer. There is ample time in both Houses of Parliament to take on such a Bill. Moreover, it would not take a great deal of government time to deal with it.
Quite apart from its importance, I believe that it is absolutely wrong—I say this as a former Member of the other place; I was for some time a Back-Bencher —that the Government should trespass upon valuable Private Members' Bill time in order to promote legislation. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedures and it should not have happened. I hope that it will not happen again.
I should like to make it clear that those criticisms are not aimed at the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—indeed, his prime responsibility relates to aviation—or, least of all, at the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who volunteered to sponsor the Bill in this House. He is a very good Member of this House.
Because this is really a government Bill, I expect the Minister to depart from the traditional low profile position which government Ministers adopt—as, indeed, do Members of this Front Bench—when dealing with Private Members' Bills. Consequently, because it is a government Bill, I propose to address the House in my position as Opposition spokesman on transport. I shall, therefore, expect the Minister to respond to the debate as if he were dealing with the Second Reading of a government Bill.
The kernel of the Bill is safety. Under that heading, I should like to put forward a number of questions for the Minister and also for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about which they have received prior notice. Is the Minister satisfied that transport by rail, sea and air is adequately covered elsewhere in
316
legislation? In another place the Minister, Mr. Christopher Chope, asserted that provisions already exist in other legislation which permit the Secretary of State to control the transport of radioactive material through other modes.
What then are the provisions which apply? Are they as comprehensive as those set out in this Bill, bearing in mind the fact that it is probable that there will be a considerable increase in nuclear and contaminated substances in the next few years? There is little doubt that air movements will increase, as indeed will those by rail and sea, most especially with the development of spent reactor fuel processing plants at Sellafield and the development of deep storage facilities for nuclear waste which are planned by NIREX.
Why should this important legislation be dealt with on such a piecemeal basis rather than dealing with transport of radioactive material on an integrated basis? I think it is bad that we should have to look to separate pieces of legislation on such a safety matter. I believe, therefore, that it would be appropriate to have a comprehensive Act dealing with all the aspects involved.
I have referred to shipments of nuclear waste. Those have trebled over the past three years. Further increases can safely be forecast over the next decade. Most of the waste from Europe comes from Germany —from German nuclear power stations—since Germany has no plans to build its own nuclear waste reprocessing industry, largely because of public pressure, which has deflected that government from doing so. It will be interesting to see whether the German Government comply with the policies of the European Community to the effect that waste reprocessing should be done, at least by major industrial states, within their own territory rather than exporting waste elsewhere for reprocessing.
The situation has given rise to considerable anxiety, in that in many instances hazardous cargoes of that kind are carried in conventional ro-ro ferries. I believe that that is wrong. I believe that the Government should insist that irradiated nuclear fuel should be carried in purpose-built ships. There is ample precedent for that. Imports of waste from Japan and Italy to Sellafield are brought into Barrow in BNFL's own specially built ships, which are double skinned and also have bulkheads. The main structural weakness of ro-ro vessels operating in the Channel is that they do not have bulkheads.
Despite the fact that their members' livelihoods are at stake, seafaring unions have expressed considerable concern, as have environmental groups, about this practice. They fear the consequences of an accident in the congested waters of the Channel. They know that these ro-ro ferries are especially vulnerable and that tragic experience has shown that they are unlikely to be able to stay afloat after being holed or when seriously affected by fire.
Now BNFL says that the flasks used can withstand serious fire and have never been ruptured in tests in which they have burned for 30 minutes at 800 degrees centigrade. Unfortunately, that will not do since, according to the International Maritime

317
Organisation, the average length of major fires is at sea 28 hours and in port 23 hours, and temperatures of as much as 1,100 degrees centigrade can be reached.
Quite apart from the fact that major industrial powers should deal with their own waste and that this country should not be taking risks with our people's lives and our environment, what is the Government's answer to the point that I have raised?
My next point is: is the Minister satisfied that the resources available to enforce this legislation are adequate? The explanatory and financial memorandum of the Bill states:
"There are unlikely to be any significant financial or public sector manpower effects as a result of the Bill. It seeks only to replace existing arrangements with those which are more comprehensive and appropriate in the modern requirements of the radioactive materials road transport industry."
