Sitting of 13 January 1992

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

    London Transport
    Mr. Carrington:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of London Transport to discuss improvements to public transport in London.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I meet the chairman of London Transport regularly to discuss a variety of issues, including future improvements and standards of service.
    Mr. Carrington: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware how welcome the prospect of bus deregulation in London is, with the likelihood of improved services and of getting more people back on buses? Will he take steps to ensure that buses have greater priority over other road users and to eliminate one of the major causes of road congestion in London—the long time that it takes to get passengers loaded on to one-man operated buses because drivers have to give change to passengers?
    Mr. Rifkind: I welcome what my hon. Friend said. Bus deregulation in other parts of the country has led to much innovation in the bus industry and to a 19 per cent. increase in bus mileage. I agree with my hon. Friend about encouraging the quick movement of buses throughout the capital. The red route option, which we introduced, has already shown that bus services improve when comparable improvements are made to traffic management.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the start of crossrail is being delayed? As proposals for the Hackney to Chelsea tube line will not be tabled until crossrail starts, does that mean that development of the Hackney to Chelsea line will be delayed? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss that issue with London Transport?
    Mr. Rifkind: The crossrail Bill has been introduced and I have no doubt that it will be taken forward with all proper expedition. British Rail and London Transport have a massive expansion programme of new investment, which means that certain projects must be completed before others can reasonably be expected to begin. The priorities are extension of the Jubilee line, then crossrail and then development of the Chelsea to Hackney line. The safeguarding of the Chelsea to Hackney line has already been announced.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of London Transport to discuss improvements, will he draw to his attention the importance of providing for south-east London, which is so ill-served by the underground system, and of driving a route through Camberwell, Dulwich and onwards to Crystal Palace?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am aware that, historically, south London has not been as well served by the underground as north London. The Jubilee line extension will be a major new additional part of the infrastructure and will serve certain parts of south London, but I take note of my hon. Friend's other comments.
    Ms. Ruddock: When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of London Transport, will he confess that the Government are in a complete mess? Will he acknowledge, unlike the view of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), that there is overwhelming opposition to bus deregulation in London? Will he explain rumours of a Government U-turn on the need for a strategic authority? Will he recommend a cheap and cheerful service for the underground, or a new compensation plan of chocolates and flowers? I suggest that the Secretary of State take a little time to read our new document, "London: a strategy for transport", which might help him and his colleagues to get sorted out on the need for better transport in the capital city.
    Mr. Rifkind: I certainly hope that the hon. Lady will cheer up because——
    Ms. Ruddock: I am cheerful.
    Mr. Rifkind: I am glad that the hon. Lady is cheering up. I must remind her that, to judge by the performance of the last Labour Government as opposed to the promises of the present Labour Opposition, Londoners can look forward only to cuts in the investment required. I remind her that the Labour Government's White Paper of 1977 said that the upsurge in the subsidy in the early years of that decade had been accompanied by sharp cuts in investment. That was our experience under the previous Labour Government and would be the experience of Londoners if there were ever to be the misfortune of another Labour Government.

    Kent Rail Services
    Mr. Dunn:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss commuter services in north-west Kent; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss all current issues. I recently travelled on the Kent rail service and visited my hon. Friend's constituency with him.
    Mr. Dunn: I thank my hon. Friend for the time and trouble that he took last week to visit my constituency and see at first hand the problems caused by and resulting from British Rail. Bearing in mind the fact that my constituents want a reliable and quality service, will he take steps today to confirm that the orders that are placed for the new Networker rolling stock will be supplied in the near future, for the betterment of the north-west Kent commuter?
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that 486 vehicles for new Networker trains are being manufactured at a total cost of £365 million and that the first of those trains will come into service on my hon. Friend's line in May this year. Some 63 stations have already had their platforms lengthened to take the new longer train—positive evidence of the Government's support for British Rail's expansion programme.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister confirm that the order for the north Kent line, the Kent line, is the one that has not yet been agreed by the Treasury? Would not it be much better to pinch another of Labour's ideas and lease the 188 trains rather than provide compensation schemes, chocolates and flowers?
    Mr. Freeman: I have already explained to the House that 486 vehicles are being manufactured for the Kent link services, which serve Dartford, Swanley and Sevenoaks. The orders have been placed——
    Mr. Prescott: Only for the first three batches.
    Mr. Freeman:—for the first three batches. One hundred and eighty eight of the class 465 trains have been authorised, but not yet ordered, by British Rail. We expect British Rail to give urgent consideration to the timing of the placement of that order.
    Several Hon. Members rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Normally, I do not call hon. Members after Front Benchers, but I shall make an exception today. Dame Peggy Fenner, first.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: My hon. Friend will be aware that the commuters in Kent are looking for some advantages from the channel tunnel rail link. Will he please assure me that the story in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday about considering yet another line is untrue?
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that that story in The Sunday Telegraph is wrong. The Government have made their position clear on the route of the high-speed rail link and there is no reconsideration.
    Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister tell us whether these north Kent lines will be privatised under some new emanation of the London, Chatham and Dover railway? If they are, will they run two, three or four types of train for typists, civil servants and even, perhaps, Ministers of the Crown who might occasionally like to travel by public transport?
    Mr. Freeman: The House will expect me to apologise again for the remarks that I injudiciously made when I was trying to illustrate a simple point—that, with the private sector providing more rail services in future, I hope that a range of choice will be available to the travelling public in terms of price and time of day, rather like that provided by the airlines and the long-distance coach market.
    On the north Kent lines, the Government want to see a modern, first-class rail system in Network SouthEast. Substantial progress has been made on, for example, the Northampton line and the Thames and Chiltern lines and will shortly be made on the Kent link lines. By the end of the decade Network SouthEast will be the best mass-transit system in the world.

    Southend-on-Sea
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will pay an official visit to Southend-on-Sea travelling by public transport.
    Mr. Freeman: I should be happy to visit Southend-on-Sea travelling by British Rail at the earliest opportunity. The Government are well aware of the problems on the London-Tilbury and Southend line and are keen to see improvements in that service. The Government's recent increase in funding to British Rail will enable the modernisation of the line to be begun with a £50 million resignalling project.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the Minister's welcome acceptance of my invitation will bring confidence to the people of Southend that their serious problems with the Fenchurch street line are not being ignored, can he give some information soon about the replacement of the rolling stock, following his welcome assurance that we will have a good bit of money for the replacement of the signalling? I sincerely express the hope that when my hon. Friend visits Southend-on-Sea his train there and his train back will be on time.
    Mr. Freeman: I can give my hon. Friend some positive news. The Department is urgently considering British Rail's proposals to meet the need for replacement rolling stock on the London-Tilbury and Southend line by transferring relatively new class 321 and class 315 rolling stock from other lines after resignalling on the London-Tilbury and Southend line is complete.

    Rail Signalling Systems
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the chairman of British Rail regarding the safety of the signalling systems in use on the Cardiff-Paddington line.
    Mr. Rifkind: I have frequent meetings with the chairman of British Rail at which various safety-related topics are discussed.
    Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, subsequent to the accident at the Severn tunnel on 7 December, the Government's railway inspectorate removed and confiscated a length of self-healing cable, which is suspected to be part of the cause of the signalling failures that may have led to the accident? Since then, that length of self-healing cable has been kept under lock and key at the railway inspectorate building at Reading. It has not been released for independent investigation or for investigation by BR experts, so it is not part of the evidence that is being considered at the BR internal inquiry now under way. Does the Secretary of State agree that that action demonstrates an appalling lack of trust between the Government's railway inspectorate and BR in discovering the cause of that accident?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should not draw that type of conclusion. In addition to BR's internal inquiry, the railway inspectorate, which is totally independent, is to carry out its own examination of that accident. It is wise to allow the inspectorate to begin its inquiry. We will all look carefully at the conclusions that it draws from its work and from the evidence submitted to it.
    Mr. Prescott: If the Secretary of State has discussed inter-city routes with the chairman of British Rail, will he tell us what is his view, if not the view of Cabinet colleagues, on the privatisation of InterCity? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman require the guaranteeing of through routes to all parts of the United Kingdom? Is he prepared to give a subsidy to maintain those routes to guarantee private profit rather than meet public transport needs?
    Mr. Rifkind: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to certain press reports that appeared last week which referred to an alleged internal British Rail document about the implications of privatisation for InterCity. Since those reports appeared, it has become clear that that document was not a BR document, but a bogus one, which I understand the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) was involved in passing to the press. What the public would like to know is whether the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and the Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), were aware that that document was not a genuine document, but was something prepared, no doubt, for political purposes.

    Rail Safety
    Mr. Wareing:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve safety on the railways.
    Mr. Rifkind: We are committed to improving the already extremely high level of railway safety. Both British Rail and London Underground have major safety programmes under way. These include investment in new equipment, new work procedures, additional training and new safety management systems.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the number of railway accidents, which has increased recently, is in no small measure due to the under-investment in British Rail since the Tory Government placed restrictions on the railway system?
    As Italy invests £63 per head, Germany £41 per head and this country only £24 per head in the railways, does not the Secretary of State have a teeny-weeny twinge of conscience when he hears of railway accidents?
    Mr. Rifkind: I might, if the hon. Gentleman's facts were right, but they are wrong in two fundamental respects. First, safety expenditure under the Government and British Rail is higher than it has ever been in British Rail's history—it has gone up from £140 million to £200 million. Secondly, the number of significant train accidents recorded in 1990 was the lowest on record and it is expected that the final figure for 1991 will show a further decline.
    Mr. Adley: I welcome the change of policy, which took place some time ago under my right hon. and learned Friend's sponsorship, of increasing investment in the railways. However, does he agree that there has been a fall of well over half in the percentage of gross domestic product invested in the railways in the past 10 years? If the public service obligation grant is substantially reduced, will not there be an inevitable increase in dissatisfaction with customer service? If my right hon. and learned Friend believes in cause and effect, will he assure the House that
    656
    he has learnt a lesson from it and that not only investment in but the subsidy to British Rail will be maintained to provide the service that people expect from the railways as we approach the end of the century?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with a certain amount of what my hon. Friend said. There is certainly a case for subsidy on the social railway, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with the judgment of the previous Labour Government, who said that there was no case for subsidising inter-urban services, nor was there a social case for subsidy with regard to inter-city services. As for rural railways and other parts of the subsidised railway, the Government have made it abundantly clear that investment will go ahead. Indeed, it is now higher than at any time since the early 1960s.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that London Underground has stated that there is no limit to the number of people who wish to push themselves on to a London Underground train? Does he intend to take action on that official statement?
    Mr. Rifkind: We are anxious to see an expansion in the capacity of the underground. One reason why we accepted the investment that London Underground told the Monopolies and Mergers Commission was necessary was to ensure that, in years to come, there would be the rolling stock to meet the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Bowis: My right hon. and learned Friend will recall the bomb explosion a month ago on the track in my constituency. Mercifully, it did not cause the death and destruction intended. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although we cannot protect the entire railway track throughout the country, a useful step may be to see whether cameras can be used at strategic points, not least at the busiest rail junction in the world?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note what my hon. Friend says. There are already a number of cameras at railway stations and other spots. The incident to which my hon. Friend refers happened on track outside the railway station. Clearly, it is not feasible to have cameras covering the whole of the track. It is for those involved in enhancing the security of the infrastructure to identify where cameras would be most useful in the battle against terrorism and vandalism.
    Mr. Snape: May I ask the Secretary of State about the current safety inquiry into the accident at Newton junction in Scotland? Is it true that among the inquiry's recommendations are the provision of signalling alterations, the installation of new protective devices and changed signalling practice at that and other junctions, which may cause delays to approaching trains? Would not it be safer, cheaper and quicker to reinstate the conventional junction lay-out at that and other accident sites? Is not it beyond the realms of possibility that the Secretary of State and railway management have got it wrong on this occasion?
    Mr. Rifkind: The inquiry's recommendations have not yet been put to Ministers. When they are, we shall consider what the independent inquiry has identified and we shall do whatever is necessary to enhance safety in the use of the railways. Fortunately, our railways remain one of the

    657
    safest means of transport and I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that the number of significant accidents on the railways is now the lowest on record.

    Roll On/Roll Off Ferries
    Mr. Terry Davis:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the higher standards of residual stability recommended by the steering committee of the roll on/roll off ferry safety research programme to be applied to all roll on/roll off ferries using British ports.
    The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The maritime safety committee of the International Maritime Organisation has agreed that the higher standards referred to by the hon. Gentleman should be phased in, starting in October 1994. When the matter is further considered by the committee in April, the United Kingdom will continue to press for the phasing-in period to be less than the proposed five years.
    Mr. Davis: Will the Minister confirm that it is now five years since the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized, with tremendous loss of life, and two years since the committee for the research programme into the safety of roll on/roll off ferries said that something should be done about the safety of existing ferries—those built before 1990? The Minister has now said that it will be another seven years before everyone crossing the channel on holiday will be carried as safely as possible. Will he accept personal responsibility for any tragedies that occur in the meantime?
    Mr. McLoughlin: A number of recommendations following the immediate aftermath of the Herald of Free Enterprise tragedy have been put into operation. Research was carried out on the stability of such ferries, which took some time. We are now trying to get agreement with the International Maritime Organisation to phase in the recommendations much more quickly, and the United Kingdom has led those calls. It would not be acceptable to anyone for ships using United Kingdom ports to be treated differently. I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Gentleman proposes. The simple fact remains that, if we cannot get agreement, we may consider taking unilateral action in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that the continuing Government pressure to bring about the improvements is welcome news? Will he use the facilities of the European Community to ensure that ships that are manned and owned by France, for example, obey the new rules as quickly as possible?
    Mr. McLoughlin: Yes, indeed. That is one reason why we are trying to get agreement through the International Maritime Organisation. We see the matter not as a purely British problem but as a far more widespread problem. The best way in which to get agreement on those matters is through international agreement and international regulation.
    Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that with ferry safety, as well as putting on pressure, the Government should act? Is not it about time for the Government to move responsibility for ferry safety away from the Department of Transport to a separate, independent body so that we can be fully assured about all aspects of ferry
    658
    safety, including crewing levels? We do not want situations such as that at Commodore Shipping, where English officers and crews have been replaced by Norwegians and Poles who cannot even speak English, thus increasing the risk of severe ferry accidents.
    Mr. McLoughlin: What we see from the Opposition spokesman is more confusion in the Labour party. At one stage, Labour sheds crocodile tears for the decline in the merchant fleet, yet in the next breath, it says how much more regulation it would like to be applied to the merchant fleet. The simple fact is that we believe, as the Opposition have so far, that the best way to make movements along those lines is through international agreement and through the International Maritime Organisation. That is what we are trying to do.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: If the Minister is genuinely concerned about maritime safety, he must do something about the massive proposed cuts in the coastguard service. Will he make a statement to the House about the matter and will he get rid of the unwanted and unnecessary cuts in the number of coastguards?
    Mr. McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that cuts mean setting up 68 new sector organisations throughout the country, I agree that there are cuts. Under the coastguard sector review, we have considered the most effective way to provide a coastguard service around the whole of the United Kingdom. That has meant that we have increased the number of sector offices throughout the United Kingdom and we have announced a large new building programme. We have increased the amount being spent on the coastguard service and a good coastguard service is available to our coastline.

    Road Construction
    Mr. Knox:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on motorway and major trunk road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): At constant prices, expenditure on construction of motorways and trunk roads in England was £782 million in 1988–89, £981 million in 1989–90 and £1,318 million in 1990–91.
    Mr. Knox: In view of the congestion on motorways and major trunk roads, do not those figures still fall short of what is necessary and desirable, despite the improvement that has been made in the past three years?
    Mr. Chope: There is much in what my hon. Friend says. That is why the Government are committed to an expanded roads programme and continuing major investment in our transport infrastructure. In that respect, the Government's policy is very different from that of the main Opposition parties, both of which are committed to reductions in real terms in expenditure on our roads.
    Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties on the A13—one of the main trunk links out of London to Essex and East Anglia. Can he confirm that things are on course for the early completion of the Mar Dyke-Wellington link on the A13, and can he tell the House the date on which he hopes that work on that link will start?
    Mr. Chope: I hope that the results of the public inquiry will be announced shortly and that the advance works on the link can be started before the end of the year, although that depends wholly on the outcome of the general election, because, as I said, the Opposition are committed to reducing expenditure on roads and vital pieces of road infrastructure such as that for which my hon. Friend rightly argues would be threatened by a Labour Government.

    Rail Signalling
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instigate an independent inquiry into the signalling system of British Rail.
    Mr. Rifkind: British Rail investigates all cases of signal failure. Those caused by vandalism, or which result in accidents, are already investigated by independent agencies and there is therefore no need for a general inquiry into British Rail's signalling system.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State has said several times today how proud he is of British Rail's safety record—a pride which we all share—but that is surely no reason not to look again at the real doubts that have arisen in the past year about manning, the number of hours worked and the quality of some of the new systems of signalling that are being installed. We need to maintain that safety record, and one of the best ways to improve the traveller's commitment to BR is to ensure that the signalling system is working very efficiently indeed.
    Mr. Rifkind: I note what the hon. Lady says. She is right to draw attention to the priorities involved in enhancing safety. We are seeking to enable British Rail to take forward its safety standards by substantially increasing the resources available—from £140 million to £200 million in the current year. That is an indication of the priority that we all attach to this important issue.
    Mr. Batiste: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that many of the problems that British Rail experienced on the east coast line at the end of last year were due to criminal vandalism affecting the signalling system, particularly in Scotland and the north of England? What action is being taken to prevent a recurrence?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that criminal vandalism is appalling: it can often lead to loss of life or the risk of serious injury. Clearly, criminal proceedings, which are a matter for others, would normally be the consequence of such action. British Rail is doing all in its power to protect its property from acts of vandalism, but, given the many thousands of miles of infrastructure, there are inevitably limits to what can be done by British Rail alone.
    Mr. Wilson: In assessing the safety of signalling and other safety factors, will the Secretary of State take account of the genuine concerns, based on genuine information, about the Government's plans for InterCity? In that context, will he break the habit of a lifetime and answer two questions straight? Are there any plans to downgrade the role of the ScotRail board? And is there any possibility—or is it part of current thinking—that InterCity tracks will be sold off as part of InterCity in the
    660
    highly improbable event of the right hon. and learned Gentleman still being in a position to proceed with such a sale?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note that the hon. Gentleman did not take this ideal opportunity to deny that he may have been involved in the passing to the press of a bogus document about the alleged future of InterCity. On the future of InterCity, he should await the Government's White Paper. The internal administration of British Rail is a matter for British Rail to decide.

    Chelmsford-Liverpool Street Line
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line.
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend and I regularly meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss all current issues. The Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line is being resignalled and Liverpool Street station has recently been refurbished and its layout restructured to increase flexibility and capacity.
    Mr. Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. When he next speaks to the chairman of British Rail, will he tell him that, whereas there have been some improvements to the line in the past five years, my constituents are still extremely concerned about punctuality and the cleanliness of trains? Will he please ensure that there is no slippage whatever in the time scale for the resignalling from Bethnal Green to Chelmsford which would obviously substantially enhance the service?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will understand that punctuality often depends on signalling as well as the quality of the rolling stock. I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents the assurance that he seeks. The £60 million resignalling programme for work between Liverpool Street and Southend Victoria will start this year and signalling work in the Chelmsford area will commence next year.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister will be aware that that line goes through Stratford station in my constituency. Does he recall his recent visit to Stratford station, to which he was carried in his ministerial sedan chair by two sweating but cheerful typists? He rightly said that passenger facilities were absolutely appalling, especially the absence of adequate public lavatories. Is he aware that the situation remains the same, and will he tell us when something will be done about it?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, I recall my visit to Stratford station with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that British Rail is considering a major remodelling of the station, in part to handle the arrival of the Jubilee line. He also knows that there are plans for a high-speed rail link to run through Stratford. With the arrival of crossrail through Stratford, Stratford is an important transport hub and will become even more important. I am sorry to hear about the lavatories. At the previous Question Time I was asked about the lavatories at Stratford station. I shall visit them.

    Rail Ombudsman
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to appoint a rail ombudsman to investigate customer concerns.
    Mr. Rifkind: The transport users consultative committees already represent passenger interests and there is recourse to an independent arbitration scheme. The position of passengers will be further strengthened by the publication of passengers charters for both British Rail and London Transport.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in a variety of spheres such as banking, pensions and building societies, ombudsmen have been enormously successful? Despite the work of the transport users consultative committees, they do not have the teeth that ombudsmen would have. The travelling public and freight users are fed up with the inequality and inadequacy of British Rail. Would not the appointment of a British Rail ombudsman restore confidence to this small part of the state sector?
    Mr. Rifkind: I note what my hon. Friend says. I hope that in the short term more attention will be paid to the availability of the independent arbitration scheme, which was set up in 1985 and which has not often been used, primarily because so few people are aware that it provides a means of getting an independent investigation of alleged grievances against British Rail and of obtaining redress and compensation where they are due. Of course the citizens charter, as it applies to British Rail's activities, will also be a means of taking forward the rights of passengers to ensure a proper response or compensation from British Rail if there is shoddy service.

    Heavy Lorries
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new initiatives he plans to reduce the damage caused by heavy lorries.
    Mr. Chope: The Government have a policy of continuing to reduce the noise, pollution, vibration and road damage caused by heavy lorries.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that three annual checks by Welsh trading standards officers discovered that as many as one in five lorries on Welsh roads are overloaded, yet the chance of being checked is one in every 5,000 journeys? When will the Minister do something to reduce the damage and danger caused by heavy lorries, especially in rural areas such as my constituency and the areas of Caerleon and Marshfield? Will he promise to resist all attempts to increase the maximum permitted weights of heavy lorries?
    Mr. Chope: On the last point, we are committed to minimising the impact of heavy goods vehicles on roads and we are arguing strongly in Europe for road-friendly suspension for lorries. As to the enforcement of lorry weights, we have doubled the number of inspections over the past five years. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about breaches of the law. That is why I hope that we shall be able to introduce weigh-in-motion sensors over the coming months.

    Western Region Rail Services
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the western region.
    Mr. Roger Freeman: My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss all current issues. We are concerned to maintain and improve standards on all rail services. including those in the western region.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the service beyond Reading has deteriorated badly, with large numbers of cancellations, particularly at Pangbourne, Tilehurst, Reading West and Theale stations? When will the new rolling stock arrive?
    Mr. Freeman: I can confirm that the new Networker turbo class 165 trains will be in service in the May timetable this year—that will bring an improvement of the service on the Thames line—and the Networker express class 166 trains will arrive next year. These improvements follow the £75 million investment in the Chiltern line, which has gone into new trains, new stations, new facilities, all of which has meant a great improvement for all the commuters on that line; those on the Thames line will benefit similarly.

  THE ARTS

    Reserve Collections
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Minister for the Arts what is his estimate of the number and value of reserve collections in the public sector; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): Information on reserve collections is not held centrally, but most major national and local authority-run museums and galleries hold such collections. They are of inestimable value in both financial and scholarly terms.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the collections are vast and have often been assembled at very little cost, but at the same time they are the treasures of the night watchmen? In other words, unless one is a special scholar or a night watchman, one does not see these collections. Is it not time that many of them were made available to schools, colleges, banks and building societies so that the treasure trove of Britain is available to everyone?
    Mr. Renton: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making and I know of his support for museums and galleries in York and in Yorkshire. One of the national museums and galleries for which I have responsibility, the Tate, is making great efforts, by setting up galleries in, for example, Liverpool and shortly in St. Ives, to make others of its collections regularly available for view in the north-west or the south-west. I hope that other galleries will take note of the good point that my hon. Friend has made.
    Dr. Godman: With regard to collections in Scotland and the housing of those collections, may I point out that many of us living in the west of Scotland are opposed to the building of a national art gallery in Edinburgh? I remind

    663
    the Minister that the visiting of galleries is not a pastime unique to residents of Edinburgh or visitors to that fine city. Does the Minister agree that there should not be such a gallery and that our collections should be dispersed throughout the whole of Scotland?
    Mr. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman will know, responsibility for the national museums and galleries of Scotland rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, not with me. I am aware, from a number of visits to Scotland, of the fine museums and galleries in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. I am also aware of the intention to add a new wing to the national museum of Scotland. That apart, I would hesitate to enter the traditional fratricidal debate between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory), who has done so much to encourage the arts in York, absolutely right? As museums keep asking for more public money, should they not heed public opinion, which is that works of art exist to be seen and should not be stashed away in cellars but should be got up and out and on view?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has a keen interest in these matters. I should point out to him that, thanks to the generosity of the Sainsbury brothers, which has resulted in the building of the new wing of the national gallery, all the permanent collection of the national gallery is now on display to an ever-increasing part of the British public.
    I am in favour of somewhat greater powers of disposal being given to some of our national museums and galleries so that if an item was clearly surplus to a collection there would be power to dispose of it, provided that the funds realised were reinvested in the acquisition of other, perhaps contemporary material. Most local authorities already have such powers.

    Design Museum
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Minister for the Arts what support he gives or plans to give to the design museum.
    Mr. Renton: I understand that the purpose of the design museum is to enhance understanding of the influence of good design. The museum is of course within the private sector, but the Department of Trade and Industry has provided pump-priming financial support over the past three years, totalling £650,000.
    Mr. Bowls: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the design museum for the standard that it has set. It has been emulated in many parts of the world, including Canada and Japan. It has been able to obtain a third of the income that it needs from sponsorship, while a further third has been obtained from admission charges. A significant part of the other third of its income has come in the past from moneys from the Department of Trade and Industry. I understand that that support has averaged £250,000 over the past three years. As that support may be coming to an end, there may be a large gap. Will my right hon. Friend agree to talk to the museum to ascertain whether he can guide it in filling the gap? Otherwise, the excellent work that has been done on education and exhibitions will have to cease.
    Mr. Renton: I recognise the work that has been done by the design museum in making an important contribution to the understanding of the role of design in a modern industrial society. Some of the museums that I support directly—for example, the Victoria and Albert museum and the science museum, and also the Crafts Council—often lay on extremely good displays of contemporary or past design work. Against that background, I shall certainly talk to my ministerial colleague at the Department of Trade and Industry about how his negotiations with the design museum on further funding are progressing.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse the comments of the Minister and those of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in support of the design museum, which is in Bermondsey. Will the Minister consider the wider context of the risk to arts funding in the Docklands corporation area with the withdrawal of LDDC funding, which is threatened to start from the end of March? That will affect both the design museum and other arts-funded projects throughout Docklands, north and south of the river.
    Mr. Renton: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. I was much concerned about delays in LBGC funding of arts institutions throughout Greater London last year. I took some measures through the Arts Council to help the cash flows of some of the institutions that were threatened by the delays in that funding. I understand that this year the LBGC has started making decisions much more quickly.
    Mr. Hughes: The LDDC.
    Mr. Renton: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was talking about the LBGC, the London Boroughs Grants Committee.
    I shall certainly take up the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised about London docklands.
    Mr. Tracey: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the great contest that takes place for funds in which the design museum and other bodies are involved. Does he agree that a national lottery would help considerably?
    Mr. Renton: I think that without any doubt a national lottery would be of considerable assistance both to the causes of art and heritage, and to sport as well. Obviously there are some serious considerations to be resolved before such a lottery is introduced. Like my hon. Friend, I shall be following the process of the private Member's Bill this Friday, the National Lottery Bill, with considerable interest.

    Opera
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage access to opera by young people and by a wider range of the public generally.
    Mr. Renton: Major opera companies in receipt of public funds offer concessionary ticket prices for certain groups, including students. Each major opera company in this country has an outreach and education programme and the Arts Council's touring programme supports clients who take opera to areas of the country which would not otherwise have access to it.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I hope that he will show his belief in the importance of the process. Does he agree that extending the experience of opera and opportunities to learn of opera to those who would not normally even think of it, or think of taking advantage of such concessions, would be a good thing? Will he join me in commending the exercises undertaken by, for example, Welsh National Opera in conjunction with local organisations, including those in Grangetown, Ely and Splott? The WNO has sought to introduce young people and communities in general to opera in those locations.
    Mr. Renton: Yes. I am pleased that through the good settlement that I was able to give to the Arts Council of Great Britain for the year ahead and, through it, the Welsh Arts Council, the Welsh National Opera's overall income from the two arts councils will rise by about 7 per cent. next year to a record figure of £6·1 million. That must be good for everyone living in Wales who likes opera.
    The WNO already operates a community-in-education project at its ardiff base, which caters for all ages. I am delighted that it is now providing a three-day project at Sir Thomas Picton's school in Haverfordwest, around its production of Don Pasquale. It is an imaginative educational project.
    Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the sort of project to which he just referred is another example of where a national lottery could be of great assistance? In view of his earlier encouraging remarks, will he now confirm that he intends to vote in favour of the private Member's Bill on Friday?
    Mr. Renton: I have always appreciated the artfulness with which my hon. Friend asks questions. Like him, I shall be following the proceedings on Friday with great interest.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Civil Servants (Dress)
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to introduce a dress code for civil servants in departmental Ministries in London.
    The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Matters such as standards of dress are the responsibility of managers in Departments and agencies. The Employment Service has recently introduced guidance on standards of dress and the Benefits Agency has introduced a range of distinctive dress.
    Mr. Burns: Although the majority of people would not want to revert stuffily to the strict dress code for civil servants of the 1950s, does my right hon. Friend agree that the pendulum may have swung too far the other way? Do not male civil servants now sometimes turn up at work wearing ponytails, earrings, jeans or, in the summer, even Lycra shorts?
    Mr. Renton: I appreciate the high taste in satorial elegance for which my hon. Friend is well known. However, the responsibility and wish of most managers, whether in Departments or executive agencies, is simply to want those who work for them to be reasonably
    666
    presentable. I must confess that I would prefer to see a pigtail with an earring rather than the traditional civil service bowler hat.
    Mr. Skinner: Is there a possibility that in the new-fangled classless society the Prime Minister will give special OBEs, MBEs and CBEs for the different coloured dress codes of civil servants? Is there not a rumour that if they all dress in grey and follow the Prime Minister's example, they can all ride in a special railway carriage without a typist in sight?
    Mr. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman introduced the subject of colour of dress, I can only say that I have been listening to him for almost 18 years and I wish that he would sometimes change the colour of his tie. It would be nice if, just for once, he did not wear a red tie.

    Permanent Secretaries
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will introduce arrangements so that each Department of State has co-equal male and female permanent secretaries.
    Mr. Renton: No. The Government have a comprehensive programme of action to promote equality of opportunity. The proportion of women in the top three grades has almost doubled in the past four years.
    Mrs. Gorman: Pending the time when we have a balance of men and women in this Chamber—a matter on which I shall expound next Tuesday afternoon, when I hope that many of my colleagues will support the concept of more women in this House—does my right hon. Friend agree that public consciousness of the lack of female representation of women's views in our national life is now very high? Would not one way to meet the increasing demand for female representation be to have two permanent secretaries—a man and a woman—at each Department? Does he agree that any Department which adopted such a policy would have the grateful thanks of a vast number of women?
    Mr. Renton: Given my hon. Friend's well-known commitment to productivity, efficiency and careful spending of money in the public sector, I am surprised by her suggestion and I do not think that it is tremendously sensible. As for my hon. Friend's other idea, I wonder whether she would enjoy having her own constituency split, with one half represented by a man called Billy and the other by a woman called Ricca.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister persist in his rejection of that totally barmy proposal and instead direct his attention to ensuring that the many well-qualified and able women who are in the civil service get the real top jobs? Will he set an example by persuading the Prime Minister to do something about the membership of the Cabinet? Can it really be the case that there is no Conservative woman Back Bencher who could do a better job than some of the present Cabinet Ministers?
    Mr. Renton: Not a better job, but certainly a very good job. I am sure that after the next general election, there will be Conservative women in the Cabinet of a Conservative Government. I am delighted to repeat that the number of

    667
    women in the top grades of the civil service is improving all the time and they, of course, will be the permanent secretaries of the future.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of improving the representation of women in the higher reaches of the civil service still further would be to make matters easier for them lower down the ladder? Can he give any information as to how arrangements such as job sharing have grown in the civil service to facilitate that desirable outcome?
    Mr. Renton: It is now possible for women in every grade and every position in the civil service to be part-time workers. That means, by definition, that there is an opportunity in every grade for job sharing of some kind. We are considering many other aspects in order to improve the position of women in the civil service—to make it easier for them to take jobs, leave to have children, and return later. The civil service is on the right path and it often serves as a good guide and leading light to the private sector.
    Dr. Marek: As usual, the Minister makes a lot of statements but gives no real facts, It would be useful if he followed the Prime Minister's example and supported the concept of targets for the number of women that he expects to see in grades 1 to 5 of the civil service in one, two and five years' time. As the Minister does not deny that there are enough women from which to choose, would not a little concentration on that issue, and the provision of targets so that we can all see what is going on, be very welcome?
    Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman gives credit to what is being done by civil service departments and executive agencies. The setting of targets would be wrong because it would mean exercising positive discrimination, whereby not necessarily all jobs would go to those with the right and proper talents to do them. Our principle in the civil service is that all jobs should be available to everyone—irrespective of sex, race, creed or religion. That should be the guiding principle, together with good guidelines to managers as to how to operate within that broad principle.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nothing is more insulting to women—whether it is said by women or men—than talk of setting targets for the number of women to be in top posts? Has it not been proved in the House that a woman can get to the top job in the land? Whether that is achieved by a woman on this side or the other side of the House, to talk of women gaining promotion as part of a target number is one of the most stupid and fatuous things that anyone could suggest.
    Mr. Renton: My wife would certainly agree with my hon. Friend's remarks, as would most right hon. and hon. Members.

  THE ARTS

    Opera and Poetry
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister for the Arts what percentage of his budget he intends to spend in the current year and next year on (a) opera and (b) poetry.
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I estimate that in the current financial year about £1·5 million will be spent on poetry and £30 million on opera. That represents about 0·77 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively of the Government's 1991–92 grant in aid of £194·2 million to the Arts Council. Figures for 1992–93 are not yet available.
    Mr. Flynn: Given that for every person who attends live opera, at least 1,000 more buy and enjoy reading poetry, will the Minister change his priorities and become the first legislator to acknowledge the unacknowledged legislators of the world? Why does he persist in being munificent to Mozart and bounteous to Beethoven, but a Scrooge to Hughes and a meanie to Heaney?
    Mr. Renton: Having just bought Seamus Heaney's latest book for Christmas, I can at least deny that I myself have been mean to Heaney over the festive season.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman forgets that a good many operas are based on poetry—for instance, "Gawain", "Orpheus and Euridice" and "Dido and Aeneas". There has been a close connection between opera and poetry over the years; given the interchange of thinking between the two subjects. I do not think that the problem mentioned by the hon. Gentleman exists.

    Arts Facilities for Children
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had with London arts organisations about provision of arts facilities and entertainments for children; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Renton: The London arts board is primarily responsible for funding arts for children and young people in London. I have not myself had discussions with individual arts organisations. Together with the London boroughs, the LAB attaches a high priority to helping to nurture the audiences, performers and producers of the future through its support for the arts in schools and for organisations which work for young people.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend see what he can do to help some children in my constituency, who came to me saying that they would like access to present-day artists such as Yehudi Menuhin, Cliff Richard and Jason Donovan and other, younger stars? How can my right hon. Friend help to allow my younger constituents personal access to such people, so that they can talk over with them the art forms that they are seeking to promote?
    Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend presents an interesting challenge. I suggest that he and his friends in Ealing, North—which he has represented so well for so many years—put together a festival that would be of interest to young people, and also to the important artists whom he mentioned. My hon. Friend should then invite the artists to the festival. If it would help, I would attend and be the festival's patron.

Ravenscraig
3.31 pm
Mr. Donald Dewar (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the consequences for the economy of Lanarkshire and Scotland of the announcement of the closure of Ravenscraig.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): May I repeat the Government's deep disappointment at British Steel's decision, because of market conditions, to close Ravenscraig. I do not for one moment underestimate the distress that will be felt by the work force, their families and the local communities concerned. I believe that British Steel owes it to its employees to explain and justify the decision.
The Government's responsibility is to seek to create economic conditions in which new industry will be encouraged to develop in Lanarkshire, replacing the jobs lost. That is a task on which we embarked some time ago. I believe that the action that we have already taken in Lanarkshire, and the proposal that we are now making for an enterprise zone, mean that we can take a positive view of the economic future for Motherwell and north Lanarkshire.
The closure, when it happens later this year, will mean the loss of 1,220 direct jobs. We estimate the loss of a similar number of indirect jobs in the Lanarkshire travel-to-work area, making a total of more than 2,400. This could result in an increase in unemployment in the area of just under one percentage point. Other job losses elsewhere in Scotland resulting from the closure could take the total figure to more than 3,000.
The economy of Lanarkshire does not, however, depend on steel. It is already much diversified. Indeed, steel's contribution to Scottish gross domestic product is less than 1 per cent. Nevertheless, a closure of this size will cause difficulties for the local economy. That is why, to supplement other measures already in hand, we have accepted the case put forward by the Lanarkshire working group for an enterprise zone to be created.
When British Steel announced, in 1990, the closure of the Ravenscraig hot strip mill and the Clydesdale tubeworks, I convened the Lanarkshire working group. That group's report—published in June last year—took account of speculation that there would be further steel job losses. It recommended a detailed early-action programme aimed at providing attractive serviced sites which would bring private sector investment to Lanarkshire. I accepted its findings, and many of its proposals are now being implemented. Some £120 million-worth of infrastructural investment is under way in Lanarkshire in the current year.
Those measures are already bearing fruit. The Lanarkshire development agency is leading regeneration efforts, with ready co-operation from the other bodies represented on the working group. Funding for 13 of the industrial sites identified is going ahead this year. There is now a wealth of development activity in the area, geared to replacing lost steel jobs with a range of companies which should give Lanarkshire greater economic security than a declining steel industry has been able to provide.
Further public expenditure of some £50 million in the enterprise zone, if approved by the European Commission, is expected to lever private sector investment of £250
670
million into north Lanarkshire and to secure 7,500 net additional jobs. That project would come on top of the successes that our earlier initiatives have already achieved. In the past four years, unemployment in Lanarkshire travel-to-work area, although still too high, has fallen by almost 9,000. That is evidence of the area's underlying strength.
I am confident that the enterprise of the people of Lanarkshire, supported by the initiatives that the Government are taking, will enable the area to surmount its present difficulties and to develop new economic strengths. I am determined to help it to do so.
Mr. Dewar: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in Scotland there is an almost universal view that, in respect of Ravenscraig, the Government have promised much but done nothing? The widely held feeling is that, for far too long, the right hon. Gentleman and his immediate predecessors have paid lip service to the campaign to save Ravenscraig, but have not lifted a finger to help. The right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the number of jobs likely to be lost as a result of the final closure of the plant is insultingly complacent.
While recognising that, after the demolition job done by British Steel, the appearance of a buyer is very much a long shot, may I ask the Secretary of State whether the Government will do everything they can to keep that option open? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, if interest is shown by any party, the Government, for once, will provide whole-hearted support?
Does the Secretary of State recognise the need to explore the possibilities of new technology—in particular, thin slab casting? He will recall that this was identified in the Arthur D. Little report as an option worth considering, and I know that Scottish Enterprise has been doing some work on it. If a practical proposal does emerge—I stress the word "if"—will he be prepared to concede direct Government involvement in the form of a joint venture?
Will the Secretary of State remember that jobs at Hunterston are also at risk? Is he prepared to make the necessary resources available and to commission Scottish Enterprise specifically to look at the potential of Hunterston as a deep-water port?
If a buyer cannot be found and closure therefore goes ahead, will the Secretary of State enforce the principle that the polluter pays? Is he aware that Lanarkshire development agency estimates indicate that it may cost about £200 million to reinstate the sites abandoned by British Steel? Does he accept that it would be a defeat for justice, an offence to good sense and a further humiliation of the Government if British Steel were able to walk away from the damage that it has done?
Does the Secretary of State accept that his claim that the Government have already contributed £120 million to fund the regeneration of Lanarkshire has little or no credibility? That figure relies heavily on existing budgets and simply does not measure up to the scale of the crisis. The Wishaw general hospital was the subject of an existing proposal, and the budgets of the Lanarkshire development agency and of the East Kilbride development corporation were already in place. The new money is simply inadequate.
Why has it taken so long to reach a decision about enterprise zone status for Lanarkshire? As he himself pointed out, that step was recommended by his own

671
working party as long ago as June 1991. Is it correct to say that Treasury resistance was overcome only as a result of the disaster of the closure announcement? Does the Secretary of State expect any difficulty over European Commission approval, and when does he expect a decision on the matter to be reached?
In a letter dated 5 February 1991 to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), the Prime Minister recognised explicitly the difficulties facing Lanarkshire and promised that there was
"no intention of neglecting these problems."
Eleven months later, there has not even been preliminary contact with Brussels about one of the central provisions that the Secretary of State alleges that he has accepted. We believe not only that enterprise zone status must be secured, but that British Steel must meet the cost of site reclamation, that the break-up of the East Kilbride development corporation must be stopped, that there must be a much more determined commitment to investment in training and education, and that there must be an end to the nonsense of the proposed privatisation of British Rail, which would have disastrous consequences for the infrastructure strategy for Lanarkshire.
Will the Minister seriously reconsider his half-hearted response to the working party's proposals? Does he not recognise that the depressing history of indecision and delay just will not do? False optimism about the economy, and sympathy easily given, will do nothing for the workers at Ravenscraig and Hun terston. If the right hon. Gentleman will not give commitment and drive to the fight for economic recovery, the electorate will look to others who will.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman accused me of doing nothing, yet we have heard nothing from the Opposition as to what they would do. Perhaps in the course of questions, he or others in his party will tell us what they would do. All that we know so far is that the Labour party has abandoned the commitment given by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) in February 1988 to renationalise the steel industry. Plainly, nationalisation is now recognised by the Opposition as a course of disaster.
On the question of a buyer for Ravenscraig, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows, the prospectus included an undertaking that any commercial offer would be considered when Ravenscraig was no longer needed by British Steel for steel-making. I put it to Sir Robert Scholey that that undertaking would be triggered, and he confirmed that that was the case.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about thin slab casting. That was considered in the Arthur D. Little consultants' report in July last year, which identified considerable difficulties but recognised that it was a possible development. However, no interest has been expressed in it. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would contemplate a joint venture. First, that suggests that the Government are the organisation which should be managing the steel industry, and I totally disagree. Secondly, it suggests that someone else might come forward for a joint venture. So far, no one has come forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about Hunterston. I confirm that I intend to commission a consultants' study as a basis for determining future planning policy there. He asked me about cleaning up the environmental consequences of steel making. That is certainly something that we
672
shall seek to investigate further with British Steel, which has already undertaken to clear the site down to ground level and to leave it in a tidy condition—further than the legal requirement.
On the question of the £120 million of economic infrastructural investment, the hon. Gentleman complains that that is in existing budgets. Of course it is. We put it into the existing budgets with precisely this situation in mind. Incidentally, it does not include the Wishaw hospital. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If Opposition Members had no perception that there might be job losses in the steel industry in Lanarkshire, if they were not thinking ahead and contemplating further measures which might be needed, they must be out of touch with reality.
As for the enterprise zone, the recommendation from the working party came to me last June. Since then a detailed proposal has been worked up and negotiations have continued within Government. As a result of the initiatives that I embarked upon during the Christmas recess, approval has been achieved within Government for submission of an application to the European Community. I hope that that will achieve European approval in April, but it is a matter for the Commission and not for me.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government's response to the working group report was half-hearted. We have accepted the vast majority of the working group's proposals and a considerable number of them are already under way, including the development of 13 industrial sites in Lanarkshire to help to prepare it for inward investment.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that the announcement has been long expected and long feared in Motherwell? Over the years and over the generations, so much effort has been put in to the building, strengthening and operating of the steel industry that there is incomprehension and a great sense of sadness and loss in Motherwell today. The campaign waged by the steel workers has been recognised and supported by the people of Scotland and far beyond. It has been recognised but not supported by Ministers, who have approached the whole exercise with total blindness and naivety since the privatisation announcement, which dismisses them for the lightweights they are.
As the decision has been expected for so long, people are baffled by the bungling and prevarification shown by the Government over the enterprise zone. The Secretary of State was wrong. He has submitted not one enterprise zone proposal but two. The Treasury estimated that the first proposal would cost £100 million, and it was knocked back. After the closure of Ravenscraig, the Secretary of State makes a second proposal at half the cost estimated in the original proposal.
Is the Secretary of State aware that Lanarkshire development agency is not able to pay for the training of sub-contractors at Ravenscraig, which is to close within six months, because of petty Government regulations excluding it from paying people who are already in employment?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Prime Minister asked the Under-Secretary of State to look into the new motorway link between the M8 and M74? The Under-Secretary of State has written to me saying that that is a matter for Strathclyde regional council.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, having razed Ravenscraig to the ground, acccording to consultants

673
appointed at the prompting of the Secretary of State, there is a £200 million bill to be met for clearance of the site? The Government have not a clue how to approach that problem.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the various Government agencies involved—the Warren Spring laboratory, Ianarkshire development agency, and the national engineering laboratory—have not been consulted or introduced to each other or asked to consider the problems, although Ministers are responsible?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government have left little time between the last date for the general election, which could be as late as July, and the closure date of September, when British Steel may consider that its obligation to offer for sale has expired? Will the Secretary of State therefore offer the Opposition full access to Scottish Enterprise, to public agencies and to all concerned so that we can properly examine the options that an incoming Government will face?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the people of Lanarkshire, of Motherwell and of Scotland are fully prepared? We are getting on with the process of redevelopment. All we want to be rid of is this traitorous Government.
Mr. Lang: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament for the area, feels very strongly. I understand the feeling of sadness and loss in the area and I share the huge disappointment of the people of Motherwell and of north Lanarkshire at British Steel's decision. When the hon. Gentleman talks about naivety, he must recognise that British Steel operates in international trading conditions that are fiercely competitive. It operates in a market where, to use its own words, there is "a deep global recession". Its profits and interim results are down from £307 million to £19 million. It is naive not to recognise international trading conditions and the need for companies such as British Steel to adapt to them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned training. We are extensively committed to training and retraining in the area. About 6,000 people are on youth and adult training schemes in the area, and the Government expect to spend some £40 million through the iron and steel readaption benefit scheme for retraining.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned roads. We are already studying closely the possible fast link between the M8 and the M74 and the junctions between the A8 and M8.
The Government are investing enormous effort and resources in redeveloping the infrastructure of Lanarkshire, not as some short-term, temporary or Johnny-come-lately measure but building on what we have been doing throughout our period in government. As I said in my response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Garscadden, unemployment in Lanarkshire has fallen by 9,000 in the past four years. How many parts of the rest of the United Kingdom can say that against a background of general recession?
Dr. John Reid: The Secretary of State and his crony, who earlier was sneering at some of the answers, have presided over the most odious industrial betrayal in modern Scottish history. Is he proud of the fact that he has complied with and connived in every stage of
674
the closure of the Ravenscraig works, from Gartcosh through privatisation to the hot strip mill? Is he proud of the fact that, having told the Lanarkshire Labour Members for two years that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment have no role to play in intervening, today of all days a Department of Employment press release should announce proudly that it is dispatching, for planning purposes, Government officials and experts
"to ensure the availability of good quality, relevant training for the thousands likely to lose their jobs through the decline of the steel industry in Poland"?
Does it not speak volumes that Departments could not intervene to assist in Scotland but can dispatch people to Cracow rather than to Motherwell? Does it not show that the contempt in which the Minister is held by the people of Motherwell is almost exceeded by the contempt in which he is held by Government Departments and his own political party?
Should not the Secretary of State today pledge that Ravenscraig will remain for sale up to and including the date of the general election and that he will insist on that, that the Government resources of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment will be used to assist not only Poland, but the sale of the Ravenscraig plant worldwide, and, more importantly, that the Government will actively intervene to investigate and financially assist the development of new technology in thin slab casting production, which is perfectly legitimate for financial aid under the European Economic Community? Is not the fact that the Minister cannot announce that today, when the Government can announce initiatives in far-off Europe, a reflection to the people of Motherwell and Scotland of his total failure and inability?
Mr. Lang: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman thinks it more appropriate to indulge in sterile invective than to seek positive ways forward. On the availability of Ravenscraig for sale, I have already made it clear that the chairman of British Steel still considers that the undertaking included in the prospectus is triggered by the announcement of intended closure. Thin slab steel is a matter for British Steel. If it viewed that as a potentially commercially attractive proposition, it would embark on that. That is certainly not something on which the Government should appropriately embark.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the news about the Ravenscraig closure is depressing, alarming and sad, it is nothing more than sickening hypocrisy for the Labour party and the Scottish National party to complain as they have unless they can make a specific proposal that Ravenscraig—including the strip mill and not without it—is for sale and they have the agreement of the European Commission for such a sale to go ahead, particularly bearing in mind what Bob Scholey said to the Select Committee?
Does the Secretary of State further agree that it is political rubbish for Opposition Members to talk about enterprise zones when they know, because of the way they voted and the views of their leaders, that there is absolutely nothing that the Government can do about an enterprise zone without first having the approval of Brussels?
I accept that the Secretary of State is doing a fine job fighting for Scotland, but will he have the courage to tell