That is a contradiction in terms. The regulations will be more comprehensive and appropriate to modern requirements, and therefore they are to be changed. Consequently, I should like to know how many inspectors and traffic examiners are currently employed and whether it is proposed that there should be some increase in personnel to carry out those important additional duties.
In my letter to the Minister, I raised two other issues, one of which concerned the adequacy of legislation to deal with the suitability of drivers of heavy goods vehicles carrying hazardous loads, with whether proper monitoring of their suitability, both physical and as to their driving records, was scrupulously undertaken and with the basis on which that was done. The Minister's reply satisfies me on that score. In addition, the Minister has informed me that, so as to comply with EC Directive 89/684 on vocational driver training, the Government are drawing up regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on the provision of training for drivers of all classes of dangerous goods, including radioactive material. I am satisfied that those regulations will be comprehensive, in that drivers will be required to undergo a training course related to the particular class or classes of dangerous goods that they will be carrying, and that they will also be subjected to specific examination. Moreover, it is also welcome that the new regime will provide for refresher courses to be undertaken every five years to maintain the validity of the certificate issued. Those regulations are to replace the relevant parts of existing regulations dealing with training for drivers of dangerous goods vehicles. I commend the Government for having dealt with the matter in this way, but I should like to know when we may expect the regulations to be finalised.
My next point relates to consultation. As I indicated earlier, it is clear that there is to be a substantial increase in the transportation of radioactive materials in the years ahead. In what forum will the complex policy matters which will undoubtedly burgeon be discussed and resolved? Do the Government perceive that there will be an opportunity given for those in local government who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment to have any input into policy thinking on the issue, and, if so, on what basis will that take place?
318
As regards implementation, I should like to know from the Minister something about the timetable for the implementation of the legislation. What consultations will take place over the content of the regulations and when will that be? When is it likely that the regulations will be brought forward?
In my letter to the Minister I asked why Clause 8, which relates to Northern Ireland, envisaged the use of the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure. His reply was that, first, the Government believe that parity throughout the UK is essential (the provisions of the order will correspond with those in the Bill); and, secondly, that it is necessary for the provisions to apply to Northern Ireland as soon as possible after the Great Britain Act comes into effect. I readily agree with that, but why should we use the negative procedure relating to the Bill in its generality rather than the affirmative procedure? There may be a perfectly good explanation in terms of the matter being technical and possibly even urgent, but the Minister must put forward his own explanation.
I have three other questions of which I gave notice to the Minister today. The first relates to Crown immunity. Presumably the MoD's role in transporting radioactive materials will carry on. How will that be affected by the Bill and the international obligations that it is supposed to fulfil? Secondly, does the Minister have any intention of providing for prior notification for the emergency planning bodies and services, especially for nuclear fuel flasks? Thirdly, and in the same context, we might consider —I put it to the Minister that it might be worthy of consideration—some form of central register to deal with such movements.
I have taken time to deal with those matters, because it is not right that the Bill should be taken on the nod. Essentially it is not a controversial Bill, but it is not a Bill that should have been brought forward in this way. I hope that the questions I have posed are germane to the issues raised in the Bill—I believe them to be—and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. In the light of that reply, I shall decide whether to put down amendments to the Bill in Committee. We may be able to avoid that, but that will depend upon the nature of the Minister's replies.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like to state the Government's view on the Bill. Its aim is to bring the Secretary of State for Transport's powers to make regulations governing the transport of radioactive material by road, and his ability to enforce those regulations, up to date. The Bill will, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, enable the Secretary of State to comply with the United Kingdo— obligations, as a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency, by allowing the implementation of its recommended regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material in the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the Bill fulfils an extremely important purpose: it therefore enjoys our full support.

319
The Bill is intended to cover only the road transport of radioactive materials for civil uses, a point about which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked. Provisions already exist to control the transport of radioactive material by other modes. Those other provisions are specific to the mode of transport and cannot therefore be used for regulating transport by road; nor will they be affected by this Bill. I am satisfied that they are sufficiently comprehensive to cover all eventualities.
Currently the transport by road of radioactive material is controlled by regulations made under provisions contained in the Radioactive Substances Act 1948. Since that Act was passed the use of radioactive materials has grown enormously, especially for medical and industrial purposes, and with increasingly sophisticated applications the current regulation-making provisions have become outdated.
There is no reason to suppose that growth in the transport of radioactive materials will not continue and it is essential that the Secretary of State has at his disposal powers available to control it effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was kind enough to give me notice of some points he wished to raise. I hope that I shall be able to deal with them to his satisfaction and that of other noble Lords. I believe that I have already covered the point about the separate modes of transport and how the other modes are already covered by their own rules and regulations. The noble Lord specifically asked me about roll-on roll-off ferries. That matter is not covered by the Bill which only deals with road transport; therefore, it is outside the scope of the Bill.
Sea transport is already covered by legislation: the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990. These implement the provisions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code which regulates international sea transport of dangerous goods, including radioactive materials. I have to say to the noble Lord that we have no plans to ban, nor do I believe that there are plans to ban, transport by roll-on roll-off ferries.
The noble Lord asked what resources there were for enforcement of the Bill. The Department of Transport already carries out most of what is in the Bill through its 215 traffic examiners and the members of the Radioactive Materials Transport Division. There will be 10 inspectors, supported by the 215 traffic examiners. At present this figure is considered to be the correct level. But, as in all these matters, it is kept under review.
The noble Lord asked about consultations, whether there would be any opportunity to consult, and who would be consulted on the regulations. Although there are no requirements in the Bill to consult on the regulations, draft regulations based on the International Atomic Energy Agency's Safety Series No. 6 Regulations ions for the safe transport of radioactive materials, 1985 edition, as amended in 1990, will be circulated to all interested parties for comment.
The parties to be consulted will include the nuclear industry, the radiopharmaceutical industry, the transport industry, local authorities, hospitals and
320
industrial users of radioactive material and environmental groups. The list is not exhaustive and does not preclude other organisations or individuals from commenting on the proposals.
The noble Lord asked why the regulations were being made under negative resolution rather than affirmative resolution. It is difficult to answer that question. On the whole I believe that the more regulations one can bring in under the negative resolution procedure the better because we hope that it takes up less parliamentary time. That is the primary object of having delegated legislation. As the noble Lord is aware, it is possible to pray against negative resolution orders, so there can be every opportunity for a debate on the subject.
The noble Lord suggested that local authorities should be informed of movements of radioactive materials through their areas. I go back now to the inquiry by the Select Committee on the environment in July 1985. In evidence to that Select Committee, the Department of Transport expressed the view that there would be no purpose in such notification. It should be borne in mind that the department's view given in evidence was that there would be no useful purpose in such a notification. The Select Committee agreed. The degree of protection provided by the packaging is such that the danger of a really serious accident, in terms of its consequences and the release of the contents, is so low that action would rarely be required.
The number of movements of radioactive material on a daily basis is quite considerable. An average figure for movements of radioactive material within the United Kingdom would be in excess of 500,000 every year, mostly medical isotopes and sources for use in industry. Movements of irradiated nuclear fuel only account for a small percentage of that figure. Pre-notification would mean that local authorities would receive large amounts of information, most of which would be of no use to them whatever. That would be administratively burdensome and costly.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene? I accept the point that he has just made, but I am concerned about nuclear fuel flasks which represent a relatively small number, as I understand it. However, conceivably, they could give rise to difficulties, despite the strength of the packaging. I ask that emergency services and so on should be informed beforehand. Is that unreasonable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, notice already has to be given of spent nuclear fuel flasks on the whole under the Motor Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) General Order 1979 which deals with the movement of abnormal and indivisible loads. Under these regulations, the police and highway and bridge authorities—which in most cases will be the local authorities—must be notified of movements of abnormal and indivisible loads at least two clear days before they take place, and details of the route, type of vehicle and a description of the load must be given. So in most cases the type of cargo to which the noble Lord referred will already have been notified under that legislation.

321
The noble Lord suggested that there should be a register of transporters. We have no proposals to register transporters. Current holders and users of radioactive material must already register under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985. As most users are transporters, the majority are already covered. If it should be considered necessary, then my advice is that the powers in the Bill could cover that.