675
the Opposition the facts of life and stop them exploiting the misery of the people of Lanarkshire for purely political purposes?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For the past five years I have been trying to tell the Labour party the facts of life, both as Minister with responsibility for industry and as Secretary of State. Sadly, Labour Members prefer to live in the past and talk Scotland down rather than look to the future and help to build Scotland up.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State now accept that he and his Government are substantially responsible for last week's announcement of the closure of Ravenscraig? To step back in time, before privatisation he refused to promote a company based on the assets of Scottish Steel, which could have provided competition to British Steel and the necessary investment, and he has pursued economic policies that have deepened the recession to the point that Ravenscraig has been closed two years earlier than provided in the worthless assurances given to the Government by Sir Bob Scholey.
Will the Secretary of State accept that there is little confidence in his parroting Bob Scholey as the source of authority for any future investment or the sale of any plant in Scotland? Will he accept that not only Ravenscraig but all the remaining steel assets in Scotland, including Hunterston, should be made available for sale to ensure that next century, when a new deep-water steel facility is required in Scotland, it will have behind it a body that has shown commitment to Scotland, which British Steel has not?
Finally——
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
Mr. Bruce:—will the Secretary of State ensure that the development capabilities of the Scottish new towns are used in the development promotion of Lanarkshire and that their expertise is used to attract the necessary inward investment to replace at least some of the jobs that he and his Government have so disastrously destroyed?
Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that unemployment in the Lanarkshire travel-to-work area had fallen by 9.000 in the past four years. Part of the reason for that is the inward investment that the Government have attracted to East Kilbride in Lanarkshire.
On the global recession in steel products, if the hon. Gentleman does not believe British Steel, he should look at the other major steel producers in Europe to see how they are faring.
At the time of privatisation, the separate privatisation of the Scottish steel industry was considered extensively. The advice of the Government's advisers and the Government's own conclusion was that that could not be done viably. When the steel industry was nationalised by the Labour party, it scrambled and destroyed the individual identities of the previous free-standing Scottish companies, took control to London and changed the company into a product division structure so that the Scottish plants became the end of a branch line. It therefore became impossible to privatise the steel industry on a Scottish basis separate from the rest of the United
676
Kingdom. I looked at that proposal sympathetically but, sadly, too much damage had been done under nationalised ownership.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the Secretary of State prepared to accept any level of responsibility for his policy paralysis as the crisis in Scottish steel has deepened, or indeed for the actions of his predecessor who sent Ravenscraig unprotected into the hands of a hostile private monopoly? Has he seen the positive proposals released this afternoon from the shop stewards of the Dalzell plate mill? They argue that, for a total investment of under £200 million—less than the clean-up costs of the Ravenscraig site—a world-class pipe and plate mill could be established, which would require increased production through the Ravenscraig plant services. That steel complex would be well able to compete effectively in the lucrative offshore markets round the coast of Scotland. For that or any other positive proposal to come to fruition, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first thing that must be done is to take the entire assets of British Steel in Scotland into public ownership?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that my Department prepared a detailed report on Dalzell, which we submitted to British Steel, arguing the case for maintaining it and establishing the single plate strategy based upon it. British Steel has rejected that: on the other hand, Dalzell remains in operation and remains unaffected by the decisions to close Ravenscraig. I hope that, as a result of recent trading conditions, the prospects for Dalzell are lengthening rather than shortening.
If the hon. Gentleman believes that nationalisation is the solution to the problems of the steel industry, he should have a word with the Labour party, which committed itself to the renationalisation of that industry—it would have been the third time it had been renationalised—but even the Labour party has now realised that renationalisation is a dead end.
Mr. Barry Porter: Would it not be more sensible to look to the future than to the past? In that context, I am glad to see that the shadow Secretary of State for Wales is in his place, because I remember when, 10 years ago or more, he and I. and others, argued the case for the Sommers works at Shotton vis-à-vis Ravenscraig. We suggested that it might be better to keep the north Wales steel-making capacity there rather than in Scotland.
North Wales, in the end having accepted reality, has got more industry and diverse industry. Corby has got more industry as well as more diverse industry. The coal industry of south Wales, having declined, has got more industry and more diverse industry. The north-east shipyards have got more industry and more diverse industry. So far as the Opposition are concerned, to try to revive a cause is beyond me. We have nothing to be ashamed of. Let us look to the future, not to the past.
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The House is also indebted to him for reminding us that the problems of steel closures is not confined to Scotland. Many towns in England and in Wales have experienced substantial job losses as a result of steel closures. In Corby, unemployment, at its height, reached 35 per cent., but as a result of the type of measures that we are taking in Lanarkshire, unemployment there fell to as low as 4 per cent. last year. In the early 1980s in Scunthorpe,

677
unemployment was at 20 per cent., but it is now down to around 10 per cent. I believe that the measures that we are taking in Lanarkshire will create the same long-term beneficial effect in that region and will not only bring down unemployment, but broaden and diversify the Lanarkshire economic base, making it more secure for the future.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises that his answers have been so complacent that they have come across as a further betrayal of the Scottish people? His speech reminded me forcefully of an inept bereavement counsellor who persuades a bereaved person that bereavement is not such a bad thing and that everyone should experience one. One of the Secretary of State's greatest failures is that he did not even stand up to some of his own Back Benchers, who called the Scottish steel workers "subsidy junkies" and claimed that they were unproductive. He totally failed to answer that. Finally, did the Secretary of State know that the Secretary of State for Employment was providing training for Polish steel workers? If so, why did he not at least demand the same for the people of Lanarkshire?
Mr. Lang: I do not think that provision of advice on training matters to other countries precludes the necessary provision of training advice and financial assistance within the United Kingdom. In that context, my responsibility is to Lanarkshire. I am confident that the training measures, like the other infrastructural measures that we are providing, are relevant and will meet the needs of the area in preparing for the future.
The hon. Lady talked of betrayal. Betrayal was to pour some £14 billion into the steel industry to prop up uncompetitive and overmanned plants and to fail to modernise them, embrace new technology or help them prepare for the future. Belatedly, reality dawned on the industry and it began to make headway and became profitable. We must now consider the need to find a diversification of Lanarkshire's economy to attract new companies. I hope that, when we attract new companies to Lanarkshire, the Labour party will prevail upon its trade union friends to treat them sensibly, rather than the way they treated Ford in Dundee.
Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the real issue is the fact that, in view of the international recession, British Steel is fighting for its life? If we stop British Steel taking the commercial decisions necessary for its survival in the world as it is at the moment, we shall end up with no steel industry. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that some good could come out of the disaster in Lanarkshire if all resources are brought in, as happened in Corby and other steel closure towns? Will he assure the House that he will give maximum support to British Steel Industries, which helped the regeneration of former steel sites, and that he will fight hard in Europe to ensure that that enterprise zone is created? The House of Commons will be angry if that proposal is spiked by the European Commission.
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for injecting a sense of commercial realism into the debate. British Steel Industries have already set up workshops in Coatbridge and Clydesdale, where 25 new small businesses have been attracted employing some 140 people, and they now plan
678
to build a 50.000 sq ft workshop in the Strathclyde business park. and a youth enterprise centre. Those realistic and sensible proposals will help the general effort toward strengthening the Lanarkshire economy.
Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State not feel ashamed to come to the Dispatch Box with not one Tory Scottish Back Bencher sitting behind him? Just a week after the closure decision, is he not ashamed to bleat plaintively that British Steel has not yet put forward an official spokesman to explain why all those jobs will be destroyed? Why does the Secretary of State cling on, almost innocently and certainly naively, to the figure of some 2,200 jobs being affected, when everyone in Scotland knows and all authoritative experts have said that the number is closer to 7,000? A much greater number will probably be affected. If Lanarkshire is to be able to look forward to the new industries which we hope will replace the jobs lost through the damage to the steel industry, we must at least hear the truth about the scale of what is needed and what the Government intend to supply.
Mr. Lang: Two of my, hon. Friends are ill and are therefore unable to be here today. The figure for job losses which I gave was not 2,200, but more than 3,000, taking account of indirect jobs across Scotland. The figures for Lanarkshire which my Department has produced equate almost exactly with the figures from the Fraser of Allander Institute, which also took account of the closure of the hot strip mill and of Clydesdale last year, and of the indirect jobs related thereto.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. However, I fully understand its importance for hon. Members with Scottish constituencies and. indeed, for the whole of the United Kingdom. I will call two more from each side and those whom I have not been able to call—[HON. MEMBERS: "Each side?"] Order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Where are the Scottish Tory Back Benchers?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will look with consideration on those whom I have not been able to call today when we come to DTI questions on Wednesday.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party knows perfectly well that the decision at Ravenscraig, however regrettable, was entirely inevitable? Will he assure the House that, in the best tradition of Conservative duty towards those unfortunate people, he will see to it that every effort that the Government put into recreating jobs and into bringing new jobs to Ravenscraig will be properly co-ordinated, and that he will ensure that the European Community is revved up in the matter?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend on that. There are no fewer than 60 projects already in hand this year on infrastructural, environmental and training initiatives in the area.
Mr. Norman Hogg: Has the Secretary of State read the article by Mr. Alf Young in today's Glasgow Herald? Does he agree with Mr. Young's analysis of the future of the British steel industry and the future of Scottish sunrise industries? If so. does he accept that we need a far-reaching reappraisal of Scottish

679
economic policy, rather than policy made on the hoof, which is what we have had from the Secretary of State throughout the period? Will he now give an undertaking that there will be a long, hard look at what needs to be done to ensure the maintenance of Scotland as a major manufacturing nation?
Mr. Lang: I always read Mr. Alf Young's articles with enthusiastic interest, although I do not always find myself in total agreement with all his conclusions. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we would take a long, hard look. We have been taking a long, hard look for some time at the economic problems of Scotland and of Lanarkshire. It is as a result of the initiatives that we have developed that unemployment in Lanarkshire has been falling over the past four years and is 9,000 lower than it was four years ago.
Mr. Toby Jessel: So that we are left in no doubt, will my right hon. Friend once again ask the Labour party to make it clear whether it would reopen Ravenscraig?
Mr. Lang: That is not a question for me, but it is a well-judged question because we have heard nothing constructive or positive from the Labour party, and no suggestions of any initiatives that could be taken other than those that we are already taking.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: When did the Secretary of State last have words with Sir Leon Brittan about the possibility of an enterprise zone in north Lanarkshire? The Commissioner's statement is not in line with the Government's statement. What assurances can we have that the enterprise zone—if the Commission agrees to it—will include the whole of north Lanarkshire?
Mr. Lang: I was last in touch with Sir Leon Brittan when I wrote to him on 7 January. I am sure that he and his directorate will give positive, fair-minded and sensible consideration to the application for an enterprise zone. I hope that that will lead to a conclusion in favour, and that we shall then be able to get that initiative under way on top of all the other initiatives. I anticipate that the real advantage of the enterprise zone will be the generation of substantial private sector investment, because ultimately it is private sector investment that will stimulate the renewal of Lanarkshire.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement setting out my decisions on local government finance in Wales for 1992–93.
The three reports that set out the final terms of the settlement will be laid before the House on Monday 20 January. I have today placed details of the settlement in the Library and have arranged for essential data to be sent to every local authority in Wales.
When I announced my provisional settlement proposals to the House in July, I referred to the need to adjust the provisional total standard spending figure of £2,639 million to reflect the funding requirements of the Polytechnic of Wales and the five other major higher education colleges in Wales that are to leave the local authority sector on 1 April 1992. In my statement on 23 July, I announced a provisional figure of £34·6 million to meet that need. After further consultation with the Assembly of Welsh Counties, I have decided that that figure represents an appropriate level of funding for the establishments in 1992–93. The settlement has been adjusted accordingly and allows for a level of total standard spending by Welsh authorities of £2,604·4 million. That is an increase of 8·5 per cent. on the comparable figure for last year and an increase of 5·1 per cent. on the level of budgets set by Welsh authorities in 1991–91.
Aggregate external finance in support of that level of spending will be £2,348·4 million—an increase of more than £147 million or 6·7 per cent. on the comparable level of support for 1991–92, taking into account the additional central Government support provided through the £140 general reduction in the community charge for the current financial year and the appropriate adjustment in respect of the higher education establishments. Within the aggregate external finance total, the revenue support grant for 1992–93 is £1,617·1 million, the distributable amount for the non-domestic rating account is £536 million and the total allocated for revenue specific grants is £195·3 million.
The increased support provided to local government in Wales in 1991–92 through the £140 general reduction raised the level of central Government support for local authorities' revenue spending from 79 per cent. to nearly 92 per cent. I will continue this higher level of support in 1992–93 by enhancing the level of aggregate external finance. As a result, the AEF figure for the coming year is £445 million more than the equivalent AEF figure for 1991–92 before implementation of the general reduction—an increase of more than 23 per cent.
The settlement gives local authorities in Wales a realistic framework for developing new services in 1992–93 and maintaining existing ones, particularly in the light of the reduced inflationary pressures that will bear on local authorities in the coming year and the continuing scope for efficiency savings. In that context, I should like to pay special tribute to local government in Wales for the vigorous and collaborative way in which it is pursuing efficiency initiatives. I look forward to meeting both the Assembly of Welsh Counties and the Council of Welsh Districts in the near future to discuss their latest proposals.
If authorities spend in line with these plans, the average community charge in Wales for 1992–93 should not exceed

681
£118—before relief and benefits are taken into account. That is less than half the equivalent figure for English authorities and £3 less than the average charge of £121 actually set by Welsh authorities for 1991–92.
I have already announced my proposals that the non-domestic rate poundage for 1992–93 should be 42·5 p. That represents an increase of just 4·1 per cent. on the rate poundage of 40·8p for the current year. That is a dramatic illustration of the benefit for businesses of our success in bringing down the rate of inflation.
In addition to the financial support through AEF to which I have already referred, I am providing £6 million grant in 1992–93 to Welsh charging authorities to offset the revenue costs of preparing for the new council tax. This represents 75 per cent. of the £8 million revenue cost of implementation estimated in an independent study undertaken by CSL Management Group, which looked at a representative sample of charging authorities in Wales. I recognise that that represents a change of view from my original position that I would expect local authorities to find these costs from within their own resources.
In addition, I have announced that credit approvals will be available to local authorities to cover the full £1·24 million capital cost of preparation estimated by CSL. That is a generous contribution towards overall preparation costs, particularly as the savings to Welsh authorities in administering the council tax when compared with the poll tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—will outweigh the preparation costs. In due course I shall seek the approval of the House for the council tax preparation grant scheme in Wales.
I should also like to give the House details of my decision on funding the community charge reduction scheme—CCRS—in 1992–93. In my statement on my provisional settlement proposals in July, I confirmed that the scheme would continue in the final year of the poll tax, notwithstanding the considerable increase in central Government support for local authority spending.
Although the overall burden on community charge payers in Wales is very much lower as a result of the increased support that I am providing, I have decided that it would be appropriate to continue to fund a reduction scheme for the final year of the poll tax. I therefore intend to make £40 million available in 1992–93. This will provide substantial assistance to charge payers who most need the relief and is double the amount that was available to charge payers in 1990–91 under the transitional relief scheme when the community charge for standard spending in Wales was £173. The scheme will provide relief direct to specified communities by reference to the actual community charge—or poll tax—set in 1990–91. I expect that more than 50 per cent. of charge payers in over 500 communities in Wales will continue to benefit from the reduction scheme. The average charge in Wales after these reductions should be about £100. Community charge benefit will provide further assistance above that to those charge payers on the lowest incomes.
This is a good settlement for Welsh local government, community charge payers and non-domestic ratepayers alike. The resources that I am providing through AEF and the special grant for council tax preparation, taken together, give local authorities a level of support which is 7 per cent. up on 1991–92. If authorities budget reasonably,
682
charging authorities in Wales should, on average, set community charges that are lower in cash terms than those set in 1991–92. The increase in the non-domestic rate poundage for 1992–93 has been limited to just 4·1 per cent. I expect local government in Wales to rise to the challenge. Charge payers in Wales will expect no less. I have written to every local authority leader in Wales making it clear that, if necessary, I will use my charge-capping powers to curb any authority that I consider sets an unreasonable budget for 1992–93.
I commend the settlement to the House.
Mr. Barry Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement—"the gospel according to Dai Poll Tax"—which reminds us that the poll tax continues under the Conservatives.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he faces the prospect of a general election campaign in Wales with the poll tax firmly in place and the poll tax bills hitting the doormats, and is able to offer only a council tax banding alternative that is designed to help the richest, living in the best areas?
Will the right hon. Gentleman, once and for all, recognise that, if the Government had taken up the offer of the Labour party's offer of co-operation on a Bill to abolish the poll tax, we would now be considering the implementation of a fairer, property-based system of local taxation?
Why will not the Secretary of State recognise that his prediction for the average poll tax is way wide of the mark? At best, this settlement is only half of what Welsh districts calculate that they need for next year. Has not the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong? His statement fails to take account of the full effects of inflation, the increased resources needed to fund community care and the new statutory responsibilities introduced by the Children Act 1989. There is also implementation of the national curriculum and of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to be considered.
The Secretary of State's average poll tax prediction is unrealistic. The increase in total spending is nothing like enough. Instead of just over 5 per cent., 10 per cent. is needed for new duties and inflation. The figures that I have given are the key figures, not the inflated figures with which the right hon. Gentleman is playing.
The poll tax nightmare continues. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the unfair 20 per cent. rule is still in place? Why does it remain, despite the fact that it means that local authorities will have to continue to collect from students and the poor a sum that is often less than the cost of collection itself? Why does the poll tax continue when the Prime Minister has described it as an "uncollectable" tax? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that councils in Wales are being asked to engage in the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of Wales? After 400.000 summonses, £17 million in uncollected poll tax and £100 million wasted on implementing the poll tax in Wales alone, why does he not admit that the poll tax was and is a total disaster, under him?
I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman left the prospect of capping wide open. How can he use the rhetoric of partnership on the one hand and threaten local councils with the big stick of capping on the other? How can he justify charge capping, in view of the restrained spending record of Welsh councils? They are loyal,

683
co-operative and helpful. The Secretary of State for the Environment would give his right hand to deal with councillors as good as these.
Does the Secretary of State for Wales accept that this settlement is inadequate against a background of deepening recession, escalating homelessness and growing concern over educational standards? Why does he not immediately begin the phased release of capital receipts—the moneys held by local councils and realised from the sale of council houses? Would not that begin to meet the desperate housing needs of Wales, caused by the cut in the number of affordable homes to rent and the mortgage repossession crisis? Would it not also be a powerful boost to our struggling construction industry and help to kick start the Welsh economy out of its recession?
Thirteen years of Conservative Government are coming to an end. Is it not the case that in those years we have seen £100 billion of oil revenues squandered, standards of local services decline and local democracy undermined and belittled by a centralising, arrogant London-based Conservative Government, who have not listened and who do not care about Wales? I tell the right hon. Gentleman that in Wales his party will be swept into oblivion when the general election takes place.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman raised eight points. First, he criticised the council tax alternative but failed to mention his solution, which is to return to rates and then to have a revaluation. That revaluation would be based on so many different criteria that even the Labour party cannot begin to work out what it would mean. It does not know whether it would be based on the number of windows in a property, the area of the floor or capital value. Still the Labour party has not worked it out.
I remind the hon. Gentleman again—I shall repeat this again and again because it is exactly what his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said—that going back to rates would be to return to the most unjust of all taxes.
As for consultations, I remind the hon. Gentleman that there was an empty chair in my office which was never filled by the Labour party. The Liberal Democrats came and made their suggestions in a constructive and sensible atmosphere.
Mr. Paul Flynn rose——
Mr. Hunt: I cannot give way when I am responding to questions.
Members of Plaid Cymru came and put their point of view in a sensible and constructive manner. My right hon. and hon. Friends did likewise. The Labour party never came.
The third point is that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) says that there are additional inflationary pressures. I remind him that inflation is now down to 4·3 per cent., and that the settlement that I have announced is considerably in excess of that.
The fourth point is the claim that this is an unrealistic settlement. I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that it allows for local authorities to spend £1,193 for every man, woman and child in Wales, towards which they will be receiving external financing of £1,075. That is a pretty good deal by any stretch of assessment.
The hon. Gentleman says that it is nothing like enough, but what is he really saying? I notice that there are certain key Opposition Front-Bench Members absent—[Laughter.] wait for it. I do not see—[Interruption.] The
684
hon. Gentleman has proved my point. There are certain noticeable absentees—the shadow Treasury Front-Bench team. Where is the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)? The hon. Gentleman misses the point.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard nothing out of order. It may be a point of disagreement.
Mr. Davies: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order?
Mr. Davies: The Secretary of State is supposed to be replying to questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Surely it is not fair for him to take this opportunity to criticise Labour Members for their absence.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is strictly correct, but I have a suspicion that this frequently happens shortly before a general election.
Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside will listen to the conclusion of the sentence, he will understand.
I do not criticise the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East or the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for being absent. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would say what he has just said if the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Lady were present. He has said that the proposed spending is nothing like enough. I want to know whether he says that with the authority—[Interruption.] Not from the districts. He has said from the Opposition Front bench that this—[Interruption.] Do not point at me with some press release.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we resort to pointing here.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should not point.
Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hunt: I am answering the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the point of order.
Mr. Barry Jones: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State cannot even read from his prepared notes. He is not even attributing the right figures to the district councils, which sent out a well distributed press release. The right hon. Gentleman can rule in Wales only by press release and hype, and today we are seeing him at his worst.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not qualified to judge the figures. Let us return to the main subject. We have a heavy day ahead, and a number of hon. Members want to ask questions on this statement.
Mr. Hunt: It was the hon. Gentleman who flashed the press release at me. He should not refer to a press release. What he said in this Chamber, to which I am replying——
Mr. Barry Jones: Answer the question.
Mr. Hunt: I am answering the hon. Gentleman's point. He said that the spending allocation that I announced was

685
nothing like enough. Did he say that with the authority of his shadow Cabinet colleagues? If he believes that that spending allocation is nothing like enough, how much does he think local authorities should spend? From where is the money to come? Will it come from the community charge payers, by increasing poll tax—community charge—demands, or will it come from the taxpayer? He cannot simply say that the spending allocation is nothing like enough; he must spell out what that means.
Fifthly, on debt collection, the hon. Gentleman needs reminding that local authorities in Wales have done extremely well. They have collected 100 per cent. of what they budgeted to collect in the last financial year, and it appears that they are doing just as well in the current financial year.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would release capital receipts on a phased basis. I must tell him that the net position is one of substantial local authority debt. The latest figures that I have for all-services local authority debt is £2·917 billion, which is more than £1,000 local authority debt per man, woman and child in Wales.
Mr. Barry Jones: So?
Mr. Hunt: So there are no net receipts as such to distribute. There is local authority debt of more than £1,000 per man, woman and child in Wales.
Seventhly, on capping, presumably there would be no limits under the Labour party. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could confirm that. Not only is the spending allocation not enough, but the message from the Labour party is, "Spend, spend, spend; tax, tax, tax."
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I remind him that Wales has been transformed under the Conservatives during the 1980s and has become the land of opportunity for the 1990s. At the next general election, the people of Wales will have to decide whether to return to the bad old days of the Labour and Liberal parties or to move forward under the Conservative party.
Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend may or may not be aware that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in a now justly celebrated sermon from the pulpit of St. Asaph's cathedral, promised unlimited support for the arts under a Labour Administration—and that is in addition to the considerable commitments that evidently he has urged this afternoon.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authorities in my area regard him as a Minister who is prepared to listen and to help, and that they deeply appreciate that? Is he further aware that the people of Wales will recognise what an excellent deal his announcement is for them? It is very much better than is available for England. There is also particular gratitude for the trouble that he has taken to ease the transition from the community charge to the new council tax.
Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the points that he did, which I hope Opposition Members will answer at some stage. It is all well and good to go around Wales promising more spending—spend, spend, spend. However, someone will have to pick up the bill, and undoubtedly that will be the people of Wales. When the people of Wales realise that the settlement allows for
686
spending of £1,193 for every man, woman and child in Wales—towards which there will be external finance of more than 90 per cent. of that figure—they will appreciate that it is a very good settlement.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The Secretary of State is the person who set the poll tax on the track, only to see it later plunge into the political abyss. That cost Welsh taxpayers a great deal of money. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he regards it as still right that Welsh poll tax payers should pay any part of the transition to council tax? Surely it is most unfair for them to face that expenditure.
Why has the Secretary of State not given an additional amount toward the peripherality factor, which still disadvantages rural areas in Wales? They find it difficult to meet necessary revenue expenditure, such as the cost of road repairs and the much increased cost of social services in the light of the care in the community policy.
Mr. Hunt: On peripherality and the whole standard spending assessment question, I have a distribution sub-group of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, which allows district and county representatives to meet my officials to talk through the factors that should govern the distribution of standard spending assessments. The outcome is heavily dependent on the data that are fed in by local authorities, which change from time to time.
That sub-group seeks to balance the needs of rural and deprived areas and those of more urban areas. On balance, local authorities agree with the way in which standard spending assessments are currently worked out. That matter is obviously one that we consider from time to time, in great detail.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend's excellent statement will be warmly welcomed in Wales. Is he aware that many people in Wales are concerned about media claims that Welsh local councils are hellbent on setting the community charge at about £300? Is not my right hon. Friend's announcement today a complete rejection of such claims? Thanks to this Government, surely not even the most malicious left-wing council could set a community charge of about £300 and impose it on its local electors. However, does not such a threat emphasise the need for my right hon. Friend to keep his capping powers?
Mr. Hunt: I believe that my hon. Friend refers to national press stories that were echoed in the Liverpool Daily Post, which suggested that community charge levels were to reach £300. Those reports, of course, referred to the level in England, of a community charge for standard spending of £257. My hon. Friend is right to say that there were many telephone calls to the Welsh Office from people asking what on earth was happening. In fact, the position remains unchanged. Our community charge for standard spending is £118, as opposed to £257 for England. Today's announcement means—even before community charge benefit is taken into account—that the community charge in Wales next year should be around £100.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware of the deplorable state of our roads and pavements, and the fact that significant parts of our street lighting system are out of action as a result of disrepair, when all the evidence is that effective street

687
lighting helps to combat crime? Given the huge backlog of disrepair, has the right hon. Gentleman provided any special factor for dealing with such genuine, local, and fundamental problems that all of us face from day to day and from week to week?
Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not deal in Wales through hypothecated or specific grants for the totality of local government expenditure, but reach an overall figure for total standard spending—which is more than £2,600 million. It is for local authorities to set their own priorities within that expenditure. I have no doubt that we could point to certain local authorities that do not exercise their priorities correctly, but it is for local authorities to determine their own priorities within the overall settlement.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): Does the Secretary of State accept, however, that in no year in which he has given the average figure for the poll tax base for Wales has that figure been achieved? When local authorities assess settlements such as the one that he has announced today in relation to what they received in the previous year, they never seem quite so generous.
Will the right hon. Gentleman respond to the genuine concern felt by Welsh local authorities about the additional expenditure imposed on them as a result of Government legislation—especially that caused by the plans for community care and the implementation of the Children Act 1989? Will he assure us that any shortfall in training programmes connected with such changes will be made up this year?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress that it is up to local authorities not only to set their own priorities—I made that point to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—but to work out the level of community charge that should be set locally. I have never suggested that I would do other than emphasise to local authorities that they must budget sensibly. I have also said that I would prefer that to be done by means of self-restraint, but it is important to have that ultimate power to protect charge payers in Wales. I am not sure about the policies of Plaid Cymru; I do not know whether it would provide for such a power to restrain excessive spending. Labour, however, has said that it would introduce no such power.
I have made clear my determination to ensure that local authority expenditure is kept to a reasonable level in the coming year. That is why I shall not hesitate to exercise my charge-capping powers should it become necessary to do so.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, despite his palliatives and protestations, he will find it very difficult to live down his close association with the poll tax? May I also draw to his attention the deteriorating housing situation in Wales? It is developing into a scandal, mostly because our local authorities are not allowed to spend the receipts from the sale of council houses.
Why did the right hon. Gentleman dodge the request for him to give a clear and specific reply on that subject to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) this afternoon? Our local authorities Wales are fed up with the repression imposed on them by the present Government.
Mr. Hunt: To some extent, Opposition Members give the impression that those capital receipts have vanished, blown away by the winds of faith. That is not so; they have been used, very sensibly, to pay off their debts that were incurred when the houses involved were built. As I have already told the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), the amount of local authority debt in Wales is more than £1,000 for every man, woman and child.
Government support for local authority capital expenditure next year has increased by 24 per cent. over the current year, rising to £536 million. The lion's share is earmarked for housing—in particular for the home improvements and renovation scheme, which I believe is going extremely well in Wales.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware, first, of the growing housing problem; secondly, of the increasing difficulties experienced by local authorities in putting central heating systems into houses when requests for them have been made on medical grounds; and, thirdly, of the lengthening waiting lists for adaptations to houses that are needed by, for instance, disabled people?
May I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to think again about a phased release of capital receipts? Much good could be done for people throughout Wales through the expenditure of relatively little money. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge to re-examine the matter, and to do something about it?
Mr. Hunt: I am not too sure that the hon. Gentleman listened to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). As I said then, local authority capital has been increased by some 24 per cent., to £536 million. I have also been able to persuade my Government colleagues to increase the provision of mandatory home renovation grant by £80 million, bringing next year's total provision to £143 million. That will greatly assist us in improving existing housing stock. As for the provision of new houses, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Housing for Wales allocation is now at record levels.
Mr. Peter Hain: The cost of setting up the poll tax, administering it and then bailing it out has amounted to £1 billion in Wales alone, according to the Local Government Information Unit. Is it not time that the Secretary of State apologised to the House for a wanton misuse of £1 billion of other people's money that makes even Robert Maxwell look like a saint?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is a master of hyperbole and the single entendre. I do not know where he found that £1 billion figure, but his mathematics presumably included the transitional relief scheme and various other grants.
I make no apology for having abolishing the iniquitous domestic rating scheme. What saddens me is the fact that the hon. Gentleman's party proposes to return to it.
Mr. Flynn: Will the Secretary of State list all the recommendations made by the Liberal Democrats that he has incorporated in the council tax proposals?
Mr. Hunt: Of course: I shall willingly write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State has always shown great enthusiasm for the poll tax

689
in general, and he now shows great enthusiasm for this settlement. As he is so enthusiastic, may I invite him to make the poll tax a battleground in the approaching general election, and to urge every Welsh local authority to ensure that it issues the demands that the system will involve before the election takes place?
Mr. Hunt: Although I do not know when the election will be, I should be delighted if the people of Wales made up their minds about clearly expressed alternatives. Under the present Government's spending plans, which include a special Welsh grant advantage, more than 90 per cent. of local spending will be met by external finance; less than 10 per cent. will be met by the local charge payer.
I should like the people to decide between the present Government, who are abolishing the poll tax or community charge and replacing it with a fairer council tax, and the Labour party, which promises a return to the system of taxation that its own leader has described as the most unjust of all—the iniquitous, hated domestic rating system.
Mr. Ron Davies: May I point out that the distribution of grant is grossly unfair? Authorities such as Rhymney Valley—which, on every objective index, can be described as socially deprived, receive less than the average increase that is available to Wales as a whole.
Does not the Secretary of State realise that, given the enormous housing and unemployment problems that we have in the valleys, his standard spending assessment model is grossly unfair and needs re-examination? If local authorities in the position that I have described find that they are forced to raise poll tax levels by more than the right hon. Gentleman recommends, and if he is minded to use his reserve capping powers, will he now undertake to consult those authorities before taking such draconian action?
Mr. Hunt: No. The local authorities know my position, which I have made absolutely clear. In regard to spending generally, I have been asked various questions by hon. Members on both sides of the House about whether certain kinds of spending have been taken into account—for instance, spending on community care. I have considered the entire range of local authority services, and I believe that, against that background, the settlement is fair and just.
As for standard spending assessments, as I told the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), we examine them constantly. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has any specific proposals, I shall be pleased to hear from him; but we consider SSAs carefully, within the overall total of standard spending, and our proposals struck me as a reasonable compromise between the various interests involved.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we recognise the importance and significance of the valleys. That is demonstrated by the valleys programme, which was launched by the present Government.
Dr. John Marek: The leader of my council tells me that its capital receipts from the sale of council houses is about £12 million. He tells me also that the council is not allowed to spend that money. If it were able to do so, more houses could be built, with no additional
690
burden on taxpayers or poll tax payers. Why is the Secretary of State so pathologically blind—because of his Tory dogma—to the real needs of the helpless and the homeless who desperately need homes but are denied them by his policy?
Mr. Hunt: May I explain again that we are dealing with a very substantial local authority debt burden—the figure approaching £3 billion, which represents more than £1,000 for every man, woman and child in Wales. I have already decided—I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes my decision—to increase local authority capital provision next year by 24 per cent. Most of that will go into the provision of housing. In addition, of course, the resources earmarked for the provision of housing in Wales is at a record level. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has published an extremely good agenda for action on housing. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that we take very seriously indeed our responsibilities for housing in Wales.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: About six times this afternoon, Opposition Members have asked the Secretary of State about the impact of his settlement on the ability of local authorities to implement the Government's proposal to transfer to the local authorities responsibilities in respect of care in the community and the Children Act 1989. Each time that the Secretary of State has had an opportunity to comment on that matter, he has refused to do so. What does he expect will be the impact on the ability of local authorities progressively to take on the burden, from 1 April, of looking after the services currently provided by the health authorities with direct Government finance?
Mr. Hunt: I thought that I had just said in reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), but I say again, that I have looked at the whole range of services. In respect of community care, we in Wales are extremely well on course towards implementing the new system on 1 April 1993. Included in this settlement are specific grants for training, and various other spending responsibilities have been taken into account.
Mr. Paul Murphy: Is not the Secretary of State's great problem the fact that he simply does not listen to people in Wales? If he had listened to the people of Wales, he would not have been burdened by the tragedy of the poll tax. If he had listened to local government leaders in Wales, we should not have a system of poll tax relief that is so inane that it goes not to individuals but to communities. If he had listened to my hon. Friends about the question of housing, and had released the capital receipts that are locked away in the coffers of local authorities, tens of thousands of people in Wales would have houses. Cannot he see that, for these and other reasons, the next time a Secretary of State for Wales comes to the Dispatch Box to announce a rate support grant settlement, it will be a Labour Secretary of State?
Mr. Hunt: I would listen more willingly to the hon. Gentleman if he were to get his facts right. He says that, if I had listened to local authorities in Wales, I would not have produced this transitional relief scheme. [Interruption.] He says that they have changed their view. In fact, he has changed his position. A few moments ago,

691
he said that, if local authorities had been listened to, we would not have introduced the scheme. But we introduced the scheme in response to a request from local authorities.
It is a very simple and effective scheme. We are now in the final year of the poll tax or community charge system, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would have expected us to produce an alternative system based on individual need and requiring everybody to apply. Does he really think we ought to have done that?
I believe that this is a very fair settlement. The average community charge in Wales, even before taking community charge benefit into account, will be about £100. The only people in this House that I fear are my English colleagues—they having heard that the community charge in Wales will be about £100. The key question—to which we have never had a response—is whether the shadow Secretary of State will continue the special Welsh revenue support grant advantage that has been secured under the present Government. From the Labour party there is a deafening silence as to whether it would continue to fund local government services to the extent of more than 90 per cent. from aggregate external finance.
The fact is that, under a Labour Government—for the sake of the people of Wales, I very much hope that that will never come about—the policy on local authorities would be "spend, spend, spend", and the bills would have to be met by the people of Wales.

BCCI
4.55 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the liquidation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International on Tuesday 14 January 1992."
The matter is specific because, as the House knows, the High Court adjourned the application for provisional liquidation on 2 December until tomorrow to give further time for the provisional liquidator, Touche Ross, and the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi to have further discussions about the best solution for depositors and creditors. On 3 January, the court in Luxembourg ordered the liquidation of the Luxembourg bank.
At my meeting an hour ago with the provisional liquidator of BCCI, Mr. Christopher Morris, he told me that his recommendation tomorrow would be that the bank should go into liquidation. It seems that the longest provisional liquidation in banking history, and the largest international insolvency of all time, is about to come to an end. The bank that for six months has refused to die will be given its last rites tomorrow at about 11 o'clock.
The matter is important because there are 32,000 depositors and 1,200 former members of staff of BCCI whose lives will be dramatically affected by the decision tomorrow. Depositors risk their businesses at a time of deep recession, and for many, these businesses represent a lifetime's work. In addition, there is the knock-on effect of further job losses. The 1,200 former members of staff risk the repossession of their homes because they cannot afford the mortgages, have no jobs and have little prospect of employment. The anxiety, hardship, distress and worry extend to the poll tax payers in 30 local authority areas—from the Western Isles in Scotland to Southwark in London—where councils deposited in BCCI.
The matter is urgent because, on 20 December last year, the Prime Minister wrote to me saying that he was not prepared to intervene. Parliament needs an opportunity to persuade Ministers of the need to intervene to support the negotiations.
In addition, no details of the settlement agreement have been released, although Mr. Morris helpfully told me this afternoon that he expects an announcement within the next month. The depositors need an opportunity to examine the settlement agreement before the bank goes into liquidation, and this House needs an opportunity to discuss the matter and to deliberate upon whether this course is in the best interests of depositors and creditors. We need a full debate on the Floor of the House to show the depositors and former employees that the House cares and to enable Members with a constituency interest to contribute before an irreversible decision is taken tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the liquidation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International on Tuesday 14 January 1992."

693
I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member said, as I too have constituents who are affected by the collapse of this bank. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have to decide whether to give the matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that, in this case, the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order, and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Ravenscraig
4.59 pm
Dr. Jeremy Bray: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of Ravenscraig."
I have to do so following the totally inadequate and insubstantial statement of the Secretary of State.
The matter is specific, in that it relates to the closure of one of the five major integrated steel works and to the strategy that the House has often called upon British Steel to explain. It is important not only to the steel workers and the people of Motherwell but to Scotland and to the future industrial development of the United Kingdom. It is also important to the House in that, at many times and in many ways, through Select Committees, at Question Time, in debate and in the motion passed by the House on 21 May 1990, the House has called upon British Steel to explain and defend its decision and the House has been ignored. British Steel has made no statement on the latest closure announcement; it has answered no questions beyond the bald announcement last Wednesday.
Finally, the matter is urgent because, in statements by Ministers in the House in 1987, British Steel undertook to offer the works for sale to another operator if it wished to close them. There is little time between a possible general election as late as July and the closure date in September for the complex and difficult investigations and negotiations required. Conditions do not yet exist in which those investigations can take place.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, to discuss a specific and important matter namely,
"the closure of Ravenscraig, and the consequences for the economy of Lanarkshire and of Scotland."
Again, of course, I have listened with concern to what he said about the matter, as I listened to the answers and questions during the private notice question. I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House today and therefore cannot allow the debate.

Points of Order
5.1 pm
Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I refer you to the Order Paper and to Transport questions. A cursory examination of the questions dealt with will reveal that the majority were on British Rail. Very few questions concerning roads were likely to be reached, although they are important for those of us in the west midlands. However, Question 9, on roads, was reached and it was noticeable that you were unable to call many hon. Members because no Opposition Members stood up, possibly because they have no policies and do not wish to reveal that.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that question was withdrawn.
Mr. King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) asked Question 9 on the Order Paper on the subject of road construction.
Mr. Speaker: I do apologise. I thought that the hon. Member was referring to Question 8 on transport. I beg his pardon. Question 9 was asked and answered.
Mr. King: Indeed it was. The point that I wish to make was that many of us were seeking to catch your eye, as we had not had the opportunity to ask any questions on the important subject of roads. Your difficulty was that no Opposition Members were standing up. It is possible that they have no policy on roads, and we understand that, but in such circumstances is it not possible to extend to Conservative Members the opportunity to ask important questions, as we have a policy on roads?
Mr. Speaker: The selection of hon. Members to ask questions at Question Time is a difficult matter. In 40 minutes, I try to reach at least Question 12, and we were able to achieve that today.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was much appreciated by all hon. Members representing Scotland that you allowed the private notice question on Ravenscraig to extend for some considerable time. However, you will understand the disappointment of hon. Members from Scotland that we are not to be afforded the opportunity to debate that in the House, following the request by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray).
If neither the Government nor the official Opposition are prepared to allocate time for such a debate to take place in the near future, would it be in order for the House to consider the establishment of a special Scottish Grand Committee to meet in Scotland to discuss the matter, or the establishment of an interim Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, which could summon witnesses such as Sir Ian MacGregor, Bob Scholey and representatives of the steel industry at management and at union level, because this is a matter of great importance to people the length and breadth of our nation of Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of the concern. I told the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) that his application did not meet the requirements of the Standing

695
Order for a debate today or tomorrow. I hope that there will be other opportunities to discuss that important matter.
Dr. John Reid: On that very point, Mr. Speaker, may I thank you for your liberal attitude towards debating steel in the House, often—in fact, almost always—under the auspices of the Opposition, who have allocated several days to it? When you say that you hope that there will be a debate—I am sure that we all share that hope—will you bring any influence to bear because of the question raised about the powers of Parliament and requiring answers from British Steel? As you may know, the chairman of British Steel showed extreme reluctance to turn up and to give any information to the members of the Select Committee. Ministers, members of the Select Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have constantly reiterated that they required British Steel to give reasons for its actions, but to date it has not done so. Can you use your good offices to impress the case on the Government, on behalf of all sections of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker: I am only responsible for debates which take place on the Floor of the House. Whether the Select Committee decides to investigate the issue is not a matter for me, but I take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Orders of the Day

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading, read.
  5.6 pm
  The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill, which was introduced in this House on 10 December, constitutes an important landmark in the history of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions. Its main purpose, in brief, is to change the constitution and functions of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the four national boards for nursing, midwifery and health visiting.
  The five statutory bodies were set up under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979. Prior to that, there had been a number of bodies in all four countries regulating either whole professions or specific aspects of training. The new statutory framework aimed to bring those bodies together, to establish common standards of education and training and professional conduct throughout the United Kingdom and to establish a single United Kingdom register for nurses, midwives and health visitors. It sought fully to establish the principle of professional self-regulation for the three professions. Those are important principles, which are reflected, and indeed further developed, in the current Bill.
  Under the 1979 Act, the UKCC was established as the single United Kingdom corporate body, responsible for establishing and improving standards of training; maintaining a register of qualified practitioners; and determining whether a practitioner should be removed from the register.
  The national boards were set up as autonomous corporate bodies in the four countries, with responsibility for making provision for nurse, midwifery and health visiting education and training in line with UKCC requirements, for arranging examinations, for collaborating with the UKCC in the promotion of improved training method, and for carrying out initial investigations in cases of alleged misconduct.
  In 1987, a review of the central council and the national boards was commissioned by the four United Kingdom Health Departments as part of the regular Treasury programme of reviews of non-departmental public bodies. It was carried out between December 1988 and March 1989 by Peat Marwick McLintock. The review team produced a radical set of recommendations, and its report was issued for consultation in August 1989. On 4 February 1991, the Secretary of State announced the Government's decisions on the Peat Marwick McLintock recommendations, and indicated our intention to introduce legislation as soon as possible to implement those decisions.
  The purpose of the legislation would be to change the constitution of the central council from a body the majority of whose members are nominated by the national boards, to a body the majority of whose members are elected by the professions to whom they are responsible. It would change the constitution of the four national boards

  697
  for nursing, midwifery and health visiting from elected to appointed bodies. It would remove the role of the national boards in managing and financing the provision of nursing, midwifery and health visiting education and training, in line with the principles of the NHS reforms. That function would be devolved to health authorities, with the exception of Northern Ireland, where the existing arrangements would continue to apply. It would centralise all professional conduct investigations at the council, avoiding duplication of effort and rationalising this important function. Unnecessary delays in this sensitive aspect of the council's work are distressing for all those involved and are certainly uncalled for.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What are the Government's plans for section 32 of the General Whitley Council appeals procedures? Some months ago, the Government expressed an intention to do away with the scheme, but there is no mention of that in the Bill.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Section 32 has nothing to do with the Bill. We want to find a way of tackling the question of section 32, which is cumbersome and causes much delay and unnecessary ill will. We should like to make progress in talks with the staff side and the unions, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that section 32 has nothing to do with this important Bill, which deals with the regulation of nurses, midwives and health visitors.
  Much thought and discussion has gone into the Bill. In principle, it is not controversial but is a highly sensitive matter for the profession, which is the backbone of the health service.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the changes that the Minister is referring to have any impact on Project 2000? Nurses are being denied the opportunity to take part in that project because of regional differences, particularly in my constituency. Will the Bill allow those nurses to take part in Project 2000?
  Mrs. Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, rather than answer interventions in an ad hoc manner I shall make an announcement about Project 2000 later. The project has been a major success of the Government. We shall announce additional funding, which will mean that, since its establishment, we will have spent more than £205 million on this important new form of nurse training.
  Immediately after my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement about the plans that we intended to carry forward on the basis of the Peat Marwick report, we established a legislation advisory group and gave it the remit of considering in detail what changes will be required to the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act to give effect to the Government's decisions on the recommendations. The group comprised representatives of the four United Kingdom health departments, the UKCC and the national boards.
  I want to pay tribute to the work of the group. It met five times between March and September last year, and I was pleased to meet its representatives earlier in the autumn to discuss the outstanding issues that have emerged from its work. I think that it is fair to say that there is virtual unanimity on the legislative proposals that are enshrined in the Bill. I want to pay tribute to the constructive and valuable contribution that the statutory
  698
  bodies and professional organisations representing nurses, midwives and health visitors have made to the development of our proposals. Without their co-operation, we would not have been able to move as fast as we have.
  Before outlining the provisions of the Bill in more detail, I must underline, for the benefit of the House, a point that ministerial colleagues and I have made in other settings. The fact that there will no longer be a centrally top-sliced budget for nursing and midwifery education and training, distributed by the national boards, does not detract from the Government's commitment to ensure that adequate provision is made for education and training.
  We have made it clear that we expect the regional health authorities in England to establish protected budgets for pre and post registration training for nurses, midwives and health visitors and that we are developing mechanisms to ensure that those budgets are monitored at the centre. This year, we are spending about £770 million on pre and post-registration nurse education and training. Next year—1992–93—the figure will rise to £870 million. That is a practical demonstration of the Government's commitment to invest in the major work force of the national health service.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure, therefore, that the Minister will make it clear that, if regional authorities do not comply with the suggestion that they should provide adequate education, the Government will not only take sanctions but will write into the Bill the ability to take sanctions.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I do not think the hon. Lady will be surprised to hear that I am not prepared to write that into the Bill. We shall take steps to ensure that the substantial resources that are invested in nurse education and training, pre-registration and post-registration, continue and develop. Indeed, not so long ago I was able to visit the nurse training college in the hon. Lady's constituency and was most impressed by its work.
  We are dependent on the skills, contribution and commitment of those who work in the health service to provide high-quality patient care. Our commitment to patient care relies on the long-term supply of well qualified staff. As a tangible example of our commitment to training and investing in nurse education, I can announce extra resources for Project 2000, to which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred.
  I announced today that we shall make a further £98 million available in 1992–93 for the further implementation of Project 2000. That is a large increase on last year's £71 million and shows our commitment to the initiative. That £71 million was almost double the amount of money that was available the previous year. The major part of the money will be needed for the ongoing cost of the 49 schemes that already provide Project 2000 training. Sixty-two per cent. of nursing schools have Project 2000 courses, and we intend, with those resources, to ensure a further development of colleges where Project 2000 courses are available.
  We shall make an announcement in April when we have consulted further. Since 1988, we have invested £207 million in Project 2000, which is a practical and clear commitment to ensuring that we have the nurses that we need for today and tomorrow.
  Mr. O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to make a further point on this matter, because it is important to a constituent of mine who has applied for a Project 2000 course but has been denied it. Will the anomalies in the Project 2000 scheme be removed by the changes that the Minister is referring to? That is important to practising nurses.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may wish to write to me with the details of the college to which he is referring.
  Since 1988, 62 per cent. of nursing schools in England—more than 29,000 nursing places—have been able to change to Project 2000 courses. I regard that as rapid progress and a considerable achievement, and I am pleased to inform the House and the hon. Member for Normanton that we have made available further resources to continue that process of change. I hope that the college to which he is referring will be one of those that joins the new Project 2000 courses.
  I shall now go through the Bill in detail. Clause 1 increases the maximum membership of the central council from 45 to 60 and specifies that two thirds of the membership shall be elected, rather than nominated by the national boards as at present, under an approved electoral scheme. The remaining members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the need to secure that the members of the council shall include representatives of the three professions of nursing, midwifery and health visiting, and representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom.
  The increase in the maximum membership takes into account the increased work load which will be placed on members by the future role and responsibilities of the council, in particular the centralising of all professional conduct investigations at the council. The fact that the majority of members will in future be elected by the professions to which the council is answerable reinforces the principle that the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions should be fully self-regulating. It means that these professions have come of age in terms of self-regulation.
  Clause 2 requires the council to submit proposals with respect to the overall numbers of the council, and an electoral scheme, to the Secretary of State for approval within six months of the Bill being enacted. That reflects the principle that as many detailed matters as possible with regard to the constitution and procedures of the council should be for the professions themselves to determine, acting through the council.
  Clause 3 amends the Secretary of State's powers to constitute new standing committees. In future, such committees may be constituted only at the request of the council. The clause places on the council the responsibility of determining the need for a new standing committee and, at the same time, draws specific attention to the requirement placed on the council, in determining whether to make such a request, to have regard to the interests of all groups in the professions which it regulates.
  Clause 4 provides for the non-executive members of a national board to be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than elected, as at present. In future, the national boards will be smaller executive bodies with a more limited role and function, directly accountable to the Secretary of State. The clause also provides for certain officers appointed by the boards to be ex officio members of the boards.
  700
  Clause 5 amends the functions of the national boards by specifying that they shall approve institutions which provide courses of training for nurses, midwives and health visitors rather than providing or arranging for others to provide courses at the institutions that they have approved. That latter function will in future, as I have already explained, be discharged by health authorities, except in Northern Ireland where clause 5(3) ensures that the role of the national board can continue as at present. The clause also removes from the boards their disciplinary investigation functions, so that professional conduct matters will in future be the sole responsibility of the council. That step is well understood and is important in streamlining the disciplinary functions.
  Clause 6 abolishes standing committees of the national boards, joint committees of the council and the boards, and the board's local training committees. Standing committees and local training committees will no longer be appropriate for the smaller executive bodies the boards will become, and the clear differentiation between the roles of the council and the boards will render joint committees redundant.
  Clauses 7, 8 and 9 relate to the professional conduct and fitness to practise and will add welcome elements of flexibility to the council's existing powers. Clause 7 gives the council a power to suspend the names of nurses, midwives or health visitors from the professional register held by the council. That is an important step, and is in addition to the present power to remove them from the register. It is intended that the power will be used where a nurse, midwife or health visitor is deemed by the health committee of the council to be unfit, for medical reasons, to practise. The professions have welcomed that power.
  Clause 8 allows the committees of the council which deal with proceedings for removal and suspension from the register, to have a minority of members who are not members of the council. That will obviously assist the council greatly in dealing with the additional committee work consequent on the centralisation of all professional conduct investigations at the council. There will be a work load, and to discharge it effectively sufficient numbers will be needed to undertake these great responsibilities.
  Clause 9 was introduced following useful discussion in another place. It puts it beyond any possible doubt that rules in relation to proceedings which might lead to removal from the register can make provisions about the giving by the appropriate committees of cautions as to future conduct. There was some debate about whether the powers already existed or whether they should be written into the legislation. In view of the great uncertainty on the matter, we decided it was fair to write them into the legislation. It is another important midway step to improve the mechanisms at their disposal.
  It is envisaged that the rules will provide for such cautions to be given in cases where professional misconduct has been established, but is not deemed sufficiently serious to warrant complete removal from the register.
  Clauses 10 to 12 are concerned with midwifery practice. Clause 10 removes the requirement for the council to consult the national boards before acting on any report from the council's midwifery committee on proposals regarding midwifery practice rules—an amendment which stems from the fact that the national boards themselves will no longer have statutory standing midwifery committees.

  701
  Since the council will in future be solely responsible for midwifery practice rules and their enforcement through the professional conduct mechanism, clause 11 requires local supervising authorities for midwives to inform the council rather than the boards of any notice given to them in compliance with the rules on midwifery practice. Clause 12 empowers the council to make rules prescribing the standards to be observed by the boards in relation to advice and guidance to health authorities and health boards regarding the local supervision of midwifery practice.
  Since the beginning of the century, special arrangements have been made for midwives, and the midwifery committee of the council will continue to play that important part.
  Clause 13 provides a reserve power for the Secretary of State—as is usual in such circumstances—to make grants to the council and the national boards towards any expenses incurred in connection with bringing into force the provisions of the Bill, while removing from the council the obligation to reimburse the boards in respect of expenditure on their part.
  Clause 14 makes it clear that the council is not required to consult the national boards on any proposed rules which do not appear to the council to be relevant to the boards' functions. That recognises the fact that the council, as the elected body responsible for making the rules, is the proper body to determine what is relevant to those functions. The remaining clauses deal with transitional provisions, amendments and repeals.
  Mrs. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Minister clarify whether, in the detail that she has just given us, the regional health authorities will be responsible for funding the policy? If so, regional health authorities will have to decide their priorities, so it is well possible that education and training could come lower down the list of priorities of some regional health authorities because of financial considerations.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I addressed that point at the beginning of the debate before the hon. Lady had time to join us. I made it clear that the money available for the education and training of nurses, midwives and health visitors would be top-sliced and held by the regions. We are carrying forward arrangements to make sure that there is a transparency of the resources so ring-fenced and that there are effective mechanisms for monitoring how the money is spent. I was able to tell the House that the money spent this year on pre and post-registration and training for nurses, midwives and health visitors amounts to £770 million. Next year that sum will be £870 million. These are large sums.
  The health service has always been a good trainer of our staff. We want to ensure that we retain those trained staff. That is why our work in carrying forward the proposals under Project 2000 are so important. I am pleased to report that what is so elegantly called our "wastage rate" in the health service has never been lower. We are holding on to more nurses, health visitors and midwives than ever before.
  As my hon. Friend Baroness Cumberlege said in another place, whereas the average time spent by a nurse in the service used to be about seven years, it has now risen
  702
  to about 14 years. That is a significant improvement in the way in which we are an effective employer. Of course, it calls into question the importance of post-registration training—an area in which good progress is being made.
  This is a short Bill, but a very significant one for the future of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions. It provides another demonstration of our total commitment to the future of the professions, and the key role we expect to see them continue to play in providing health care to the people of the United Kingdom. I believe that it ranks in importance with the other two major developments affecting the professions which have taken place under the Government: the establishment of the pay review body in 1983 and our decision in 1988 to implement and fund Project 2000. Not that those are the only examples of Government action to safeguard, strengthen and develop the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions.
  It is essential that those professional groups who make up the backbone of our health service are properly remunerated and trained and have effective and self-regulating organisations to ensure their well-being. It is against that background—because of the value we attach to the nursing, midwifery and health visiting professions—that we have taken such speedy action to implement our decisions on the Peat Marwick McLintock recommendations and have given priority to this Bill in our legislative programme this Session. The professions themselves have welcomed the Bill, and I am convinced it will benefit not only the professions but, even more importantly, the patients and clients whom they serve with such skill and dedication. I commend it to the House accordingly.
  5.31 pm
  Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire): In principle, the Labour party welcomes this important Bill, which has the broad support of the professional organisations and the health unions whose members are affected by it.
  The Bill will update and modernise the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 by remedying some of the defects that have become apparent since then, following the Peat, Marwick, McLintock review of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the four national boards. However, there are some matters on which we will seek clarification or assurance.
  The Bill is largely uncontentious and we wish to facilitate its swift passage on to the statute book. It seeks to streamline the bodies of representation and accreditation of the nursing professions by removing duplication of roles and removing confusing remits. It will strengthen the representation of the professions and improve the accountability of the UKCC to them.
  We welcome the move to make two thirds of the UKCC elected from the professions, as we believe that that will give nurses, midwives and health visitors increased control over their professions. We agree that the centralising of elected representatives away from the national boards to the UKCC will improve the accountability of the UKCC.
  We are concerned that the procedure for election to the UKCC, which will be approved by the Secretary of State, should ensure fair representation of all groups, especially minorities, and achieve a regional balance as well. We understand that the UKCC is anxious to achieve that, but

  703
  we seek an assurance from the Minister that that will happen. We also want to ensure that provision is made for the representation of enrolled nurses on the UKCC. Although an enrolled nurse can represent any group, it is important to ensure that enrolled nurses are represented as an interest themselves.
  We are also concerned that the members of the UKCC appointed by the Secretary of State will include representatives of nursing, midwifery and health visiting from the four national areas. It is equally important that appointments to the national boards include a registered nurse and a practising health visitor and midwife. Baroness Hooper conceded in another place that, in practice, that will happen. Therefore, we see no reason why that commitment cannot be included in the Bill. Furthermore, we want to ensure that those whose appointments are made by the Secretary of State have the appropriate qualifications and experience to fulfil their functions. We also want the interests of minorities, and consultation with them, to be given equal weight with the interests of the larger professions.
  With the change of function and responsibility between the national boards and the UKCC, it is obvious that the joint committee and the national board standing committee of health visitors and district nurses are, de facto, abolished. However, will the Minister assure the House that the new standing committees to be established by the UKCC will include committees for the minority professions so that their significant contributions to nursing are heard and they are consulted on the issues that concern them?
  Minority or specialist groups are naturally anxious about their status. They do not want it diminished by the Bill. We want to stress that the term "minority" is in no way a reference to the importance of the work carried out by health visitors and nurses in the community, such as district nurses, community psychiatric nurses, school nurses, residential care nurses, occupational health nurses, practice nurses, nurse practitioners as well as those nurses who are working in terminal care. Those people may be a minority in number but they are not in stature.
  The Labour party attaches immense importance to the role of primary care and to the nursing profession, which is at the forefront of health in the community. The Labour party is fully committed to health promotion and prevention care. The next Labour Government will have a vigorous public health strategy in which those groups of health workers will play a vital role.
  Community nursing is the face of the NHS in homes and workplaces nationwide. Nurses in that sector have to cope with the effects on their patients of poor housing conditions and a deteriorating social fabric. They are the face of the NHS and they play the crucial role of promoting better health through advice on life style, a healthy diet, exercise, alcohol, smoking and drug addiction. The work of midwives in helping mothers and young children and the work of the district nurse in clinical medicine are crucial.
  Community nurses are witnesses to the everyday health of the population. Their testimony on it represents crucial, first-hand experience of which those planning for the hospital-based sector must take significant account. Through health promotion and the prevention of conditions that lead to ill-health, those nurses seek to lift some of the burden from their colleagues in the acute sector. The nurses in that sector are the constant face of the
  704
  NHS with patients in its care. They observe and participate in every moment of a patient's time in hospital. They have to cope with the constantly changing needs of patients, doctors and management.
  Nurses are the linchpin of the NHS. There are 500,000 nurses in Britain today on whom we depend for our good health at home, in hospital and at work. I am extremely aware of the important and valuable role that nurses play in my constituency and I want to pay tribute to them.
  The financing of the UKCC comes from individual nurses themselves who pay a fee of £30 tri-annually to maintain their names on the register. In the past, questions have been raised about the publication of financial reports and the accountability of the UKCC for its use of funds to those who supply them. We recognise that the fact that the Bill introduces a two-thirds elected representative element to the UKCC means that that accountability has been improved. The UKCC itself has tightened up the process of disclosing its financial status. However, it would be prudent and sensible to place the UKCC under the regular inspection of the Audit Commission as an assurance to the professions of the UKCC's commitment to sound and open financial management. That would prevent such problems arising again.
  The issue that is of most concern to the Labour party is the future of nursing education. At a time when it is important to attract more women and men to the nursing professions it is vital that education facilities exist to offer excellent training and a career structure through pre and post-registration specialities as well as courses for those wishing to return to the profession.
  Furthermore, it is crucial that those already in the profession—whether students, auxiliaries, enrolled, registered or specialist nurses—have the opportunity to seek the nursing career that they desire through adequate educational facilities, which must also take account of developments such as nurse prescribing and nurse practitioners. Although short-term courses such as intensive care training, bereavement and other counselling, improvement of inter-personal skills, control and restraint—to name but a few—do not lead to specific qualifications, they are still significant aspects of a nurse's training and advancement and give nurses an opportunity to refresh their skills.
  The UKCC has now made it mandatory for all nurses to attend a five-day refresher course every three years to maintain their registration. It requires employers to meet the costs and plan the time for courses. Under the Bill, responsibility for the administration of funding for nurses' education will be transferred from the national boards of Wales, Scotland and England to health authorities and health boards.
  Opposition Members and the professional and trade union organisations fear that post-registration training and education may suffer. Because regional health authorities will be concerned to prioritise resources, especially in the market-driven planning now prevalent in the national health service, they are more likely to be influenced by financial consideration than the clinical needs of a nursing staff trained in all specialties. They need to ensure that staff stay within the national health service and do not become disillusioned by a lack of educational opportunity and thus career advancement.
  Regional health authorities will now be responsible for planning nursing education and will be primarily concerned with their regional responsibilities. They may be

  705
  unable to assess or contribute adequately to national nursing education needs or desires. Furthermore, they may be reluctant to invest in expensive post-registration education funding. There will be no guarantee that their investments will see fruition in the regions because staff may move elsewhere to take advantage of opportunities created by improved training and qualification.
  We welcome the Government's express commitment to ring-fence the funds that the regional health authorities will administer but we remain concerned about how long that will last. Education is often the first to be squeezed at a time of cuts. The pressures of the health market which the Government have created mean that balanced books and a worried look over the shoulder at the competition are the immediate concerns of NHS managers and accountants. Longer-term planning, which is vital for education, will not receive the priority that is attached to praying that each financial quarter will be survived without having to close wards and hospitals, cancel operations, incur building repair expenses or experience increased waiting lists.
  Many post-registration courses such as psychiatric nursing and health visiting do not last a matter of weeks but require years of dedication and training. We are worried that regional health authorities may not have the necessary outlook required to ensure adequate long-term and national provision and that that will be reflected in the allocation of funding.
  The pressures of long-term planning will affect not just post-registration courses. Enrolled or second-level nurses are especially vulnerable when attempting to convert to first-level registration. The implementation of the UKCC's Project 2000 educational reforms includes plans to promote opportunities in nursing by conversion to first-level registration. The implementation of that policy will now be the responsibility of the regional health authorities. Although I welcome the Minister's comments about increased funding, there are currently 96,000 enrolled nurses, of whom at least 35,000 seek conversion, with only 2,430 places available.
  When the additional money is spent on training nurses, it is important that every effort be made to retain their services over a much longer period, which may involve making the terms and conditions more flexible for women returning to work. We estimate that, given the current rate under Project 2000, it will take 14 years before all nurses have that opportunity for advancement. The regional health authorities must be aware of and able to respond through their educational strategies to the problem of the national perspective.
  The Government's assurances on ring fencing are welcome but, unfortunately, inadequate. The commitment to ring fence for as long as necessary, as Baroness Hooper said in another place, will allow the Secretary of State arbitrarily to decide that, if he wishes to allocate the funds to some other project, he could deem the necessity to have ceased. Ring fencing needs to be enshrined in the legislation to prevent the funds from being diverted by regional health authorities or the Government. If the Minister believes that education in nursing is a vital investment in the profession and the nation, she will ensure that those funds remain for education only and will strengthen the Government's commitment to ring fencing.
  706
  The situation of nurses in opted-out trusts is of particular concern, as trusts are not obliged to provide for the education and advancement of their staff. It will be up to trusts to decide whether to pay for training and permit time off for it. If the Government's plans continue to force many more units to opt out of health authority control, training and standards are likely to suffer. Trusts take a much narrower view on long-term needs than regional health authorities, and nursing education is not even an obligation.
  Mrs. Bottomley: What evidence does the hon. Lady have for that suggestion? All the evidence from the trusts is clear: their commitment to patient care and to their staff is at the forefront. For example, Guy's is seeking to tackle the problem of junior doctors' hours. It is a wild and mischievous allegation, for which the hon. Lady has not a shadow of evidence.
  Mrs. Heal: Can the Minister give us that evidence? The opted-out units are no longer under the direct authority of the regional health authorities but report directly to the Secretary of State. The regional health authorities will now be responsible for education.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Minister that, in the trust in my area, newly trained nurses were told that there were no jobs for them? In addition, the existing nurses, who were given undertakings when the trust was set up that their posts would be protected, are now being told that all their jobs are up for re-examination and that anyone seeking extra education will soon be told that someone else is waiting to take her position——
  Mrs. Bottomley rose——
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister cannot intervene on me.
  Mrs. Heal: My hon. Friend's comments echo the concerns that already exist. Ministers regularly say that the opted-out units are independent, so the Minister cannot then argue that they are part and parcel of the structure. The health service is being fragmented.
  Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady has failed to understand that the ring-fenced money held by the regions is for the trusts or directly managed units. Therefore, if such a cynical interpretation of the motivation of those committed professionals who are carrying forward the first wave of trusts were to apply, it would be irrelevant because the resources are ring fenced by the region and the trusts would be at no disadvantage. That cynical interpretation of the commitment of all those dedicated professionals who are carrying forward the first wave of trusts is so bitterly resented by the health service, which is why the Labour party has lost all credibility with the health professionals.
  Mrs. Heal: Despite what the Minister has said, we are not embarrassed by our policy on health-far from it. We are saying that, under the legislation for the trusts, there is no obligation for them to train, despite what the hon. Lady has said.
  Mr. O'Brien: May I substantiate my hon. Friend's point? I referred to the example of St. James's college in Leeds, which is a trust-funded college. It now discriminates against trained nurses taking the Project 2000 scheme. My hon. Friend has evidence. A person who is prepared to be named—I shall give the information if

  707
  called to do so—has told me about the discrimination on training in a trust hospital in Leeds. The evidence is there and my hon. Friend is right to bring the matter to the attention of the House.
  Mrs. Heal: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
  Mr. Keith Mans: Where is the evidence?
  Mrs. Heal: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has already said that the information is there.
  We are concerned about nurse education, which is why we believe that it will be crippling for the NHS and for the nation's health if, in years to come, we have poorly trained nurses who leave the profession because they are denied the opportunity of advancement and the capacity adequately to treat patients. Training does not make cash as extra-contractual referrals do, but it is an investment in Britain's health. The problem is that the Government will let opted-out units opt out of training and education. That will not happen under a Labour Government because units will not opt out.
  We welcome the Bill and support it in principle. The desire to modernise the UKCC and the national boards, and to condition them for the 1990s is uncontentious and is supported by the Opposition, by the professional organisations and by the health unions. The Bill is a commitment to nursing arid to the esteem in which the professions are held throughout the country. We are concerned about some issues and we may wish to raise them again later in the Bill's progress to safeguard the position of all nurses throughout the 1990s.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's announcement about Project 2000 and its funding. I vividly recall speaking at a meeting of nurses when Project 2000 was first announced. Although nurses were delighted by the Government's saying that they intended to implement the proposals, there was understandably some doubt about whether resources would be made available for that. The Government have lived up to their word all the way along, and this afternoon my hon. Friend has said that the Government are backing Project 2000 with increasing amounts.
  I venture to speak on the Bill, first, because I have a general interest in health and, secondly, because I am a lay member of the General Medical Council, a self-regulating professional body which has much in common with the United Kingdom Central Council as it will be and as it has been.
  It may be something of a cliché to say that some features of our country are the envy of the world, and it may not always be true. However, it is undoubtedly true in respect of both hospital and community nursing. It is commonplace to hear anyone who has been looked after by nurses expressing the highest praise for their diligence and sympathetic care, whether in hospital or in the home. I personally endorse that sentiment, having spent time—happily only a day—during the recess in hospital as a patient.
  Our nurses are very much in demand in the United States, in Commonwealth countries and in the middle east, and they do wonderful work in parts of the third world.
  708
  The reason is simple. They have a high standard of education and of professional performance, which is what the Bill is all about.
  The Bill simplifies and improves the systems of nursing education and of disciplinary procedures for the purpose of imposing and maintaining the highest possible professional standards. I wish to comment on two matters. First, the UKCC will continue to deal with professional misconduct, unlike the General Medical Council whose brief is to deal with serious professional misconduct. The definition of those two terms is a matter for discussion, to be decided by the respective councils and, if necessary, the courts.
  Hitherto, the only power that the UKCC had in such cases was erasure from the register. As the Minister has explained, the Bill adds the possibility of suspension and, since the discussion in another place, the sanction of a caution. That is entirely admirable, because there are bound to be cases in which suspension and a caution will be more appropriate than complete erasure.
  There is another dimension. As one of the two lay screeners on the General Medical Council, I see letters of complaint about doctors on which the council is unable to act. The reply to the complainants explaining why the council is unable to act has to be approved not only by a medical member of the council, but by one of the two lay screeners. I see a number of complaints that do not come near serious professional misconduct. Under the present powers, the GMC is unable to deal with them, yet the complaint, sometimes about one incident and sometimes about a series of incidents, may demonstrate that the doctor's behaviour is below the standard that patients are entitled to expect. At present, the GMC cannot deal with such a case. The GMC is addressing the problem under its performance review and my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that various proposals are under discussion and are likely to appear before the House in due course.
  I cannot see that the Bill addresses a similar issue with regard to nurses, I am not talking about a specific offence of commission or omission, but about a nurse whose performance is simply not up to scratch. If that is the case, neither erasure nor suspension would serve any purpose, and a caution would help only if it were accompanied by more positive measures. What is needed is a mechanism for reviewing the nurse's performance, and for proposing and supervising some means of improvement.
  One other clear difference between doctors and nurses is the fact that a doctor, once qualified and registered, is free to practise at any time regardless of whether he or she has been in regular practice and has kept up to date with medical developments. An example well known to the House is the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who, as I understand it, could put up his plate as a general practitioner tomorrow morning despite the fact that he may not have seen a patient and certainly has not practised for 20 or 25 years. I hasten to add that he has made it clear that he has no intention of doing so. As an officer of the Hong Kong group, I might be tempted to consider other ways in which the right hon. Gentleman's talents might be directed—although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might feel that that was a little outside the scope of the Bill.
  It is, rather worrying that what I have described could happen. Let us suppose that a nurse who is trained, qualified and practising leaves the profession to raise a family and returns to it after an interval of some years. As

  709
  I understand it, in the nursing profession there is a clear requirement that, on re-registering, a nurse must satisfy the UKCC every three years that she has kept her skills and knowledge up to date. That appears to me to be admirable, and it is an example from which the GMC could perhaps learn.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point and if, in future, he seeks to amend the Bill to suggest some form of retraining, I shall be happy to support his amendment. Having said that, there is a mild barrier in the case of doctors. In practice, if not in law, anyone seeking to go back into general practice who had not undertaken the necessary training period would find it virtually impossible to get another job. I agree absolutely that, in theory, anyone could return to general practice, but in practice he or she might find very real barriers.
  Mr. Sims: The hon. Lady is quite right, and I remind her that I used the words "in theory", although I think that there would be nothing to prevent a doctor from starting up in private practice. Clearly, it would be difficult to get a job within the health service, but we know that there are plenty of doctors in private practice.
  I should like also to comment on the lack of lay involvement proposed for the UKCC. The UKCC is to be composed of 60 members in all, 45 of whom will be elected and 15 of whom will be appointed by the Secretary of State. But clause 1 gives the Secretary of State pretty clear guidance on the sort of appointments that he should make, and it looks likely that all 60 will be members of the nursing profession of one sort or another. That compares with a GMC of 100-plus members, of whom a dozen are lay members.
  I fully understand the anxiety that all branches of the profession should be represented on the council and that there should be the right sort of geographical spread. My own involvement makes it difficult for me to be entirely objective about this, but I suggest that there should be some form of non-professional representation on the UKCC. One reason for that is that I think that lay involvement is right in principle. After all, nurses do not operate in a vacuum: they deal with patients all the time. Every one of us has been, or is likely to be, a patient. It is surely right that patients, as users of nurses' services, should at least have a voice on the council.
  Secondly, I suggest that lay people have something to contribute to the UKCC's deliberations and work and, although I say it myself, I think that the professional members of the GMC would endorse the view that lay members have a useful contribution to make.
  Thirdly, it would be good public relations for the council not to be seen as an entirely closed body. I am sorry to keep referring to the GMC, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a comparable body of which I have some knowledge. There is a tendency for people to refer to the GMC as the doctors looking after their own, but having worked for the GMC, my own impression is that doctors quite often wish to be harder on their own than lay members might be. Be that as it may, the implied criticism is at least modified by the fact that people know that a lay element exists within the GMC. Whether we like it or not, public image is important nowadays, and I wonder
  710
  whether it would not be in the interests of the UKCC to consider the benefit of lay involvement, especially where matters of professional misconduct are being dealt with.
  I apologise for detaining the House with those thoughts. I hasten to add that my comments have been in a constructive spirit. The Bill seems to me to be entirely admirable. I hope that it will command the full support of the House and will receive Royal Assent before other events intervene.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) on her debut; indeed, I thought it rather churlish of the Minister not to recognise that her opposite number was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench for the first time. I look forward to my hon. Friend making her debut as a Minister, and I am sure that that occasion will come in the not too distant future. When I was campaigning for my hon. Friend, I told the electors of Mid-Staffordshire that they would be sending a star to the House; my hon. Friend has certainly lived up to that already.
  If ever evidence was needed that we are in a general election year, the Bill before us provides it. Why else would the Government at last be listening to the views of professionals and trade union representatives who work in the national health service, who for years have been giving the Government the benefit of their experience and knowledge of working in the health service, day in and day out, only to find their advice falling on deaf ears?
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), I am sponsored by the National Union of Public Employees. We are well aware of the problems faced by those who have given their lives to working in the health service. My hon. Friend and I have raised their concerns in this place on many occasions. It is regrettable that it has taken the Government until now—as they approach the day of reckoning at the ballot box—to show some belated willingness to take those people's knowledge on board.
  For all that, the Bill is welcome and it is to be hoped that the Government's apparent Saul-like conversion to the concept of listening to our NHS professionals will extend beyond the immediate measures proposed in the Bill. Certainly, I know that my constituents—workers, users and passionate supporters of the health service—are looking to the Government to match their own commitment to the NHS.
  One important reason why it is to be hoped that the Government's attitude, as demonstrated today, will remain is that the nurses' pay awards are soon to be announced. My colleagues in the NUPE group of Members and I hope that, this year, the Government will listen to staff representatives as well as their own pay review body. I am well aware that our nursing staff are anxious that, rather than the pay award being staged, leaving the health authorities to make up shortfalls of up to £44 million, it should be implemented in full on the due date and fully funded.
  The enormous value of the jobs that our nursing staff do should be recognised not only through the words that Ministers utter in this House but through actions to back those words. If the Minister wants to give concrete evidence of the Government's commitment to the national health service, she will announce today, in reply to the

  711
  debate, that the Government will indeed fully fund that award and not seek to stage it. My hon. Friends and I look forward to hearing her make that announcement.
  The general thrust of the measures in the Bill has commanded widespread support, as evidenced in the co-operation extended by my noble Friends in the other place to get the measures on to the statute book as quickly as possible. The Minister will be aware, however—from the contributions made in the other place by my noble friend Lord Carter among others—that there are still reservations on some issues that many of those working in the national health service would wish to have raised and taken on board by her and her boss, the Secretary of State.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire mentioned some of those reservations. I should like to back her up on a couple of issues so that we may be sure that, together, we have caught the Minister's ear and that the hon. Lady can pass on our concerns to her boss.
  For example, the health service unions have expressed concern about the proposed changes to the constitution of the UKCC, to increase the council's maximum membership from 45 to 60, with the specification that two thirds be elected by the professions and the remainder appointed by the Secretary of State. Under that move, although the council would increase its membership, the opportunity to be a representative elected by the profession will be radically reduced. The Minister must recognise that.
  Currently, 102 members are elected to serve the national boards rather than the council. It is entirely proper that there should be direct elections to the UKCC, but the Minister knows that the proposed number of elected representatives on the council would deplete representation by more than half. The Minister will also know that the health service unions think that this balance needs to be changed. She should give a commitment to take their views on board.
  The Minister should assure midwives and health visitors that their voice will continue to be heard. I am told by some of them that if that does not happen they will feel isolated, unsupported and unable to influence policy. I am sure that the Minister will wish to allay those fears when she replies to the debate. That matter is especially important in view of the transfer of responsibilities for financing nursing, midwifery and health visitor education and training to the regional health authorities. That will mean that the RHAs will be responsible for determining the allocation of funds based on their own priorities and the regional interpretation of education and training needs.
  The unions feel that this will create a gulf between policy developed by the UKCC and the implementation of that policy by the regions. The Minister has given some reassurance, which I accept, that she will do everything in her power to see that education and training in the NHS are extended and promoted. However, that does not go far enough, and I hope that, during the passage of the Bill, we shall have a more positive statement from the Minister.
  In the context of Project 2000, my hon. Friends were right to impress upon the Minister the problems that are emerging in nursing education and causing a great deal of concern. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was right about that. I have been informed by the nursing unions that enrolled nurses are afraid to come forward for the training schemes intended by the reforms, because there is no guarantee of a job to which
  712
  they could return. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) also made that point. Many have lost motivation and have become demoralised by the fierce and unrealistic competition for the tiny number of places available. The Minister must surely agree that that is scandalous and should tell us the action that she intends to take. She has gone some way by speaking about extra funding, but nurses want more positive assurances.
  The Minister must answer the questions that have been asked in the debate. Although in the main the Bill is not contentious, we shall attempt to improve it. The Government are at least listening to what is happening in some parts of the health service, but they have a long way to go to ensure that the people who staff our NHS feel that they have the commitment that they need from the Government.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I shall be exceedingly brief, because other hon. Members want to speak in this short debate. We must be making history because, since 1979, I cannot recall a Department of Health Bill having all-party support. That is an astonishing development, but, of course, we are on the eve of a general election. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) said, it suggests that, as the Government are about to face reality, they are trying to do something in the health service that might command broader support.
  I should like to underscore points that have already been made and to stress some anxiety about the Bill. One of the worries is about the proposal to transfer responsibility for education and so on down to local level, with consequent pressure on budgets. Such strain could lead to erosion of the importance of education and related matters. In her response, the Minister should dwell on that, because I am sure that she remembers only too well the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the consequences of which may yet help to consign the Government to oblivion in the election.
  The Minister will remember the lengthy arguments about community care, as will the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), about the ring fencing of community care. The hon. Member may well speak about that in the debate. The Minister and other members of the Government trotted out arguments about why it was not acceptable to have such ring fencing. The most remarkable argument of all from this centralising Government was that it would undermine local democracy. If it was not acceptable to ring-fence community care at that time, how can the Government stand equivalent arguments on their head and rightly accept ring fencing in the context of nurse education?
  Perhaps the Minister could say more about the issue mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) and discussed in another place—the stipulation that the function of the board in relation to midwifery is included in the legislation. However, a guarantee of the involvement of professional midwives in terms of direct representation is not mentioned in the Bill. Would it not be sensible to redress that? Judging by the Minister's opening speech or by pledges given by her colleague in another place, I do not think that the Government intend to exclude midwives in this way, and

  713
  it would be sensible to include a provision in the Bill. The Bill commands all-party support, and I do not anticipate a Division.
  6.16 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I shall be brief. As a vice-president of the Health Visitors Association, I shall deal especially with the worries of members of that association and those of midwives. A good midwife is worth 10 doctors, a theory that I proved somewhat practically many years ago. Their special skills should not only be retained but fully understood, and I am sorry to say that I see no clear evidence in the Bill that those people will be fully consulted and their needs taken into account. It is pointless to produce glossy patients charters stating that people will have freedom of choice and consultation about the facilities they receive when they do not have access to midwives who are able to transmit their worries upwards and downwards within the profession.
  It should be realised that midwives and health visitors are not only constantly learning new techniques and developing their skills, but that they frequently have to change their responses to meet developments in medicine and social care. That puts tremendous stress on the profession and requires a flexible, skilled and trained response from the practitioners in midwifery and health visiting. I hope that such matters will be addressed by the Bill.
  I would be happier about the Bill if it were not so clear that the trusts will face great difficulties not only in the immediate future but in the continuing future in relation to nurses who seek further training courses, almost of any kind. In the first wave of trusts, the word "nursing" seems to have almost disappeared from the job descriptions. There are hardly any senior nursing posts listed in the trusts. That bodes ill for proper representation at every level of the professional structure.
  The Minister is so reasonable and balanced that, whenever she appears, I know instinctively that the Government must be trying to put over something shady. They would not need such an apparently reasonable member of the House of Commons if their doings were above board. Therefore, the Bill must be looked at carefully. Although we may say, in a slightly dismissive way, that it is a straightforward, non-contentious Bill, it concerns the level of health care, not only for mothers for many generations to come, but for sick people at many levels of the health service, both within and without the hospital service.
  In the past seven months, I have unfortunately had a rather close association with the health service as a patient, as the grandmother of a patient and as the daughter of a patient, and with a large number of London teaching hospitals. It is about time that the House of Commons realised that there is no point in bringing forward structures in which we talk about a high level of nursing care if, when it comes to the point, there is nobody on the wards capable of carrying out that level of nursing.
  We should be concerned that a nurse can appear at the beginning of a shift, say, "My name is Susan, and I am looking after you," and then never be seen again because,
  714
  like many others who are brought in in large numbers, she is an agency nurse, knows no one on the ward and is unable to have any relationship with the patients.
  Like several of my hon. Friends, although I have a word of commendation for the Bill, I feel that we should be asking for more undertakings. It is nonsense to say that the money for education will be ring-fenced. In my area, the regional health authority is the most placid political lapdog of all the RHAs. It does exactly what its masters want, showing a level of dogma that, were it representing the Labour party, would warrant six-inch banner headlines in The Sun. Therefore, an undertaking that the RHAs will ring-fence money for training is not worth the paper that it is written on. Apart from that, I am sure that this is an excellent Bill.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): It is pleasant to turn to a considered and measured debate on a Bill that commands general support, after the hype that we heard in the statement by the Secretary of State for Wales about local government finance. It is nice to have an atmosphere in which we can debate constructively the future of some of our great professions, particularly nursing.
  I had better declare a family interest, in that my mother was a qualified nurse and for many years was a district nurse in north Wales, and my wife is also a qualified nurse and midwife and has recently returned to the profession after a career break. I know something about the practical problems of nurses and how devoted they are to their professions and patients. I remember in particular during some pretty wicked winter months the problems that my mother and some of her district nurse colleagues had in reaching their patients through snow and drifts.
  It is right that we should look, from time to time, at the way in which nurses are educated and trained, and at how they conduct themselves. Therefore, this small Bill is to be welcomed, in as far as it goes. However, one or two points need to be underlined. One, as hon. Members on both sides have said, is that we must recognise the challenges that face nurses, and particularly health visitors, in the current climate in the NHS.
  A number of health visitors are worried about the direction in which their branch of the profession is moving, in the light of the new responsibilities that general practitioner practices are taking on, which mean that their clinics are taking over work that health visitors used to do.
  If those changes mean that health visitors are taking on more responsibility for such things as health promotion, they are welcome. There is an extensive need for health promotion, especially given the recent report published in the county of Gwynedd, which showed a great increase in the number of girls who take up smoking at the ages of 12, 13 and 14. The work done by health visitors in health promotion, especially in this sector, is valuable. If that work can be extended, we should welcome such a move.
  The new powers on disciplining of nurses who transgress are to be welcomed. To have just one power, that of erasure, is to take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Many cases could be dealt with either by a caution or suspension. The disciplinary bodies would have more flexibility in dealing with problems if they did not have to go to the full extent of erasure. The morale of nurses would be improved if they knew that, for minor transgressions, they would not face the ultimate penalty.

  715
  A number of us have rightly underlined the need to look closely at the Government's proposals for the devolution of training responsibilities to regional health authorities and health authorities in Wales. We understand that the Government have accepted ring fencing, but when I looked closely at the arguments advanced in another place, I noticed that we were not told how long ring fencing would apply.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us whether it is to be for one year only or for a number of years. This is important for one basic reason—if regional health authorities and district health authorities are to have proper provision for training, it must be planned over a number of years. An assurance on that would be helpful.
  I make a final plea. In some cases—this is not necessarily personal experience—I have seen that nurses find it difficult to go back into the profession that they left many years ago to raise a family. Often, they re-enter the health service at grades lower than those to which they should be entitled. It would be useful if the Government were to say that nurses, after a career break, should be welcomed back into the profession, given proper training and guaranteed a proper job at a proper rate of pay and proper grading.
  I welcome the Bill, and hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House.
  6.27 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), whose contribution I enjoyed. I thoroughly agreed with the points that she made, and in particular with that about full representation of the various regions—a point not made by the Minister. I want to take that up, because it is a question not only of the regions within England, but of the nations within the United Kingdom. Although this is a United Kingdom Bill, it does not explain how it will be ensured that there will be proper representation among the appointments that the Secretary of State makes, to lake account of nurses, midwives and health visitors living and working in Scotland. There may be an answer, but we have not yet had it from the Minister.
  If health boards in Scotland are answerable to the Scottish Office, I want the Minister to answer this question about funding for training and education for health boards in Scotland. Is it proposed that there will be a difference, and if so, what will it be?
  In the discussions that I have had, midwives and health visitors in Scotland have told me of their concern about the changes in the practices that they are expected to undertake. The role of health visitors is being changed substantially in ways they are unhappy about. For a long time, midwives have been concerned about their role being undervalued and diminished by the high-tech treatment given by hospitals. It is essential that training and education give people occupying these positions the respect that they deserve and maintain the status of the profession, rather than diminishing it. The women who occupy most of the jobs in the profession feel that the latter is a more likely result.
  When I intervened earlier, the Minister confirmed that there was nothing in the Bill about the section 32 arrangements of the Whitley council. If the Government do not introduce changes to the appeal procedures in the Bill, it is surely important to know when they are planning
  716
  to do so. It is only weeks before we shall have a general election. I suspect that they hope to introduce changes at a later stage by means of a manoeuvre. If that is not their hope, I want an assurance from the Minister to that effect this evening.
  It is pointless to complete a rigorous, expensive and highly specialised form of training if the health visitor or midwife finds that there is no job at the end of it. That has happened recently in Scotland's central belt. Health visitors were told, "I am sorry, but there is no work for you." Surely hon. Members on both sides can agree that the training of health visitors and midwives can be planned so that time is not wasted. In most instances, these people cannot apply for jobs in places throughout the United Kingdom. It must be recognised that they have family responsibilities in their own area.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: I was content with the Minister's reply when I intervened earlier, especially with the parts relating to the principle and practice applied to those applying to be enrolled for the Project 2000 scheme. The Minister said that, if I would provide details of the constituent to whom I referred, she would take the matter up, and I shall do so.
  I have been provoked to contribute to the debate by the position adopted by trust hospitals. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) asked for evidence, and I will supply it.
  St. James's hospital in Leeds is a trust hospital with a nursing college attached to it. One of my constituents—Linda Bichard, who lives in Outwood—wrote to the Prime Minister on 7 January setting out details of her concerns. It is surprising that a letter received by the Prime Minister's office has not yet been passed to the Minister for Health. My constituent telephoned the director of nursing services at St. James's to inquire about enrolment for Project 2000. She is a qualified nurse with 14 years experience, a background which qualified her for a place within the scheme.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman's constituent is a qualified nurse, how could she be applying for a Project 2000 course? The course would prepare her to become a qualified nurse.
  Mr. O'Brien: The young lady wishes to further her career within the nursing profession. She wishes to take advantage of the opportunities offered by Project 2000. If a person is dedicated to nursing and there are further qualifications that he or she can obtain, no restrictions should be placed on the person who wishes to obtain them.
  As I have said, my constituent telephoned the director of nursing services at St. James's hospital in Leeds. She was told that her qualifications made her eligible for a position on the Project 2000 course. She was further advised that the decision of the nursing college to refuse to take her and others like her was an executive one. In the Cambridge area, however, a person with the same qualifications could be allowed to enrol. Therefore, there is discrimination. My constituents are losing out because trust hospitals are denying people such as Linda Bichard an opportunity which is being given to people in other areas by the national health service.
  When my constituent wrote to the Prime Minister she set out her qualifications and explained that she was

  717
  engaged in part-time studies to obtain further qualifications so that she would be qualified to participate in the Project 2000 course. She explained that she was astonished when she was told by the director of nursing services at Leeds that, although she was qualified to embark on the course, her application was being refused. As I have said, she was told that it was an executive decision.
  As Linda Bichard wrote, although many people drop out of the course, there are many others who are dedicated to the NHS and to the nursing profession, but are being told that there is no opportunity for them to further their aims within the nursing profession. Like my constituent, I find that astonishing. People wish to gain further qualifications and to help the nursing profession, but because of dogma—in this instance, and executive decision—they are being denied the opportunity to do so.
  My constituent was told that she should contact the clearing house in Bristol to ascertain where the decision was taken and where enrolled nurses would be accepted for a Project 2000 course. On 7 January she wrote also to the officer in charge of the clearing house in Bristol. She explained her position and set out her qualifications. She told the officer that she had applied for Project 2000 training at Leeds college of nursing and that the local policy decision was not to accept enrolled nurses as candidates, regardless of their academic qualifications. She told the people in Bristol that she had discussed the matter with several organisations and that they had advised her to contact the clearing office to obtain a ruling. She wrote:
  "I understand that this is not a nationally agreed decision and hope that you could furnish me with information on which colleges are accepting E/N applicants and perhaps how many are at present on Project 2000 courses."
  Surely the Minister should investigate the case that I have outlined. The right hon. Lady intervened to tell the House that, if my constituent is qualified, she does not need to apply for the course, and that view has been supported by other Conservative Members, but that is not the position in the regions. My concerns are increased because Ministers and Conservative Members do not know what is happening throughout the country. We are being told about the results of Project 2000 which emanate from the Government's policy when Ministers are not aware of what is taking place in the regions.
  As I have said, the Prime Minister has been notified of the position in which Linda Bichard finds herself. There is evidence that there are anomalies when applications are made for Project 2000 courses. Among the applicants are people who are dedicated to the nursing profession, people who are qualified and are taking on further part-time studies in their own time to gain more qualifications so that they can be accepted within Project 2000, but who in certain areas are being denied that opportunity.
  If constituents of Conservative Members are being accepted on the course while my constituents are being denied similar access, I want to know why. I ask the Minister to deal with that matter when she replies. I am very concerned about it, and I hope that she will be able to give me some satisfaction.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I was very pleased with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal). This is the first occasion on
  718
  which she has spoken from the Front Bench in an important debate. It may be a short debate, but it is certainly important.
  Having listened to the Minister, I have become aware of something else. I want her to listen closely. It seems that, because we are coming up to a general election, the Government have thought again about the word "democracy". Clause I refers to elections to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. The Minister may smile, but I remind her that the Department of Health—especially when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Secretary of State—has ignored the professional organisations and the trade unions within the health service.
  The former Secretary of State appointed people to the various health authorities, but he was not interested in any representation from the community. The Minister looks surprised. She should go to the regions and discover for herself what is happening there. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) recommended that she should do just that. Certainly, in my region I have protested loudly about the fact that representatives from the community have been denied places on district and regional health authorities. Instead, the Government have appointed bosses from industry. We need local representation—councillors, for example. They were elected to such positions until the Government got their hands around the throats of the bodies and destroyed democracy. Now the Government are attempting to introduce a little democracy into appointments to the UKCC.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire got under the Minister's skin when she talked about the fiddling in opted-out trusts. It was a sore point for the Minister when my hon. Friend questioned whether the trusts would spend money on nurses' training.
  I attended a meeting of my local community health council last week. The House was not sitting, so I had the time to go and listen to some of the comments from those who represent the community on that council. Who was there to give a report? It was none other than the community physician, who talked about his annual report and the issue of community services.
  The Government seem to be going down the wrong road in the provision of training for nurses, midwives and others who work in the community. I was a little concerned to discover that the report showed that the Government were not providing the necessary support for community services. They are ducking their responsibilities and giving them to local authorities, which have to provide that support.
  I do not think that the Bill will work in the way the Minister suggests. I want the general election to take place very soon, because when the Labour party is in government it will implement this properly, although I shall not be coming back after the next election, as hon. Members know.
  There are some good provisions in the Bill and we shall not vote against it today. The Minister is looking at her watch, but she will have enough time to say what she wants to say in response to the debate. I wish to make it clear that I do not accept that what the Minister said would happen will, in fact, happen. I do not accept that the opted-out trusts will spend money on nurses' training.
  I have said my piece and shown how I feel about the matter. I hope that the Minister will respond in the right

  719
  way and provide some guarantees or assurances, but I wonder whether she will do so. I think that she has been put up for the job this afternoon by that wally—hon. Members know who I mean—the Secretary of State for Health. Nevertheless, I hope that what she has said will come to fruition.
  6.46 pm
  Mrs. Heal: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have enjoyed participating in the debate on what was thought to be an uncontroversial and uncontentious Bill. My hon. Friends have managed to inject some controversy into the debate. I am sure that, when members of the nursing, health visiting and midwifery professions read the report of the debate, they will note that the majority of contributions have come from the Labour Benches and that, with the exception of the Minister, there was only one contribution from the Conservative Benches. That is not an insignificant fact.
  6.47 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) on her inaugural Front-Bench speech. We have become used to her contributions during Question Time, but this is the first time that she has led for the Opposition in a major debate.
  This has been an important debate, and I am pleased that it has been marked by a spirit of consensus. The matter is important for the nursing, health visitor and midwifery professions. I felt a tinge of sadness when I realised that this might be one of the last debates in which I participated when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) spoke. I felt a sense of nostalgia when he spoke.
  I wish urgently to deal with a number of matters. First, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), I visited St. James's hospital shortly before Christmas and I was impressed by the progress that has been made by the trust. Its new day unit for children is a remarkable initiative and is of a standard that any hospital in the world would find hard to beat. There have also been many other initiatives, such as the new £15 million redevelopment of renal medicine, general surgery and intensive care facilities, which began in August.
  There is some confusion about the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and I shall certainly study it. It may be that his constituent is an enrolled nurse wanting to take a conversion course, in which case Project 2000 would not be suitable. These are complex matters, but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall personally consider that case.
  I am concerned by the comments about the match between enrolled nurses wishing to take further courses and the availability of such courses. There were about six conversion courses for enrolled nurses in 1985; now, there are 225. It is a condition of Project 2000 places that arrangements should be made for enrolled nurses. However, I recognise points made by Opposition Members about the position of enrolled nurses.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to the role of enrolled nurses on the UKCC and we shall certainly consider that further. She referred to the various minority groups, each of which has a valuable part to play in nursing care. Once we look beyond nurses, midwives and
  720
  health visitors, we take in community psychiatric nurses, practice nurses, mental handicap nurses and so on. We can all recognise, therefore, how easy it would be for the Bill to become enormously bureaucratic and prescriptive, so tying the UKCC's hands. As was made clear in another place by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, we certainly intend that the major interests will be properly represented on the board—possibly as officers in some cases. That matter is one for further discussion, and I look forward to the debates in Standing Committee when the intentions of this important Bill can be made clear.
  Much has been said about the important role of the midwifery profession, whose special position dates back to the beginning of the century. The Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 made provision for the midwifery committee, and that will continue with the UKCC. I assure the House that there have been no difficulties between the midwifery committee and the UKCC. It is important that they should have a proper and balanced relationship, and we do not intend to alter the pattern that was established by the 1979 Act, in respect of the terms under which reference would be made to the midwifery committee. It will no longer be the case that reference will be made to the boards, because the midwives' role has changed. However, there should be proper recognition- of their role, and I entirely endorse the powerful words of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the value of midwives. Few women Members of Parliament would not reinforce those words.
  The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a somewhat tendentious point when she suggested that London teaching hospitals were entirely staffed by agency nurses.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I did not use the word "entirely".
  Mrs. Bottomley: Then the hon. Lady said that they were largely staffed by agency nurses.
  That point was raised in several ways by hon. Members, but there is no doubt that our ability to retain the nurses whom we train has improved markedly. One difficulty relates to those who go on courses and want to be sure that there are jobs for them when they return. The retention rate has risen faster than we expected, and in some cases there has been a mismatch between training and manpower needs. That must be more effectively addressed, but I assure the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that the number of agency nurses fell from 7,400 to 7,000 in the year 1990.
  We also have a record low wastage rate. The length of time that nurses are remaining in the health service is double what it used to be. The points made about the importance of continuing training are extremely important. The UKCC prepared a report on post-registration education and practice and, although it is not yet a requirement that there should be five days training every three years, already many regions are implementing just such a programme. I have been involved in training seminars for health visitors and community nurses in my constituency, and such activities are spreading ever more widely throughout the service.
  I strongly endorse the comments made by many hon. Members about the importance of community nurses. It is too easy to think of nurses in an "Emergency Ward 10" or "Casualty" context, but we are all aware that the work

  721
  done by community nurses—in terms of their particular professional skills, autonomy and individual judgment—is extremely important.
  Health promotion and disease prevention—to which the hon. Members for Mid-Staffordshire and for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) and others made reference—are addressed in our "Health of the Nation" strategy. I am charged with responsibility for the wider implementation steering group, whose members include—apart from those representing the wider interests of the general public—nursing representatives. They are Beverley Bryans from the Royal College of Midwives, Sally Gooch, from the Royal College of Nursing, and Alison Norman, chairman of the Health Visitors Association.
  That steering group is able, powerfully and effectively, to widen the debate from the concern about beds, ambulances and the infrastructure of health care to a broader health strategy. When we look back on this period of the Government's work, we will see not only the reforms and practical improvements—such as NHS trusts and fundholding practices—but the important introduction of the health strategy that prevention is better than a cure. That is the way to ensure that this country continues to combat illness and disease.
  The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) was a little impetuous in referring to the review body. In my non-controversial remarks, I did not intend to draw attention to the 48 per cent. increase in nurses' salaries under this Government, compared with a 3 per cent. fall when Labour was last in power. That will serve as a salutary reminder to all nurses, midwives and health visitors, as they come to reflect on matters in the forthcoming weeks. I make that point only to move swiftly from it.
  Mrs. Fyfe: If the Minister is so concerned about fair pay for nurses, why does she support the proposal to do away with the procedure for appealing against unfair gradings?
  Mrs. Bottomley: The section 32 question and the issue of appeals are enormously complex, subject to much discussion and difficult to resolve. No one pretends that
  722
  the present arrangements are satisfactory. The sooner that we bring an end to the appeals, the better it will be for the profession and the health service.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) made, as ever, a distinguished and thoughtful contribution. He referred to the General Medical Council, and I thought that many nurses, midwives and health visitors might have a certain ambivalence about the way in which the GMC conducts its affairs. Arguably, our proposals will in some ways steal a march on some of the UKCC's mechanisms.
  Nevertheless, most right hon. and hon. Members are aware of my hon. Friend's commitment to the nursing profession. Any who are not will be aware of it when he is able to make further progress with his private Member's Bill, to which we look forward with interest and enthusiasm.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made an important point about lay representation. When it comes to the establishment of the UKCC, we certainly expect lay representation to play an important part.
  This has been a useful, constructive and positive debate. The Bill has an enormously important part to play in reorganising the disciplinary framework, education and training of nurses, midwives and health visitors. I look forward to the opportunity to give it further consideration in Committee. Much work has been done in clarifying the Bill, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House with great enthusiasm.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL [Lords] [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of any provision of the Act.—[Mr. Wood.]
  There being private business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration at Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the proceedings.
  On resuming—

  King's Cross Railways Bill
  As amended, considered.
  7 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to page 1036 of the 20th edition of Erskine May, which deals with the handling of private Bills? Under the heading "Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading", Erskine May tells us:
  "Unlike a public bill, a private bill, if it has been amended, is considered … on question put, and to this question amendments may be moved, for example, to secure the consideration of the bill on a later day or its recommittal."
  I have raised my point of order in connection with the recommittal issue. I have tabled two proposals for recommittal, which appear on the Order Paper. One raises an extremely important matter relating to possible proceedings by the European Commission in relation to the environmental impact assessment, which has not yet been considered fully by the Committee appointed by the House to consider the Bill.
  If the House does not require the Committee to reconsider matters relating to environmental impact which, as the Committee's report accepted, the Committee had not had a chance to consider fully, we may find that the entire proceedings are in breach of European law. Plainly, that should cause us considerable concern; yet according to the selection of amendments, no opportunity will be given for hon. Members to raise the issues involved and to propose a recommittal.
  Can you, Madam Deputy Speaker, give us some guidance, and explain the circumstances in which a recommittal could be agreed to? What criteria are used to decide whether a recommittal motion can be considered?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): As the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, Mr. Speaker does not give guidance across the Floor of the House. The crux of the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is the selection of amendments for which Mr. Speaker gives no explanation. I can take the hon. Gentleman's question no further at this stage.