The noble Lord asked about Crown immunity and the Ministry of Defence. The Crown is not bound by any statutory provision except by express words or necessary implication. Whether the Act binds the Crown by implication would be a question for the courts, but the Bill makes no reference to the Crown. It does not cover weapons anyway. It is not intended that weapons should be covered by any regulations made under it. They would be specifically excluded, as at present. The International Atomic Energy Agency whose recommended regulations will be used as a basis for these regulations was set up to look after the peaceful application of atomic energy and radioactive material. Weapons have never been included in its recommendations on transport.
I hope that that covers the points raised by the noble Lord. If he is dissatisfied or not fully satisfied with any of the answers I have given, I shall be only too happy to try to provide further information.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has skipped over one of the main charges that I made as to the appropriateness of dealing with the legislation in this way. Is he prepared, on reflection, to say that future legislation involving the performance of international obligations will not be carried out through the Private Member's Bill procedure? I urge him to recognise that it is not appropriate; it is wrong. It is wrong for Members in another place and it is not the appropriate procedure for governments to undertake when dealing with important international obligations. Will the noble Lord respond to that point?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I apologise if I did not do so. I thought that my reply in the letter that I wrote to the noble Lord covered the point. I cannot give the undertaking which the noble Lord requires. It is up to Members of another place whether they choose to take Bills through the House. My honourable friend the Member for Kensington chose to take this Bill through, and I do not see what is wrong with that.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the welcome he gave to the principle of the Bill. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for having apprised me of some of the points that he intended to raise. As I look through my notes, it appears that there is little for me to say at this point as my noble friend the Minister has covered every point. The noble Lord opposite will recognise that it is not for me—particularly not in your Lordships' House—to pass any judgment or comment on the procedures that are adopted in another place. However, I have no doubt that the point the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, made on that matter will be noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned a number of issues. I do not blame him for doing so. It is one of the great joys of your Lordships' House that one can sometimes stray into areas that are not expressly covered by the Bill before the House. My great concern involves such matters as the packaging of radioactive materials that are transported by road. I am not so concerned about nuclear and military matters. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not refer to those matters.
I underline what my noble friend the Minister has said. There are about half a million movements by road of radioactive material, both medical and industrial. Knowledge on the transportation of that material can be passed from person to person by recognised pathways. There is no necessity to do anything more about that.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the negative and affirmative procedures. I hope I may add to what my noble friend the Minister said on that point. The regulations relating to the 1948 Act were dealt with by the negative procedure—admittedly the regulations were not perhaps as complex as those that are forthcoming—and have caused no undue concern to shippers, receivers or transporters.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for answering all the detailed questions that were raised. The noble Lord opposite may rest assured that over the next two or three days—or at least after the bank holiday—I shall study this evening's debate to see whether any points that have been raised have not been answered. If any points remain unanswered, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall provide him with an answer and, as is customary, place a copy of the answer in the Library. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

  THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
  THE ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY
  ARAB BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI GOODS
  ARAB BOYCOTT OF ISRAELI GOODS
  WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATIONS
  WAR CRIMES INVESTIGATIONS
  PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986, S. 39: TRESPASS ON LAND
  PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986, S. 39: TRESPASS ON LAND
  VAGRANCY ACT 1824: USE OF POWERS
  VAGRANCY ACT 1824: USE OF POWERS
  VAGRANCY ACT 1924: PROSECUTIONS
  VAGRANCY ACT 1924: PROSECUTIONS
  MAGISTRATES' COURT REGISTERS
  MAGISTRATES' COURT REGISTERS
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  BARKESTONE CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOL
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  DRUG TRAFFICKING: NUMBERS OF INVESTIGATIONS
  DRUG TRAFFICKING: NUMBERS OF INVESTIGATIONS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK ROUTE PROPOSALS
  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK ROUTE PROPOSALS
  ROAD TRAFFIC LAW: REVISED HIGHWAY CODE
  ROAD TRAFFIC LAW: REVISED HIGHWAY CODE
  KUWAIT: INJURY TO SERVICEMEN CLEARING MINEFIELDS
  KUWAIT: INJURY TO SERVICEMEN CLEARING MINEFIELDS