  King's Cross Railways Bill
    New clause 5

      PROTECTION OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES
      '(1) It shall be the duty of the Board, if required to do so by the relevant owner of a specified property, to carry out the act or acts, referred to in subsection (4) below, required by that owner.
      (2) A "specified property" means any property—

      (a) in the London Borough of Camden within the land bounded by Euston Road, Midland Road, Goodsway, York Way. Pentonville Road, King's Cross Road, Swinton Street and Gray's Inn Road; and

      (b) in the London Borough of Islington within the land bounded by York Way, Wharfdale Road, Caledonian Road, Northdown Street, Collier Street, Calshot Street, Lorenzo Street, King's Cross Road and Pentonville Road.

      (3) A "relevant owner" means—

      (a) in relation to subsection (4)(a), the freeholder or long leaseholder;

      (b) in relation to subsections (4)(b), (c) and (d), the residential occupier; and

      724

      (c) in relation to subsections (4)(b) and (c), the business of commercial occupier.

      (4) The acts referred to in subsections (1) and (3) above are——

      (a) to purchase the property;

      (b) to do works to the property to mitigate the impact of the works on the occupiers;

      (c) to compensate the occupiers for the impact of the works; and

      (d) to provide temporary rehousing during the works.'.—[Mr. Chris Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take new clause 6—Environmental Code of Practice—
      '(1) it shall be the duty of the Board and the Company to comply in all respects with the Environmental Code of Practice for the construction of the works.
      (2) The Code shall set out—

      (a) general and specific requirements for minimising nuisances during the works;

      (b) procedures for agreeing work method statements before the works commence;

      (c) provisions, including works, rehousing or compensation for owners or occupiers, to mitigate unavoidable nuisances arising from the works;

      (d) procedures for enforcing the requirements of the code and ensuring compliance with the work method statements; and

      (e) any other appropriate matters.'.

      Mr. Smith: The new clauses relate solely to the protection of my constituents. In no way do they seek to prevent the carrying out of the works involved, or the implementation of the Bill as a whole. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who want the Bill to succeed can thus happily support the new clauses, securing thereby the protection of people living immediately adjacent to the proposed works. The new clauses should not be regarded as an attempt to prevent the Bill from proceeding, or to make its completion more difficult than might reasonably be expected.
      I stress that point because in the past few days a mythology has grown up about tonight's debate. The debate is about the detail of the Bill—the works that are proposed, and their impact on neighbouring residents. It is not about whether King's Cross is the right location for the proposed development.
      Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend may well be a thoroughly honourable gentleman; I would not lay claim to such a reputation. I am sure that the House has heard what my hon. Friend has said, and that may be his intention, but some Opposition Members consider that the argument should be about the location for the development. I hope that my hon. Friend will not entirely lose sight of that issue—while remaining in order, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Smith: As ever, my hon. Friend has been extremely helpful: his intervention has set our discussion in context. He has been an untiring advocate of the interests of Stratford in connection with channel tunnel traffic, and I agree wholeheartedly with his views.
      My hon. Friend has reminded us of the background to our debate: the real controversy over whether King's Cross is the right location. For once, however—to ensure that I remain in order—I shall not dwell on that at too much length.
      Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Would not the King's Cross site benefit the whole country most? Rather than concentrating on the advantages to London and its outskirts, should we not consider what will benefit the country as a whole?
      Mr. Smith: I entirely agree. If we were approaching the matter sensibly and rationally, the only important criterion would be how to ensure that the benefits of the tunnel applied to Great Britain as a whole—including Scotland, Wales and the north.
      King's Cross, however, is not the perfect location. It provides for existing links with the north-east, but it currently provides for no direct links with the north-west. We have discussed with British Rail the possibility of links between King's Cross and Euston—perhaps by means of a travelator or, indeed, a bus. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) mentioned that in our last debate. Certainly, there is no provision for links between King's Cross and Wales or the west country.
      King's Cross is therefore not the ideal location for the provision of access to the entire country. It is, however, a good location for the provision of access to substantial parts of the country—a fact which must be borne in mind.
      Mr. Robert Wareing: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, despite all the difficulties that he has mentioned, King's Cross is an immeasurably better location, given that the high-speed rail link will be connected with King's Cross by the year 2005 or, one hopes, long before that? Does he not agree that any alternative would be infinitely less likely to secure for people in the north-west of England, including my area of Merseyside, economic benefit from the channel tunnel? The only alternative that has been mentioned so far is Stratford.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is not necessarily right in making that assumption. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may want to comment at greater length on that. It would be perfectly possible to link up a new international interchange at Stratford with lines both to the north-east and to the north-west by using the north London line or the Tottenham-Hampstead link. There are alternative possibilities, to which British Rail has not given sufficient thought.
      During the debates on the Bill and on the issues surrounding it, I have been saddened by the tendency of some people to portray this as a north-south argument. It is not, and does not have to be, a north-south issue. Obviously I want to stand up for the interests of my constituents, and in a moment I shall explain further how the two new clauses seek to achieve that end. I am acutely aware of the impact that the works proposed in the Bill would have on my constituents who live in the King's Cross area, but I am also acutely aware of the need to ensure that channel tunnel traffic is enabled easily to get through to the north, the west and other regions of the country.
      What I have constantly sought to achieve is a situation in which we do not pile everything into an already congested King's Cross—at present the busiest London terminal—in seeking a means of getting through traffic to all parts of the country. I believe that it is possible to achieve that without insisting that King's Cross is absolutely essential as the location.
      726
      In this morning's Yorkshire Post, there is an article which reiterates a number of misapprehensions about the King's Cross Railways Bill. For example, referring to those who support King's Cross as the terminal, the article says:
      "Without it, they claim, there will be no direct, high-speed passenger and freight rail link from the channel tunnel to Yorkshire and Humberside, robbing the region of the chance to trade successfully with the rest of Europe."
      For a start, no one has proposed—British Rail has not proposed, and this Bill does not propose—that freight should go through King's Cross. The question of freight is entirely irrelevant to this Bill, which deals only with passenger traffic, as the Government have confirmed in answers over the past few months.
      The Yorkshire Post article then quotes the director of the Yorkshire and Humberside partnership, a Mr. George Smurdon, as follows:
      "We have contacted all MPs in our region, urging them to be in the Commons tonight supporting the Bill."
      That is fair enough. If one adopts the attitude that King's Cross is the only possible means of providing the north of the country with benefits, one is acting fairly by lobbying in support of it. Mr. Smurdon goes on:
      "I am advised there have been a number of amendments tabled by Mr. Chris Smith, the Labour MP for Islington, South and Finsbury, and these are likely to be viewed as a means of frustrating the Bill."
      I hasten to put the Yorkshire Post right. On a number of occasions I have made it clear in the House that I regard this as a bad Bill. By the amendments that I have tabled, however, I seek to make it a better Bill and to make it rather more amenable to the interests of my constituents. The purpose is not to frustrate the Bill.
      Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend has referred to a report in the Yorkshire Post. I do not agree entirely with that report, but I should like to refer to the freight issue, although it is not covered by this Bill. There has not yet been any decision as to how freight will get from the north to Stansted. It should be remembered that freight, too, is an issue. I cannot allow this occasion to pass without referring to the concern of people in the north of England about the question of freight. Although I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said, I believe that we ought to express concern with regard to the lack of information about how freight will get from the north to the channel tunnel.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has identified a very real problem. We have been provided, either by British Rail or by the Government, with very little information about the provision for freight coming through the channel tunnel. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for trespassing a little beyond the scope of the two new clauses, but this is an important question. At the moment, we do not have sufficient information or satisfactory assurances about freight. Concern about the ability to ensure that freight can be transported as rapidly, smoothly and effectively as possible from any part of the country to and through the channel tunnel is far more important even than concern about passenger traffic.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: We all accept that my hon. Friend desperately wants to protect the interests of his constituents, and it is right that he should do so. Indeed, anyone in his position would do

      727
      likewise. I hope, however, that he accepts that the objections from the north-west and from other areas of Britain are fundamental. if a proper terminus—with all that that implies—is not established at King's Cross, the cost to the rest of the country of choosing Stratford as an alternative, irrespective of the facilities provided, will be very high for people outside the London area. That is what concerns us. We accept that my hon. Friend's concern is genuine; I hope he accepts that we are desperately worried about the possibility of setting a precedent that would be extremely costly to the rest of the country.
      Mr. Smith: Of course I accept that my hon. Friend is concerned. Indeed, if I were convinced that locating the terminus at Stratford—or, indeed, anywhere else—would deny the regions, especially the north and the north-west, opportunities that would be likely to be provided by location at King's Cross, I would recognise that there was a national strategic need to ensure that channel tunnel traffic could get through to the north and the north-west. I would do that despite my willingness to fight hard for my constituents and their protection, but I do not think that British Rail has effectively made the case that King's Cross is the only option that would achieve that goal.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said about the need for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to defend his interests. In addition to all the arguments which have been employed, there should be no mistake about the fact that this project is seen to be of supreme importance to the midlands, the north-east and the north-west. But there is another argument. We are heading into a major recession—a slump. Major public investment, especially in infrastructure, is one of the ways to effect a recovery. King's Cross would provide some of the employment required but, by opening up more rapid access to other parts of the country for channel tunnel traffic, it would create jobs in areas where unemployment is rising already.
      There is always a balance of advantage. I am not saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury should not have said what he did, but he underestimates the extent to which the link is viewed as a lifeline by people for whom a deep slump is a serious and immediate prospect.
      Mr. Smith: I do not in any sense underestimate the importance attached by many of my parliamentary colleagues to the King's Cross issue. I accept the argument made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about the recession facing many of our citizens. Indeed, we have been in recession for well nigh a year and there is precious little sign of any amelioration. My right hon. Friend may well be correct in believing that things are likely to get worse rather than better. There is no difference between us about the importance of facilitating business and trade and of ensuring that public works programmes can be undertaken properly.
      As regards the Bill, the difference between us is whether King's Cross is the only possible location, whether it is the right location, or whether it may cause more problems than it solves.
      Mr. Tony Banks: Before this turns into a domestic row or a family dispute, I remind my hon. Friend and my other right hon. and hon. Friends through him that a proper
      728
      assessment is one of the things that we lack. That is all that we are asking for. No doubt the Labour Front Bench will be giving us details of that later.
      I am no more fighting for the interests of Stratford over those of the rest of the country than my hon. Friend is fighting for the interests of Islington over those of the rest of the country. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that if on this occasion they support the Labour Front Bench on the need for a full inquiry, at least we can ensure that the decision eventually taken is in the interests of all of our constituents and that we are not divided because British Rail will not carry out a proper assessment of where in London the country needs that international station.
      Mr. Smith: As ever, my hon. Friend is right. Consider the way in which we have gone about making the decision—use of the private Bill procedure—the changes of mind exhibited by the Government, and the fact that the Government's provisions for the eastern approach and the potential role of Stratford are still unclear. For example, we have not heard what the Government envisage at Stratford other than a station. We do not know how big it will be, what links will be provided to it and how the Government envisage that the station will develop. Many questions are unclear. Had there been a sensible approach to such issues, all those questions could have been put into the public domain from the start. We could have found a sensible way to plan what ought to be a major, strategic, national decision. The private Bill procedure is not a helpful way to do that.
      Mr. Peter Snape: I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). We appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has a duty to defend the interests of his constituents. However, before he or my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) completely rewrite our party's policy, I must tell them that the commission of inquiry that we envisage setting up after the general election will consider the route from the channel tunnel.
      For many of us, there is no dissension about the fact that there is no alternative to King's Cross. It is not the railway management making that statement; I am making it, on behalf of our party. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I do not do so at the behest of railway management. I spent too many years working for British Rail to be over-impressed with the supposed infallibility of that organisation.
      If my hon. Friend feels that there is an alternative, it is his responsibility to tell us how much it will cost, how it will be possible to get from Stratford to Chesterfield, Liverpool, Manchester and all the other parts of the United Kingdom that this great project must serve, and what route the trains would take if we were unwise enough to accept Stratford as an alternative.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are tall questions which leave the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) far away from his new clause.
      Mr. Smith: I shall be ruled by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although there are answers to the questions put

      729
      by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I alluded to some of them earlier when I mentioned possible routes from Stratford to the main east and west coast lines. The answers to questions of cost are included in the studies made by Colin Buchanan and Partners on behalf of the London borough of Newham. The figures that they have come up with show a remarkably cheaper project than the one envisaged by the Bill at King's Cross, where we are talking about a grand total of about £1·5 billion. I must question whether that is sensible expenditure, given potential competing priorities.
      I do not wish to trespass outside the provisions of the new clauses which relate to environmental codes of practice—although such issues are not totally unrelated—but my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield made a valid point about public works during a recession. I remind him that, in the London region of British Rail alone, Network SouthEast says that it cannot afford £140 million to fund the renewal of the north Kent line, the £300 million Thameslink 2000 project has been blocked by the Government, £300 million is needed for new Networker rolling stock and £260 million is needed to modernise the London-Tilbury-Southend line.
      Elsewhere, £750 million is needed to upgrade the west coast main line, £315 million for electrification of the midland main line, and £400 million for electrification of the trans-Pennine routes. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is concerned about the importance of getting public works under way and investment in British Rail projects, I rate all those projects above the provision of a new low-level station at King's Cross.
      I fear that, if the King's Cross project goes ahead, the £1·5 billion of expenditure will pre-empt a vast amount of other essential work needed elsewhere on the British Rail network.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I represent the other half of Islington. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in our borough, about 17,000 people are unemployed and that there is a massive housing waiting list? There are opportunities for social and housing developments in the area to the north of King's Cross station.
      I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation that the real motive for British Rail's development of the channel tunnel terminal at King's Cross is mainly the mistaken belief that it can gain a great deal of money from increased land values to the north of the station for land which will be used primarily for office development.
      Does my hon. Friend not think that it would he better if that money and those resources were used to develop the rail infrastructure? Does he agree that the Stratford option provides rail connections which are just as good, if not better, to the whole country rather than merely to specific parts of it?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is correct. Stratford has the potential to provide links through to Wales and to the south-west which are impossible from King's Cross—if we go ahead with the east-west cross rail proposal from Liverpool Street to Paddington, as I hope that we shall.
      730
      I fear that we have strayed from the specific issues of the protection of neighbouring properties and the need for an environmental code. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will forgive me if I have been responsible——
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am responsible for allowing the hon. Gentleman to stray from the new clauses. I hope that, as we have had this preamble, he will now speak directly to the clauses before the House.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Smith: I shall accede to your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought it important to ensure that a debate on the new clauses and later amendments did not become a north-south debate. Sadly, that appears to have happened, especially in the pages of reputable newspapers such as the Yorkshire Post.
      In the debate on the carry-over motion, the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who sponsors the Bill, commented on the work of Alan Baxter and Associates, who had made alternative proposals showing that, even if King's Cross were chosen as the location for the new terminus, it did not have to be located in the area of King's Cross identified by British Rail. I hold no brief for the detail of the proposals of Alan Baxter and Associates, but they should be given a fair hearing. The hon. Member for Keighley made a number of comments that were sharply critical of Alan Baxter and Associates. He said:
      "It might be considered surprising that the firm refused to supply British Rail with a copy of its report prior to publication, even though much of the information it used was obtained in its capacity as consulting engineers to the BR board in relation to a planning application for a location to the north end of the King's Cross site. One may ask what account the firm took of the duties it owed of confidentiality and good faith, bearing in mind that, far from inquiring whether the BR board would object, it did not even say what it was doing." [Official Report, 25 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 686.]
      The clear implication was that the hon. Gentleman believed that Alan Baxter and Associates was not acting in confidentiality and good faith.
      Knowing that this debate was to be held, Alan Baxter and Associates wrote to me on 8 January as follows:
      "In the 25th November debate. Mr. Gary Waller, in proposing the motion, made certain aspersions about our professional conduct in developing and publicising an alternative strategy for King's Cross. These we wholeheartedly deny. In particular. Mr. Waller and those advising him seem not to have understood that our proposals are based entirely on information available in the public realm."
      I hope that that puts the record straight, and I trust that the hon. Member for Keighley will also put the record straight.
      New clause 5 aims to put into statutory force the protection of neighbouring properties that British Rail has indicated orally that it is likely to be willing to undertake. It also seeks a small increase in the buffer zone of properties which need protection and which are accepted by British Rail as requiring better protection.
      The purpose of new clause 6 is to set up an environmental code of practice for the conduct of the works. British Rail has said that it is prepared to undertake such a code, but it has not been agreed despite continuing discussions with the London boroughs of Islington and Camden.
      New clause 5 provides statutory guarantees for the loose undertakings that British Rail has given to occupiers of homes and business premises directly affected by the

      731
      noise and nuisance of the works. It deals with the voluntary purchase of blighted property. It places a duty on British Rail not to purchase all properties in the buffer zone, but only if required to do so by the owner of the property. The largest owner of property in the buffer zone is the London borough of Islington, which will not want to yield valuable housing stock. [Interruption.] The sedentary interruptions of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) about the enormous potential public cost do not carry the weight that perhaps he might think.
      Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend clarify the costs? I draw his attention to new clause 5:
      "Specified property … in the London Borough of Camden within the land bounded by Euston Road, Midland Road, Goods Way, York Way, Pentonville Road, King's Cross Road, Swinton Street and Gray's Inn Road; and"—
      in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—
      "York Way, Wharfdale Road, Caledonian Road, Northdown Street, Collier Street, Calshot Street, Lorenzo Street, King's Cross Road and Pentonville Road."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) rightly drew attention to the enormous cost of the King's Cross project, but new clause 5 rather undermines his economic case, as it would surely place a further enormous burden on the British Railways Board.
      Mr. Smith: I fear that my hon. Friend is incorrect. The majority of the property within the boundaries prescribed by new clause 5 falls within the compulsory purchase powers of the Bill. The cost of purchasing the lion's share of the area covered by the new clause is included in the Bill that my hon. Friend so avidly supports. The new clause seeks to extend the boundary of the buffer zone by a small amount.
      Mr. Snape: I apologise for intervening again, but my hon. Friend should read new clause 5. It demands of British Rail not only the purchase of property but
      "to do works to the property to mitigate the impact of the works on the occupiers; to compensate the occupiers for the impact of the works; and to provide temporary rehousing during the works."
      My hon. Friend could mop up the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) about public works with this clause alone.
      Mr. Smith: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is again incorrect. I shall explain in great detail in a moment specifically what the new clause would do. If my hon. Friend has studied the Bill and the issues surrounding it as carefully as I suspect he has, he must be aware that British Rail has already told people living in neighbouring properties that they may well have to be rehoused at BR's expense for substantial periods of time while the work is carried out. The new clause would merely put into formal statutory terms the verbal undertakings that British Rail has already given. Therefore, the costs to which my hon. Friend refers are already part of the overall cost of the work that British Rail is preparing to undertake.
      New clause 5 would provide for the voluntary purchase of blighted property; for noise insulation of the property if the noise of the construction works exceeds certain agreed levels; for temporary rehousing if the noise of the works exceeds agreed higher levels; and for compensation of any costs or financial loss due to the works. As we are
      732
      talking about people who will live on top of a long-term, large-scale building site, those are entirely reasonable requests to make of those carrying out the development.
      Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman would perhaps agree that the new clause goes much further than he implies. It is clear from the new clause that the relevant owner of a specific property may at a whim decide that he wishes the developers to purchase the property or to compensate him. There is nothing whatever in the new clause to qualify that requirement. The majority of people living in the area now are not living in a haven of peace and quiet. Admittedly, there will be a great deal of work going on, but when it is completed they will not only have an improved environment but there will be rather more jobs than before the works began—a matter that clearly concerned the hon. Gentleman when he spoke earlier.
      Mr. Smith: I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with that. First, he insults the King's Cross area by implying that somehow it is not a haven of peace and quiet, with all the implications that that remark carried. Of course it is an inner-city urban area, but I invite him to come with me to the communal garden area at the back of the houses in Northdown street, which was created some years ago by the Labour-controlled London borough of Islington. It is much appreciated by the people who live in those houses. It is an oasis of green space protected from traffic with provision for children to play where people can enjoy peace and quiet in the heart of an urban area. The hon. Gentleman is not living in the real world when he claims that the environment of the King's Cross area will be better after the new station has been built than it is now.
      After construction, the project will comprise the biggest station complex in the world. The project will involve the clearance of a 10-acre site in south Islington and on the edge of Camden that is currently occupied by three entire blocks of city building. All the buildings will be demolished. A huge pit 40 ft deep will then be excavated across the whole site to take the eight-platform underground station. The foundations will be piled deep for the buildings to be constructed above the station. The walls of the station box will be driven into the ground in sections from one end of the site to the other.
      The station will then be constructed. After it is finished. tall office blocks will be built over the whole area. The works will continue for eight years—six years for the construction of the station and two years for the subsequent superstructure work. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that all that and the end result will be a better environment for the people of King's Cross than the one they have now, he should come and talk to them. He will find that they do not agree.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: I support my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that no hon. Member has ever suggested when a motorway or link road has been built or extended that the people affected should tolerate the noise and disruption, that their feelings and comfort should be disregarded, that they should not have the right of insulation, which is enshrined in statute, and that they should not have the right of purchase by the Department of Transport when their homes are blighted by the proposal?
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Smith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The case for people in rural areas who may be affected by a motorway being driven past the bottom of their garden should apply with equal if not more force for people in the midst of an inner city, such as my constituents who will have work of this magnitude carried out at the end of their back yards.
      There are three long rows of terraced houses that back directly on to the working areas proposed in the Bill: Balfe street, Northdown street and Keystone crescent. Some 23 houses there have back yards directly adjoining the site boundaries. The pneumatic drills, excavators, dumper trucks, pile drivers and cement mixers will operate immediately behind their small back yards. It is exceptional to have such an enormous demolition, excavation and construction project immediately behind ordinary family homes. Moreover, British Rail is proposing that there should be seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day working on the site. Anyone who claims that that will not have a serious impact on the people in the houses immediately adjacent to the site is not facing up to the awful realities of what the construction site will mean for my constituents.
      Indeed, British Rail fell into precisely that trap. In its environmental statement, which was published in early May 1991, its consultants on construction noise said that it was
      "not practicable to predict with any certainty levels of noise and vibration associated with the building works at such an early stage of a project. However, general construction and demolition work is unlikely to have a major impact."
      We cannot possibly accept that as an accurate assessment of the impact of the works. That was the British Rail position when the Committee of this House concluded its proceedings on the Bill on 8 May 1991.
      Mr. Waller: I honestly think that the hon. Gentleman is distorting the position. Of course it is impossible to give precise predictions of how particular parts of the site will be affected at particular times, but British Rail has made it clear that it will include within its protection the purchase of certain types of property, double glazing and temporary rehousing where necessary and that it will respond as and when necessary to assist householders who are bound to be affected during such a major construction project. That is different from saying, as the new clause does, that every householder within the whole massive area should be entitled to require British Rail to purchase his or her property. That is a different and unreasonable proposal.
      The hon. Gentleman also distorted the case when he spoke about what is proposed after the works are completed. Most of the works will be completed below ground. I accept that, above ground, an office development is proposed, but a new, generously sized urban park has also been proposed. I repeat that, when the works are completed, the environment will be considerably improved compared with the present acres of dereliction. Unless development takes place, there is no prospect of ameliorating that dereliction.
      Mr. Smith: The urban park to which the hon. Gentleman refers is part of the London Regeneration Consortium scheme and it is well to the north of the site to which the Bill refers. That park has nothing to do with what will go on top of the low-level station once the box
      734
      has been built. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps being disingenuous in citing the urban park in relation to the restitution of the 17 acres of property to which the Bill relates. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to suggest that the area to which the new clause relates is massive; I shall outline the specific area in more detail shortly.
      The hon. Gentleman also criticised my new clause for including a right to enable the owner of a blighted property—we are not talking about an enormous number of people—to go along to BR and say, "I want you to purchase this property from me."
      Imagine someone living in Keystone crescent who, for reasons of job or other pressing need, has to move. When he puts his house on the market he will have to tell any potential purchaser that in a year or 18 months BR will come along with bulldozers and dig a hole right up against the back fence of the property. He will also have to tell any potential purchaser that that work will continue for the next eight years and that, while it continues, those living in the property will require temporary rehousing. He must also reveal that the noise and vibration levels will be intolerable. In those circumstances, does the hon. Member for Keighley believe that that person will find an ordinary, private purchaser for his property? If he does, I challenge him to come up with the person who would be prepared to buy in such circumstances.
      British Rail is the cause of the noise, disruption and disturbance, and I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that BR should carry the responsibility of purchasing such blighted property. BR could dispose of such property at a later date once the station works have been completed and the wonderful environment about which the hon. Member for Keighley has spoken has been created. In the long term, there is no real net cost to BR, and if it agreed to purchase property, that would offer assistance to individual owners now.
      Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that opposition to the new clause is equivalent to opposing the desire of people in inner-city areas who seek to protect or improve their environment? The hon. Member for Keighley seems to suggest that if the environment in which people live now is not very good, so be it—it can stay bad. People who live and work in the King's Cross area and who enjoy living there, want their local environment improved. BR is not intent on improving that environment, but the new clause will help to ameliorate the bad conditions in which many have to live now.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the people of King's Cross have devoted a lot of time and energy in the past 15 years to improving their housing conditions and the sense of community. That effort has been coupled with the good work done by the borough of Islington. Those people have now discovered not only that their local neighbourhood and community will be destroyed by BR, but that their area has been dismissed airily by the hon. Member for Keighley. They will find no comfort in that.
      Mr. Benn: I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says about environmental considerations. Everyone knows that big construction work brings with it environmental disadvantages. My hon. Friend should consider an area such as the north Derbyshire coalfield, which I have the honour to represent. For many years the local people have had to deal with the problem of mining

      735
      subsidence without any of the rights that my hon. Friend is seeking to include in the Bill. The pits have been closed, and with the desolation of the coalfield the people now have to to put up with opencast mining, which presents the most appalling environmental hazards. The one lifeline open to those people is a connection through a rail link, without the congestion of road, to new opportunities. Apart from the development of the scheme proposed in the Bill, the electrification of the midlands line is of fundamental importance to the people of my area.
      To raise the environmental arguments to the scale proposed by my hon. Friend would mean that all the work on the new station would be delayed for years and so would the creation of new jobs. The desolation of my area and the environmental disadvantages that accompany that would also continue for years. My hon. Friend is overstating his case. He should balance his argument more fairly between the interests of his constituents and those in the rest of the country who would benefit from the rail link.
      Mr. Smith: Two wrongs do not necessarily make a right. I accept that important issues have been raised in my right hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere about the consequences of opencast mining, but that does not mean that we should blithely accept that the environmental disruption on the scale proposed at King's Cross should be allowed with just a few verbal assurances from BR about protection of the people affected. Some statutory protection should be offered.
      The new clause would not delay the Bill's progress, but it would simply put into statutory force what BR has already said it is likely to do in connection with noise insulation and temporary rehousing. It should not cause any particular difficulty to BR to accede to the requirements of the new clause. I do not believe that that would disrupt the progress of the work. Such acceptance would provide my constituents who live immediately beside the affected area with the knowledge that they have some sure protection.
      Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dismay and concern that has been expressed about subsidence and dereliction in the coalfields has led to legislation being presented to the House to provide the sort of guarantees for which my hon. Friend is now asking? If the new clause is accepted, everything will be all square. If there was no legislative provision for people affected by the disruption that will take place at King's Cross, the works could be subject to even further delays as residents and occupants mounted campaigns to obtain legislation to provide those very safeguards. It would be far more sensible to ensure that legislative safeguards were included to begin with before the work got under way, so that people could feel reasonably confident.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an effective point. Although I would not wish to be accused by my constituents of hastening the Bill's progress to the statute book, my hon. Friend has made a valid point about the way in which a degree of security and surety for the people immediately affected would make them a lot less anxious about their future.
      British Rail said in its environmental report last May that general construction and demolition work was unlikely to have a major impact. Within two weeks, it contradicted itself. On 22 May, it held a meeting at King's
      736
      Cross to inform local people about the works and the protective measures that it would provide. At that meeting, it admitted that the noise of the works would reach such levels that almost all properties around the site would require double glazing and that many residents in King's Cross road, Balfe street and Keystone crescent would have to be temporarily rehoused for extended periods during the works. That is a major impact, contrary to what British Rail had said two weeks earlier.
      8 pm
      New clause 5 seeks to set in statutory form the protection for neighbouring properties. It also seeks to provide for a small extension of the so-called "buffer zone" of properties likely to be affected by the construction work. During the Committee hearings, petitioners argued that the buffer zone should be extended because several properties not protected at that stage under the Bill would be as much affected by the noise of heavy construction traffic—up to 400 lorries per day—as properties inside the site boundaries.
      In its special report, the Committee accepted the petitioners' case and made it
      "a condition of our proceeding further with the Bill that the boundaries of the zone should be extended"—
      I stress this—
      "in line with the petitioners' request".
      The revision that British Rail offered on the final day a year later omitted a row of properties on the east side of the southern part of Northdown street, which the petitioners had asked for. The Committee suggested that British Rail might give an undertaking to cover those properties. In the eight months since then, no such undertaking has been offered by British Rail. If British Rail will not give such an undertaking voluntarily, it behoves the House to insist that it should. The Committee that considered the Bill and reported to the House said that that row of properties should be included in the buffer zone but, so far, it has not been included.
      The hon. Member for Keighley may rise later to assure me that British Rail will include that row of properties in the buffer zone, but unless and until we have that assurance, it is important that the House should say, "Hang on a moment, the Committee said that they should be included and they have not been included; the House believes that they should be included within the provisions of the buffer zone." That is the only extension that my new clause seeks to make. All the other properties included under the new clause—the so-called massive area to which the hon. Member for Keighley referred—are already in the buffer zone as a requirement of the Committee. The new clause simply seeks to include that row of properties which British Rail—surely by mistake rather than deliberation—forgot to include.
      New clause 6 seeks to establish an environmental code of practice for the works. British Rail is currently offering an environmental code that will cover, first, work methods to minimise disturbance; secondly, procedures for the two local councils to approve work plans stage by stage; thirdly, trigger levels for double glazing and temporary rehousing; and, fourthly, procedures for dealing with complaints and breaches of the code. So far, so good: we must applaud British Rail for at least agreeing with the requirement of the Committee, which reported that an environmental code should be established, and for setting out those basic principles. But that does not go far enough,

      737
      which is why new clause 6 seeks to put into statutory form an insistance that British Rail should establish an environmental code.
      British Rail has been negotiating on the details for three years with the two local authorities concerned. On the whole, it has been unyielding and unhelpful in its approach to the content of the code. Among the outstanding issues in relation to the environmental code are, first, seven-day, 24-hour working. The two local authorities are prepared to allow noisy work outside normal working hours only when there are clear safety and British Rail operational requirements to do so. British Rail, on the other hand, still insists on the right to programme noisy activities at any time if necessary for the
      "efficient and economic construction of major engineering works."
      So British Rail is saying that it can come in with pile drivers at 2 o'clock in the morning at will. I do not believe that that requirement accords with any environmental code worthy of the name.
      Mr. Tony Banks: It would be much welcomed if British Rail were as insistent on coming in at will with trains, as we could very much do with those. My hon. Friend knows the area better than me but he should stress the fact that many people who live in the area also work for British Rail, and work shifts. That must also be taken into account. Even if the amendment is accepted, massive inconvenience will still be caused to many people in the area.
      Mr. Smith: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of my constituents who live in the King's Cross area work for British Rail or, for instance, the Royal Mail, and therefore work unsocial hours. They require sleep during the day and I suspect that their lives will be substantially disrupted by the works. The very least that we should be able to demand is that the hours during the night, when most people are trying to get peace and quiet, should not be disrupted by unreasonable work by British Rail. The local authorities do not require a total ban on work being carried out at night, but say that such work should be done only on proper grounds.
      The second outstanding issue in relation to the environmental code is trigger levels for noise outside normal working hours. The local authorities want action to be taken if the noise doubles or exceeds a reasonable threshold of 65 decibels. British Rail's latest response to that requirement is that it is simply "not accepted". British Rail really should be more accepting and accommodating of the genuine concern about noise levels.
      The third point concerns plant operation and vehicle movements outside normal working hours. The two local authorities want a rule that no plant will be started up for normal work before normal working hours and that any vehicle movements outside normal working hours will be subject to special approval. British Rail's response has been that that is "not agreed". No argument or reason has been given and British Rail has not taken on board the local authorities' reasonable concerns about the movement of lorries and heavy plant, and the starting up of engines and machinery. British Rail has simply said that it does not agree.
      The fourth point concerns security cameras. The councils want an agreement that the security cameras mounted by British Rail should be allowed to cover residents' back yards and windows only with the consent
      738
      of the occupier. British Rail refuses to accept any constraint on where the cameras can be pointed. I leave to your imagination, Madam Deputy Speaker, the real fears of people living cheek by jowl with sites where cameras are likely to be mounted as to where the cameras will be pointed at varous hours of the day and night, with consequent loss of privacy.
      There is a further disagreement between the local authorities and British Rail in the current negotiations about the environmental code in relation to temporary rehousing. There is disagreement about the standard of accommodation to be offered. The councils want a specific hotel star rating to be laid down, but British Rail refuses, saying that the fact that it is offering full board shows the standard that it will provide. "Full board" may mean that the premises will have a kitchen and an eating area. All sorts of establishments, from Pentonville prison upwards, could provide that standard of accommodation. British Rail should be more forthcoming about the temporary rehousing that it is prepared to offer.
      There is a dispute about the payment of costs as an alternative to rehousing. The councils want British Rail to pay the cost of rehousing as an alternative to actual rehousing if the occupier cannot move for some reason and has to put up with the noise. British Rail refuses to agree. If an occupier has to remain and suffer, he will get absolutely nothing. There is also a dispute about the occupier's access to arbitration. The councils want occupiers to have direct access to arbitration if there is serious disagreement between them and British Rail about their right to rehousing or about the accommodation offered. Again, British Rail simply refuses to allow that.
      That is utterly unsatisfactory, as the councils have no right or responsibility to represent private occupiers to British Rail on those issues. British Rail has been thoroughly unreasonable on noise levels, vehicle movement, security cameras, hours of work, rehousing, and arbitration if there is disagreement about rehousing. New clause 6 seeks to say to British Rail, "You have to be more reasonable; you must establish an environmental code and you had better get down to the business of seriously agreeing that environmental code with the local residents who will be affected and with the local authorities which cover the area."
      There is also disagreement about action on any possible breach of the code. The local authorities want it to be laid down that, if an operation under way appears to break the code, it should cease while the matter is investigated unless there are overriding safety or British Rail operational reasons for continuing. British Rail insists that once work has begun, it cannot be halted pending the outcome of arbitration. If British Rail gets its way on that provision, it can carry on breaching the code while it delays the argument about whether it has breached the code. That is unacceptable. We want an environmental code for the works and for the protection of the people who will be affected by the works. We want to insist in the Bill, through new clause 6, that the environmental code should be included.
      8.15 pm
      It is important to bear in mind the fact that the environmental code and the buffer zone need to be defined in the Bill because the Bill, with its specific powers for particular works, will override much standard legislation to control noisy building activities. The constraints

      739
      necessary to protect the people affected by the development should be written into the Bill because the normal constraints which apply to most building and development sites will not apply because the works have been permitted by means of a Bill. That is an extremely important point and gives added force to the argument about why a specific provision should be built into the Bill, both for the general protection of neighbouring properties and for the environmental code that is needed for the works.
      The House cannot allow the Bill to proceed to another place without proper protection for neighbouring residents being enshrined in it. The people affected have no elected representatives beyond the House. There is no one as their representative to table amendments on Second Reading or on Report in the other place. Those affected are entirely dependent on the House to protect their welfare, their livelihood and their peace and quiet.
      It is important for the House to take that need seriously. It is important for the people in the surrounding streets and the houses which back directly on to the massive development site that British Rail will impose on them that we write into the Bill statutory protection and a statutory environmental code. New clauses 5 and 6 seek to do that in the interests of the people affected, and we must consider not only people affected by the Bill, but those who are likely to be affected by similar proposals elsewhere. I hope that the House will consider it important to enshrine that level of protection in the Bill because there is no other place we can expect to do so.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I entirely support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on new clauses 5 and 6. I am disappointed that so many Opposition voices have been raised against his argument about environmental protection for his constituents. It has been more or less suggested—nay. probably stated by one or two hon. Members—that the only reason why the new clauses have been moved is to frustrate the Bill and to delay its passage to the point at which it becomes non-viable. That may well be my intention, but it certainly is not my hon. Friend's intention. I was disappointed to hear my very dear and right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) deploying an argument that I regard as somewhat bankrupt. I wish that my right hon. Friend was still here so that I could say this to him.
      Mr. Cryer: Insult him to his face.
      Mr. Banks: No. I would be insulting him to his back, because he sits in front of me. I shall make sure that my remarks are pointed out to him, as he probably does not spend a great deal of time reading my speeches in Hansard—but then who does?
      Mr. Snape: You do.
      Mr. Banks: Au contraire. I most certainly do not bother to read them, because I know what a load of rubbish they are before anybody hears them.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield seemed to suggest that, because so much blight had been associated with opencast mining in his area—and we accept that—the people of Islington should somehow be prepared to accept a latter-day equivalent. I put it to him that that is an untenable position. I entirely accept my right hon. Friend's argument about the disadvantages,
      740
      disruption and adverse economic impact of opencast mining. I have been up to his area. I was active during the recent miners' strike, taking support from cast London to the miners. We could see for ourselves the deprivation that they had to suffer—both individually, as workers, and in their communities.
      I stoutly defend my right hon. Friend's right to defend his constituents from such economic blight, but it is unacceptable to use that as an argument that another working-class area—the area of Islington—should accept similar blight. Labour Members at least should join together to ensure that working-class people—whether in Chesterfield, Derbyshire, Islington or Stratford—are protected. The fact that we are divided in that respect does our arguments no justice.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Department of Transport seeks to drive motorways or major roads through leafy suburban areas or wealthy, Tory-voting parts of the country, it bends over backwards to provide environmental projects to try to ameliorate the effects of the roads and thus gain people's temporary support to allow it to build them? It is disgraceful that it should not do the same for people living in densely populated inner-city areas.
      Mr. Banks: Of course I accept that argument. There is a class dimension here, as there is with all legislation and all the matters that we discuss in the House. I should have hoped that those on our Front Bench could have seen that argument as well. I realise that class politics is no longer fashionable on the Labour Front Bench; indeed, some would say that it is not particularly fashionable on the Back Benches either.
      The issue that we are discussing tonight is the environmental protection of working people in the area of Islington. The Labour party says that there will he a terminal at King's Cross—although the Government have said that there will also be some form of terminal at Stratford. The Labour party is agreed that it looks far more viable for the fast route to come through the east Thames corridor—approaching London from the east rather than the south-east.
      I put it to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich. Fast that, having given those assurances, he should say that it is necessary, in the national interest—that is what he has been talking about—that the people of Islington should be properly compensated for having to suffer in the national interest.
      Mr. Snape: I am always delighted to hear about class politics from those who are better educated than I am, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) for that.
      On my hon. Friend's second point, I repeat that the Labour party has officially made known its view that, from the point of view of serving the rest of the country, King's Cross is the only viable site. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, there may well be an argument about the particular scheme that is proposed, because, thanks to the Government's obsession with property values and money-making, British Rail has felt that it has had to approach the project from that point of view. But there is no argument about the site. If my hon. Friend intends to reiterate his view that Stratford is the right place, he must

      741
      tell us how the north, the west and Scotland would be served from Stratford and how much it would cost to provide such a service.
      Mr. Banks: As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have said several times, this is not the time to argue that case. My hon. Friend and I have argued it and will continue to do so; I want to keep coming back to it. Unfortunately, however, that is not possible at this precise moment.
      I put it to my hon. Friend that, if we are to have terminals at both King's Cross and Stratford, he must start addressing the environmental impact in the Stratford area as well. The Government have said that there will be a station at Stratford, and those on the Labour Front Bench have said that the route should come through Stratford. On this occasion, there is a modicum of agreement between those on the two Front Benches with regard to the route.
      I want to know what sort of environmental impact there would be on Stratford. We do not want a line plunging through the middle of the east end. If people in King's Cross may have problems, we in Stratford weigh them by the skipload. I want my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East to say that he will take into account the impact on the east end of having a station at Stratford and a station at King's Cross, because so far that seems to be the proposal—unless my hon. Friend is saying that we should not have a station at Stratford, merely a line going straight through it. which would give us all the disadvantages and not a modicum of advantage.
      Mr. Snape: I remind my hon. Friend again of our party's policy. The Committee has been given a comparatively short time—six months or so, as we envisage it—to report on the actual line of route from the channel tunnel. My hon. Friend keeps saying that he wants a whacking great terminal at Stratford. No doubt, just like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, he will come back to the House with some artfully argued amendments, demanding an environmental impact study in respect of his constituency. That is all good parliamentary tactics, but it does not get us much further with the building of a railway line.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not getting very much further with the debate on the new clause, which deals with environmental matters. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will now refer to them.
      Mr. Banks: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was slightly derailed on that point.
      The environmental impact is not confined to King's Cross; it extends way beyond that area—throughout that part of London and to the south-east as a whole. I shall be addressing the new clause specifically, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I put it to you that, given that we are considering such major works, it is difficult at times to confine the debate to a specific locality. The environmental impact on King's Cross itself is fairly easily assessed—although, as I said, that impact will go way beyond the area dealt with in the new clause.
      As I understand it, the construction of the low-level station at King's Cross and other works covered by the Bill will involve the loss of 83 homes and the displacement of
      742
      326 residents. It will involve the demolition of four listed buildings and the destruction of well over 10 acres of property in two conservation areas. It will also involve the destruction of a two-acre inner-city nature reserve of great value to the local community. A whole range of environmental damage will be caused by the development.
      All my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seeks is some assurance that can be offered to his constituents, and constituents in surrounding areas, that, as far as is humanly possible, they will be protected from the sort of suffering that we know can be inflicted on people by major works such as those proposed.
      Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend has correctly identified the scale of the British Rail proposal and the enormous impact that it will have over a substantial area but has omitted to include in his list of important environmental issues the amount of traffic that will be generated by the new station. In evidence submitted to the Committee at a very late stage, even the Department of Transport estimated that, at peak hours, traffic in the area is likely to increase by some 70 per cent.
      My hon. Friend undoubtedly knows that King's Cross is already one of the most congested spots in London—both above ground and below ground—yet, as a result of the present proposals, we are now to have a 70 per cent. increase in surface vehicle traffic in the immediate area. That will place an intolerable burden on the area and will clog up a large segment of London's traffic network.
      Mr. Banks: That is precisely why my hon. Friend has tabled the new clauses. I hope that the House will accept them. I had not forgotten the point that my hon. Friend makes: I had just not reached it.
      A 70 per cent. increase in traffic flow along the Euston road during evening peak hours should concern not only my hon. Friend's constituents but all Londoners who are slowly being poisoned by traffic. The capital city, certainly in July, regularly enters a dangerous phase of photochemical smog. The Government have only three monitoring stations in the whole of Greater London. One of them is in my constituency, for whatever good that does, there is another at Vauxhall Bridge road and I think that there is one in west London.
      Photochemical smog is one of the greatest environmental hazards faced by the capital city.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that London has record levels of serious asthmatic conditions among young children, that they are getting worse year by year, and that they are directly related to the volume of traffic and exhaust emissions? Areas such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are among the worst sufferers in the country.
      Mr. Banks: I understand and accept my hon. Friend's point. One of the matters affecting my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury rather than my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is the destruction of the two-acre inner-city reserve park. Hon. Members who saw the excellent programme on television a few nights ago will appreciate how much work has gone into the building of that nature reserve.

      743
      It is all very well for hon. Members to disparage and sneer at the lack of rural attractions in King's Cross, but the people there are doing their best to introduce a little rural pleasure to that area of inner-city deprivation, and they should be supported. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East will make sure that they get such support from a Labour Government. They are entitled to ask for it from Labour, because they have been loyal Labour supporters and voters for many years. They expect Labour, in opposition and, more important, in government, to protect their interests. Up to now, they are not getting that support.
      I have an almost bottomless reserve of affection for my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, but I have just spotted the bottom of that reservoir, and it is not a pretty sight. I expect him to say that the clauses are appropriate and that Labour will give people the support they expect. If they add to the cost of the scheme, the money is well worth paying, in view of the national and international importance of King's Cross and Stratford. The people of Islington have a right to expect a great deal of support.
      Mr. Snape: I am sorry that the bottomless well of affection to which my hon. Friend refers has proved to be a mirage, if I may mix metaphors. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is a shadow Treasury Minister and I have no doubt that on the accession of a Labour Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) could make representations about the amendments to him. I do not know whether he will get the same reply in six months as he is getting tonight.
      Mr. Banks: I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is in an interesting position—even more interesting than that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East. If there is an additional cost as a result of accepting the new clauses, it is well worth paying in view of the agreed national significance of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has said that the additional cost will he minimal. I am prepared to accept that, and I am surprised that two Front Benchers are not prepared to trust each other sufficiently to accept it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seeks a specific tightening of the assurances that have so far been given by British Rail. I do not trust British Rail, which, throughout the proposal, has attempted to con the House. It cleverly exploited the differences in the Opposition by suggesting to us that, if King's Cross is not chosen, great damage will be caused in the north-east and the north-west.
      People who want to go straight from Paris to the north-east and the north-west do not care whether they pass through King's Cross or Stratford. They just want to get to Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow or Edinburgh as fast as possible. Many of the people who want to go from Paris or Rome to Edinburgh, Manchester or Glasgow will probably fly, because it is a hell of a long journey from Paris to Peterborough—it will take about eight hours, even with all the links working—and longer to go to Manchester or Glasgow. That matter is not often considered when looking at the vexed question of the fast channel link and the King's Cross railway.
      744
      My hon. Friends from north of Watford seem to have swallowed British Rail's argument hook, line and sinker, and they have been sorely deceived. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East, when he is in an elevated post as a Transport Minister, will back away from the bald statement that Labour is totally committed to King's Cross. With some alterations, amendments and investment in the area of Stratford, we can get all the links that my hon. Friend speaks about, without any need to go into King's Cross.
      Mr. Snape: How?
      Mr. Banks: I would like to tell my hon. Friend how, but I can see that I am risking your anger, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I had to choose between my hon. Friend's anger and yours, I would risk the anger of my hon. Friend any day of the week.
      Mr. Snape: I shall not ask my hon. Friend to make that choice.
      How quickly could one travel by rail from Stratford to Birmingham, and will my hon. Friend compare that with the travel time from Stratford to Doncaster? My hon. Friend might get a spark of interest from the Chair if he concentrated on the latter rather than the former.
      Mr. Banks: I shall look carefully at the trip to Doncaster. I do not have a timetable with me to work out the travel time. I have made it clear that additional investment will be needed in east London so that the link can be made. People who wish to travel to Doncaster do not need, or may not even want, to go through King's Cross. There are some dangers in the King's Cross area. Did not a former DPP experience one of them for himself? I would not like to expose my hon. Friend to such temptation, although I know that he would resist it with great aplomb.
      The issue relates to how we can protect the people who live in King's Cross from the real impact of such a major development. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, it will involve six years of construction with 24-hour, seven-day working. Would any hon. Member like to be in close proximity to that level of work? It is outrageous. We do not have many major developments these days, and will not do so again until we get in a Labour Government, but many of us have known the problems associated with such developments.
      All that my hon. Friend is asking is that the people who will be closely affected be given by British Rail an assurance, on which they can depend, that they will get the compensation, the consideration and the treatment they deserve, which will ensure that they will suffer the least inconvenience while this massive, international, highly significant scheme is going ahead in the national interest. Why should they be asked to make all the scacrifices? It is easy for hon. Members to minimise this—they will not have to live next door to such a development.
      The acceptance of these new clauses, far from holding up the progress of the Bill, will speed it up. I am almost arguing against my objectives, so perhaps I should vote against the new clauses. I can see the people of King's Cross supporting the development if they are given these assurances, although I know that those in the area who are interested in the strategic argument realise that King's Cross is the wrong place for the second international station.

      745
      Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury will intervene in my speech to tell me to what extent new clause 6 could be affected by the requirement from the European Commission for a proper environmental impact assessment. By that, I do not mean the environmental impact statement about which the Minister talks. There is a big difference between a statement attached to a private Bill and an environmental impact assessment carried out by someone who is independent of the promoters. Would the EC requirements give any material benefit to my hon. Friend's constituents?
      Mr. Chris Smith: I addressed the issue of the European Commission and its view of the inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment work that has so far been done on the King's Cross proposal when we debated the motion to carry over the Bill. The EC strongly made the point that it was wrong to divorce consideration of the environmental impact of the station from consideration of the environmental impact of the line that gets to the station. That view may still hold.
      As I understand it, the EC is still very much of the view that the British Government and British Rail have yet to accord with the provisions of the unanimously agreed directive that the Government signed on the importance of a proper, thorough environmental impact assessment of the works that are proposed at King's Cross. The environmental code to which my hon. Friend has referred will not help in that respect, but it might at least be an earnest of intent.
      Mr. Banks: I am glad that my hon. Friend has again spelt this out: it is something to which our Front-Bench team should listen with rapt attention. If the EC says that the two should be taken together—the link and the international station—how can the Labour Front Bench spokesman say that we are already committed to the station at King's Cross but that we shall look at the link? That is the point. The two must be taken together and, as far as I am aware, the Labour Front-Bench team supported the EC, so there is an inconsistency here.
      However, I do not want to be inconsistent in my approach, so I shall return speedily to new clause 6. The requirements in it are perfectly reasonable. My hon. Friend has given assurances that he is not trying to use new clauses 5 and 6 to hinder the Bill. I accept that, as should all right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend has made the point, and I have underlined more than once, that all he is seeking is effectively to enshrine within the Bill the assurances given by British Rail to the people who live in that area and to the two local authorities.
      I would not put it past British Rail to say something to a person's face and then do something completely different behind his back. We know that it is getting desperate with this scheme. At times, I think that it would like to see the scheme hit the buffers, because office development is not as profitable now as it was when the scheme was first mooted.
      8.45 pm
      Nothing surprises me about British Rail, so it would not surprise me if, having led us along this path and let us waste our valuable time, just as it wasted the time of that valuable Committee, it suddenly decided to announce that
      746
      it was not going ahead with the scheme anyway, because it was no longer economically and commercially viable. In the end, we shall hold the Government responsible for such a fiasco if it comes about, as they have effectively washed their hands publicly, although no doubt they have said a number of different things privately, of the scheme.
      If we have learnt nothing else during this long, protracted and painful process, we have at least learnt that the private Bill procedure is no way to build a railway or to get involved in significant projects. That is a broader issue, so I shall end merely by saying that these new clauses are reasonable in their wording and have been reasonably argued, if not by me then by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I commend them both to the House.
      Mr. Waller: I completely absolve the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) of any suggestion that he is not acting in good faith. On the contrary, he is clearly acting in what he sees to be the best interests of his constituents—that is what we are all elected to the House to do—and he deserves every praise for that.
      Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that British Rail is committed to this scheme. It is important not only to people in the north of England and in Scotland and, more particularly, to business and industry in the north but to commuters in other parts of the country and in London and the south, who will enjoy considerable benefits when the scheme is completed. Commuters north of London will have a better service into St. Pancras than that which they enjoy to King's Cross. There will also be a benefit to travellers north or south of London who want to cross the capital and who will he able to reach a wider range of destinations without changing trains.
      Such an advantage in transport infrastructure is crucial to the future of the country. British Rail has declared its commitment to it and has proceeded with the Bill in spite of a very lengthy series of stages, particularly the Committee stage under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). It was the longest Committee stage of any private Bill since that which led to the construction of the Great Western railway in the last century.
      Having said one or two favourable words about the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I am afraid that I must disappoint him because it is not possible for the promoters to accept his new clauses. New clause 5, which relates to the protection of neighbouring properties, would confer special rights on owners or occupiers of property in the vicinity of the proposed works. Those owners and occupiers of the land that would be subject to the powers of compulsory purchase to be conferred by the Bill are already protected under the general compulsory purchase code.
      In addition, the British Railways Board has undertaken to provide further protection for owners and occupiers of properties in the areas affected by the proposed works. That protection relates to the circumstances of each case. It is important that there should be a degree of flexibility, which perhaps the new clause does not provide. That would include the purchase of certain types of property, double glazing and temporary housing. It is a fact that many properties are either unaffected or affected hardly at all. It would be unreasonable to expect—this is what the

      747
      new clause provides—that any of those householders could require British Rail to purchase their properties regardless of the circumstances.
      Mr. Chris Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that properties that may not be immediately adjacent to the building site may be severely affected by the noise generated by work taking place on the site, especially by the movement of heavy plant and vehicles in the immediate area of the site? Does he accept also that the Committee said that the buffer zone should be extended beyond the point which British Rail had originally intended? Does he agree that British Rail has failed to provide for a full extension of the buffer zone as requested by the Committee?
      Mr. Waller: It is correct that the Committee asked British Rail to consider an extension to the area covered by the voluntary purchase scheme, but it did not insist on that. It was concluded that such an extension was not really justified.
      British Rail has not been dogmatic in any way in the approach that it has adopted to those who do not live within areas in which construction will take place. Considerable compromise has been allowed for., and discussions will continue to take place.
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect when he says that the Committee did not insist that the buffer zone should be extended. Part of page 17 of the report read:
      "We consider it fair that the boundaries of the zone should be extended in line with the petitioners' request."
      It added:
      "We therefore make it a condition of our proceeding further with the Bill that the promoters should give an undertaking to do this."
      That appears to be an insistence that that should happen.
      Mr. Waller: I do not have the Committee's report in front of me. I can say, however, that it is obvious that the Chairman and other members of the Committee would not have allowed the Bill to emerge from Committee unless the promoters had satisfied them that they had met satisfactorily the conditions that had been imposed. The fact that the Committee allowed the Bill to proceed speaks for itself.
      Mr. Smith: This is an extremely important matter. It relates to a specific row of houses on the east part of the southern section of Northdown street. That row of houses was included in the petitioners' requests. Therefore, the Committee's report referred specifically to the houses. They are not, however, included in the area that British Rail agrees is affected. That is the point at issue. British Rail has so far failed to accord with the requirement of the Committee.
      Mr. Waller: I am not in a position to comment specifically on the row of houses to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I shall ensure that the promoters write to him about the matter. I hope that they are able to satisfy him that they have taken account ()I' the concerns expressed by the Committee. As I said, the Bill was passed by the Committee. The fact that it has returned to the House speaks for itself.
      The further protection that is required by the new clause—it would be in addition to what has already been offered—would impose ill-defined and unduly burden some obligations in relation to many properties that may
      748
      or may not be affected by the Bill. The protection that has already been offered, when taken with the compensation code, is exceptionally generous for the owners and occupiers of affected properties.
      The promoters have to take account of other considerations. I do not think that it is a wise use of public funds—that is essentially what we are discussing—to require the promoters to purchase a substantial number of unaffected properties at the whim of the owners. The requirements to carry out works of mitigation, to provide compensation and to provide temporary rehousing in undefined circumstances are examples of precisely the sort of loose drafting that would ensure future argument or litigation. New clause 5 would provide scope for argument to continue in the courts for a long time rather than providing the go-ahead for a development which is needed badly and which would advantage people in London as well as those in other parts of the country.
      New clause 6 is also unacceptable. It would impose upon the promoters a duty to comply with an environmental code of practice which is frankly unnecessary. The promoters are in the process of agreeing a detailed code of practice bearing on the proposed works with the London boroughs of Camden and Islington, which are the local authorities concerned. There is no prospect—this is what the hon. Gentleman implied—that British Rail will carry out whatever works it desires at will. Indeed, it is still negotiating with the local authorities. With good will on both sides, I think that a fair agreement can be negotiated.
      The present position is that British Rail has put forward its latest proposal and the ball is in the local authorities' court. No doubt they will be responding shortly.
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman speaks of good will on both sides. I am sure that progress could be made if good will were to be shown on both sides. Negotiations have been taking place for three years and precious little good will has been shown by British Rail. I went into a series of issues in some detail for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, and it is clear that he was not paying much attention. British Rail has been obstinate and obdurate on many issues. He must prevail upon it to show much more good will in the negotiations than it has displayed hitherto.
      Mr. Waller: The code covers the various matters that are set out in new clause 6. It is intended that its provisions will be incorporated in the contracts to be entered into between the promoters and their contractors. The local authorities, supported by the hon. Gentleman, have made demands which I think would not be regarded as in the interests of the wider community and of the taxpayer if they were taken at face value. British Rail has statutory obligations, which extend beyond the interests of the people living in the immediate vicinity.
      The code is not a static set of commands with words carved in stone. It will continue to be subject to discussions between the promoters and the local authorities, and there will be consequential updating and revision. I regret that that is something that is not provided for in the proposed environmental code in new clause 6. British Rail's code goes considerably further. For instance, it seeks to control noise and other disturbances, such as dust, at source. It provides for control of methods of working and the noise

      749
      level permitted. Of course, those noise levels are lower at night and at weekends than during the normal working day.
      Any attempt in the Bill to set out the contents of the code, so rendering them static, would be undesirable because it would remove that element of flexibility which would benefit local inhabitants and which is crucial if the code is to be capable of revision as and when necessary. It is not the sort of provision that could be sensibly included in an Act of Parliament in the limited and ill-defined manner proposed in the new clause, without raising again the prospect of future argument and litigation. As I said only a few moments ago, the prospect of perpetual litigation is something that no one with the interests of the area at heart could contemplate with equanimity.
      9 pm
      Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that the environmental code specified in new clause 6 is an inflexible instrument. It is not. If the hon. Gentleman had read the new clause, he would know that it expresses the content of the proposed code in extremely general terms. It does not lay down in any restrictive manner the sorts of matters that should be included. It simply ensures that a code will be established and that it will deal with some of the important issues. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, far from being an inflexible instrument, the environmental code will be of a general nature and will not restrict British Rail in the way that he suggested.
      Mr. Waller: I read new clause 6 before the debate, and I have just read it again. It does not appear to suggest anything other than a static document with no scope for the continuing co-operation—which I hope will be a feature during the construction work—between the local authorities, the contractors, the promoters and the local residents.
      I wish to say a word about the issue of traffic, which has been specifically mentioned. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though there would be a dramatic increase in traffic, to the disadvantage of the area. That matter was closely considered and it was summarised in the environmental statement published in May 1991, which concluded:
      "The effects on road traffic are generally positive. Traffic flows on the major roads will increase but the proposed road improvements will achieve compensatory improvements and in addition a large number of residential roads will experience significant improvements."
      Mr. Tony Banks: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House who wrote that statement?
      Mr. Waller: The promoters were required to produce an environmental statement—
      Mr. Banks: Who wrote it?
      Mr. Waller: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the major technical reports provided for the promoters by a large number of consultants, who have reputations to protect. It was on the basis of those reports that conclusions were reached. If the hon. Gentleman wants to cast aspersions, he must do so not only on the
      750
      promoters but on the large number of consultants who produced the reports on which the conclusions were reached.
      Mr. Banks: I certainly cast aspersions on the consultants. Looking for an honest consultant is rather like looking for an honest lawyer—they are rare creatures. If British Rail appoints consultants, obviously those consultants are given a specific brief that almost inevitably leads them to the conclusions that British Rail wants. If British Rail was so confident that the new development would lead to a reduction in road traffic, it should have appointed a truly independent person to make the report. That is why we need an environmental impact assessment, not an environmental statement made by the promoters. It is clearly in the interests of the promoters to make the best possible case.
      Mr. Waller: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a poor opinion of consultants.
      Mr. Banks: And solicitors.
      Mr. Waller: As I am neither a consultant nor a lawyer, that is water off a duck's back for me.
      The issue of traffic has also been considered by the Department of Transport and other authorities. The views to which I referred are certainly not held by British Rail alone.
      There were a number of references to Camley street natural park. Although it is true that the existing park will be lost, it is intended to retain a small area of land throughout the construction period to serve as a vanguard for the future. More importantly, it is intended to establish a new park under the auspices of the London Wildlife Trust on completion of the works; this would be 40 to 50 per cent. larger than the existing park—which would have consequent benefits for habitat diversity and educational use.
      To those who claim that it will not be possible to develop a new park, I say that the existing park was created in a very difficult urban environment, which demonstrates the possibilities that exist for restoring a high-quality park in future, for the benefit of local residents.
      There was some comment about Alan Baxter and Associates, which came to its own defence and informed the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that it was totally blameless. However, that consultancy has been unable to deny that it came by the information that it used in producing its report as a result of working for British Rail; nor has it answered the accusation that it showed a lack of candour in failing to tell British Rail what it was doing, not responding in particular to a request for a copy of the consultancy's press statement, and discussing its proposals with third parties without telling British Rail what it was doing.
      I remind the House that, at the time, Alan Baxter and Associates was acting as a consultant to British Rail in respect of part of the railway lands site. The remark of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about consultants may have been specifically directed at that particular group.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman may have compounded the error into which he led himself on 25 November. The letter from Alan Baxter and Associates, which I quoted earlier, clearly states:

      751
      "In particular, Mr. Waller, and those advising him, seem not to have understood that our proposals are based entirely on information available in the public realm."
      The hon. Gentleman failed to acknowledge that simple fact.
      Mr. Waller: I do not believe that all the information used by Alan Baxter and Associates was in the public realm at the time that the consultancy obtained access to it—although it is true that, perhaps partly as a result of that group's report, it is now in the public realm. However, I stand by what I said—and I know that others within British Rail feel very aggrieved about the way in which that particular consultancy acted without candour at the time in question.
      No response has been made to the argument that the alternative proposals do not offer the transport benefits that can be provided only by locating the new facilities as the Bill suggests. Unless there is a two-level station, with the international and Network SouthEast facilities located below the existing InterCity services, there will not be the vital interconnection which is a central feature of the Bill's proposals. Without that interconnection, it will be necessary for people to travel a considerable distance, perhaps by travelator, rather than walk only a few yards up or down an escalator.
      Let me add that the alternative proposals do not permit the operation of international trains to King's Cross before the completion of a new rail link from the channel tunnel. The works would probably continue for very much longer than the hon. Gentleman would like. Certainly, the alternative proposals would be no less destructive to homes and highways than the British Rail proposals on which they claim to improve.
      I feel that the promoters have gone out of their way to ensure that the inevitable disruption is minimised as far as possible, and that they will continue to do so. Of course, no one believes that it is possible to create a new station on such a scale without causing inconvenience, disruption and many environmental disadvantages in the short term. In the long term, however, the local environment will be very much improved.
      There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the national strategic transport advantages will be considerable, and that the Bill's proposals are vital to the future not only of those living in the north but of many people living much closer to London. I hope that the House will reject the new clauses, and allow the Bill to proceed further.
      Mr. Corbyn: Representing as I do the constituency neighbouring that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), let me place on record my support for his new clause—and, in particular, my appreciation for all the work that he has done in trying to protect the interests of his constituents. He has received precious little help from people who should have given him more assistance. More to the point, however, the Bill's promoters have displayed a disgraceful ignorance of the area and the community that will be affected, and a cavalier approach to the environment of inner-city dwellers.
      There are those in the House, and elsewhere, who believe that Islington is a sceptred paradise in which everyone is wealthy, and in which people spend most of their time eating in bistros and drinking in wine bars. That is not an accurate image of the borough. Any hon. Member who cares to journey down the corridors to the
      752
      Library and consult the constituency unemployment lists will find that both Islington constituencies are in the top 20. There are 17,000 out of work in the borough, and the unemployment rate in the area affected by the scheme is very high.
      I hope that many local people will read the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) in the local papers, and will be appalled. The hon. Gentleman suggests that theirs is not a very nice area now, and that it therefore does not matter if it becomes pretty grotty during the construction phase and is not improved subsequently. That is a disgraceful approach.
      I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, as a sponsor of the Bill, would be slightly better informed about the contents of a House of Commons report on this subject before speaking in the Chamber. I should also have expected him to recognise that the fund of good will for British Rail and its property development antics in the King's Cross area ran out a long time ago. Assurances from British Rail mean absolutely zero. If, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest, British Rail is prepared to accept the environmental requirements presented by the borough of Islington and local people, why does it oppose new clause 5? Why should it do so, unless it has no intention of implementing those requirements?
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned various things that had happened in the area, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. People have sought to improve their environment. Adventure playgrounds and gardens have been constructed following local initiatives, for instance.
      The hon. Member for Keighley came out with the throwaway line that the Camley street open space could he moved elsewhere. Does he appreciate the graft, the backache and the heartache that went into obtaining the site, and the crucial support that was given at the time by the Greater London Council? Does he realise how long it takes for a tree to grow, for a habitat to be established in which frogs and newts can breed? Does he know how long it takes to produce a habitat that will enable all that wildlife to return to an inner-city area?
      Bringing that about is not like building an office block or a road. It takes years. The hon. Gentleman, however, merely suggests destroying that habitat and moving it a few yards away, where it will be part of a larger site. The children who developed the park, and all those living in the King's Cross area, would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's views if British Rail said, "Not only will we keep the site; we shall provide more space for the expansion of a vital inner-city lung." But they are not doing that; they are offering a larger site some distance away—with all the destruction that that would involve.
      Mr. Waller: The hon. Member is not correct. The current proposal provides exactly what he has asked for, but there will be an enlargement, an addition. However, if the railway connections are to be improved, the park will be lost in the short term, because a new line will go straight through it.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my point for me. The park may be restored at a later stage. However, as I have tried to explain, a park is not like a living room carpet, which can be taken up and put down with little difficulty.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposal is not only that the Camley street natural park should be destroyed for the purpose of putting the lines through, but also that there should be a considerable time—several years at the very least—before the beginning of work on reinstatement, let alone on the growing of all the flora and on the development of the habitat to which reference has been made. Later we shall come to an amendment whose purpose is specifically to provide a time scale for the Camley street natural park. At the moment, there is no guarantee that restoration will be achieved in the shortest possible time.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I shall be pleased to support the amendment to which he has referred. However, hon. Members ought to be aware that this is a living community. The people in it want to see the area improved. If they are to be the victims of some degree of national planning, the House ought at least to do them the courtesy of listening seriously to their representatives as they present their proposals for protection and improvement of the environment. Hon. Members appear to be totally ignorant of these needs.
      If a massive pit or some such project were proposed for a constituency in the north or in Wales or the south-west, would the same attitude be adopted? Here, the attitude seems to be that, as this is an inner-city area, it does not matter. If British Rail is allowed to get away with treating these people in this way, damaging the environment and increasing the volume of traffic on the Euston road by up to 50 per cent., the same thing could happen elsewhere. As was said earlier, two wrongs do not make a right.
      The provisions of new clause 5 are very important. As I explained in an intervention, when the Department of Transport is keen to get people in a suburban area—a Tory-voting marginal constituency—to accept the development of a major road or motorway, it bends over backwards to assure them that their property values will be protected, that, if necessary, they will be bought out, that banks will be reconstructed for noise insulation, and so on. I agree that all those things should be done—at least, I would agree if I believed that new motorways were necessary, but in any case, I agree with the principle. Why cannot the promoters of the Bill accept that exactly the same principles apply in respect of this densely populated inner-urban area?
      Any house owner in the area who wants to move finds it absolutely impossible to sell his property. Who would buy a house that he knew to be alongside an enormous construction site? People are entitled to protection of their investment. That is why British Rail should be compelled to accept new clause 5, which covers the point very well. It is clearly expensive for BR to do so, and I do not doubt that, although I do not know the exact costings. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Keighley would have had the costings at his fingertips, because he was presumably briefed on such matters by British Rail.
      Many of the properties are owned by the London borough of Islington, which has no wish to reduce the total housing stock but wishes to improve the quality and quantity of housing because there are many people on the housing waiting list, many homeless people and many concealed homeless people.
      754
      Islington council will not willingly give up property, but will be seeking compensation for damage to properties that it owns and for the costs that it incurs by having to move tenants away from the area because of the work being carried out.
      There has been much argument over the proposal, and some hon. Members have suggested that the people of King's Cross have to pay for the national need. I regret that way in which BR has so cynically manipulated opinion within the House to create a north-south divide on the issue. We are seeking environmental protection for people who live in our borough. We are seeking to protect house owners who might suffer as a result. If BR is taken at its word, it should be supporting this new clause.
      New clause 6 mentions compliance for a series of works to be done. If the hon. Member for Keighley had bothered to talk to us about the buffer and boundary zones, he would have found that page 17 of the report by the Committee which examined the King's Cross Railways Bill, published by the House on 26 June, said:
      "We consider it fair that the boundaries of the zone should be extended in line with the petitioner's request. We therefore make it a condition of our proceeding further with the Bill that promoters should give an undertaking to do this."
      Unless I have misunderstood, my hon. Friend's clause seeks to put that on the face of the Bill. I fail to understand why the House is apparently opposing the new clause.
      On the question of the environmental code of practice for works being carried out, there have been experiences of voluntary codes of practice in other parts of the borough. The contractor agrees that he will not do certain things and will do others only at certain times, but unless they are backed by the force of law, such codes are useless.
      When Arsenal football club sought to develop the executive boxes and the south part of the football ground, it agreed a voluntary code of practice which, among other things, excluded Sunday working. Every condition was broken in some way, including Sunday working, and there was no comeback. Every time the main contractor was approached, he said that it was a question of what the sub-contractors did, and that he had no control over them.
      New clause 6 is essential if we are to protect the lives of people in the area during the construction phase. Is it right for people to be expected to put up with 24-hour working, seven days a week, with BR doing any work it likes at any time? It is not fair and proper. It would cause noise and increased traffic in an area where traffic is already heavy. Should my hon. Friend's constituents be expected to tolerate huge lorries seven days a week, 24 hours a day, travelling from the development with spoil or bringing construction materials in? They should not have to put up with that—no one should have to put up with that sort of work, noise and interference with their lives.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, many people in the area work in public services. In particular, it has been a residential area for those working in the post office and the health service and on the railways. Various security companies and the local authority are major employers in the area, and many of the residents work shifts and need to be able to sleep during daylight hours. They also deserve some consideration when deciding the way that the work is done.
      When hon. Members who support the Bill and oppose the new clauses claim that there will be an improved environment at the end of the work, I wonder what sort of

      755
      improved environment it will be. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the problems of increased traffic in London. Many people using the station—not the majority by any means, but a considerable number—will be arriving or leaving by road in taxis, private cars or other means.
      Pollution in inner London is horrific. Those who believe that London can take more traffic would do well to remember the health of our children, the extent of asthma, the problems of photochemical smog in the summer and the appalling air quality in the pre-Christmas period because of the still air. London's air was dirtier than Mexico City's and other places that are a byword for traffic pollution. London cannot take any more pollution. The Bill will only increase the amount of road traffic in an already overcrowded area.
      Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Has it occurred to him that King's Cross was selected because it had better transport links than any other site? The demand for taxis is lower than in any other central site because of the good access by train, bus and tube. Those who are concerned about smog and other environmental disbenefits caused by traffic movements should remember that King's Cross is the best possible location to avoid those problems.
      Mr. Corbyn: There will be 15 million extra passengers a year using King's Cross. I do not know how often the hon. Gentleman uses King's Cross.
      Mr. Waller: Every week.
      Mr. Corbyn: Good. When he has a bit of time on his hands, he should see the crowds that use King's Cross underground station between 7.30 am and 9.30 am on a weekday. It is hard to see how more traffic or more people could get through the area.
      British Rail has not thought about the consequences of its proposals. 'Traffic jams on the Pentonville, Euston and Marylebone roads will be made worse by the car and taxi traffic that will be generated by 15 million passengers seeking to enter or leave the station by road vehicle.
      Mr. Tony Banks: British Rail is not the slightest bit interested in how many additional road movements are caused by its proposals—it is not a road authority. My hon. Friend surely remembers the London Labour group asking the then Secretary of State for Transport who the strategic authority for such movements was, and he said that we should ask British Rail. We did so, and British Rail said, "We are not the strategic authority; we are a transport authority. We run the railways." It could not give a monkey's toss how many cars, taxis or buses are involved, because that has nothing to do with BR. But it has a lot to do with us and the people who live in Islington.
      Mr. Corbyn: If I were not a vegetarian, I would have said that it was passing the buck around the room. We met the then Secretary of State for Transport, who claimed that we should go somewhere else with every environmental or transport problem in London. Everybody was responsible for transport in London except the Secretary of State. The reality is that this cock-eyed proposal has been made because of a lack of planning, of consultation and of a serious environmental impact assessment.
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend criticises British Rail, but does he accept that it is the prisoner of Government
      756
      policy? It is not British Rail's fault that it is forced to depend on Thatcherite policies of enhanced land values to pay for transport improvements. Inevitably, many of the criticisms that should be made of the Government are being made of British Rail. That is extremely convenient for the Government, who want everybody to criticise British Rail, as it will help their case for closure through privatisation.
      Mr. Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am pro-rail. I want increased rail usage and development. I use the railways a lot. I do not believe in the development of an enhanced road system when our railways would be perfectly adequate if only more money were put into them, which the Government clearly are not doing.
      I sometimes wonder about British Rail. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) that it is a prisoner of Government policy, which says that it must sell some of its existing capital assets for all new works. Sometimes it appears to be an awfully willing prisoner of that policy: that is my anxiety.
      This is an important Bill and we are going through an important process that highlights the inadequacies of the private Bill procedure. We see the wrong-headedness of a major development taking place on the back of the private Bill procedure with no real planning permission and no planning applications or the like. I hope that, as a result of our experience of this, people will examine the process.
      I wonder whether the golden egg that British Rail thought it had got hold of when it realised the potential for office and other developments to the north of King's Cross station, will ever be laid. Land values in London are dropping fast as the recession gathers pace.
      Mr. Peter Hardy: That is happening everywhere.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Corbyn: Everywhere, indeed, but we are talking about the particular development at King's Cross.
      British Rail has staked everything on selling land to create an office development to the north of King's Cross. That will make it more money that the socially needed houses that should be built on the whole of that site, except on the areas needed for parks. What happens if it does not go ahead with the whole scheme? All the time spent in Committee and all the millions of pounds spent on legal representation, publicity, consultants and others will be wasted.
      The House should think more seriously about the need for access to the channel tunnel for the entire country. It is fallacious to argue that King's Cross is the only place where the main station can be developed.
      I ask hon. Members to consider that the two new clauses deal specifically with the effects of the development on people living in the King's Cross area in terms of their property, the noise, the environment and the area. The effects are specifically irrespective of the location of the station. I invite hon. Members to consider the effects on the community represented so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and how hon. Members would feel if the same works, the same disruption, the same noise, the same pollution and the same dirt were to result from a major development in their

      757
      constituency passed by a vote in this House. They would be appalled. Therefore, they should support the new clauses.
      Mr. Cryer: I shall be brief. I did not intend to speak until I heard the response from the promoter. The new clauses do not affect the principle of the Bill; they would merely provide protection for the people who live in the vicinity.
      My hon. Friends asked serious questions, but the promoter, on behalf of British Rail, did not answer any of them. It is a contempt of Parliament for British Rail and the promoter, knowing that questions will be asked—they had seen the amendments—to fail to provide adequate information. They strike an arrogant attitude. One wonders whether the agreements on a voluntary code—the substitute for new clause 6—for the decent operation and conduct of the civil engineering works so as to minimise the intrusion on the people who live nearby will be carried out by people so careless of the debate here in Parliament. The promoter had an opportunity to assuage fears, but he failed to do so.
      The promoter did not deny that a row of houses had been omitted from the area of protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has sought to include it. The promoter has said that he will write and explain the circumstances. That is not good enough. If we are debating this issue in Parliament, we can reasonably expect to receive assurances and proper statements from the promoter. People in British Rail knew that this debate was to take place. They are being advised—expensively, I suspect—by private Bill promoters. They should be able to answer the queries that have been raised today.
      The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) said that it would be an extraordinary obligation on BR if it were to be subject to the decision of house owners who, at a whim—to use his words—sought compensation from BR. On the contrary, it is BR that will, at a whim, be able to refuse a householder compensation when that householder has to face construction noise and invasion of his peaceful privacy. "At a whim" is an emotional phrase.
      The hon. Member for Keighley sought to suggest that a person who wanted to move somewhere else would, at a whim, be able to invoke the procedures set out in the new clause. The hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that as any such person will be living on the periphery of a massive construction site—the biggest in Europe—he will be unable to move anywhere anyhow. Equally, the BR board could, at a whim, ignore the pros and cons and the case for decent justice for an ordinary householder and simply dismiss such a call for compensation. That could happen unless the board was under a statutory obligation to meet that claim.
      I do not know the area around King's Cross, and I accept that some properties might be on the margin with regard to compensation, but given the magnitude of this civil engineering project, why should we not strike the balance in favour of those affected rather than in favour of those who want to press ahead with that construction project?
      Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman is describing an imaginary situation. BR would not, at a whim, act as he
      758
      has described. I have carefully explained how the promoters are in the process of agreeing a detailed code of practice relating to the construction works with the London boroughs of Camden and Islington, which are carefully protecting the interests of those living within their boundaries.
      It would be total nonsense for me to start negotiating across the Floor of the House about such things as the number of decibels to be allowed in particular parts of the site, vehicle movements, where security cameras should be located, or how many stars a hotel should have when people are allocated temporary rehousing. I cannot negotiate about the terms of arbitration. It is impossible to have an environmental code of practice which is carved in stone and does not allow for the kind of necessary flexibility to provide for the very talks that are bound to continue in order to reach agreement, not only before the works begin but as they proceed.
      Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, and I regret to say that I suspect that that is characteristic of his attitude today. I have moved on to discuss new clause 5. I have already mentioned the one row of houses that the promoters have excluded from the provisions under which the BR board could be required to purchase if a householder suffered intrusion due to civil engineering work.
      The hon. Gentleman has taken umbrage at my use of the phrase "at a whim" in relation to decisions taken by the BR board. Why does he take umbrage when those words are used in relation to the BR board, especially when he uses them about property holders in the area affected by those civil engineering works?
      The hon. Gentleman has asked why people should be able, at a whim, to require BR to purchase their homes. Why is the hon. Gentleman unable to attribute the characteristics that he attributes to the BR board to the ordinary people living in the area? Why does he not believe that those people will make a balanced, mature, considered judgment? if he is ascribing such characteristics to BR, it is only fair that he should ascribe them to the people who live in the area.
      Mr. Waller: The answer is that the promoters are reaching detailed agreements on a range of issues with the local authorities concerned. If the new clause were passed, it would provide an unqualified right to all those living within the boundaries, whether or not and to whatever extent they were affected, to require the board to purchase their property, compensate them, and provide temporary rehousing, irrespective of the kind of housing in which they lived at the time of the works. In particular, they could require the board to carry out any other appropriate matters. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a reasonable requirement, I disagree with him.
      Mr. Cryer: I am terribly sorry, but new clause 5 does not include subsection (2)(e) of new clause 6, as the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. I am discussing new clause 5 and the obligations that would follow for people affected by major civil engineering works. I do not wish to continue the argument for much longer because my hon. Friends wish to vote on the matter.
      Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Member for Keighley made a substantial error in his intervention. He said that anyone living in the area would have the right to sell his property

      759
      to British Rail. The vast majority of people living in the area specified in new clause 5 are tenants of the London borough of Islington and cannot activate the provisions of paragraph (a). The hon. Gentleman has not read the new clause.
      Mr. Cryer: Another point that underlines my hon. Friend's remark is that subsection (2) of new clause 5 defines "specified property" in order that it is not a general right but a specific and defined right for a limited number of people. I am surprised that, having had the new clause tabled with the possibility of selection, the hon. Member for Keighley did not say how many properties would be affected.
      Concern for workers and working class areas does not stop at the boundary of Watford. We are concerned wherever people are adversely affected. There is a strong case for improving rail links and investment in railways, to transfer some of the freight from our heavily clogged roads on to the railways. The Department of Transport has been working against that for the past 20 years or more. We want that position reversed, but if major civil engineering works are to be involved, the House should reasonably impose protective measures to ensure that people who are adversely affected receive proper statutory protection. Voluntary codes of practice are all very well. If people were universally of good will, we would not need legislation. The legislation is necessary to provide assurances for people who are potentially adversely affected.
      I intervened only because I am amazed that the promoter has not accepted the new clauses. He may be worried about one or two words but he should accept them in principle with a view to ensuring that the protection is statutory. Statutory protection means that people are bound by it, whereas voluntary codes can be pushed to one side. Embarking on such works, not for a few months but for eight years, means that there must be a firm base for statutory protection of everyone involved before the work starts. That is why I hope that the House will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend understands these things better than most people in the House. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), speaking on behalf of the promoters, said that discussions about a code were going on with the London boroughs concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may like to venture a point about the extent to which we can trust British Rail. I know that my hon. Friend has more trust than I do in that respect
      If we do not write those provisions into the Bill, there will be no sanctions against British Rail if it tells the boroughs, "We are sorry, but we are not interested and we cannot reach agreement." Who could then impose sanctions on British Rail? The House could not.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Cryer: I am willing to defend British Rail because it has great difficulty in providing public services throughout the country against the background of attacks by the Government and of Government cuts. Support has been whipped up for the privatisation campaign against British Rail. British Rail provides a vast service network, by and large fairly successfully.
      British Rail is a corporation, so we should bind it to its duties and obligations under law. It is a large corporation,
      760
      so its personnel will change. The chairman of British Rail may give assurances in perfectly good faith, but he may be replaced. The next chairman may disregard those assurances and say that the civil engineering completion is the sole criterion and that British Rail will have no such care for people living in the area.
      If we want to provide some guarantees for people who will be adversely affected by this major civil engineering project, we should ensure that the House is the guarantor. We are the best guarantor of people's position and we pass legislation to provide guarantees. Is there universal good will among the members of the British Rail board, the local authorities, the people living in the area, the contractors and the sub-contractors? Sub-contractors are often employed at rock bottom rates through competitive tender, and they will have to cut corners to make a profit over the next eight years.
      If everyone was covered by multicoloured good will, we should not have to legislate. If there was good will all round, the House would be redundant. There is no universal good will, but there is cut-throat competition, bad practice and bad faith. Against the background of human experience, I suggest that new clauses 5 and 6 would be a decent safeguard for people who will have to face muck and noise for eight years.
      Mr. Chris Smith: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will pick up one or two points from the debate on the two important new clauses.
      The speech by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) was a deeply inadequate response to the needs of the people of the King's Cross area and to the arguments of my hon. Friends and myself. The hon. Member began by admitting that British Rail has undertaken a number of voluntary agreements to do precisely what is set out in new clauses 5 and 6. By making that admission, he gave away almost the entirety of his case against inclusion of new clauses. The new clauses seek only to enshrine in the Bill the protection that British Rail has already said that it intends to provide on the whole. Through the new clauses, we are trying to ensure that that happens.
      The hon. Member for Keighley went on to refer to what he said were the "many" properties affected. I have already dealt with part of that point by informing the hon. Gentleman, who seemed unaware of the fact, that a large number of the properties within the boundaries referred to in new clause 5 are in local authority ownership. The local authority has no intention of going along and presenting BR with those properties, and certainly no desire to do so, as it desperately needs them to provide housing for the people of my constituency. There are some owner-occupiers in the area, however, and I believe that they are entitled to basic minimum protection from the blight that will affect them throughout the next eight or nine years. The hon. Gentleman should not dismiss their concern so lightly.
      The hon. Gentleman said that the environmental code proposed in new clause 6 was likely to be inflexible, but precisely the reverse is the case. If he reads the new clause, he will see that it does not prescribe noise or decibel levels or hours of working. It merely says that agreement should be reached on those specific issues. I went through a whole series of matters that British Rail has recently been discussing with Camden and Islington. British Rail is apparently determined not to reach a reasonable agreement with those two local authorities on an

      761
      environmental code of practice. By including such a provision in the Bill, we should be placing additional pressure on British Rail in an attempt to ensure that it behaves more reasonably. The new clause would not tie British Rail in knots or create an inflexible structure. It merely says that there must be an environmental code and tells British Rail to get on and reach a reasonable agreement with the boroughs about it.
      The hon. Member for Keighley then referred to the traffic impact of the proposed station and the so-called environmental statement, which he held up for the whole House to see. The traffic section of that statement was written by a firm called Halcro Fox and I think that I am right in saying that it actually claims that the traffic impact of the creation of the new international station—which, as we have heard, will deal with an extra 15 million passengers a year—on York way, Euston road and Marylebone road will be "negligible". That statement was disproved by the Department of Transport's own evidence to the Committee, which came at a very late stage in the Committee's proceedings and was published after that environmental statement. That evidence showed that, especially at peak hours, there will be a substantial traffic impact. Of course many people leaving channel tunnel trains will want to get on an already overcrowded underground system or transfer to trains heading to the north and so on, but a large number of them will want to take taxis, board coaches and be met by friends in cars. The proposals will have a very substantial traffic impact on the surface in an already over-congested area.
      Mr. Corbyn: The traffic impact will not be confined to York way and Euston road, bad though it will be in those two places, but will extend into central London, with an increased flow of traffic attempting to get to King's Cross, and particularly to the north and east, as people making long journeys by train are brought to the station from the suburbs by car with heavy luggage and because of the difficulties of the King's Cross interchange. The traffic impact has been grossly underestimated.
      Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. We all know what happens to London's entire traffic flow when one or two key points in the vehicular traffic network clog up. That is precisely what will happen at King's Cross as a result of the proposals.
      The hon. Member for Keighley dared to say that the effects on road traffic would be generally positive. I challenge him to come and tell that to the people of King's Cross, who as a result of the proposals will be living with traffic jams outside their homes day in and day out.
      The hon. Member for Keighley also said that, if the station was not built at King's Cross, there would have to be complicated provisions such as travelators. He ignores the fact that British Rail proposes a travelator between King's Cross and Euston to get people to the north-western lines. The hon. Gentleman should say less about travelators and complex interchanges.
      The hon. Gentleman also ignores the important point that I raised, and which was picked up by my hon. Friends, about the importance of the row of houses on the east side of the southern part of Northdown street. It is not good enough to say that British Rail will write to me about that. We need an absolute commitment from British Rail that it
      762
      will include those houses, with the others in the affected area, in the properties to be looked after as part of the buffer zone.
      The hon. Member for Keighley dismissed many of the issues still at stake in the discussions on the environmental code as not being in the interests of the wider community. I fail to see how allowing pile driving at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning next door to residential homes is in the interests of any community, let alone the people who live in the immediate vicinity of the work.
      I remind the House of the overwhelming environmental impact on people in the King's Cross area. The scheme involves the loss of 83 homes, the displacement of 326 residents, the demolition of four listed buildings and the destruction of a two-acre inner-city nature reserve. It involves the loss of 168 workplaces providing 1,620 jobs and the loss of 58 shops, 38 of which provide key services to local people. It will have a construction time of about eight years and will entail deep pile driving for the subsequent buildings and the sides of the box that will be created. A vast 40 ft hole will be created immediately beside people's homes. That will have an enormous environmental impact.
      My two new clauses do not seek to stop the Bill. Nor do they seek in any way to interrupt the smooth progress of essential British Rail operational requirements. They seek to enshrine protection for the people immediately affected, and I warmly commend them to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 191.

      Division No. 34]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

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

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Flynn, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Madden, Max

      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and Mr. Tony Banks.

      Nellist, Dave

      Skinner, Dennis

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Crowther, Stan

      Anderson, Donald

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Devlin, Tim

      Barron, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dixon, Don

      Battle, John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Beith, A. J.

      Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

      Bellingham, Henry

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Benton, Joseph

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Eastham, Ken

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Fallon, Michael

      Blunkett, David

      Fearn, Ronald

      Boswell, Tim

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bowis, John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Boyes, Roland

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Forth, Eric

      Brazier, Julian

      Foster, Derek

      Bright, Graham

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Burt, Alistair

      Franks, Cecil

      Butler, Chris

      Fraser, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Freeman, Roger

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gale, Roger

      Chapman, Sydney

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Colvin, Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Gregory, Conal

      763

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      O'Brien, William

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hague, William

      Page, Richard

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

      Paice, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hardy, Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Harris, David

      Pendry, Tom

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hawkins, Christopher

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Haynes, Frank

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hood, Jimmy

      Redmond, Martin

      Howells, Geraint

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Irvine, Michael

      Rogers, Allan

      Jack, Michael

      Rooney, Terence

      Jackson, Robert

      Ross, William (Londonderry E)

      Janman, Tim

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Jessel, Toby

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Snape, Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Stephen, Nicol

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Stern, Michael

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Stevens, Lewis

      Knapman, Roger

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Strang, Gavin

      Knowles, Michael

      Sumberg, David

      Knox, David

      Summerson, Hugo

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lee, John (Pendle)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Loyden, Eddie

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Thorne, Neil

      McCartney, Ian

      Thurnham, Peter

      McGrady, Eddie

      Tracey, Richard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tredinnick, David

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Trimble, David

      Maclean, David

      Trippier, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Vaz, Keith

      McMaster, Gordon

      Viggers, Peter

      McNamara, Kevin

      Wallace, James

      McWilliam, John

      Waller, Gary

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Mans, Keith

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Mates. Michael

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Maxton, John

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Meale, Alan

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Wilson, Brian

      Mills, Iain

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Wood, Timothy

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Needham, Richard

      Sir Donald Thompson and Mr. John Greenway.

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Bill to be further considered on Thursday 16 January.

  Tourism (Northern Ireland)
  10.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): I beg to move,
  That the draft Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 5th December, be approved.
  I have said before to hon. Members, and I say again, that Northern Ireland has had remarkable success in bucking the current economic trend. It has, for example, contained annual growth in unemployment to a level substantially lower than elsewhere in the country—4 per cent. in Ulster compared with almost 60 per cent. in Great Britain. This is not, of course, in any way to minimise the seriousness of job losses that have been announced in Northern Ireland. However, the relative buoyancy of its economy is, I suggest, very well reflected in the various imaginative investments that continue to be made across the length and breadth of the Province.
  The past six weeks have been very difficult for Northern Ireland, and especially for Belfast. Attacks by the IRA on the city and citizens of Belfast caused extensive damage. One such attack destroyed the high street tourist information centre. The fact that the staff at the centre picked up the pieces and were open for business the following day is a prime example of the resilience and resolution of the people of Belfast and amply proves that such attacks achieve nothing except the destruction of jobs and the deferment of economic improvement. The Government intend to match that resolve and fortitude by making good the damage. I am certain that the House will join me in congratulating the people of Belfast and in expressing our deep appreciation of the successes that the security forces have been achieving.
  Tourism in Northern Ireland, as I shall illustrate, has unique potential for growth—and with the added impetus of this proposed legislation, it will make a major contribution to economic development in our region.
  Visitor figures for 1990, for the second year, were at an all-time record level of 1·153 million. No fewer than one in five visitors came to Northern Ireland exclusively for a holiday, compared with one in nine 10 years ago. Of all holiday visitors in 1990, 102,000—or almost half—came from the south, a more than 50 per cent. increase over the previous year; and a quarter of holiday visitors, 55,000, came from Great Britain—an increase of more than 60 per cent. on the previous year. Those truly remarkable results owe much to the enterprising professionalism of the reconstituted Northern Ireland tourist board and show very clearly that Northern Ireland is being accepted again as a uniquely attractive holiday destination.
  That is just the start. The scenic, recreational and cultural attractions of Northern Ireland compare with the world's best and are at least on a par with those of our neighbours in the south. The full potential of tourism in Northern Ireland has yet to be achieved, as can be seen from the fact that, whereas tourism in the Republic presently accounts for 6·8 per cent of gross national product, and provides some 82,000 jobs, the comparable figures for Northern Ireland are 1·3 per cent. of GDP and about 10,000 jobs.
  I cannot over-emphasise the importance of both Great Britain and the Republic to the growth of tourism in

  765
  Northern Ireland. However, also of tremendous importance to Northern Ireland are tourists from North America, Europe and Japan. They too are coming in increasing numbers; there is much further potential in those markets.
  Mr. William Ross: Does the level of employment have anything to do with the fact that the Republic spends on average £8 per head on every visitor, whereas Northern Ireland spends only £2?
  Mr. Needham: I am not sure that levels of unemployment bear any relationship to the spending in the south of Ireland on tourism, compared with spending in the north. However, as the hon. Gentleman will find when I conclude my remarks, I agree and accept that much more could, should and will be done to increase spending in promoting Northern Ireland as a tourist destination.
  We can be encouraged by the current growth of tourism to Northern Ireland, but if growing numbers of tourists are to visit our magnificent attractions, we must improve the quality and standard of the facilities to look after them. That does not mean that we should not be proud of what we have already done. An outstanding example was the major programme of events held during Belfast 91. That included the world rose festival, but taking pride of place in the programme was the immensely successful visit of the tall ships to Belfast lough. Apart from its success in enticing a multitude of overseas visitors, that attracted half a million people from all sections of the community, who thronged the streets in one of the biggest shared celebrations in the city's history.
  I am certain that Londonderry, with its Impact 92, will have an equally exciting year of enjoyment, and that tourism in Derry will be one of the main beneficiaries.
  The challenge is also about tackling the impediments to the growth of tourism. Perhaps the most demanding of the challenges is to improve the quality of the services that we offer our visitors, as well as promoting the best of Ulster. The solution must lie in significantly stepping up the promotional efforts of the Government, Northern Ireland tourist board, the Industrial Development Board, and other interests. Close collaboration between all concerned will be essential if we are to achieve that success.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am sure that the Minister would add good transport links to the list of requirements—and, if possible, new access routes into Northern Ireland. With that in mind, I deeply sympathise with his predicament in losing some of his budget as a consequence of the horrors of terrorism and the need to pay for the structural damage that it does. However, can he still give an assurance—obviously, this is of interest to my constituents—that the prospects for Ballycastle as a point of entry and egress are still very much alive?
  Mr. Needham: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have discussed that issue, and I agree with him that it is of great importance to improve on the links between Scotland and Northern Ireland—not least, at Ballycastle.
  The need to improve quality in everything we do was starkly illustrated in the recent Horwath consultancy report. It concluded that in general our hotels and guest houses did not satisfy the needs and expectations of the
  766
  tourist market and offered poor value for money. It recommended a concerted drive to improve quality if we were to have any hope of matching the demands of the market, and it emphasised the importance of better training. I am determined, as is the NITB, that, together with the industry, we will meet the desired standards and make the improvements required.
  The order gives us the vehicle for achieving the strategy for tourism that the Government have developed over the past two years in association with the industry. It puts the board in the central role in tourism development and increases its powers, so that it may carry out the challenging task of increasing the competitiveness of the industry.
  I believe that a maximum membership of nine will ensure more effective decision-making. The nine-member board already in place is, as I mentioned earlier, achieving excellent results. The board will operate at arm's length from the Department, and will assume direct operational responsibility for all tourism development programmes, including the major programmes sponsored by the European Community and the International Fund for Ireland.
  It is vital that the board works closely with the key interests in tourism, so that a coherent and sensible approach is presented and understood by all. Consultative arrangements to achieve that aim are specified in the order.
  A new, more flexible scheme of selective financial assistance is to be introduced to strengthen the board's ability to persuade the industry to bring forward worthwhile projects. A preliminary scheme already in operation has attracted a promising range of projected new developments.
  That is a most important provision. All tourists and holidaymakers, when they sit down to plan a holiday, want to know with absolute certainty that what they are being offered has been thoroughly checked out, comes up to scratch, and represents value for money. That must be a main priority for the tourist board.
  The regulatory arrangements proposed in the order require all tourist accommodation to comply with a set of minimum standards for various categories of establishment. Let me put that simply: it prohibits the provision or offer of tourist accommodation that has not been certified as meeting those minimum standards.
  Although no major changes are made to the tourism powers of district councils, provision is made for closer co-operation and partnership between the board and the councils in the provision and marketing of tourism products. Let me stress that such co-operation is absolutely essential to the strategy for tourism: I congratulate both the NITB and the councils on how well they have started the process of working together. I believe that the success that has followed the meeting of February 1991 augurs very well for future co-operation between them.
  As a token of the Government's commitment, and to demonstrate the importance that we attach to increasing the number of visitors to this most beautiful part of our country, we have this year increased the tourist budget from £6·7 million to £10·9 million. The order, and that financial commitment, must give the industry the best start in 1992 for which it could ever have hoped. It now has a statutory framework, and enjoys financial support at a level unequalled at any time in the past.
  I commend the order to the House.
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott: I join the Minister in congratulating the people of Belfast on the resolution and fortitude that they showed during the Christmas period of cowardly terrorism in the Province.
  This is a nice, non-controversial little order with which to start 1992—although I cannot guarantee that the current mood of conviviality will continue as we approach the inevitable general election. I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House: indeed, I do not expect to speak for more than seven or eight minutes—little longer than I took last time I spoke. I know that hon. Members representing the Province will want to describe the beauties and tourist amenities in their constituencies. Let me, however, make a small plea to those who visit the Province on holiday: if they go via Wigan pier, they will be given an excellent and cordial welcome.
  As the Minister has explained, the order sets out the duties and responsibilities of the NITB. The contents and aims of the order are wholly acceptable to the Opposition: we are strongly in favour of what the Minister is doing. Tourism is an important industry, not just in Northern Ireland but in the island of Ireland as a whole. Despite the cowardly activities of terrorists who aim to disrupt normal life in Northern Ireland, the industry continues to grow, as the Minister has pointed out. More and more people are not being intimidated, and not being dissuaded from visiting a beautiful country.
  I wish to pay a special tribute to the enthusiastic and assiduous way in which the Minister has promoted the tourist attractions of Northern Ireland. I am sure that he, in turn, will wish to pay tribute to Commissioner Bruce Milian and the European Community for the considerable help that they have given in funding many of the tourist projects that have proved so successful not only in Northern Ireland, but in the island as a whole.
  As we enter 1992—the year of the internal market, the year when barriers will come down—tourism is set to play an important part in the efforts to develop and improve the regional economies of the Republic of Ireland and of Northern Ireland. A successful tourist policy will result in the creation of jobs and the diversification of economic activity and will bring many benefits, in terms of vastly improved amenities, to the local population.
  To help the economies of the island of Ireland to catch up with those of the more prosperous parts of the European Community, we must find ways of increasing economic activity. Tourism is undoubtedly one of the most promising growth sectors, and it is in that sector that the most important issues we face can be addressed and standards raised in absolute terms.
  I have referred to the role that the European Community has played in the advancement of tourism in Ireland as a whole and in Northern Ireland in particular. I should like to spend a little time providing some detail. The tourism programme, which has been funded from the European development fund together with the European social fund, is designed to make full use of the natural advantages of Ireland as a whole and of Northern Ireland in particular—the features that make Ireland particularly attractive to foreign visitors. The late 1980s and the early 1990s have seen growth in the tourism industry. The European programme seeks to build on that growth. That means enhancing existing potential as well as creating new specialised attractions in the regions.
  768
  I understand that, with European Community support, the tourist boards of the Republic and of Northern Ireland are concentrating on niche marketing. They are emphasising the aspects where the island has something special to offer—sporting activities, such as angling, boating on rivers and at sea, golf, riding, cycling and walking, and the cultural and historical heritage. A centralised genealogical service will be set up for the benefit of emigrants' descendants who wish to trace their ancestors. Historic houses and interpretive centres will be conserved and developed.
  Both the European programmes pay particular attention to protection of the environment—one of the most precious assets of the island of Ireland. Both make provision for assistance in marketing—a matter that is particularly important in Northern Ireland. Those programmes build on previous European assistance programmes for tourism—in particular, programmes relating to border areas. Experience has shown the importance of training measures funded out of the European social fund to ensure a supply of well-qualified staff to meet the increasing tourist demand.
  These Europe-funded programmes will play an important part in boosting tourism in the island of Ireland, thereby contributing to greater economic prosperity. Not only will that benefit the populations of the north and the south, but countless visitors will be better able to appreciate the natural beauty and the heritage of northern Ireland and southern Ireland.
  In addition, tourism has an important part to play in the creation of jobs in both the north and the south. For example, the Ballyconnell canal project—the initial stage of which was opend by the Taoiseach and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—will result in the opening up of a navigable waterway from the Shannon to Lough Erne. I very much hope that, when it is completed in a couple of years' time, my family and I will take a trip on the canal.
  The European Community has produced a booklet which, as the Minister knows, sets out several projects in which the Community has been involved and the amount of money that it has put into tourism in Northern Ireland. I cite the project with which I am most familiar—the Foyle railway in Derry. My good friend Alfie O'Connor, is the secretary. The money spent on that project has not merely added tourist potential to Derry but created jobs. It has done something that other expenditure has not done in the past. The booklet published by the European Community outlines the vast amounts of money that it has put into tourism in Northern Ireland, and the way in which the local economy is being rejuvenated.
  The order will regulate the activities of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland to ensure that good standards are set and maintained and inspections are regularly carried out. That is what is required and why we welcome the Minister's proposals.
  Has there been a fall-off in visitors to the Province from north America since the Gulf war? Many visitors go to the mainland of the United Kingdom before travelling to Ireland or Northern Ireland.
  A passage in the order relates to the tourism functions of district councils. My party and I are not opposed to the extension of powers which are included in the order. It gives district councils the power to do a number of things to enhance the potential of tourism. District councils in Northern Ireland do not have to put up with the poll tax or capping, as district councils do in the rest of the United

  769
  Kingdom. Are there any revenue implications for district councils in carrying out the functions set out in part V? Will there be any capital costs to local councils? If so, who will pay for them? Will district councils have to include those costs in the annual budget and in the rates levied on the community or will the Northern Ireland Office accept the costs of the additional facilities that district councils will now be able to provide?
  In the time that I have known Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland, since my appointment to the Opposition Front Bench, I have come to love the place. It has wonderful scenery and wonderful people. I only wish that a peaceful climate would emerge in that country so that more people could go to see it. In the meantime, the order facilitates the tourist industry to Northern Ireland and we therefore give it a fair wind.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I join the Minister and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) in paying tribute to the courage and resilience of the Ulster people who, despite massive destruction and death, carry on with business as normal. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Minister who, despite threats from the IRA, has visited many places where he would be an immediate target for a terrorist attack. Members of the security forces and business men throughout Northern Ireland do not have security in their homes or even in their places of work, but that has not deterred them from doing their jobs. That great resolve has enabled Northern Ireland to survive more than 20 years of appalling atrocity.
  Despite terrorism, tourists are still attracted to the Province. Many come from the United States of America and Canada, some from Germany and some from Japan. I had the pleasure of showing a former member of the Japanese Government around parts of my constituency in North Down.
  Northern Ireland and the people of Ulster have been given a bad press by the media, especially by television. That is bound to have an adverse effect on attracting tourists to the Province, especially from Great Britain. Many terrorist incidents are not reported on national television, even though a similar incident in Britain would receive prime coverage. Television tends to depict the majority of the Ulster people in the worst possible light. Its presentation of Ulster people as bigoted and unfriendly is a cruel defamation, but on the basis that if a lie is repeated often enough people will begin to believe it, that lie could easily take root in Britain.
  I denounce that image of Northern Ireland as a lie. It is high time that television companies in Britain, and some of those abroad, started being fair to the people of Ulster, who are the finest people in the world. Of course I am biased, because I live in Ulster and I know and appreciate the fine qualities of its people, who are warm-hearted, kind, hospitable, humorous and caring. A Northern Ireland Minister may begin his duties full of fear and trepidation, but once he arrives in the Province he realises that he is in a land that is good and kindly. Northern Ireland Ministers never wish to give up their job and return to the mainland.
  President Buchanan, the 15th president of the United States of America, was one of more than a dozen United
  770
  States presidents with Ulster origins. He said that his Ulster blood was a priceless heritage, and in uttering those words so long ago he could easily have been speaking for the people of Northern Ireland today. When people come to Northern Ireland, they discover the truth about it—the magic of Ulster, about which we heard from the Minister and the hon. Member for Wigan. That is why I support any measure to encourage more visitors to the Province. I doubt whether the tourist board has displayed the vigour necessary to project the appeal of Northern Ireland, but the most costly advertising and promotion can be undermined and vitiated by television bias against Northern Ireland.
  Let me nail the lie, so endlessly repeated, that the Scots first came to Northern Ireland when the plantation of the north-east of Ireland took place 300 years ago. Historically, the Ulster people were the first people to occupy any part of the island of Ireland. The people of what is now Scotland crossed the 22 miles to Antrim and Down, which are plainly visible from Scotland. The patron saint of Ireland, St. Patrick, was a Briton who was taken under duress to Ulster, spent most of his life in Northern Ireland, and died there.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Like the Minister.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Yes, the Minister was taken under duress, but he does not want to leave us now.
  The IRA and its sympathisers keep shouting, "Brits out of Ireland." If St. Patrick returned to Ireland today, I assume that the IRA would tell him, as a Brit, to get out of Ireland—and if it could, it would like to murder him. St. Patrick got rid of the snakes from Ireland. If he came back today, he would feel it a duty to get rid of those who parade as IRA patriots—the gunmen and the evil men who haunt our Province and kill people, destroy buildings and take away jobs.
  Tourism will help to generate more jobs and to improve employment prospects in Northern Ireland. Far too many people in the Province are unemployed, and my constituency is no exception. Anything that will help to provide more jobs is to be encouraged. Perhaps the Government could help by providing more finance to clear up litter, which is all too easily seen on our streets and beaches. Perhaps they could force local authorities to deal with the fouling of streets by dogs, which seem to be about in such vast numbers. Certainly, any street I walk in Bangor seems to have been visited by a fair number of dogs in the previous 24 hours.
  Tourism is not only about providing amenities for tourists to Northern Ireland. As article 2 makes clear, a tourist includes a person travelling for pleasure within Northern Ireland. For me recreational amenities created for tourists are also for local people. Local people already enjoy the benefits of a visit to the Ulster folk and transport museum in my constituency, and to the Dundonald ice bowl in the other part of my constituency within the council area of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). Those attractions should be there for local people to enjoy.
  More people should come to Northern Ireland. People do not realise the cultural heritage of Ulster and the Ulster people. In my constituency, the town of Bangor is the site of an ancient abbey which many centuries ago sent out people to bring light to Europe, which was then in darkness. Bangor is one of the few places on these islands

  771
  marked on the mappa mundi. We have suffered invasions—
  I cannot remember the precise date, but I think it was about the year 600, when the Vikings destroyed the abbey and slaughtered the scholars there. Nevertheless, Bangor continued and still exists today.
  772
  That is the answer that we give to the present-day marauders who are out to destroy Northern Ireland economically and in every other way: the Ulster people will survive and endure.
  10.42 pm
  Mr Clifford Forsythe: I shall have to disturb the peace and harmony of the debate because I must make my usual formal protest about Orders in Council for Northern Ireland business. There are 34 articles and three schedules in the order. We have one and a half hours to debate them. As everyone knows, we cannot change one comma or full stop. The Minister will not be surprised that I protest about that. Indeed, he would be disappointed if I did not.
  My second protest is that we are now creating yet another quango. The Minister will have the power to appoint the members of the tourist board. He will appoint the chairman, then the deputy or vice chairman, and so on. Tonight we are in double jeopardy: first, we are putting this through by Order in Council and, secondly, we are to create a quango responsible to no one but the head of the Department.
  A great chance has been lost tonight, as I believe that a number of councillors should be on the tourist board by right. However, I would not expect all the board members to be councillors because one needs a sprinkling of professionals. Nevertheless, councillors should have been given the opportunity to show what they can do. Hon. Members who represent different parts of Northern Ireland will seek to talk them up tonight; councillors would act likewise, regardless of their political party. If we had councillors on the tourist board, at least some of its members would be responsible to the people who elected them and representative of those people. It is important to stress that.
  Why is the tourist board report for 1990 not yet available? The report for 1989—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. If hon. Members want to make comments, we should all hear them so that they can be recorded in Hansard.
  Mr. Forsythe: Inquiries were made to the appropriate part of the Department and we were told that the 1990 report would not be available for a couple of days. That was most unfortunate as it meant that I was unable to look at the report, which has now been handed to a colleague. I am glad that we finally have that report, but it should have been in October. Surely we should be able to expect the report within six months of the end of the year.
  Mr. Needham: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not rising earlier to make the matter clear. I apologise for the fact that the 1990 report was not available earlier. The hon. Gentleman is right that it should have been. The report is on a new format and, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there have been changes in personnel. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that, from now on, we will do everything in our power to ensure that the report is available within three rather than six months of the end of the year.
  Mr. Forsythe: I welcome that, and I thank the Minister for his consideration in this matter.
  There are few, if any, United Kingdom maps and leaflets on Northern Ireland. In other words, there is a division between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There are leaflets and maps showing the whole of the island of Ireland, but that is not enough. According to the
  774
  tourist board's annual report for 1990, 53 per cent. of those who visited Northern Ireland came from Great Britain, and they spent £83·25 million. Why do we not produce maps and leaflets for those visitors? Why do we not have a tourist office in Scotland, given that 11 per cent. of tourists came from there in 1990 and spent £15·5 million in Northern Ireland?
  It is a shame that the Minister is not wearing his other hat, because there is a problem in an area of my constituency concerning two different roads—the Killead bypass and the A26. The Killead bypass was promised for the beginning of 1992 and the A26 was promised for the beginning of 1993. The work on those roads is to remedy two bottlenecks outside the international airport which we are told is to be privatised. Even if the airport is left as it is, there is a bottleneck in the road leading to the south of the Province and beyond, and a bottleneck in the road leading to the north of the Province from the airport. There appears to have been extremely poor planning, with a bottleneck on either side of an international airport, and perhaps more thought should have been given to the fact that sufficient money was not available.
  There has been much publicity about the poor condition of the rivers. Although fisherman have made allegations about how those conditions were caused, and suggestions about what should be done about them, no action has been taken by the Department of the Environment or the Department of Agriculture.
  There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with certain aspects of fishing areas and water conditions in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister consider setting up a new authority to replace the present set-up, in which the Department of Agriculture looks after the development of rivers, and the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland acts as a protection and conservation body? Would it not be possible to have a body which would look after both aspects?
  At present, river inspectors are controlled by the Department of the Environment and river bailiffs are controlled by the Fisheries Conservancy Board. The conditions of those two "workmen" are entirely different—a river inspector is treated differently from a bailiff. Ultimately, that is because of finance. The amount of money available to the Fisheries Conservancy Board may not extend to creating employment conditions for bailiffs as good as those for river inspectors. Would it not be better to have an organisation to look at the overall problem? In those circumstances, will the Minister consider allowing councillors—elected representatives—to be on that body, or perhaps to form it completely?
  Article 11(4) of the order says:
  "where any instalment of principal or interest or both principal and interest due on foot of any loan made under this Article is more than 31 days in arrear, additional interest at such rate as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the scheme under this Article shall, notwithstanding any statutory provision or rule of law to the contrary, be chargeable on that instalment as from the date on which it fell due and shall be recoverable therewith."
  Mr. David Trimble: On the point about the provisions for charging penal rates of interest, does my hon. Friend agree that it is especially disturbing that that will arise under the provisions of a scheme which will override any other statutory provision or rule of law to the contrary? The scheme is a remarkable form of delegated legislation which will override statutory law and the rule of

  775
  common law, and will be made without any form of parliamentary control. Is that not as outrageous as the practical effects of the provision?
  Mr. Forsythe: I agree. The problem arises from the way in which the order goes through and from the fact that we are dealing with another quango.
  Article 13 uses the words:
  "to be inspected by an officer of the Board".
  What qualifications will the officer have when he inspects a property? Is he to be a member of the board, or will he be a professional?
  Article 20 deals with fees. Surely it would have been a good idea to give some idea of the fees to be charged, instead of simply saying:
  "In making regulations under this Article the Department shall ensure, so far as is practicable, that the fees payable in respect of the inspections mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be such as to produce an amount sufficient to meet"
  the expenses of the board. That could have been put better to give us an idea what the fees would be.
  I refer now to article 30(1). At present, councillors can consult the board. According to the order, councillors will now be required to consult with the board. That is a change which I hope that the Minister can explain to us.
  Article 30(2) says:
  "A district council may acquire land otherwise than by agreement for the purposes of this Article."
  Why is the acquiring of land different from the requirement in article 30(1)
  Article 31 uses the words:
  "A district council may, with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel, transfer to the National Trust".
  Why is there a difference in that article? Why does it refer to the Department of Finance and Personnel?
  Article 32 says:
  "A district council shall consult with the Board before exercising any powers conferred by the Article unless those powers are to be exercised in combination with the Board."
  The order is saying that all 26 councils in Northern Ireland must consult with the board before they do anything, apart from the two items that I mentioned. I ask the Minister to refer to that point in winding up.
  Schedule 1 deals with the appointing of the membership of the board. Will the Minister tell us who the "Head of the Department" is? Is it the Minister himself, or is it the permanent secretary?
  How will the procedure for appointing members to the board work? Will their names be taken out of a hat, bearing in mind the fact that the schedule says that the members will be appointed
  "from among persons who appear to him"—
  the Minister or the head of the Department—
  "to have experience in any field of activity which he considers is relevant"?
  What criteria will the head of the Department use? Will he refer to the fair employment legislation as well as to other Northern Ireland legislation before making those appointments? When the Minister, or whoever does the job, forms the board, will he ensure that all the sides in Northern Ireland are represented and that the people concerned come from all the different communities?
  I ask again why there are no council representatives on the board by right. A councillor could be appointed, but he would be appointed at the will and pleasure of the head of the Department. The point is that the councillors of the 26 councils in Northern Ireland have no right to be on the board.
  776
  Paragraph 3(3) of schedule 1 says:
  "The Head of the Department may at any time by notice in writing to a member of the Board remove him from office."
  What does a member have to have done to be removed from office? Would it not reflect upon the Minister's—or the head of the Department's—ability to appoint if he suddenly had to remove someone from the board? What will be the criteria for removing someone from the board, and in what circumstances would that be done?
  Schedule 1(4) says:
  "Where a member becomes or ceases to be the chairman or a deputy chairman…the Head of the Department may vary the terms of appointment."
  Does that mean that someone can remain a member of the board even though he is no longer its chairman?
  I can understand the provision which states:
  "The Board may pay to each member of the Board such remuneration and such allowances as the Department may determine."
  That is what we would expect, but will the Minister please explain the following:
  "Where a member of the Board is in the employ of any other person, the Board may make to that other person, in consideration of the services of that member to the Board, such payments as the Department may determine."
  Does that mean not only that someone who is on the board representing a firm will receive his remuneration, whatever it happens to be, but that his firm will receive remuneration in respect of his absence? If so, that is a great departure from all normal practices in these matters.
  What sort of quorum will be required? The schedule states:
  "The validity of any proceedings of the Board shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members".
  Let us suppose that seven of the nine are no longer members of the board. Can the board function with two members? What quorum will be required to enable the board to continue its business?
  I wish to allow other hon. Members the opportunity to speak, but these important matters merit discussion. The Minister appoints the tourist board, and the board can then appoint advisory committees whose members need not necessarily be members of the board. Without reference to the Minister or to anyone else, the board can appoint advisory committees, which are then their own masters and can decide how their business is run. They are unelected, unappointed and unfettered in the work that they do. Finally, how will board allowances compare with advisory committee allowances?
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I join hon. Members who have paid tribute to the people who work in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland and face considerable adversity in the task that they have to accomplish. It is difficult to mention tourism in Northern Ireland without facing the fact that considerable disadvantages have to be overcome, or at least taken into account. They stem, of course, from the security situation in Northern Ireland or, perhaps more accurately, the perception of that situation by those who are outside the Province.
  If I was presented with a tourist brochure from Beirut or Yugoslavia or some other war-torn part of the world, it would take a fairly good salesman to convince me that I should take my family to such a place for my next summer holiday. The media have placed Northern Ireland in that

  777
  bracket, and it is against that backcloth that the tourist board and those involved in the tourist industry in Northern Ireland have to carry out their work.
  When I approach the subject of tourism, the first aspect I have to question is the strategy and direction of the Northern Ireland tourist board. In 1989, the Government published a brochure entitled "A view of the future: Tourism in Northern Ireland". It outlined a strategy which would have called people like me defeatists because we recognised that, because of the terrorist campaign, there was overwhelming difficulty in selling Northern Ireland as a tourist venue.
  The brochure suggested that the vigorous campaign to bring the holiday visitor to Northern Ireland would continue. I do not think that the statistics outlined by the Minister in the debate or others that have been made available subsequent to the publication of the brochure showed that that strategy had succeeded. It is the wrong strategy, because this is not the time to concentrate on that end of the tourist market.
  I do not say that we should give it up. There must still be a vigorous effort to attract tourists to Northern Ireland, but the overall effort of the Northern Ireland tourist board should be directed at bringing back the business man and his family, because, by and large, people who come to Northern Ireland and see it for themselves see that it is not as it is painted by the media and they are prepared to return to the Province. It would be much more productive to go to those who come regularly to the Province and encourage them to bring their families for holidays. The tourist board should concentrate on the obvious specialist holidays, such as genealogical tours, with to a view to increasing the number of holidaymakers, particularly from North America.
  The other important tourist is the home visitor, if that is not a contradiction in terms. There is an obvious understanding by people who live in Northern Ireland of the security situation, and they know where it is quite safe to go. The people of Northern Ireland should be given great encouragement to spend a holiday at home at least once every other year and to take their holidays in Northern Ireland. Grants should be given to the operators of tourist facilities throughout the Province to encourage local people.
  I join colleagues across the Floor of the House in their protest about the means by which we have to deal with orders such as this, which are on important subjects that require a great deal more time in debate than we have been afforded tonight. Furthermore, many reasoned amendments to this order could have been tabled, and I am sure that we should have managed to convince the Minister that he should accept them. I am sure that he does not believe that his orders are so perfect that they are like the laws of the Medes and Persians and should not and cannot be changed.
  I shall deal first with the definition of a tourist amenity. I rather suspect that there is an overriding opinion within the Northern Ireland tourist board that a tourist amenity is only something that the Almighty made. The people of Northern Ireland have a lot more than most people in other parts of the world to thank the Almighty for, in terms of the beauty and scenery of their country, but a tourist amenity goes much further than that.
  778
  Recreation provision is an important tourist amenity. If one wants to bring families to Northern Ireland, one has to be aware that young people will not be content simply to go to the glens of Antrim, the Antrim coast, the causeway, or the Mournes, although all that is attractive and they could do some fishing around the constituency of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe).
  There are recreational facilities all around the Province that should be sold better by the Northern Ireland tourist board, although it seldom notices them. It should recognise the important part that some of our recreational facilities play in bringing tourists to Northern Ireland, by which I mean bringing them exclusively to such facilities.
  The Minister will know that I am closely connected with the recreational facility of Dundonald international ice bowl and its leisure park. Every week, people come from the rest of the world to take part in competitive games—ice hockey teams, ice skaters and bowling teams. When the full-scale park eventually reaches fruition, even more people will be attracted to even wider facilities. Leisure facilities play an important role, but one that is not properly recognised by the Northern Ireland tourist board.
  Several hon. Members have already spoken about the local government aspect. The Minister is making available a wealth of money to the Northern Ireland tourist board and to tourism in Northern Ireland. However, does he recognise that local government makes a singular contribution to tourism, and that it should have as much right as any other organisation to receive money from public funds aimed at tourist ventures? Like the hon. Member for Antrim, South, I notice that district councils are expected to consult the tourist board before embarking on the building of a tourist amenity. Therefore, will the Minister follow me as I go through the order looking for definitions?
  The early part of the order defines "tourist amenity" as
  "an amenity, facility or service provided primarily for tourists".
  It defines a "tourist" as
  "a visitor to Northern Ireland, a person spending his holiday in Northern Ireland or a person travelling for pleasure within Northern Ireland".
  Under those definitions, Dundonald international ice bowl would be a tourist amenity. Indeed, it would be a tourist amenity on the basis that it received 50 per cent. of its funding from the tourist grant of the EEC.
  I hope that the Minister will make it clear—I do not want there to be doubt down the line—that we are talking only about consultation. I hope that permission is not required from the Northern Ireland tourist board. After consultation has taken place, will a local authority face a limitation on the sum that it can spend on what it deems to be a leisure or tourist provision? Will a fiscal constraint be placed on a local council at that stage?
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South, who I think was involved in local government, will recognise that there has not been a very full relationship between the local authorities and the tourist board. I would not want to put it as high as a strained relationship. As the tourist board saw such a small role for district councils, the councils ended up having their own tourist-based organisation. Given that relationship, the Minister has an excellent opportunity to try to bring together the various interests that are fighting the battle to bring tourists to Northern Ireland. That can be done by having a definite role for

  779
  local authorities within the board and by providing places for the authorities as of right on the board of the tourist board.
  It seems that there are certain circumstances in which the tourist board can make a grant or a loan, for example, to encourage tourist provision for Northern Ireland The order suggests that the tourist board could become involved in matters relating to the tourist industry. It seems to suggest that the board could become almost commercial. I wonder what restraints the Minister might have in mind to place upon the board in the exercise of its functions by associating itself with various tourist interests in Northern Ireland.
  I give the Minister every encouragement in his task of attracting tourists to Northern Ireland. Some of us have had an unhappy view of the tourist board, especially when it thought it pertinent that the red hand of Ulster should be removed from its emblem to be replaced by a distorted shamrock. That showed, perhaps, the way that the tourist board was thinking. I considered that a retrograde step. The board should not involve itself in politics in the way it has. I encourage the Minister to take up the task of raising tourism to a higher level. I suggest that he concentrates on the areas of tourism in which, in the present security circumstances, it is more realistic to seek to increase business.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: By now. the Minister will be aware that, in general terms, the order is welcomed on both sides of the House, but that we are grossly dissatisfied that we have not been given an opportunity to improve it and to remedy its deficiencies by amendments. The order has many flaws and many matters that require explanation, but it would be impossible to touch on them in any detail tonight. Nevertheless, we welcome the fact that, after four decades, since 1948, we now have a consolidated order—I had better not call it a Bill—bringing these matters together. We hope that it will streamline the administration of tourism in Northern Ireland and that the duality of decision making—the duality of activity between the Northern Ireland tourist board and the Department of Economic Development tourism division—will now be removed.
  I hope that that will happen, but I question a rather sinister little sentence in article 5, which states that the Department of Finance and Personnel will issue to the board
  "(a) directions of a general or specific nature as to the exercise by the Board of its functions".
  I hope that there will be minimal interference and that the advantages of streamlining finance, personnel and decision making will be brought about by the order.
  Like other hon. Members, I deplore the fact that the large pool of expertise and professionalism in local government has not been harnessed and utilised through the order. Indeed, article 4(3) says that the board should "establish machinery for consulting", and it is a great pity that the Minister did not outline the shape of the consultation, how it will be implemented and who will be involved. Perhaps he will do so when he replies, or later through correspondence. The article refers to outside bodies, but it does not refer to local government. There is an enormous pool of experience and know-how in local government that has not been tapped. That is a serious omission.
  780
  I hope that the financing figure that the Minister quoted tonight—an increase of £6·7 million to more than £10 million—will mean a real increase, and is not simply the sum arrived at by adding the money spent by the tourist board and that spent by the tourism division of the Department of Economic Development. It must be a real increase in money going into the market place, as it were, for tourist promotions.
  The greater the flexibility in the allocation of that funding through grant aid to the various facets that would encourage amenity and accommodation production, the better—and that should be the aim of the board. There is a preoccupation—if the House will forgive the pun—with accommodation in the order, in that more than half the articles deal with registration, expansion and all that pertains to grading of accommodation
  The board is to undertake a new and sweeping activity. It is noticeable that the legislation which applies to the remainder of Great Britain has not been implemented. I hope that Northern Ireland is not to be the guinea pig, and I hope that this will be a fruitful exercise. We all agree that tourists are entitled to know the quality and standard of service for which they are paying. A sensitive approach is required, however, because there are various levels in any tourist market. I hope that there will not be a theoretical and useless application of standards, because the accommodation will have to address very diverse markets, from the family in the guest house to five-star hotels. I hope that the fees charged will be reasonable and acceptable, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Antrim, (Mr. Forsythe).
  Omitted from the list of overnight stopping places in the order are caravan sites, youth hostels and activity centres, which all provide accommodation. I hope that the order will be extended to cover them. Indeed, it could go one step further. In many parts of Northern Ireland, there are festivals in which the local community participates and private homes are used to provide one-off overnight accommodation. I trust that they will not be expected to register.
  One aspect deliberately omitted from the order is the inspection and registration of catering facilities. As one who has obviously enjoyed tourist facilities in recent times, I take the view—as do many others—that good accommodation and good food are the two bastions of an enjoyable holiday. It appears that accommodation is to be registered, but that no importance is to be attached to the quality of food. It is important, at least in some voluntary way, to offer some assessment to tourists of the quality of food that they may expect at a particular establishment, and thus appeal to them through their stomachs. Having said that, I was interested to note that the new draft order for local government also specifically excludes the inspection of catering establishments by health inspectors.
  I echo the sentiments already expressed about board membership. It is a great tragedy that it does not include any tourism professionals. While not wishing to cast any aspersions on those appointed to the board, I note that four of them are from marketing-oriented firms. A great opportunity has been missed to benefit from the wealth of experience that local government can offer. The Minister rather pre-empted tonight's debate, to the extent that nine of the board's members were appointed on 25 July 1991, irrespective of tonight's debate.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the necessity for rural regeneration. Farm diversification is important to

  781
  Northern Ireland's rural regeneration, and will serve as the linchpin of tourist development. I refer, for instance, to the use of the farmhouse as a guest house. The board must take a sensible approach to that dimension.
  I thank the Minister and the tourist board for undertaking a study of the whole South Down area, including the districts of Down, Newry, and Armagh. Such a trans-district council study is required, because specific district councils are too small. That study will highlight one of the most scenic parts of Ireland—the mountains of Mourne, allied to St. Patrick's country. With reference to the comments made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), we have enough Roman/ Welsh/English evangelists, and were quite happy with the one that we had in 432. Perhaps one of South Down's great tourist attractions is the ancestral home of the Earl of Kilmorey. However, I will leave that subject for another night.
  I have a number of brief questions to ask the Minister. Will the board inform local government of the consequences of the details of registration? Will the fee really relate to the market? Will there be clarification in respect of farmhouses and private houses? Will accommodation grants be made directly available to develop that sector, and will there be full co-operation with Bord Failte promotions, publicity, and scheme sharing? Finally, will the tourist board share with local government responsibility for fully developing employment in Northern Ireland's tourist industry?
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Needham: We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate, involving no fewer thant 73 questions of detail. That goes some way towards proving a point on which we all agree—that the Order in Council system is not the best way to conduct these matters. That, however, is a matter for Opposition Members to decide in the talks to which they have referred: they can decide how they wish to reach an agreed change in the current procedure.
  I shall try, in the limited time available, to answer the points that have been made. If I cannot do so now, I will write to hon. Members in full. If they then wish to discuss their points with me, I shall, as always, be only too delighted to see them for that purpose, rather than discussing any of the other political matters that may be mentioned in the papers.
  I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for his kind comments. I join him in congratulating Commissioner Millan on the way in which he has supported Northern Ireland whenever we have visited him to talk about the application for grant from the EC. Some £30 million is now being made available by the EC up to 1993–94, plus an additional £7 million under "Interreg", which will go both north and south. Some £100 million will be spent on tourism over the next five years. That is an enormous sum being spent on what I consider to be an important way of promoting Northen Ireland's economy. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is going to take his holiday on the Ballyconnell canal. Perhaps while he is there he can explain to the few he meets who may wish to join his party why they will not be able to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the fall-off in visitors from the United States. There is no such fall-off; indeed,
  782
  this year there has been a modest increase in the number of visitors from North America. Northern Ireland is the only region in the British Isles to have achieved such a result, and I feel that we should congratulate everyone in Northern Ireland who managed to make such a success of it.
  District councils have a crucial role to play in the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. They already have an enormously successful record. We need only see the history park of Gortin, or visit Kinnego bay, Castle Archdale or Enniskillen—and a whole range of facilities that many of us have visited with our families—to observe the professionalism and competence exercised by district councils. They may raise as much money as they wish for such tourist measures—here I should also mention the Triad scheme in Armagh—in the knowledge that grants will be available from the EC, the International Fund for Ireland or even the tourist board.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) talked about the bad media. I think that he was being modest in using such language. He was extremely eloquent about the history of Northern Ireland; perhaps only Finn McCool would have been upset, as he was not given a mention. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are changing the law on litter: we are tightening it up. I believe that one way in which we can improve litter collection is to examine the organisation that local government currently applies.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) suggested that the tourist board was a quango. Like its English, Scottish and Welsh counterparts, it is; the point is that we are setting up a board which, whatever the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) may say, is staffed by people eminently qualified to undertake the job of planning, structuring and seeing through a tourist strategy for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Down said that four marketing people were involved. We need marketing people when it comes to selling Northern Ireland, but the chairman of the board has a long professional background of providing the highest grade of tourist amenities.
  The hon. Members for Antrim, South is quite right that the head of Department is the permanent secretary. Under the relevant legislation, that has always been the case. However, the Minister does not just stand quietly by—in a "Yes, Minister" scenario—waiting for the permanent secretary to tell him what to do. The phraseology to which the hon. Gentleman referred is used in planning legislation also. The Department's responsibility is the Minister's responsibility.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if each of the 1,300 public houses in Northern Ireland were to provide two bedrooms, the amount of accommodation for tourists could be almost doubled? Might it not therefore be prudent to include in the Northern Ireland tourist board a representative of the retail licensed trade? That vital part of the tourist industry ought to be properly represented.
  Mr. Needham: I take my hon. Friend's point. Mr. Lavery, who is on the Northern Ireland tourist board, runs the Guinness operation in Northern Ireland, so he has some interest in these matters.
  The point that I want to make goes to the crux of points that were made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South

  783
  and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—whether councils should have a right to representation on the board. I do not accept that they should, although that does not necessarily mean that there should not be a councillor on the board. There is no reason why there should not be. provided that his concern is what is best for Northern Ireland as a whole. In my view, councillors must concern themselves more with the ever-increasing number of amenities being developed in their areas. As I have said already, some councils have done extremely well. but many could do better. I believe that over the years the number of amenities throughout Northern Ireland will increase. It is up to the councillors and their officials to ensure success in that field.
  The Northern Ireland tourist board should be as independent of Government as possible. Its job is to bring together an overall tourist strategy for Northern Ireland—a strategy whereby provision is not duplicated unnecessarily, financial priorities are set, and money is put into schemes to which everybody can subscribe.
  The hon. Member for South Down said that, unfortunately, not enough attention was paid to consultation machinery and how it would work. That is something that will have to evolve. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast. East that the process had not always been as good as it might have been, but that does not mean that it will not improve. I do not want to put ropes around those involved in the consultative process by telling them that they have to do things in one particular way or another. As I have said, the first meeting in February 1991 was very successful. I do not want to define matters too tightly.
  What is a tourist amenity? I should prefer to leave that to be worked out by the board. Of course, a tourist amenity should he primarily for tourist development. I have no wish to shackle local authorities in the development of facilities, which may have a large tourist element or a not-so-large tourist element. I want to see those thousand flowers bloom.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that we should not have a strategy for the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland. From the surveys that have been carried out, we know that a large number of people want to come to Northern Ireland and to see a positive image of the Province. Those who have visited the Province love it and want to come back. This order gives us the means to make that possible, to set the standards and to provide the certification and registration facilities. It pumps in the money, and it gives everyone a role in the achievement of the objective. This is a very important means of increasing employment in Northern Ireland, improving the image of the Province, and making sure that its beautiful countryside and excellent facilities are made available to a greater number of people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.

  Metrolink (Greater Manchester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  11.39 pm
  Sir Fergus Montgomery: I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on an issue that is causing great concern to many of my constituents. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport will hear a rather sorry story.
  On 1 November 1991, notices appeared in local papers to say that the direct rail service between Altrincham and Manchester would cease from Christmas eve until the middle of April 1992, when the metrolink would take over. The estimated period of closure from Christmas eve until April 17 is considered by many people in my constituency to be too long, especially as it had been announced initially that the changeover period would be only two to three weeks. Because I was concerned about that, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. I received a reply from him on 27 November in which he said:
  "I am aware of the delays mentioned by your constituent, which I understand are due to late delivery of rolling stock as well as engineering adjustments to ensure adequate clearance along the line. I understand however that the Passenger Transport Executive are confident"—
  I emphasise the word "confident"—
  "that the new timetable for the opening of the project will be met. The Bury to Victoria line will open in February, the city centre section in March and the Altrincham to Piccadilly section in April."
  So much for his confidence: I am told that today at a press conference it was announced that the opening had been delayed even further.
  During the interval, when there are no trains on the direct route from Altrincham to Manchester Piccadilly, people are being asked to use a replacement bus service. No doubt, some people will decide that they will go to their place of work in Manchester by car. Many commuters in my constituency travel from Altrincham to Manchester for work. Whether they go by bus or by car, it will mean more traffic on roads which are already overcrowded. Going by bus will add considerably to the length of time that will be spent travelling, which is not an especially attractive proposition for many people.
  Throughout the argument, the one ray of hope was the Chester to Manchester railway, which would still be operating. That railway goes from Chester to Hale. Altrincham. The service would make a call at Navigation Road, go across to Stockport and on to Manchester. I had hoped that at peak times that service could be increased or, if that were not possible, at least trains with a higher passenger capacity could be provided.
  To push things along, I wrote to Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, on 16 December 1991. I thought that I wrote quite a reasonable letter, because I said:
  "I am very concerned about the fact that the Metrolink in my area is running behind schedule. All trains on the commuter service from Manchester to Altrincham will cease on Christmas Eve and the Metrolink is not due to start until mid-April at the earliest. I shudder to think of the consequences with all that extra traffic on the roads.
  I am told that there are going to be meetings this week and I am wondering if British Rail could perhaps run more trains through peak hours on the Chester to Manchester Piccadilly service? These trains would halt at Hale, Altrincham. Navigation Road, and then go straight across to Stockport and Manchester. This at least would be of great help for many of the people in the area and take some cars off the road.

  785
  There is a degree of urgency here and I should be most grateful if you could let me know whether this is feasible."
  That was on 16 December. I got a quick reply, dated 18
  December, from Keith Hill, the parliamentary relations assistant, who said:
  "The Chairman has asked me to thank you for your letter of the 16 December. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible."
  Lo and behold, this morning I got that reply. It was a copy of a letter sent to the chief executive of Trafford council on 19 December which said:
  "Many thanks for your letter of 16 December."
  So the chief executive of Trafford council wrote on exactly the same day that I wrote to the chairman of British Rail. The letter went on to say:
  "The Manchester-Sale-Altrincham railway line is operated by British Rail in our role as contractor to Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, who are responsible for both policy and funding.
  Greater Manchester PTE have asked us to cease operations on this route on 24 December to allow the new operator, Greater Manchester Metro Limited, to carry out conversion works. I note your concern about the length of time which these works will take, but am unable to comment as this is a matter for Greater Manchester Metro Limited.
  The Manchester-Stockport-Altrincham-Hale route is also operated by us as a contractor on behalf of Greater Manchester PTE. Discussions have taken place between ourselves and Greater Manchester PTE in respect of the possibility of provision of extra services and/or capacity on this route, but I have to advise you that Greater Manchester PTE have decided that they are unable to fund such extra provision.
  I trust this answers the points you have raised."
  In his covering letter, Sir Bob Reid said:
  "I am sure you will agree that this is self-explanatory and there is nothing I can usefully add, other than to say that Metrolink plan to run replacement buses in advance of their new train services."
  It is strange that, having received an acknowledgment on 18 December, I had to wait until this morning for a reply from Sir Bob Reid, which was a copy of a letter dated 19 December 1991 that had been sent to Trafford council. It took four weeks to send me a copy of a letter written three days after my original letter. That does not reek of efficiency in British Rail.
  I am concerned about the end of that letter and the PTE's decision not to fund extra train services but instead to rely entirely on a replacement bus service. I am sure that whoever made the decision is not a commuter in my constituency who must travel to work in Manchester every day. I wonder why the travelling public in my area were not considered or asked for their opinions before a decision was made. If only there had been more forethought, some of the inconvenience could have been avoided.
  I still maintain that increased use of the Chester to Manchester route would have avoided some of the congestion that we are now experiencing. I agree that that route does not offer too much comfort to my constituents, who use the stations between Altrincham and Manchester Piccadilly. I feared that buses would fill up in the Altrincham area, which would have made things intolerable for people who wanted to board at intermediary points. More people using the Chester to Altrincham and Manchester line would have allowed more space on the replacement bus service, but somewhere along the line somebody in authority decided otherwise.
  786
  Another snag for people using the replacement bus service is that buses terminate not at Piccadilly station but at Chatham street in Machester. I have asked a number of my constituents who are regular travellers for their comments. The letters that I have received make interesting reading. There have been continual comments about the difficulties for people who need to get to Piccadilly station to journey to other parts of the country.
  A constituent told me of a friend who took her mother to Piccadilly station so that her mother could return to Halifax. They used the bus service because there was no train service and were alarmed to end up not at Piccadilly station but down a pokey back street well away from the station. It is believed that that stop will cause considerable hardship to elderly and disabled people in the area. If we have a spell of bad weather in the next few weeks, my constituents will suffer much more inconvenience.
  The length of time taken to make the journey by bus will make the working day much longer and will cause difficulty at places of employment, with people arriving late through no fault of their own. A lady in my constituency, part of a one-parent family, says that by using the train service before Christmas she could arrange to put her child in a nursery school, get the train to Manchester, do her job, catch a train back and at the end of the working day be fairly certain of the time she could collect her child from the nursery school.
  That has all disappeared. The lady tells me that she has tried the Chester to Manchester route and that the trains are extremely crowded, with standing room only at peak hours. Another constituent told me that, on 6 January, last Monday, the 8.15 am train from Altrincham had about 170 people standing in addition to the 150 who were seated. He believed that to be well in excess of the maximum recommended loads. He echoes the point of so many travellers in asking why no extra carriages have been provided on the Chester to Manchester route. I hope that my hon. Friend can take that up with British Rail. My constituent also poses the pertinent question why the passenger transport executive asked the transport users consultative committee to collect objections and report back to it, when it appears to have ignored every recommendation.
  If urgent action is not taken, more people will use their own cars, causing even more congestion on the roads. One man told me that he has decided to use his car because the journey takes so long by bus. He has found three other people to take the other seats in his car and they share the cost of parking, which apparently makes it cheaper than any form of public transport. When metrolink finally functions, people like those four are likely to decide that, instead of using it, they will continue travelling in a car together and sharing the costs. With the long delay in metrolink reopening, there is a danger that other passengers will take the same action.
  As my hon. Freind may have guessed, I am unhappy—that is an understatement—about the situation. Those responsible for metrolink must listen to the legitimate complaints of the travelling public. Once the conversion period is over, many potential passengers may have made other arrangements, as have the four people whom I mentioned. Metrolink will have to think carefully about fare levels and I hope that they will be no higher than the existing fares.
  I hope that, in the immediate future, metrolink will monitor the situation to find out the main difficulties

  787
  facing people trying to get into the city of Manchester and that it will alleviate some of the inconvenience caused. Even at this late stage, I hope that metrolink talks to British Rail, in the hope of strengthening the AltrinchamStockport-Manchester route. If more of the trains called at Navigation Road after the Altrincham stop, at the very least the situation would be improved, with more and more people using the route and easing the congestion for other passengers along the line.
  I hope that tonight my hon. Friend can assure me that the situation will be monitored and that, if the PTE finds that action is needed, urgent action will be taken to alleviate as much hardship and inconvenience as possible for my constituents.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. David Sumberg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) for allowing me a brief intervention in this debate.
  My constituents welcome metrolink, but they are disappointed that the original start date in November has now been postponed to February or March. They want it quickly because it will undoubtedly improve the links through my constituency into Manchester where many go for business, leisure and work.
  A couple of lessons about the construction of the link through Bury can be learnt. The Minister should take note of them and pass them on to the Greater Manchester passenger transport executive. First, the times of construction are important. Many of my constituents have houses backing on to the line and they were caused a great deal of inconvenience by construction going on until very late at night. Those of us who have or have had young families know the difficulties that that can cause. In future, when such lines are constructed, we should try to limit construction to times that will not cause such disturbance.
  Secondly, it is important to heed the lesson about the alternative transport that should be provided. When the rail link to Manchester from Bury was discontinued during construction, alternative bus services were provided for rail link users. That was a satisfactory arrangement, but the bus service was not additional to existing services, which were merely re-routed.
  Many of my constituents, particularly those in Prestwich, lost services that they had used hitherto. Many were elderly and they suddenly discovered that the bus service that they had used to get them into Prestwich and to parts of Manchester was no longer available. They suffered a great deal as a result. I pay tribute to their fortitude and I pay particular tribute to Mrs. Rachel Lawton, who has been vigorous in the defence of those passengers. Sadly, the passenger transport executive has not made proper alternative arrangements and my constituents have been caused a great deal of hardship this winter. I hope that that hardship is coming to an end.
  As a result of those lessons, I hope that, in the future, others will not have to suffer similar problems.
  11.56 pm
  The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLouglin): I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) on starting the new season of Adjournment debates. I know that my hon. Friend the
  788
  Member for Altrincham and Sale has taken a keen interest in this matter on behalf of his constituents, which he has often pursued with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Before I respond in detail to the points that my hon. Friend has raised, I should like to say something about the Manchester metrolink scheme.
  Most people recognise that the light railway scheme, which is nearing completion, will mark a major improvement in Manchester's transport infrastructure. First, it will replace existing British Rail services from Bury and Altrincham with a fast, modern and comfortable light rail system. The British Rail stock being used along those lines needed replacement, and I am sure that passengers will be more than happy with the modern, light rail vehicles which are to come into service soon.
  Secondly, the system will, in addition, link those two services to the heart of the city centre via a new street—running section, with seven new stations. Access to the city centre, and between the north and south of the city, will he greatly improved. That is likely to play a part in encouraging motorists to travel by metrolink rather than by car, so reducing congestion and pollution. However, I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale said in this respect and I shall deal with it later.
  Thirdly, the system will provide a direct link to BR's main line station at Piccadilly when that section opens in June, which will be of great benefit to many travellers. Fourthly, the system will be accessible to mobility-impaired people, whereas the existing services are not. All the railway stations are being upgraded, with ramps and lifts provided to allow mobility-impaired people to have access to the vehicles. In the street-running section through the city centre, profiled platforms will enable the vehicles to be accessible. Those features will help not only mobility-impaired people but also those with prams, luggage or heavy shopping.
  This £135 million project has required a great deal of preparation and effort on the part of all concerned—principally Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and executive, and the Greater Manchester Metro Ltd., which won the contract to design, build and operate the system. The project could not have gone ahead without the substantial grant of £53 million provided by the Government.
  I know from my visit to the light rail exhibition in Manchester last November that the system has attracted wide interest and attention, not just in this country, and is likely to attract visitors to the city in the months and years ahead, as well as being of great benefit to local residents.
  I have gone into the advantages of the system in some detail because it is essential to be aware of those when considering delays to the system's opening, so that those delays can be put into their proper context. I have a great deal of sympathy with the position of some of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, which he has so eloquently described, and also with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South on construction. There are lessons to be learned. Light rail schemes are being promoted throughout the country and I hope that we can learn from some of the points he made, because construction can be annoying and irritating for people if it is done at the wrong time of day. I shall ensure that other people's attention is drawn to that point.
  It is not surprising that, with a project on this scale with so many new features, unforseen problems can arise, and

  789
  timetables can, unfortunately, prove over-optimistic. It is of course vital, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, that the system should be subject to the most stringent safety requirements, and should not be opened until all those requirements have been properly satisfied. I do not think that there will be any difference between us on that.
  The delays are nevertheless extremely regrettable, and it is disappointing, to say the least, that the first section will not open until early March. The project is the PTE's responsibility, as promoter of the scheme, and the contractor is responsible to the PTE. However, I will try to outline what I understand from the PTE to be the main reasons for the delays.
  First, the Bury line, which was inherited from British Rail, required more work to be done on it than was originally anticipated by the contractors. In particular, a proportion of the track had to be renewed, and the amount of bridge refurbishment work which was needed was greater than had been expected. Secondly, the delivery of the vehicles, which are being supplied by Firema of Italy, was later than scheduled, with consequent delays to the rest of the timetable. Thirdly, the task of ensuring that there were adequate clearances for the vehicles along the street-running section through the city centre was more extensive that first thought.
  Fourthly, there were other works as a result of safety requirements, in particular containment works at Piccadilly Undercroft and Victoria Stations. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that there should be no skimping on safety, and some of those problems have taken longer to solve than was anticipated. Fifthly, the amount of work that needed to be done on the Altrincham line was undersestimated by the contractor. As a result, it has had to be closed for longer than originally envisaged, and British Rail was unable to give the contractors much by way of access before the line closed.
  It is for the PTE to comment in detail On the relative importance of these and other factors, but it will come as no surprise to anyone who has been involved in a major construction project, with so many novel aspects, that there should be some delays owing to unforeseen circumstances.
  Even without those delays, however, I understand that it would have been necessary to close the existing lines for up to three months, in the case of the Bury line, to enable the work on metrolink to be completed. Inconvenient though this may be, for a major project of that sort, some disruption is inevitable.
  I turn now to the difficulties being experienced by some of my hon. Friend's constituents, and to the action that has been taken to minimise them. I recognise that, during the transitional period between the closure of the British Rail services and the opening of metrolink, travellers have experienced and will continue to experience some disruption. However, I am assured that the PTE is doing everything possible to try to minimise the inconvenience to passengers.
  In the case of the Bury line, which closed in August, passengers can use replacement bus services. I understand that the PTE carried out a detailed survey of passengers' needs before drawing up its plans for those services. The bus services were then organised as a mixture of limited stop express services and services that stop at all points
  790
  previously served by the railway, so that passengers can choose the service that best meets their needs. I am told that, although these routes were put out to tender, operators agreed to run them commercially, without the need for any financial support from the PTE.
  I understand that, for most passengers, the increase in journey times experienced has not been as great as expected. and that road congestion has not been a major problem. I am told that very few complaints have been received by either the PTE or by the Transport Users Consultative Committee, and I should add that my Department has not received a single complaint about the replacement bus services on the Bury line since the BR service closed. That shows one area in which the PTE went to a great deal of trouble.
  In the case of Altrincham, I understand that the PTE is confident that the replacement bus services provided will also be sufficient to meet the demand, and will provide an adequate, albeit not an ideal, substitute for the rail service in the short term. I recognise that the circumstances of the Altrincham line are such that passengers transferring from rail to bus are likely to experience a significant increase in their journey times, in contrast to the position on the Bury line. It is too early to judge the extent of this increase, as it is only a week since most people returned to work following the Christmas break.
  I am sure that the PTE will carefully consider any representations about the adequacy of the replacement bus services and will consider whether any improvements or changes are needed. My hon. Friend has described some of the many inconveniences that some of his constituents have already felt, and I will ensure that those complaints are passed on. I will ask the PTE to investigate ways in which to improve that service.
  My hon. Friend has also described the problems of his constituents who use the alternative rail route via Stockport. and he has made some suggestions for alleviating them. I will ask the PTE to explore further with British Rail the practicability of that.
  I recognise that, in the short term, there has been a regrettable disruption to the travelling public, given that there is an interval of several months between the closure of BR's services and the opening of metrolink. I believe, however, that the PTE has done a great deal to try to minimise the inconvenience to passengers. I realise that my hon. Friend is not convinced of that at present, and that he feels that a lot more needs to be done. We must ensure that we both make representations to the PTE to see whether we can go some way to help his constituents and those who have to travel on the line.
  From the information available to me, it seems that the arrangements made by the PTE have worked well on the Bury line. I hope that that will also be the case eventually on the Altrincham line and, as I have said, I am sure that the PTE will consider any representations made by my hon. Friend and his constituents most carefully.
  I believe that any difficulties that passengers have experienced during the transitional period are a small price to pay for the introduction of a modern and innovative scheme from which they will benefit—a system which will he much studied and admired by cities elsewhere in this country and abroad when it is complete.
  Although I understand why some people may choose to use their cars during the interim period. I am confident that, when metrolink is up and running, it will soon win them back. It is essential that it does so, because one of the

  791
  ideas behind the scheme is to try to relieve some of the congestion and to provide a good, reliable transport service for my hon. Friend's constituents and for the other people in and around the area. When metrolink opens over the next few months, it will provide a major improvement to Manchester's transport network of which the city can justly be proud.
  We have been told tonight of a number of examples of improvements that can be made as other light railway schemes come to the fore and as suggestions are made. I will ensure that those are passed on so that the changes can be made and so that the lessons can be learned, because a number of places, such as Sheffield and the midlands, are
  792
  considering such a scheme. They will look with envy to Manchester, because it will have the first scheme up and running.
  I am sure that, when it is up and running properly, my hon. Friend's constituents will be well satisfied with the vast amount of Government money which has been put into the scheme to ensure a good and effective transport system for all those in the constituencies of my hon. Friends.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Court
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General whether the Lord Chancellor intends to amend or clarify the law in order to ensure that the intentions of the House of Commons are not frustrated by courts imposing requirements which are contingent on the outcome of an unresolved appeal to the European Court.

  The Attorney-General
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Kirklees Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd in which it was held that the council was required to give a cross-undertaking in damages when seeking, by means of an interlocutory injunction, to enforce the Shops Act 1950. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on this decision because it is shortly to be appealed to the House of Lords.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will seek an early date for the hearing in the European Court of Justice on the alleged conflict between article 30 of the treaty of Rome and United Kingdom legislation on Sunday trading.

  The Attorney-General
  The United Kingdom has asked the European Court of Justice for an early date for the hearing of this issue.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his statement of 27 November,Official Report, column 918, if he will seek clarification from the European Court on the obscure reference in its decision in the Torfaen case, to which he referred, and in particular of those comments which have been interpreted as implying a conflict between United Kingdom Sunday trading legislation and article 30 of the treaty of Rome.

  The Attorney-General
  In two current cases on Sunday trading the United Kingdom has submitted observations to the European Court of Justice which discuss the effect of previous decisions of the court.

  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects the European Court of Justice to reach a decision on Sunday trading; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The European Court of Justice has not yet fixed a date for the hearing of the references by English courts, but the United Kingdom has asked for an early hearing.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Job Satisfaction
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent representations he has received from civil service unions on job satisfaction.

  Mr. Renton
  I meet civil service unions from time to time to discuss a variety of issues. It is the job of managers in departments and agencies to achieve our aim of having an efficient, effective and well-motivated civil service.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will commission research to update the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service report into how to identify and overcome barriers to fair employment across the civil service.

  Mr. Renton
  That report focused on the Department of Employment group. Similar recommendations were incorporated into the civil service programme for action on race, launched in 1990. Last month my department published the first progress report. It showed that departments and agencies have made a good start. The Government are determined to see further progress in this area.

THE ARTS

  Music Training
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will visit Wales to discuss music training.

  Mr. Renton
  I visited Wales in May and October last year, and shall be visiting the Principality again on 21 February to attend a performance by Welsh National Opera of "Pelleas and Melisande". Musical training in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales; but I should be pleased to discuss any matters falling within my own remit.

  Theatre Visits
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when he next intends to visit the northern region to visit theatres.

  Mr. Renton
  I visited the northern region twice last year, and I hope to do so again soon. I will be happy to consider invitations to theatres in the region as part of that visit.

  Artistic Heritage
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about his proposals to retain the country's artistic heritage in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  I have received a number of representations on the approach suggested by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and on the other option which I floated as an alternative. I look forward to receiving further representations by the end of March.

  Business Sponsorship
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about business sponsorship of the arts.

  Mr. Renton
  Business sponsorship of the arts is holding up extremely well. Last year £44·5 million was attracted. I have now increased the budget for the business sponsorship incentive scheme, by £1 million, to £4·5 million from 1992–93, to sustain the growth of sponsorship which makes a vital contribution to the well-being of the arts in this country.

ENVIRONMENT

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a system of independent and objective evaluation of competitive tenders for the provision of local authority services, in cases where private sector agencies are in competition with direct labour organisations.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have no proposals to remove the responsibility for tender evaluation from local authorities. Our approach is set out in the consultation document "Competing for Quality—Competition in the provision of local services", published on 5 November. We expect our proposals to result in a clearer and fairer framework for compulsory competitive tendering.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the quality of service performance indicators adopted by each of his Department's executive agencies since their establishment; and separately identify those quality of service performance indicators already operative prior to agency status.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The following quality of service performance indicators have been adopted in each of my executive agencies. Unless otherwise specified, they have been adopted since the establishment of the agency.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre: The key quality of service performance indicators arc customer ratings of service in each functional area. These are measured by means of a detailed questionnaire presentation, catering facilities, overall value for money and the client's willingness to use the Centre again.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency: The key quality of service performance indicators are visitors' ratings for enjoyment, value for money, and helpfulness of staff, which are measured by regular surveys of customer satisfaction. The customer survey programme started in 1988, one year ahead of Agency status.

  Building Research Establishment: The current quality of service indicators are fulfilment of customer commissions (monitored by a sample survey); adherence to timescales for delivery of contracted outputs; and adherence to customer budgets.

  Ordnance Survey1The key quality of service performance indicators are to publish on microfilm within three months, each large scale map meeting the criteria and specification for reproduction, and to despatch within seven working days (including the day the order is received) 90 per cent. of orders for 1:50,000 folded maps. The first indicator was tightened from four to three months after the first year of the Agency's operation.

  The Buying Agency: This agency was launched on 31 October 1991. Performance indicators have yet to be agreed, and
  418
  are expected to cover comparative prices for key product and service ranges, response and delivery times, and complaints.

  1 The Ordnance Survey is a separate Government Department

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the first degree obtained by the chief executive of each of his Department's executive agencies; and from which university or polytechnic it was awarded.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information is as follows.

  Agency

  Subject

  University

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Law

  London

  Building Research Establishment

  Natural Science Tripos

  Cambridge

  Ordnance Survey1

  Technology

  Brunel

  The Buying Agency

  Geography with Geology

  Bristol

  1 The Ordnance Survey is a separate Government Department for which I have ministerial responsibility.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff were in post on the date that each of his Department's executive agencies was established; and how many staff are in post now in each case.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information is as follows:

  Agency

  In post at launch

  In post on 1 December 1991

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  64·0

  65

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  344·0

  372

  Building Research Establishment

  684·5

  707

  Ordnance Survey1

  2,518·0

  2,373

  The Buying Agency

  115·0

  115

  1 The Ordnance Survey is a separate Government Department for which I have ministerial responsibility.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was spent on events and publicity surrounding the launch of each of his Department's executive agencies; and whether the cost was borne by the parent department or the new agency.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information is as follows:

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre—since the Centre had already been successfully launched as a commercial organisation for nearly 3 years before it became an Executive Agency there was no special launch.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency—was launched with a press conference and a modest event for staff at each Palace. The Department contributed £366 and the Agency £150.

  Building Research Establishment—the Agency bore the total cost of £7,000.

  Ordnance Survey1—the Agency bore the cost from its running cost provision and did not exceed £5,000.

  The Buying Agency—the Agency bore the total cost of £25,000.

  1 The Ordnance Survey is a separate Government Department for which I am responsible.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the post, grade and maximum salary payable, including performance-related elements, in each case where appointments from the private sector have been made to his Department's executive agencies at grade 7 or above, since their establishment.
  419
  Mr. Heseltine
  The information is as follows:

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre—one appointment at Grade 7 level.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency—apart from the Chief Executive three at Grades 5/6 and two appointments at Grade 7.

  Building Research Establishment—five appointments at Grade 7.

  Ordnance Survey1—apart from the Chief Executive, one appointment at Grade 6.

  The Buying Agency—none.

  The salaries including performance elements of each appointment in each executive agency are appropriate to the relevant civil service grade.

  1 The Ordnance Survey is a separate Government Department for which I am responsible.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether a group bonus scheme is in operation in each of his Department's executive agencies.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the last annual report for each of his Department's executive agencies was published; and when the next one is due.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those new facilities for staff nurseries and health care schemes which have been introduced in each of his Department's executive agencies since their establishment.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the new forms of alternative working patterns introduced into each of his Department's executive agencies since their establishment; and provide a breakdown by grade of the number of staff taking up each new working pattern for each new agency.

  Mr. Heseltine
  These are matters for which each chief executive has day-to-day management responsibility. I am therefore asking each chief executive—including that of the Ordnance Survey, which is a separate Government Department for which I have ministerial responsibility—to write to the hon. Member. A copy of their letters will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum salary payable to the chief executive of each of his Department's executive agencies, including performance-related element, and the length of time of the chief executive's contract in each case.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information is as follows:

  Agency

  Maximum salary

  Length of contract

  £

  Years

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  55,490

  25

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  59,000

  5

  Building Research Establishment

  57,300

  5

  Ordnance Survey1

  55,700

  3

  The Buying Agency

  56,300

  3

  1 The Ordnance Survey is a separate Government Department for which I have ministerial responsibility.

  2 Extended to just over 7 years.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total amounts unpaid by the Property Services Agency to contractors for work 420
  completed which remain outstanding for periods in excess of (a) two years, (b) three years, (c) four years and (d) five years.

  Mr. Yeo
  PSA Services' policy is to make payment promptly as soon as this is due under the terms of the contract; payment will normally be made within 30 days of the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Final accounts on major projects often contain claims by contractors for additional costs claimed to be outside the contractor's control. Substantiating these claims can be a slow process. Interim payments are made as sums are justified, but overall the average settlement figure is only 20 per cent. of the original amount claimed. Because of the complex nature of contractors' claims it is not possible to say with any accuracy how much will eventually be paid to contractors for claims currently being discussed and negotiated.

  Business Rates, Southend
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average cost for an appeal against business rate valuations in Southend.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In England the average cost in 1990–91 to the Inland Revenue Valuation Office of handling proposals by ratepayers to alter rating lists is estimated at approximately £230. Separate figures for Southend are not available.

  The average cost to the Essex valuation and community charge tribunals—VCCT—of dealing with all types of appeal is estimated at approximately £100 per appeal cleared in 1990–91.

  These costs are not, of course, borne by the appellant, though in the case of appeals beyond the VCCT to the Lands Tribunal costs may be awarded.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department first contacted the director general of the Forestry Protection and Nature Conservation Authority in Indonesia requesting information on CITES annex C2 species; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have had no direct contact with the Indonesian authorities. I understand that the European Commission wrote to them in 1987, and again in 1988, 1990 and, most recently, on 2 December this year. Officials from the Commission and the CITES secretariat have also discussed wildlife issues with the Indonesian authorities.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of appeals for opencast sites his Department has granted since 1980 to British Coal and private companies, the names of the companies, and the location of the sites.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested is available only in respect of decisions issued since 1 April 1987. The Department's records show that the number of planning appeals granted for opencast sites in each financial year were as follows:
  421

  Planning Authority

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Bolton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  County Durham

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Huntingdon

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Staffordshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  7

  8

  8

  9

  7

  1 1 April 1991–30 November 1991

  Details of companies involved and the precise location of each site are not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member when the information has been collected.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what initiatives his Department has undertaken to encourage construction firms (i) to ensure maximum standards of energy efficiency in buildings and (ii) to use energy efficient materials;

  (2) if he will review all aspects of the Building Regulations and codes of practice with a particular view to improving the long-term durability of construction and energy efficiency;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to adopt new standards for house building and introduce a requirement for all newly built, converted or renovated properties to undergo energy audits.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Building Regulations and codes of practice are kept under review. The Department supports a programme of research at the Building Research Establishment and elsewhere with annual expenditure of £10 million.

  Provisions in the Building Regulations for higher standards of energy efficiency came into force in April last year. The Government are committed to seeing how these standards could be further strengthened, including improved provisions when properties are converted or renovated.

  A Government "standard assessment procedure" for comparing home energy labels was introduced on 18 December. It is our intention that this system should be developed to enable it to be incorporated into the Building Regulations when these are next amended.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has any plans to carry out an audit of low-income households to identify the steps needed to make homes energy efficient.

  Changes between years in the standard spending assessments for Shropshire

  Education

  Personal social services

  All services

  Year

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1989–90–1990–91

  6·048

  5·0

  3·048

  15·4

  13·609

  7·0

  1990–91–1991–92

  17·274

  13·5

  4·808

  21·3

  33·698

  16·1

  1991–92–1992–93

  8·522

  5·9

  2·505

  9·2

  13·945

  5·8

  422
  Mr. Yeo
  The 1991 English house condition survey will include an "energy audit" of dwellings in the sample and record achieved room temperatures and fuel consumption. It will provide an estimate of the energy efficiency of the housing stock, including the homes of low-income households, and the measures needed to make dwellings energy efficient.

  A13, Havering
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the decision of the public inquiry on the routing of the A13 trunk road through Havering.

  Mr. Yeo
  The decision will be announced when the inspector's report has been considered in conjunction with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Defective Housing
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds he has made available to enable London boroughs to buy back from right-to-buy owners houses found to have concrete cancer.

  Mr. Yeo
  Authorities may choose whether to repurchase or repair dwellings designated under housing defects legislation. Annual housing investment programme HIP—allocations take account of numbers of unreinstated designated dwellings reported by authorities. Recently announced 1992–93 HIP allocations for London boroughs included £56·7 million for specified capital grants, of which £3·7 million was allowed for housing defects obligations. These are notional, indicative figures, and authorities may spend more, or less, according to their statutory obligations. Exchequer contributions are paid to meet 75 per cent of the net cost of repurchases or repairs.

  Standard Spending Assessment, Shropshire
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total and percentage increase over the previous year for the standard spending assessment for Shropshire for 1990–91, 1991–92, and 1992–93 in respect of education, personal services, and total expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The increases for 1990–91 are based on a comparison with 1989–90 grant-related expenditure assessments adjusted to take account of changes in authorities' responsibilities between the two years. Those for 1992–93 are based on the provisional standard spending assessments announced on 26 November 1991.

  Waste Incinerators
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to release the results of the linked planning inquiry into the siting of merchant chemical waste incinerators on Teesside and Tyneside.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend will release the results of the three linked incinerator inquiries on Teesside and Tyneside, along with his decision on the applications, as soon as it is practicable to do so.

  Mental Handicap
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the Mencap document regarding the charging for, and provision of, day care centre and educational facility plans for mentally handicapped people.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes.

  Homelessness (Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department proposes to give to those charitable organisations which provide shelter to homeless people in the Greater Manchester area over the Christmas period.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1991–92, the Government are providing £4·5 million in grants to voluntary organisations throughout England for practical projects to prevent and relieve homelessness. This will rise to £6·1 million in 1992–93—an increase in real terms of around 30 per cent. Among the projects currently funded are three in Greater Manchester—Hulme Action Research Project, SHADES City Centre Project and the Selcare Trust.

  The concentrations of rough sleepers in individual local authority areas outside London are comparatively small and I would expect individual local authorities to make emergency provision for people sleeping out in their areas.

  Woolwich Common Estate
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much is to be spent on improvements to the Woolwich Common estate; how much is Government funded; when the homes were built; and what the spending is, averaged across the number of dwellings and the number of residents.

  Mr. Yeo
  I recently approved, under the 1991–92 estate action programme, a scheme on the Woolwich Common estate totalling £9·910 million. Estate action resources will contribute £5·527 million or 56 per cent. of the total scheme costs and will help to improve the living conditions in 688 of the 1,350 dwellings on the estate. The best estimate that we have of the number of residents affected is 2,000. Woolwich Common was built in four phases between 1968 and 1981. Under the proposed scheme a 93-dwelling Bison tower block, built under phase I, will benefit from improved heating, insulation and communal facilities. The security problems of 488 low-rise flats, which were among the last buildings to be constructed on the site, will also be addressed. The scheme also involves reroofing and rewiring these dwellings and others. The average costs per unit for all dwellings included in the scheme is £14,500.
  424
  The scheme will be completed over four years and is the second phase of a large-scale programme of works on the estate which has already attracted £3·5 million in estate action funding.

  Council Tenants (House Purchases)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which inner London boroughs have not applied for central funds to give help equivalent to the right-to-buy discount to council tenants who wish to purchase a home elsewhere.

  Mr. Yeo
  In 1991–92, 28 London boroughs are running approved cash incentive schemes and are issuing grants under section 129 of the Housing act 1988 to enable council tenants who could not otherwise do so, to buy a home in the private sector. All are utilising resources made available under the 1991–92 homeless initiative. The five London housing authorities that have not applied to operate a scheme are Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, City of London, Greenwich and Newham.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether landlords of houses in multiple occupation will be liable for the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  Yes. We intend to include the necessary provisions in regulations under clause 8 of the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether students in households where the landlord is liable for payment of the council tax and passed on this cost through higher rents will be eligible for compensation through a rebate system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Most students do not have access to housing benefit; nor will they be entitled to council tax benefit. However, properties where all the residents are students will be exempt from the council tax. There will be a 25 per cent. discount in respect of any property with only one non-student resident. These arrangements will apply regardless of whether the students or their landlord would be the liable person.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the landlords of student halls of residence will be exempt from liability for the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  The Government intend to make an order under clause 4 of the Local Government Finance Bill exempting student halls of residence from the council tax. We are presently discussing the details of this exemption with the local authority associations.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the system of personal discounts for the council tax will be implemented in relation to full-time students.

  Mr. Key
  The Local Government Finance Bill provides for students to be eligible for discounts. Educational institutions will be required to provide students on request with certificates which local authorities will be able to use as evidence that a person should be disregarded.
  425
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a system of joint and several liability for the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  The Government's proposals for joint and several liability are set out in clauses 6(3) and 9 of the Local Government Finance Bill.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the projected annual costs of collecting the council tax in the Easington district council area.

  Mr. Key
  We have made no estimate of the cost of collecting the council tax for individual authorities, but over the country as a whole we would expect it to be no more than half the cost of collecting the community charge.

  Housing Improvements (Manchester)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums have been allocated to the city of Manchester for the housing improvement programme in each of the last 10 years in(a) cash terms and (b) adjusted for inflation.

  Mr. Yeo
  Since 1981–82 local authorities have been able to augment the borrowing power of their housing investment programme—HIP—allocations by using the prescribed proportion of their capital receipts. Manchester city council has made substantial use of receipts to fund capital expenditure over this period. HIP allocations and gross capital expenditure for the last 10 years were:

  £ thousands

  HIP allocation

  Gross expenditure

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  Cash

  1991–92 prices

  1982–83

  53,430

  89,370

  52,453

  87,736

  1983–84

  44,528

  71,182

  50,770

  81,160

  1984–85

  40,499

  61,656

  70,700

  107,635

  1985–86

  36,050

  52,013

  46,564

  67,183

  1986–87

  29,227

  40,826

  49,555

  69,222

  1987–88

  31,555

  41,805

  83,268

  110,316

  1988–89

  29,234

  36,135

  93,109

  115,089

  1989–90

  21,005

  24,382

  110,426

  128,180

  New Capital Finance System1

  1990–91

  52,153

  55,804

  52,783

  56,478

  21991–92

  53,900

  53,900

  not available

  Notes:

  1 From 1990–91, under the new capital finance system, the HIP allocation does not convey borrowing approval directly.

  2 Provisional estimate of final allocation.

  An initial HIP allocation of £34·9 million—£033·4 million at 1991–92 prices—has been issued for 1992–93 and additional resources—supplementary credit approvals—may be allocated later.

  Special Wastes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to update water management paper 23 on special wastes.

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced in July a timetable for the revision of waste management papers. Waste management paper No. 23, on special wastes, forms 426
  part of that timetable and is due to be issued for consultation in July this year and published in January 1993.

  House Building
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses were constructed in the Easington district council area in each year since 1988–89, by(a) the council, (b) housing associations and (c) private companies.

  Mr. Yeo
  The information for 1988 and 1989 is published in "Housebuilding in England by Local Authority Area 1980–89", and for 1990 in "Local Housing Statistics: England and Wales", volume No. 97. Copies are in the Library. Returns received for the first 11 months of 1991 show 80 dwellings completed in the Easington district council area, all built by private enterprise.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what reasons waste management papers 4 and 26 do not envisage the granting of a waste disposal licence after planning permission from a district council.

  Mr. Baldry
  Disposal licences under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 have to be issued in accordance with the Collection and Disposal of Waste Regulations 1988, SI 1988 No. 819, after planning permission has been obtained. The advice given in waste management paper No. 26 on landfilling of wastes is that an application for a licence can be rejected only on the grounds of danger to public health or risk of water pollution—paragraphs 2.50 and 2.54. This reflects the wording of section 5(3) of the Control of Pollution Act. Waste management paper No. 4 is a technical memorandum providing guidance on how a licence should be devised by a waste disposal authority. The paper refers to the extant guidance in WMP 26 and statutory requirements of the Control of Pollution Act on granting of licences and cases where they may be refused.

  Light Rail System Coventry
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy to refuse any application for a light rail transit line between Coventry city centre and the Westwood Heath area;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the traffic and financial viability of the proposed light rail transit line from Coventry city centre to the Westwood Heath area;

  (3) if he will come to an early decision on the viability of the proposed Coventry city centre to Westwood heath light rail transit line;

  (4) if he will make it his policy to seek the views of (a) traders in Earlsdon street and (b) residents of properties in Coventry South West affected by the proposed light rail transit line from Coventry city centre to the Westwood Heath area, before reaching a decision on the viability of the line.

  Sir George Young
  So far as the matters raised are for central Government, they will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to consider. Until a firm proposal is made and detailed justification for it is submitted, no assessment can be made
  427
  of the proposed route. However, local residents will be consulted on proposals affecting them and any objections will be considered at a public local inquiry.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, on the basis of the best information available, he will publish a table showing for each region and each class of local authority in England, for housing capital receipts and other capital receipts, showing(a) total cash backed capital receipts available to local authorities at 31 March 1990, and the amount of those receipts that were set aside as provision for credit

  Capital receipts 1990–91—by region and class

  Total receipts 31 March 1990

  of which reserved part

  Total receipts 1990–91

  of which reserved part

  Receipts used in 1990–91

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Totals by Class

  Shire Counties

  247

  118

  229

  102

  128

  Metropolitan Districts

  343

  210

  607

  397

  305

  London Boroughs

  1,396

  888

  729

  485

  495

  Non Metropolitan Districts

  4,554

  2,968

  1,516

  1,059

  1,171

  Other Authorities

  81

  53

  65

  24

  57

  Total all England

  6,621

  4,237

  3,146

  2,067

  2,156

  Totals by Region

  South East

  3,736

  2,399

  1,627

  1,090

  1,146

  South West

  713

  449

  218

  137

  173

  East Anglia

  310

  202

  106

  68

  89

  West Midlands

  444

  285

  271

  184

  191

  East Midlands

  641

  404

  192

  107

  168

  North West

  299

  193

  300

  187

  160

  Yorks & Humberside

  279

  175

  264

  177

  139

  Northern Region

  199

  130

  168

  117

  90

  Total all Regions

  6,621

  4,237

  3,146

  2,067

  2,156

  Forecast capital receipts 1991–92—by region and class

  Total receipts 1991–92

  of which reserved part

  Receipts used in 1991–92

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Totals by Class

  Shire Counties

  167

  77

  137

  Metropolitan Districts

  497

  301

  224

  London Boroughs

  631

  394

  350

  Non Metropolitan Districts

  971

  636

  804

  Other Authorities

  50

  16

  50

  Total All England

  2,316

  1,424

  1,565

  Totals by Region

  South East

  1,124

  682

  794

  South West

  163

  98

  167

  East Anglia

  106

  69

  65

  West Midlands

  201

  130

  102

  East Midlands

  140

  87

  134

  North West

  239

  143

  132

  Yorks & Humberside

  195

  120

  105

  Northern Region

  148

  95

  66

  Total All Regions

  2,316

  1,424

  1,565

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what forecasts he has made as to the likely levels of(a) housing capital receipts and (b) other capital receipts, generated by local authorities in England in 1992–93; what proportion of those receipts is estimated to be required to be set aside as provision for credit
  428
  liabilities, (b) the total of capital receipts received by local authorities in 1990–91 and the amount of those receipts set aside as provision for credit liabilities, (c) total capital receipts spent by local authorities in 1990–91, (d) the estimated total of capital receipts local authorities received in 1991–92, and the amount of those receipts that are likely to be set aside as provision for credit liabilities and (e) the estimated total of capital receipts spent on capital projects in 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is as follows. The figures are taken from local authority returns to the Department where available, estimates have been made for missing data.

  liabilities; and what amount of capital receipts are estimated to be spent on capital projects within the financial year.

  Mr. Key
  Estimates of this nature are uncertain but at the time of the autumn statement total capital receipts likely to be generated by local authorities in 1992–93 were forecast at £3·0 billion. This total is likely to be split between housing and non-housing receipts in the ratio of 3:1. It is estimated that around two thirds of the total would be required to be set aside as provision for credit liabilities. It is further estimated that £1·2 billion of capital receipts, both accumulated and in-year, would be spent on capital projects during 1992–93.

  Pollution Control
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the relationship between a district council's planning responsibilities for pollution control and those of a county council.

  Mr. Yeo
  The main land use planning responsibilities of district councils in England are the preparation of local development plans and decisions on planning applications for most types of development. County councils prepare structure plans, with which local plans must generally conform, and minerals and waste local plans; they are the development control authority for "county matters", principally mineral and waste disposal developments. In all of these functions, authorities may take into account
  429
  the pollution aspects of development where they are relevant to the development and use of land. But we do not expect local planning authorities to use their planning powers to duplicate pollution controls under environmental protection legislation—whether operated by the National Rivers Authority, HM inspectorate of pollution, county councils as waste management authorities or district councils as pollution control authorities.

  We intend to publish a draft planning policy guidance note on planning, pollution control and waste management issues later this year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what statistics he has concerning homeless people in the Easington district council area who are aged(a) 16 and 17 years, (b) 18 to 20 years and (c) over 20 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities report the number of households for whom they accept responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act. The quarterly P1(E) returns identify such households by the category of need but not by age. The total number of households accepted by Easington district council under these provisions in the third quarter of 1991 was 25.

  In the second quarter of this year the return was revised to identify for the first time:

  (i) households in priority need who were accepted as homeless because the household contained vulnerable young person(s) (aged 16 and over) and;

  (ii) young single homeless people who were not in priority need for whom the authority nevertheless agreed to secure permanent accommodation.

  Since then, Easington district council has reported accepting only one such household, in the first of these two categories in the second quarter of 1991.

  Cold Weather Credits
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives from the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have no such plans.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs to the poll tax payers in Easington for collecting the poll tax in 1990–91; and what are the projected costs for 1991–92.

  Mr. Key
  The cost of collecting the community charge in Easington in 1990–91 and 1991–92 is estimated to be £699,000 and £793,000 respectively. Revenue expenditure is financed by Government grants, contributions from the non-domestic rates pool and withdrawals from reserves, in addition to community charges. It is therefore not possible to identify what components of these costs are financed directly by community chargepayers.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a list of the areas that are being considered as part of his Department's further 430
  analysis of its survey into the granting of discretionary rate relief to voluntary sports clubs; what is the timetable for this further analysis; and by what date his Department will review its guidance to local authorities on discretionary rate relief to voluntary sports clubs.

  Mr. Key
  The further analysis is of the policy statements provided by charging authorities about the way in which they granted discretionary rate relief in 1990–91 to charities and other non-profit making bodies including sports clubs. We expect the analysis to be complete by mid-February. Depending on the results of this analysis, and taken with details of the numbers of properties granted relief in 1990–91, we will decide whether our guidance to authorities needs to be reviewed. We expect to announce our conclusions following consideration of the analysis.

  Municipal Waste Water
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the consultation paper on the modus operandi proposed to be used by Her Majesty's Government in implementing the European Community directive on the treatment of municipal waste water.

  Mr. Baldry
  A consultation paper on the criteria for identifying sensitive areas and less sensitive areas—urban waste water treatment directive—and polluted waters—nitrate directive—will be issued within the next few months.

  Royal High School, Edinburgh
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans for the letting or sale of space in the Royal high school building, Edinburgh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: The Crown Office buildings in Edinburgh have been occupied by the Crown Office since January 1982. There are no immediate plans to dispose of this building. Plans are in hand to colocate the Crown Office with the new Edinburgh sheriff court in 1994 and the future of this building will have to be reviewed closer to that date.

  Rent Increases
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide information for 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 on the levels of rent increases for rented accommodation for each county in England for(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) stock transferred from local authorities to housing associations.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: The estimated annual percentage changes in average local authority rents and registered rents for unfurnished housing association tenancies, which cover the majority of housing association tenants, are as follows. Comparable information is not available for transferred stock.
  431

  Annual percentage change in local authority rents

  Average weekly rent

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  £

  Avon

  4

  7

  9

  22

  24·17

  Bedfordshire

  4

  13

  7

  19

  24·41

  Berkshire

  3

  10

  11

  18

  25·75

  Buckinghamshire

  4

  10

  10

  40

  27·77

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  8

  10

  19

  22·82

  Cheshire

  6

  4

  6

  9

  17·87

  Cleveland

  4

  7

  10

  6

  25·07

  Cornwall

  5

  5

  6

  16

  22·67

  Cumbria

  7

  10

  19

  12

  22·60

  Derbyshire

  5

  7

  6

  8

  19·80

  Devon

  4

  11

  8

  20

  24·20

  Dorset

  6

  12

  10

  21

  28·10

  Durham

  0

  9

  12

  12

  23·02

  East Sussex

  5

  7

  10

  14

  26·34

  Essex

  4

  8

  8

  22

  25·18

  Gloucestershire

  5

  10

  7

  26

  24·43

  Greater Manchester

  2

  11

  13

  11

  22·27

  Hampshire

  7

  8

  9

  15

  26·60

  Hereford and Worcester

  4

  8

  9

  15

  22·16

  Hertfordshire

  6

  5

  11

  29

  25·08

  Humberside

  6

  9

  8

  10

  20·73

  Isle of Wight

  8

  8

  15

  11

  28·45

  Kent

  6

  9

  13

  27

  28·66

  Lancashire

  6

  11

  11

  13

  24·04

  Leicestershire

  5

  10

  11

  7

  22·27

  Lincolnshire

  9

  9

  11

  9

  20·95

  London

  4

  14

  9

  21

  29·05

  Merseyside

  5

  4

  6

  7

  22·13

  Norfolk

  8

  6

  6

  14

  21·70

  North Yorkshire

  6

  9

  9

  21

  21·81

  Northamptonshire

  3

  8

  7

  13

  21·12

  Northumberland

  2

  6

  7

  6

  19·80

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  8

  8

  10

  21·57

  Oxfordshire

  6

  9

  10

  23

  23·92

  Shropshire

  5

  10

  8

  15

  22·72

  Somerset

  9

  8

  8

  22

  23·29

  South Yorkshire

  9

  2

  3

  5

  19·09

  Staffordshire

  7

  9

  9

  13

  21·02

  Suffolk

  5

  5

  9

  18

  22·15

  Surrey

  5

  7

  16

  26

  29·89

  Tyne and Wear

  6

  6

  7

  3

  19·05

  Warwickshire

  3

  10

  3

  15

  21·94

  West Midlands

  8

  8

  14

  15

  25·07

  West Sussex

  7

  8

  5

  28

  27·92

  West Yorkshire

  5

  8

  11

  8

  19·82

  Wiltshire

  5

  8

  3

  20

  23·25

  Note: Rent changes shown for 1987–88 relate to the change in average rents between April 1986 and April 1987, but will include most of the increases for 1987–88. Those for later years are derived from estimates of financial year average rents.

  Annual percentage changes in registered rents of unfurnished housing association tenancies

  Average annual rent

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  (£)

  Avon

  8

  9

  10

  12

  2,010

  Bedfordshire

  5

  6

  8

  7

  1,615

  Berkshire

  8

  7

  8

  10

  2,133

  Buckinghamshire

  7

  7

  8

  12

  1,645

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  6

  7

  8

  1,437

  Cheshire

  5

  6

  7

  9

  1,359

  Cleveland

  6

  6

  7

  10

  1,639

  Cornwall

  11

  10

  12

  13

  2,099

  Cumbria

  5

  6

  6

  11

  1,099

  Derbyshire

  9

  9

  8

  9

  1,751

  Devon

  9

  10

  10

  11

  2,040

  Dorset

  7

  8

  11

  13

  1,957

  Durham

  6

  6

  8

  8

  1,485

  East Sussex

  8

  8

  7

  10

  1,944

  Essex

  7

  7

  8

  11

  1,838

  Gloucestershire

  10

  9

  12

  13

  1,763

  Greater Manchester

  7

  7

  9

  9

  1,355

  Hampshire

  8

  8

  9

  10

  1,848

  432 433

  Average annual rent

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1990–91

  (£)

  Hereford and Worcester

  6

  7

  9

  10

  1,669

  Hertfordshire

  6

  9

  10

  11

  1,634

  Humberside

  7

  5

  9

  10

  1,642

  Isle of Wight

  7

  11

  9

  12

  1,849

  Kent

  7

  7

  8

  11

  2,130

  Lancashire

  5

  6

  7

  7

  1,404

  Leicestershire

  6

  7

  8

  9

  1,477

  Loncolnshire

  6

  6

  7

  7

  1,582

  London

  7

  8

  9

  10

  1,716

  Merseyside

  7

  7

  7

  9

  1,195

  Norfolk

  6

  7

  8

  9

  1,776

  North Yorkshire

  7

  7

  9

  10

  1,760

  Northamptonshire

  6

  6

  8

  8

  1,575

  Northumberland

  6

  7

  8

  9

  1,655

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  7

  8

  10

  1,646

  Oxfordshire

  7

  7

  8

  8

  1,821

  Shropshire

  6

  6

  11

  12

  1,690

  Somerset

  6

  7

  8

  8

  1,734

  South Yorkshire

  7

  8

  10

  10

  1,566

  Staffordshire

  6

  10

  9

  8

  1,596

  Suffolk

  6

  8

  10

  9

  1,649

  Surrey

  7

  9

  7

  11

  1,969

  Tyne and Wear

  7

  6

  7

  9

  1,419

  Warwickshire

  5

  6

  7

  9

  1,411

  West Midlands

  6

  7

  8

  10

  1,429

  West Sussex

  7

  7

  8

  11

  1,834

  West Yorkshire

  7

  7

  8

  11

  1,535

  Wiltshire

  7

  9

  10

  10

  1,847

  Note: Percentage changes are derived by annualising rent increases on tenancies re-registered (most are subject to re-registration every two years) in the financial year. Those for 1987–88 and 1988–89 are based on re-registrations in 1987 and 1988, respectively.

  Small Firms
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many schemes his Department runs to provide help or finance for small firms; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 18 December 1991]: The only scheme my Department runs to provide help specifically for small firms is the preferential treatment they receive under the non-domestic rating transitional arrangements. However, small firms may also receive help under the following schemes:

  Environmental technology innovation scheme

  Urban programme

  Inner urban areas Act grants

  City action team special budgets.

  In addition, schemes operated by bodies sponsored by my Department also help small firms. The following schemes, all operated by the Rural Development Commission, are targeted on small businesses:

  Business advice

  Loans fund

  Marketing initiatives

  Support for training.

  Small firms may also benefit from these other schemes run by sponsored bodies although they are not specifically aimed at them:

  Rural Development Commission schemes for fully funded small workshop unit construction;

  partnerships with local authorities to construct small workshop units;

  redundant building grants;

  rural transport development fund;

  English Heritage repair grants for listed buildings.

  The Rural Development Commission also provides support for local enterprise agencies which in turn help small businesses.

  Agricultural Occupancy
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ease the agricultural occupancy planning conditions attached to a farm dwelling when a farmer has had to go out of farming after a specified number of years.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 19 December 1991]: Conditions that restrict the occupancy of a dwelling to an agricultural worker seek to keep the dwelling available for the purposes which justified its provision. The Department's model agricultural occupancy condition, in DOE circular 1/85, enables a dwelling to be occupied by either someone "last employed" in agriculture or an agricultural worker in the locality. If circumstances change, an application can be made to the local planning authority for the condition to be lifted.

  Drinking Water (Pollution)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to take to prevent the air pollution levels of the past week affecting the drinking water supply drawn from watercourses in the affected areas.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]:None. I am advised that the high air pollution levels recently experienced in London should not have had any adverse effect on the quality of drinking water as there was no concurrent rain to wash the pollution into the water supply. The current blustery weather conditions should have dispersed the pollution.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Malta
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had from the Government of Malta about Lockerbie-related issues.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Maltese Government co-operated extensively during the complex and lengthy investigation and were kept fully briefed on the findings of the investigation. We continue to maintain regular contacts with the Maltese Government.

  Switzerland
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition in the Palace of Westminster from 13 January 1992 to mark the 700th anniversary of Switzerland.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for this exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall for a week from 13 January 1992.

  European Union
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which language common foreign and security policy texts adopted, pursuant to the footnote to article K of the treaty on European union will initially be written before they are translated into all the official Community languages.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The language of initial drafting is likely to depend on the presidency. Current practice in European political co-operation is for texts to be drafted and worked on simultaneously in English and French.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives are being taken to discover the fate of the remaining Kuwaiti citizens that have not been accounted for since the end of hostilities in the Gulf war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are maintaining pressure on Iraq to fulfil all its obligations under UN Security Council resolutions, including the return of missing Kuwaiti and third country nationals. We fully support Kuwait's efforts through the International Committee of the Red Cross to establish the whereabouts of its missing citizens. We shall continue to raise this question on appropriate occasions at the UN and elsewhere.

  Soviet Republics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Governments of the Soviet republics in respect of the application of the principles of human rights to their proposals on citizenship rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 31 December we in concert with our EC partners, recognised eight former Soviet republics 436
  as independent states, after they had provided satisfactory assurances inter alia on human rights including citizenship rights. We regularly raised human rights issues with the former Soviet authorities. We shall continue to do so with the governments of these newly independent states, making clear that their approach in this respect will influence the development of our bilateral relations.

  Maastricht Agreements
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish at an early date a White Paper setting out the text of the contents of the treaty of Maastricht, less the articles which amend articles of the treaty of Rome, together with a second section which clearly shows the deletions, amendments, and proposed standing text of the putative treaty of Rome as it would stand, given full ratification of the agreements reached at Maastricht.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The full text of the treaty on European union, including amendments to the treaty of Rome, will be published as a White Paper after the definitive version has been signed by member states.

  China
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the United Kingdom Government has had with the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning a comprehensive test ban treaty.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None recently, but both the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China are members of the conference on disarmament in Geneva, which includes discussions of nuclear testing matters on its agenda. China has made clear that it will undertake no further atmospheric testing of nuclear devices.

  EC Jurisdiction
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the definition of, or criteria determining, those matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the European Community, or list those matters not within that category, stating in either case the relevant bases in treaty articles or protocols.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  The EC has exclusive jurisdiction where that is conferred upon it by treaty provision or measures taken under the treaty. Current examples include the CAP, common commercial policy and the external tariff.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 December.

  Mr. Hurd
  My right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 December. The Council underlined its commitment to a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round and stressed the importance of opening up world trade, particularly for those countries
  437
  introducing market-oriented economic reforms. In a discussion of the draft agreement put forward by Mr. Dunkel, the GATT Director General, the Council decided that the paper contained positive elements, but that its proposals on agriculture required modification. The Council asked the Commission to negotiate the necessary improvements.

  The Council also agreed to provide 35 mecu of emergency food aid to Albania. The Commission undertook to put forward proposals on the possible supply of raw materials to Albania.

  Councils of Ministers
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community's Councils of Ministers.

  Mr. Hurd
  The Foreign Affairs Council met on 10 and 11 January.

  The Economic and Finance Council may meet on 13 January. Ministers might consider further food aid to the former Soviet Union.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 27 and 28 January. Ministers will continue to discuss the Commission's common agriculture policy reform proposals and any outstanding agriculture issues arising from the Uruguay round negotiations. Ministers may also discuss meat products.

  Republic of Ireland
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the Government of the Republic of Ireland to establish a system of payments to the United Kingdom Exchequer, or United Kingdom local authorities, in respect of expenditure in support for Irish citizens who are homeless in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I do not consider that such a request would be appropriate.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Company Receiverships
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has as to the proportion of the total of company receiverships which are initiated by the(a) Customs and Excise and (b) by the Inland Revenue.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Neither Customs and Excise nor the Inland Revenue initiate the appointment of receivers.

  Local Authority Asset Sales
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish details of the assumptions used in assessing the proceeds from local authority asset sales for 1992–93 in table 1.A.13 of the Grey Book, including the expected proceeds from right-to-buy and voluntary transfers; and what allowance has been made in the forecast increase in local authority sales proceeds for 1992–93 for the declining trend in the right-to-buy.

  Mr. David Mellor
  Table 1.A.13 of the 1991 Autumn Statement, Cm 1729, shows local authority purchases and 438
  sales of land and buildings. The figures for local authority asset sales for 1992-–3 were rounded to the nearest £1 billion, reflecting their tentative nature. These are broad estimates based, among other things, on the proceeds from such asset sales in previous years, and it would not be appropriate to break down the analysis in detail.

  Government Data Network
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many computers operated by Government Departments are connected to the Government data network; and how many individual files are linked to that network.

  Mr. Maples
  Access agreements to use the network have been made between Racal Data Networks Limited and 22 Departments or non-departmental Government bodies. These are Inland Revenue, Department of Social Security, Home Office, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, Employment Department, Her Majesty's Treasury, Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Department of Energy, General Register Office (Scotland), the Intervention Board Executive Agency, Department of Trade and Industry, Welsh Office, Department of Transport, Ordnance Survey, Department for National Savings, Department of Health, Natural History Museum, Cabinet Office, National Museums of Scotland, Property Holdings and the Paymaster General's Office. Some 2,800 network access points have been installed. Details of computer systems that send and receive data over the Government data network are not held centrally.

  Bad Debts
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has of the present amount of indebtedness to the United Kingdom banking sector which is regarded as bad or doubtful; and what information he has of the proportions of bad or doubtful indebtedness which exist in respect of(a) United Kingdom based small firms, (b) United Kingdom based large companies, (c) investment in the USA and (d) investment in Latin America, Asia or Africa.

  Mr. Maples
  The Bank of England publishes information about the provisions made against bad debt by the large United Kingdom banks in its annual report under the Banking Act. The latest published figures are in the bank's report for 1990–91. Separate figures are given for provisions against domestic bad debt, commercial bad debt and problem country debt. However, the breakdown requested is not available.

  Voluntary Donations to the Treasury
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, by financial year,(a) the number of people who sent voluntary extra donations to the Treasury and (b) what the total amount of such contributions were, for each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Maude
  The information to ascertain the numbers of people for all these years together is available only at disproportionate cost.

  The net amounts of voluntary extra contributions received by the Inland Revenue for each year are as follows:

  439

  Year

  Amount (£)

  31 March 1977

  10,623·36

  31 March 1978

  9,350·22

  31 October 1979

  11,129·77

  31 October 1980

  310,988·93

  31 October 1981

  129,246·98

  31 October 1982

  41,247·59

  31 October 1983

  18,140·58

  31 October 1984

  80,386·81

  31 October 1985

  39,329·49

  31 October 1986

  26,926·90

  31 October 1987

  23,479·48

  31 October 1988

  105,357·05

  31 October 1990

  2,587·50

  31 October 1991

  147,012·95

  Figures are not now kept for financial years.

  The net amount is arrived at after adjustment, for example for individuals who subsequently claim their previously anonymous payment.

  Civil Service (Working Conditions)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent meetings he has had with civil service trade union representatives to discuss hours and conditions of work.

  Mr. Maples
  I meet civil service trade union representatives from time to time to discuss a variety of issues.

  Retail Sales
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of retail sales in(a) December 1991 and (b) December 1990.

  Mr. Maples
  The estimate of the volume of retail sales, seasonally adjusted, in December 1990 is 119·7–1985 = 100. The estimate for December 1991 will be published on Monday 20 January.

  EC Social Policy
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is envisaged that under the protocol on the social policy agreed at Maastricht the 11 member states who are allowed recourse to the institutions of the EC will have to make a payment to the EC to cover the costs to the EC of such recourse.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Any act adopted by the 11 member states under the protocol on social policy will not be applicable to the United Kingdom; nor will the United Kingdom bear any financial consequences, other than administrative costs for the institutions, arising from such acts.

  Soviet Union Debt
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of the total value of the extended debt of the Soviet Union owed to banks and other commercial organisations within the EC.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Precise data are not available. The total amount of the former Soviet Union's hard currency debt is in excess of $60 billion, of which some $38 billion is owed to EC creditors. Most of this debt 440
  represents guaranteed and non-guaranteed bank loans. German banks are the largest creditors—$19·4 billion according to the Bundesbank—though much of this lending has been guaranteed either by the German Government or by the German export credit agency.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total external debt of the Soviet Union is owed to banks and commercial organisations in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Germany.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The total claims of domestic German banks on the Soviet Union at the end of June 1991 were DM 35·2 billion—$19·4 billion—according to data provided by the Bundesbank. The total contractual claims of United Kingdom registered banks—including those of United Kingdom subsidiaries of foreign owned banks—were $2·9 billion at the same date. Assuming Soviet external debt to have been in the region of $60 billion in mid-1991—although there are some higher estimates—debt to United Kingdom and German banks would have constituted 4·8 and 32·3 per cent. respectively of total Soviet external debt. In both cases, much of the bank lending was guaranteed by Governments and export credit agencies.

  Gross National Products
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the GNP per capita of each of the EC member states, expressed as a percentage of the Community average.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Following are the data for gross domestic product per capita, using purchasing power parities, for EC member states.

  GDP Per Capita 1990, Converted at Purchasing Power Parities, EC Average = 100

  Country

  GDP

  Luxembourg

  127

  Germany

  112

  Denmark

  108

  France

  108

  Italy

  106

  United Kingdom

  104

  Netherlands

  102

  Belgium

  101

  Spain

  77

  Ireland

  69

  Greece

  52

  Portugal

  52

  Source: OECD Main Economic Indicators, December 1991

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list each of those regions of the EC whose GNP per capita is less than 100 per cent. of the Community average.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Data for gross domestic product per capita for EC regions are published by the Central Statistical Office in "Regional Trends 26", 1991 edition.

  Gaming Taxes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the levels and amounts of tax from each main form of gaming, betting and lotteries for the current year.
  441
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the year ending 31 March 1991 receipts from the betting and gaming duties and the rates of duty applied were as follows:

  Revenue (£000)

  Rate of duty

  Off-course betting

  479,064

  8 per cent, of stake

  On-course betting

  —

  Not taxed

  Pool betting

  303,944

  37½ per cent. of stake

  Casino gaming

  57,367

  Premises licence of £250 plus graduated percentages of gross gaming yield bands, varying between 2½ per cent, and 33⅓ per cent.

  Gaming machines

  98,631

  Machine licence of £150 to £960, dependent on the amount of payout and the cost to play

  Bingo

  67,432

  10 per cent, of stake money paid for cards plus l/9th of added prize money

  Lotteries

  —

  Not taxed

  Most gambling is exempt from VAT, but the tax is chargeable on the net take of gaming machines and on certain fees to participate in bingo. It is not possible to calculate the VAT yield from information provided on VAT returns.

  Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority local councillors' attendance allowances are classified as earned income for tax purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  Local authority councillors are office holders and therefore are assessable to income tax under the ordinary schedule E charging provisions on any attandance allowances they receive for the performance of approved duties. The charge to tax is imposed by section 19 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  Cigarettes (Taxation)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the retail prices index of raising additional duty and tax on cigarettes in order to produce £750 million additional annual revenue.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This would raise the retail prices index by 0·3 per cent.

  Gaming
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account is taken of(a) betting, (b) gaming and (c) lotteries in the compilation of the retail prices index.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Betting, gaming and lotteries are not covered by the retail prices index.

  Soviet Economy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the effects on the Soviet economy of the advice he has given.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The authorities of the former Soviet Union and of the republics have been very keen to discuss their reform plans with the United Kingdom Government and others in the west. During my visit to the Soviet Union last summer, and in the many contracts which I have had in recent months with policy makers, I have urged the adoption of a comprehensive and radical reform programme with the aim of achieving macroeconomic stability and establishing a market economy.
  442
  Other G7 countries and the international financial institutions, in particular the International Monetary Fund, have been providing similar advice.

  The United Kingdom set up a 'know-how-fund' for the Soviet Union in 1990 to provide technical assistance and advice. This fund was more than doubled to £50 million last summer. A number of other countries and the European Community are also providing technical assistance, training and advice to the ex-Soviet Union.

  The Russian Government have now taken the first major step in the direction of creating a market economy by freeing most prices from 2 January. Many other republics have followed or will follow this move. I have constantly emphasised to the Russian Government, and the Governments of the other republics, the importance of continuing and intensifying their discussions with the IMF on the implementation of these and further reforms. Russia and the Ukraine have now both applied for full IMF membership. Other republics have also applied or are expected to do so soon.

  In the short term, I expect that these reforms will lead to higher prices and a fall in output as inflationary pressures are brought out into the open and uneconomic enterprises close. However, I am convinced that in the medium term a successful move to a market economy will create the conditions for a substantial improvement in living standards. The ex-Soviet Union is rich in natural resources and has a well educated workforce. If reform is successful, the prospects for growth are very good.

  Alcohol Tax
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the spirits industry about current EC proposals to harmonise tax rates on different types of alcoholic beverages.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give details of the outcome of discussions with the drinks industry over EC excise proposals.

  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will press for the inclusion in the current EC excise proposals of a mechanism to prevent further increases in tax discrimination against spirits in each member state.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to press for an EC tax harmonisation programme which reduces differentials between alcoholic beverages.

  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response he intends to make to the report,
  443
  "Competition Between Alcoholic Drinks: an Analysis", commissioned by the Scotch Whisky Association and the Gin and Vodka Association; and what amendments he intends seeking to the European Commission's proposals on excise tax rates.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the spirits industry to discuss EC proposals for excise duty harmonisation on 1 October 1991. We have since received the industry's report on competition between alcoholic drinks. Treasury Ministers fully understand the case the industry has put forward for a "capping" mechanism to prevent any further discrimination against spirits after 1992. We are now considering how best to respond to the current harmonisation proposals when further discussions resume in Brussels.

  Incomes
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the gains or losses from each Budget since 1979 (i) before indexation and (ii) after indexation for those with incomes,(a) below £5,000 a year, (b) £5,000 to £10,000, (c) £10,000 to £15,000, (d) £15,000 to £20,000, (e) £20,000 to £30,000, (f) £30,000 to £50,000, (g) £50,000 to £70,000, (h) £70,000 to £100,000 and (i) over £100,000 a year.

  Mr. Maude
  The gains and losses from each Budget depend on many factors and it would be impracticable to attempt to estimate the effects of all Budget measures since 1979. Information on the effects of specific measures may be found in the press notices issued each Budget day by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.

  Share Ownership
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the impact of the privatisation and flotation of(a) Government-owned companies and (b) the Abbey National building society and the Trustee Savings bank, on the overall level of share ownership in the United Kingdom at the latest available date.

  Mr. Maude
  Share ownership in Great Britain in 1979 is estimated to have been 7 per cent. of the adult population. The latest Treasury-Stock Exchange survey showed that in 1991 share ownership had risen to 25 per cent. of the adult population of Great Britain. Five per cent. of the adult population owned shares in privatisation issues only; 4 per cent. owned Abbey National shares only; and 1 per cent. owned Trustee Savings Bank shares only. Information for the United Kingdom as a whole is not available.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues in a full year in (i) 1991–92 and (ii) 1992–93 of introducing an upper limit on all income tax allowances and reliefs of(a) £10,000, (b) £15,000 and (c) £20,000 a year with (1) the current tax allowances and reliefs and (2) limiting all income tax allowances and reliefs except the single person's allowance to the basic rate, giving the revenue from each relief separately, the total revenue and the numbers of people affected, for Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  444
  Mr. Francis Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 December 1991, c. 221]: I regret that, due to an administrative error, the complete answer was not given. It should have read as follows:

  It is estimated that at 1991–92 levels of income the introduction of the upper limits specified would yield the following:

  Upper limit for total allowances and reliefs

  Yield in a full year under the current tax regime

  Yield following restriction of all reliefs and specified allowances to the basic rate

  £ million

  £ million

  £10,000

  590

  390

  £15,000

  240

  150

  £20,000

  140

  90

  The estimated yield from restricting all allowances, except the basic personal allowance, to the basic rate is about £300 million. The estimated yield from restricting all reliefs to the basic rate is £600 million. Of this figure about £250 million results from restricting relief on employee contributions to occupational pensions and about £150 million results from restricting relief on personal pension contributions.

  The number of people with total allowances and reliefs in excess of £10,000 is about 635,000. The corresponding figures for £15,000 and £20,000 are about 75,000 and 35,000 respectively.

  The estimates of revenue yield do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such a limit.

  It is not possible to provide corresponding detailed estimates for 1992–93.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fuel Crops
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the United Kingdom in growing crops economically for use as fuel or energy; what research facilities his Department is able to provide for this activity; and what studies have been made of the practice in other EC countries.

  Mr. Curry
  A wide range of crops for use as fuel or energy has been studied as part of the renewable energies programme of the Department of Energy. In recent years this work has concentrated on short rotation coppice wood because this gives good yields of dry biomass. For the same reason, there is interest in high yielding grasses such as miscanthus. At present, the growing of crops for fuel or energy is uncompetitive with more conventional energy sources but this could change in the future. The most promising energy sources appear to be wood and straw through direct burning but the economics are not yet attractive enough to encourage industrial use on any appreciable scale. Liquid fuels such as ethanol from cereals or sugarbeet or biodiesel from oilseed rape are also uncompetitive at the present time.

  The Ministry has experimental husbandry farms, within its Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which is shortly to become an agency, and these would be available for growing energy crops, if it was considered that additional sites were needed to supplement those already in existence.
  445
  Other EC countries are also interested in crops for energy purposes, especially in wood and high yielding grasses. Germany and France have shown particular interest in ethanol from sugarbeet or cereals.

  An excellent account of the prospects for renewable energies from crops is contained in the evidence given to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, Session 1990–91, seventh report "Non-Food Uses of Agricultural Products".

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to monitor the enforcement of the minimum import price structure on the imports of farmed salmon into the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Enforcement of the minimum import prices on consignments of farmed Atlantic salmon entering the Community is the responsibility of national customs authorities. The Commission has responsibility for monitoring that these Community rules are observed. I have written to the Commission emphasising the importance of ensuring that the requirements are strictly adhered to, and will draw any specific evidence of evasion to the Commission's attention.

  Food Aid (Eastern Europe)
  Sir Michael NcNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to ensure that food held in intervention, which is surplus to the stocks considered necessary by the EC as a proper reserve, is being made available as food aid for the newly independent countries of eastern Europe, including Russia.

  Mr. Curry
  Decisions on the supply of food aid take account of the needs of the recipient country. Where appropriate, supplies are drawn from intervention stocks, but in other cases they are purchased through the market for cost, availability or other reasons.

  Bottled Water
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends taking to improve the quality standards of bottled waters.

  Mr. Maclean
  I expect to make proposals shortly for regulations under the Food Safety Act covering the quality of bottled waters, except for natural mineral waters which are already subject to the Natural Mineral Waters Regulations 1985. My officials are also involved in discussions with Brussels concerning the revision of the natural mineral waters directive.

  Food Exhibition
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the role of the United Kingdom Food Processing Industry presented by the Food and Drink Federation to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. I have agreed to open the exhibition on 27 January.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid in compensation in respect of cattle slaughtered under the tuberculosis eradication scheme in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  The amount of compensation paid for cattle slaughtered under the tuberculosis eradication programme is as follows:

  £ million

  1989

  0·58

  1990

  1·10

  1991 (to November)

  0·65

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the action taken so far by him to control tuberculosis in deer.

  Mr. Maclean
  Tuberculosis in deer was made notifiable in June 1989. Slaughter with compensation arrangements were introduced on 1 September 1989 and a voluntary deer health scheme launched in December that year. Research into tuberculosis in deer is being pursued.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to launch a formal review of the evidence relating to bovine tuberculosis in badgers and the badger control strategy.

  Mr. Maclean
  Badger control strategy is kept under continuous review by the Department, in conjunction with the consultative panel on badgers and tuberculosis.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress made to date on the development of a vaccine against bovine tuberculosis in badgers.

  Mr. Maclean
  Although research in this country and overseas is continuing, progress towards development of an effective vaccine for badgers is unlikely to be rapid.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the respects in which the provisions in England and Wales for the disposal of fallen and diseased animals diverge from the standards applying in the EC for animal health and food hygiene.

  Mr. Maclean
  Directive 90/667/EEC, which applies to England and Wales as to other parts of the Community, requires that animal waste be disposed of by rendering, burning or proper burial, but it also permits under a derogation traditional outlets such as knackers and hunt kennels to take fallen stock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Christchurch School, Shooters Hill
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list each date on which he received proposals to spend money on capital works at Christchurch Church of England primary school, Shooters Hill since 1979; and what was his decision in each case.
  447
  Mr. Fallon
  Two repair projects have been approved during the time in question, one in 1984 and one in 1990. Grant aid of £44,879·12 was paid on the former. Work on the more recent project was deferred at the governors request and has yet to take place.

  Bids for major capital projects at Christchurch Church of England primary school were received from the Inner London education authority for the 1989–90 financial year, and from Greenwich education authority for 1991–92 and 1992–93. None was successful. Greenwich LEA has only had control of its education capital expenditure since April 1990. Before this date, capital expenditure on school buildings in inner London, including Greenwich, was the responsibility of the ILEA. Detail on particular bids for major improvement works in Greenwich cannot be readily extracted from records on earlier ILEA capital bids.

  Resources for minor works at voluntary aided schools are allocated to LEAs for existing schools and it is for LEAs in consultation with voluntary bodies to determine how the funds are distributed between schools. For 1992–93 Greenwich LEA has a minor works allocation of £144,000.

  A total of £6,165·30 has been paid in grant-aid for three projects at the school approved since 1988 under the Department's voluntary rationing scheme for capital work costing less than £5,000, or repair work costing less than £10,000.

  Chorlton C of E School
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date he received the letter from the hon. Member for Stretford regarding Chorlton Church of England primary school; on what date he came to a decision to use his powers under section 68 of: the Education Act 1944; and if he will make a statement on the time taken to reach his decision.

  Mr. Fallon
  The hon. Member's letter about Chorlton CE primary school was received in the Department on 25 July. My right hon. and learned Friend decided to issue a direction to the governors of Chorlton school on 30 September, but delayed its issue until 5 December because it appeared from information provided by Manchester LEA and solicitors acting on behalf of the governing body that the necessary information would be provided without the need for a formal direction.

  AIDS Education
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church on the content and place in the curriculum for AIDS education.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since replying to my hon. Friend's earlier question about HIV/AIDS education—Official Report column 417—my right hon. and learned Friend has received one letter from a representative of the Church of England and, to date, none from the Roman Catholic Church.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will undertake a sample study of AIDS education in those Roman Catholic voluntary -aided secondary schools which implement AIDS 448
  education as part of the family life programme taught jointly between the religious education and science departments.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to undertake such a study. It is for individual schools to determine how education about HIV and AIDS should be provided, taking full account of the requirements of the national curriculum, local circumstances, the needs of pupils and the views of parents.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have(a) become committed to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status, (b) voted yes and (i) had the proposals approved, (ii) had the proposal rejected and (iii) await determination of the proposal and (c) voted no; how many in each category were the subject of (1) closure or (2) reorganisation proposals; and whether, for schools in categories (b)(ii) and (c), the proposals have been approved or rejected.

  Mr. Eggar
  To date 446 schools1 have become committed to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status and (i) 162 schools have received approval for their proposals for grant-maintained status, (ii) 29 have had their proposals rejected and (iii) 62 await determination of their proposals and 60 have yet to publish proposals. Ninety-one schools have voted no to grant-maintained status. There are 41 schools with ballots pending, and one school where the application for grant-maintained status has lapsed.

  The most recent information held by the Department on current and subsequent associated closure and reorganisation proposals is as at 31 October 1991. At that date:

  (a) Of the 390 schools2 which had balloted or were committed to balloting on grant-maintained status, 106 were or are named in associated closure or reorganisation proposals3.

  (bi) Of the 130 schools which received approval for their proposals for grant-maintained status, 23 schools were or are named in associated closure or reorganisation proposals;

  1 This figure includes six schools which have balloted twice on grant-maintained status.

  2 This figure includes four schools which have balloted twice on grant-maintained status.

  3 Information differentiating between closure and reorganisation proposals is not readily available.

  (bii) Of the 24 schools which had their proposals for grant-maintained status rejected, 22 schools were or are named in associated closure or reorganisation proposals, of which 19 have been approved and three rejected;

  (biii) Of the 69 schools which awaited determination on their proposals for grant-maintained status, 23 schools were or are named in associated closure or reorganisation proposals; of the 28 schools who had voted yes but had not published proposals, 10 were or are named in associated closure or reorganisation proposals; and

  (c) Of the 70 schools who voted against applying for grant maintained status, 26 schools were or are named in associated closure or reorganisation proposals4.

  (d) Sixty-eight schools had ballots pending, two of which were or are named in associated closure or reorganisation proposals. One application for grant-maintained status had lapsed.

  (4) Information on whether these proposals were approved or rejected is not readily available.

  St. Thomas More School, London
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has accepted the application for capital works at St. Thomas More RC primary school, London SE9.

  Mr. Fallon
  Provision for minor improvement/replacement work at existing schools—like St. Thomas More RC primary school—is allocated to local authorities on a formula basis. Greenwch LEA has received a minor works allocation of £144,000 for 1992–93 under the formula. It is up to the LEA, in consultation with voluntary bodies, to decide which projects should receive funding from the formula.

  Exam Results
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils obtained five O-level/higher grade GCSE passes which included mathematics, English, a science, a foreign language and history or geography each year since 1973; and what proportion they represent of the cohort.

  Mr. Eggar
  The numbers of 16-year-old pupils in schools in England who obtained five or more GCSE passess at grades A to C including each of those subjects or combinations of subjects requested, in the academic year 1988–89 was 81,050–13·1 per cent. of all 16-year-olds, and in 1989–90 it was 79,470–13·7 per cent. Information is not available centrally in the form requested for academic years prior to 1988–89.

  Teaching
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to make the job of teaching more attractive.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government's education reforms, including in particular the introduction of the national curriculum and local management of schools, will raise standards in schools and make teaching an increasingly fulfilling and attractive career. The establishment of a pay review body for teachers recognises and enhances the status of the profession. There was a 21 per cent. increase in the numbers entering teacher training in 1991. The changes in initial teacher training which my right hon. and learned Friend has recently proposed will make the profession still more attractive.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will discuss with institutions of higher education the conduct of their admissions policy on a points basis in relation to A-level grades.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Admissions policies are matters for individual higher education institutions. In deciding whether to admit a student, institutions take a variety of academic, vocational and personal qualifications into account, of which A-level grades often, but by no means always, form an important part. We look at institutions to be flexible in determining entrance requirements and to look at the full range of candidate's achievements.

  School Government Regulations
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has completed his assessment after the completion of the consulting period over the proposed amendment to the Education (School Government) Regulations 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Amending regulations to the Education (School Government) Regulations were laid before Parliament on 18 December, and came into force on 8 January. The main aim of the amendments was to ensure that governors were not overstretched. The principal amendments reduce the maximum number of governorships an individual can normally hold from four to two; and reduce from 12 to six months the period after which a governor is disqualified if he fails to attend all meetings within that period without the consent of the governing body.

  Parents Charter
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultation was held with parents before the publication of the parents charter.

  Mr. Eggar
  In recent years the Government have commissioned a number of surveys of parents' knowledge about the education system. These showed that some parents were unaware even of their most basic rights in relation to their children's education, and that the majority would welcome more information about what went on in schools. The parents charter clearly sets out parents' current rights; it also explains the Government's proposals to improve access to information about the quality of education and standards achieved in schools.

  Sport Guidance
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what date he intends to publish guidance to schools to suggest the sort of information they should make readily available to parents concerning opportunities for sport and recreation.

  Mr. Atkins
  Guidance is likely to be issued towards the end of April 1992.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what principal persons or bodies he consulted prior to making his recent decision concerning teacher training; and if he will place copies of these representations or conclusions in the Library, stating for each body or person concerned the extent and period of their experiences of(a) class teaching and (b) teacher induction;

  (2) what consultation he has had with governors, trustees and religious and other non-statutory bodies that have current responsibility for the training of teachers concerning his proposals for teacher training; and what communication he has had with them collectively since assuming office concerning the nature, quality and practicality of teacher training courses;

  (3) what communication he has had with principals of colleges of education and departments of education, or

  451
  any relevant representative body, concerning the nature, quality and practicality of the courses they provide for the training of teachers; and what consultation he has had with any representative body of heads of secondary schools concerning the new responsibilities he envisages for them in training teachers;

  (4) if he will publish a White Paper setting out the general principles of the plans he has for the training of teachers in general, including statistical information related to his timing of the changes; and if the steps he intends taking will effect the courses leading to the postgraduate certificate in education due to take place in 1992–93.

  Mr. Fallon
  The principal source of advice for the proposals announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech to the north of England education conference was the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education—CATE. A list of CATE members has been placed in the Library. The proposals were also informed by a substantial report by Her Majesty's inspectorate on school-based initial teacher training in England and Wales, which has been published. Copies of this report have been placed in the Library.

  The reasons for the proposals, the arrangements for consultation and the timetable for implementation were set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's speech. Copies of the speech have been sent to all higher education institutions in England and Wales which offer courses of initial teacher training and to many other organisations and individuals. A consultation document, setting out proposed new criteria for the approval of secondary postgraduate—PGCE—courses and proposed accreditation arrangements, will be issued soon. The consultation period will last until the end of March.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what effects on the staffing of institutes and colleges of education he expects to arise consequent on his recent proposals for changes in teacher training; what are the numbers of persons currently employed in such institutions in England and Wales(a) as professional staff and (b) as supporting personnel; and how many of each he expects to be retained if his plans are implemented.

  Mr. Fallon
  The proposals for the reform of initial teacher training announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech to the north of England education conference would involve a significant transfer in the burden of responsibility for initial teacher training as between higher education institutions and schools. The staffing implications are for institutions themselves to determine.

  About 3,000 full-time equivalent staff are currently employed as lecturers and tutors on courses of initial teacher training at higher education institutions in England and Wales. Data on support staff are not held centrally.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those institutions concerned with the training of teachers in England and Wales he has visited, and for what purpose, since assuming office, together with relevant dates and approximate length of visit.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend made half-day visits to the school of education at Nottingham 452
  university and the department of education at Loughborough university last year on 2 May and 21 October respectively. On both visits he observed teacher training in practice and spoke with staff, students, local teachers and headteachers. He met staff and students in the school of education at Nene college as part of a general half-day visit to the institution on 3 October. He also made a short visit to Bretton Hall college on 19 July, during which he met staff responsible for teacher training courses at the college.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will tabulate in the Official Report the name of each teacher training centre or institution, listed under convenient categories in England and Wales, respectively, and for each show the type of course offered for graduate, postgraduate and higher degree qualifications, respectively, together with the approximate numbers of students in each category and the number of academic staff in each institution.

  Mr. Fallon
  The names of English initial teacher training institutions, and enrolments on their ITT courses for 1989–90 are listed in tables 9 and 9a of the Department of Education's statistical bulletin 17/91—students on initial teacher training courses—published in July 1991. A copy of this is available in the Library.

  No figures for numbers of academic staff are available for individual ITT institutions.

  Sports Councils
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has assumed for the level of grant-in-aid for the four sports councils and the United Kingdom Sports Commission once this body has been established in arriving at his decision to establish the Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom Sports Commission and the Sports Council for England will be funded from within the provision available for the GB Sports Council. Thereafter, the appropriate provision for each will be settled in the relevant public expenditure round, together with provision for each of the other home country sports councils.

  Sports Commission
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his timetable for establishing the United Kingdom Sports Commission; if he will list the organisations and individuals with whom Ministers and officials in his Department have held meetings with regard to establishing the United Kingdom Sports Commission and the dates on which such meetings took place; if he will list the organisations and individuals with whom Ministers in his Department plan to hold further meetings and the dates on which such meetings will take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom Sports Commission will be established as soon as practicable. The decision took account of the GB Sports Council's own proposals for Sports Council restructuring which were discussed with it. There were also consultations with interested Departments. There will be discussions with the GB Sports Council and others as appropriate to take forward the arrangements for establishing the UK Sports Commission.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the sports bodies and organisations to whom he has sent a copy of his consultation letter on the disposal of school playing fields; by what date he requires responses to this letter; and by what date he will announce the conclusions of this consultation exercise.

  Mr. Atkins
  Copies of the press release on the consultation exercise with the local authority associations—LAAs—have been sent to the Sports Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the National Playing Fields Association and the regional councils for sport and recreation. The LAAs have been asked for comments by 28 February and it is hoped to announce the conclusions of the exercise as soon as possible after that date.

  Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what date he intends to publish his document setting out examples of good practice in promoting sporting and recreational opportunities for young people.

  Mr. Atkins
  This guidance document is one of the proposals in my recent sports policy statement, "Sport and Active Recreation" and I hope to publish it in the autumn.

  School Buildings
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the expenditure required to bring the existing school building stock to the standard required by School Building Regulations.

  Mr. Fallon
  The results of the survey of school buildings—SSB—published by the Department in November 1987 indicated that the cost of bringing school premises up to the accommodation standards defined in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, and to an acceptable state of repair, for 1991 pupil numbers, was about £2 billion at November 1987 prices. We have no later estimate than this figure, which was based upon returns by LEAs in respect of some 800 primary and secondary schools. Between 1986–87 and 1989–90 LEAs spent over £2 billion on school buildings, a significant proportion of which will have gone on remedying the deficiencies noted in the SSB.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give his estimate of the increase in expenditure on maintenance to school buildings required to deal with the problems identified in the National Audit Office report on property management.

  Mr. Fallon
  As the NAO report made clear, local authorities are responsible for the maintenance of their school buildings. It is for individual LEAs, not the Government, to decide what to spend from within the resources available to them in order to keep schools in a satisfactory state of repair.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give for each education 454
  authority his assumption for the amount required to be spent on school building repairs within the expenditure forecast.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Government's 1992–93 local authority finance settlement allows for standard spending on education by local authorities collectively to be 7·1 per cent. higher than this year's figure, which in turn allowed for a substantial increase in standard spending over 1990–91. Within this framework it is for individual local authorities to determine how much to spend on education and the pattern of spending within education, in the light of local needs and circumstances. Local authorities' standard spending assessments do not contain a separately identifiable element for school building repairs.

  Polytechnics
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, columns 31–33, (a) what advice he received from the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and (b) when he last consulted the Standing Conference of Principals on the question of whether to designate any further polytechnics.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The references to polytechnic designations in my right hon. and learned Friend's answer of 16 December took account of responses from the Ploytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Standing Conference of Principals, among others, on the Department's consultation paper "Degree Awarding Powers and University Titles" issued on 31 October. Neither body offered advice on whether to designate further ploytechnics.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to provide training and employment for the young unemployed aged 17 years to 25 years in the Heywood and Middleton constituency.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Employment Service and Rochdale training and enterprise council deliver a wide range of employment, enterprise and training programmes, to help unemployed people, including young unemployed, in Middleton and Heywood as elswhere. Additionally, Rochdale training and enterprise council and the Employment Service are working with others to enhance training provision for certain special groups in the area.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are on YTS in the area of Seaham and Peterlee; and what were the numbers in 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  Provision of training for young people in the Seaham and Peterlee areas is the responsibility of the County Durham training and enterprise council. I have forwarded the hon. Member's inquiry to the TEC chairman. In 1989–90 the youth training scheme was the responsibility of the Department and at March 1990, the latest date that information is available centrally, there were 775 young people on YTS in Seaham and Peterlee.

  Windscale Inquiry
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 19 December, if he will place in the Library a copy of the study by Lyons (GB) Ltd. of press reporting of the Windscale public inquiry.

  Mr Forth
  I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Library.

  Euratom
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment against which authority an individual can claim in the event of a claim for compensation arising from the failure to implement EC directive 89/618.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government do not accept that individual rights to claim compensation arise from the failure to implement the directive before the due date.

  In the event of a member of the public seeking to establish an individual right to claim compensation arising from the failure to implement the directive, civil proceedings might be instituted against the Crown under section 17(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. In that case, the appropriate authorised Government Department against which civil proceedings might be instituted would therefore be this Department as it has responsibility for laying before Parliament proposals for the statutory instrument intended to implement the directive.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the Government's timetable for promulgation of the information stipulated by EC directive 89/618.

  Mr. Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Commission is currently conducting public consultation on proposals to implement EC directive 89/6I8/Euratom. Comments are required by the end of February 1992. We will bring forward new legislation as soon as comments have been considered and proposals scrutinised by the European Commission under the procedure set down in article 33 of the Euratom treaty.

  COSH Regulations
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 associated with building records.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Youth Training Schemes
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many school leavers go straight into youth training schemes in the Crewe and Nantwich travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is not available in the format requested. At December 1991, 55 per cent. of the total number of school leavers in the South and East Cheshire training and enterprise council area went straight into youth training.

  Training Investment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the amount of investment in training in each European country.

  Mr. Jackson
  The definition of investment in training varies very considerably from country to country and no comparable figures are available. In Great Britain, current annual investment in training by employers is estimated at over £20 billion.

  Bridging Allowance (Coventry)
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will produce a table to show, for each of his Department's offices in Coventry, and for the city as a whole, how many young people, and how many of each sex, were receiving bridging allowance; and how many had their allowance terminated in each month since October 1988.

  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.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the proportions of female part-time workers on adult rates, in April, with hourly earnings of less than(a) £3·80, (b) £5·00 and (c) £5·20; and if he will provide these figures by standard economic region, for Great Britain, and for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Forth
  The information available from the 1991 new earnings survey closest to that requested is given in the table.

  Percentage of part·time female employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence, with hourly earnings below the following specified amounts.

  April 1991

  £

  £

  £

  3·80

  4·80

  5·40

  Greater London

  23·5

  53·3

  65·1

  South East

  38·1

  64·7

  74·3

  East Anglia

  53·7

  76·5

  83·6

  South West

  57·4

  77·2

  84·4

  West Midlands

  58·5

  78·8

  84·0

  East Midlands

  59·2

  79·5

  86·3

  Yorks and Humberside

  59·6

  79·7

  85·4

  North West

  56·8

  79·4

  85·2

  Northern

  63·0

  81·5

  88·2

  Wales

  62·7

  79·4

  85·7

  Scotland

  54·4

  76·6

  82·1

  Great Britain

  52·3

  74·7

  81·8

  3·80

  5·00

  5·50

  Northern Ireland

  60·4

  77·8

  82·0

  Source: New Earnings Survey, Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on Wednesday 18 December.
  457
  Mr. Redwood
  The principal item for discussion was the European Commission's proposal for a directive on technical standards for satellite broadcasting. After a lengthy debate, member states were able to reach political agreement on a draft directive. A formal common position on the directive should be adopted shortly, after which it will go for a second reading in the European Parliament. The outcome demonstrated considerable European support for the Government's negotiating position which has consistently sought to protect the interests of European service providers and consumers. I believe we have achieved an excellent deal in this respect. We have resisted any damaging obligations on existing satellite broadcasters to adopt the D2-MAC standard, a move which could have threatened their commercial viability. We have also successfully prevented the compulsory inclusion of multiplexed analogue components—MAC—decoders in ordinary television sets and satellite receiving equipment, thereby sparing consumers an excessive cost premium on these products. I think that the greater emphasis the agreement now places on promoting the wide-screen capabilities of MAC is a very positive step for the European satellite broadcasting industry. Yet to be resolved is the separate financial measure which the Commission intends to propose to provide funding for the promotion of the MAC standard. The Government will consider a case for subsidy on its merits when a proper justification for the spend is put forward but we are opposed to the expenditure of the very large sums which have been talked about by the Commission.

  Formal common positions were adopted without discussion on the Council decision on the harmonisation in due course of the international telephony access code to 00, the Council directive on the application of open network provision to leased lines and the Council resolution on the further liberalisation of satellite communications.

  Industrial Development, Rochdale
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will visit Rochdale borough to meet representatives of industry to discuss matters relating to his Department's activities in industrial development.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have no present plans to do so, although my officials remain ready to discuss my Department's activities and services with Rochdale borough and other local authorities.

  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for boosting manufacturing output in the Rochdale borough.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department has a wide range of schemes to help improve manufacturing output and encourage innovation. Firms in Rochdale wishing to take advantage of these schemes should contact DTI's north-west regional office in Manchester.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Testing
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to use section 5(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 458
  1986 to ensure that projecct licences are not issued for animal tests for skin or eye irritancy where alternative testing methods are available.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  All applicants for project licences for whatever purposes are required to show that they have given thorough consideration to the possibility of using alternatives to the use of living animals in their proposed programme of work. At present there are no validated and accepted alternative testing methods to existing skin and eye irritancy tests.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any of the project licences currently issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 permit animal testing for skin or eye irritancy for the purpose of developing cosmetics or toiletries.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are currently four project licences in force which authorise the use of living animals in the safety testing of cosmetics or toiletries. All authorise the use of animals in tests to ensure that substances used in cosmetics are not skin irritants and three of them authorise tests to ensure that such substances are not eye irritants.

  The definition of cosmetics used in this country follows that used by the European Community and includes such items as shampoos, sunscreens and toothpastes. In view of the purposes of such products, skin and eye irritancy tests are carried out as part of a package of tests required to ensure that substances to be used in cosmetics are safe. Skin and eye irritancy tests will normally only be applied to animals after in vitro pre-screening tests have shown the substance in question to be a non-irritant thus reducing the possibility of adverse reactions to the animals involved.

  State-approved Funding
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if there are equivalents to the Ryrie rules on state-approved non-Government funding for state-approved causes.

  Mr. John Patten
  No.

  Gaming Polices
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the differences between public policies on(a) betting, (b) gaming and (c) lotteries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Government policy on all gambling, whether betting, gaming or lotteries, reflects two basic principles. The first is that controls are necessary to ensure that it is conducted honestly and fairly. The second principle is that demand for gambling should not be stimulated. These principles are applied in different degrees to different kinds of gambling. The greater the scope for abuse and commercial exploitation the more rigorously they are applied.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange the publication by 17 January of an interim discussion paper on the technical issues which could be considered relevant to decisions on one or more high-prize lotteries.
  459
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The House will have an opportunity to consider these issues in debate on 17 January, but we do not intend to issue a discussion document in advance.

  Child Crime
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the number of incidents reported to police in each year since 1980 in which it is believed that offences were committed by children believed to be under the minimum age at 'which they could be either cautioned or prosecuted;

  (2) what was the number of incidents in each year since 1980 in which police identified the culprit or culprits as children under the age at which they could be prosecuted.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not collected centrally on the number or type of offences committed by children under the age of 10 years, the minimum age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.

  Gaming Advertisements
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which forms of gaming, betting or lotteries may be advertised on television.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  By virtue of certain statutory controls and the provisions of the Independent Television Commission's code of advertising standards and practice, all advertising of betting and gaming is prohibited on commercial television. Lotteries permitted under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 may be advertised on television.

  Gambling
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the report on gambling commissioned by the European Commission, in so far as it covers the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As part of an examination of the gambling sector in the context of the single market, a purely factual report entitled, "Gambling in the Single Market—A study of the current legal and market situation", was published by the European Commission in July. We have drawn to the Commission's attention a number of factual inaccuracies in relation to the United Kingdom. In particular, we have pointed out that net consumer spend—estimated at about £3,300 million for the United Kingdom in 1989–90—provides a better guide to gambling expenditure than estimates of the total amount staked which appear in the report. On that basis, the EC gambling industry is much smaller than the report claimed.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority a colour television licence is required for the installation or use of a video cassette recorder in conjunction with a black and white television set.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The requirement for a colour television licence to install or use a video cassette recorder in conjunction with a monochrome television is set out in 460
  the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1991 (No. 436) made under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the merits and demerits of a national lottery.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 December 1991, at column 14.

  Security Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the purposes and objectives of the Security Service;

  (2) if he will make it his practice to provide information on the annual expenditure by the Security Service;

  (3) if he will now make it his practice to disclose the number of people employed by the Security Service.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make it his practice to provide detailed financial information on the expenditure of the Security Service.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The functions of the Security Service, as described in the Security Service Act 1989, are the protection of national security and the safeguarding of the United Kingdom's economic well being against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British islands. I do not intend to depart from the practice adopted by successive Governments of not disclosing information about staffing, financial and other matters closely associated with the Security Service's operations which must necessarily remain secret.

  UKIAS
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what dates in 1991 Ministers and/or officials have met representatives of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service; what was discussed; and what further meetings are planned;

  (2) what communication has been received from the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service proposals that green form legal aid be withdrawn and UKIAS provide advice and assistance on political asylum, immigration and nationality matters; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what increase in the Home Office grant-in-aid to the United Kingdom Immigrant Advisory Service would be required if it has to become the sole provider of advice and assistance on political asylum, immigration and nationality matters and if green form legal aid was wholly or partially withdrawn; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what departmental grant-in-aid has been given to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service in each of the past five years; and what grant-in-aid has been agreed for the coming financial year.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There are frequent discussions between the Home Office and the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. In the past 12 months, these have included the discussions to which I referred in my
  461
  reply to the hon. Member's Question on 14 October 1991, at column 25, about our proposals on green form legal aid, and discussions, which continue, of other matters relevant to the payment of grant-in-aid, including aspects of UKIAS management. The grant paid to UKIAS in the financial years ending 31 March 1988 to 31 March 1991 was £0·961 million, £1·007 million, £1·130 million and £1·351 million respectively. £1·422 million has been paid so far this financial year. Payments for the remainder of this year and for future years will be determined in the light of continuing discussions with UKIAS about the resources needed to enable the organisation to respond to an increased workload.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings or correspondence has been undertaken by him with the Commission for Racial Equality concerning the relations between the Asylum Bill and the Race Relations Act 1976; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality wrote to my right hon. Friend about the Asylum Bill on 3 December and he replied on 10 January. The Government are satisfied that there is no conflict between the Bill and the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Sikh Groups (Expenditure)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints have been received by the Charity Commissioners, in each of the last three years, alleging the irregular expenditure of funds by organisations, including religious organisations, registered by the Sikh community living in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  Separate records are not maintained about individual complaints which have been received by the Charity Commissioners in respect of any charity, and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been carried out on behalf of the Charity Commissioners, in each of the past three years, into complaints of the irregular expenditure of funds by organisations, including religious organisations, registered by the Sikh community living in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  The commissioners have used their powers of inquiry in some 17 cases involving allegations of misuse or misappropriation of funds, during the last three years, by charities connected with the Sikh community living in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) complaints have been received, in each of the last three years, and (b) what investigations have been undertaken by the Metropolitan police into the irregular expenditure of funds by organisations which promote the political, social and economic interests of the British Sikh community.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Indian Terrorism
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British and non-British nationals, in each of the last five years, have been(a) arrested, (b) charged, (c) convicted and (d) acquitted over offences relating to the funding of terrorism in India; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  None.

  Terrorist Funds
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current United Kingdom legislation relating to powers to confiscate terrorist funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The financial provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 have given the police further means of obtaining information in the course of their investigations into terrorist crimes. The complexity of such investigations is such that none has yet reached the stage at which charges may be brought, at which point the powers of restraint and forfeiture may be used. Nevertheless, I understand that the police believe that the provisions have already proved valuable in providing documentary evidence of how funds are channelled, and in opening further lines of investigation.

  Broadcasting Council for Wales
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations he took into account in his recommendations for the appointment of a new chairperson of the Broadcasting Council of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chairmanship of the Broadcasting Council for Wales is one of the duties of the BBC national governor for Wales. In considering recommendations for new appointments to the board, people are sought from a variety of backgrounds whose personal qualities and experience will enable them to contribute to the successful operation of the BBC, and to represent the wider public interest including that of the relevant parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy in the Library of the correspondence between the 11 members of the Broadcasting Council of Wales and himself on Friday 13 December concerning the appointment of Dr. Gwyn Jones to be the next chairman of the BBC Broadcasting Council for Wales.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I do not normally place copies of my correspondence in the Library and I see no reason to do so on this occasion.

  Police Manning
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 10 December,Official Report, column 394, 11 December, Official Report, column 435, 12 December, Official Report, column 508 and 13 December, Official Report, column 584, when he intends to write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth on the calculations on which he based police manning levels.
  463
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I hope to reply this week.

  Homicides, London
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of homicides recorded by the police in the Metropolitan police district in each of the last 10 years; and how many of these were subsequently recorded as murder.

  Mr. John Patten
  The number of offences initially recorded as homicide by the Metropolitan police, and the number of these subsequently found to be murder is shown in the following table for each year from 1982 to 1990:

  Homicide offences in the Metropolitan police district

  Initially recorded homicide offences

  Year

  Total number

  Subsequently recorded as murder

  1982

  196

  47

  1983

  148

  39

  1984

  164

  36

  1985

  191

  40

  1986

  207

  50

  1987

  194

  43

  1988

  160

  33

  1989

  165

  46

  1990

  182

  37

  The equivalent figures for the year 1991 are not available.

  Bomb Warnings
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy for the British Transport police to be made aware of the code words used by the IRA in verifying the authenticity of bomb warning calls in London.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Effective co-operation and liaison exist between the Metropolitan police special branch and the British Transport police on this and other policy issues.

  Magistrates Courts, Rochdale
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his proposals for the future organisation of the magistrates courts in the Rochdale metropolitan borough.

  Mr. John Patten
  Decisions about the provision and usage of courthouses in Rochdale are a matter for the Rochdale magistrates courts committee in consultation with the paying authority. The Government's proposals for the future organisation of the magistrates' courts service in England and Wales as a whole were summarised in the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 18 December to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter).

  Police Civilianisation, Hertfordshire
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State ror the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of policemen in Hertfordshire who would become available for operational duties if the police authority adopted the best practice on civilianisation.
  464
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Of the 819 "key posts" in the Hertfordshire constabulary, 551—or 67·3 per cent.,—have been civilianised. A number of forces have achieved rates at 80 per cent. or more. Although there is not necessarily an exact correlation between the number of posts civilianised and the number of officers thereby released for operational duties, it is reasonable to assume that if Hertfordshire were to civilianise 80 per cent. of "key posts", some 100 further officers could be released for operational duties.

  Seaham and Peterlee (Policing)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable on police manning levels in Seaham and Peterlee in the years 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The deployment of police manpower within a force area is a matter for the chief constable. I understand from the chief constable of Durham that the information requested is as follows:

  On 31 December

  Establishment strength

  Establishment strength

  Seaham

  Peterlee

  1989

  55

  54

  114

  114

  1990

  54

  52

  117

  115

  11991

  53

  49

  126

  126

  1 as at November.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car thefts there have been in the. Seaham and Peterlee area in each year since 1988–89.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Violence Against Police, London
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of offences of violence against the police in the Metropolitan police district in each of the last 10 years where the offence involved serious injury; and what is the clear-up rate.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information relates to the number of officers assaulted while on duty and is published annually in the report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. A six-month survey of sentencing for assaults on police officers was conducted from July to December 1991. From this survey it will be possible to tell how many offenders were convicted of injuring a police officer in the Metroplitan police district during that period. The results of the survey will be published as soon as possible.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of the West Midlands as to the progress of the inquiry set up in March 1991 into the identity of the persons responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings; how many officers have been involved in the inquiry; what they have been doing; and whether they have reached a conclusion.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am not able to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 18 November 1991 at column 17.

  Crime Levels
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the findings of the most recent British crime survey in establishing the fact about crime increases and the comparison with offences recorded by the police.

  Mr. John Patten
  The most recent British crime survey was carried out in 1988, covering crime in 1987. Some types of crime are excluded from the survey, such as those where the victim is an organisation or institution, rather than an individual. For those types of crime where comparisons can be made between the survey findings and offences recorded by the police, the increase between 1981 and 1987 was as follows:

  1Per cent.

  As indicated by the British crime survey

  30

  As indicated by offences recorded by the police

  41

  1 Increase in crime between 1981 and 1987.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to indemnifying local authorities which seek to enforce the law on Sunday trading in respect of the perceived risk of damages should they lose the case in the end.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for local authorities themselves to determine what of their resources to allocate to enforcing the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act 1950 as it is in relation to the whole range of their many other responsibilities under the law. We make a substantial contribution to local authority costs generally through the revenue support grant system, and do not propose to increase this contribution specifically for this enforcement.

  Breath Tests
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will outline the legislation under which police with adequate identification can request a breath test.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The police powers to require breath tests are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988.

  Under section 163 a police constable in uniform has the power to stop any vehicle; and under section 6 to require a breath test:

  (a) where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has alcohol in his body; or

  (b) where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the driver has committed a moving traffic offence; or

  (c) where there is reasonable cause to believe that the driver has been involved in an accident.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what date the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 will be enforced.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Act, apart from section 4, will be brought into force as soon as the guidance circular clarifying the duties of local authorities in enforcing the 466
  new law has been finalised following consultations with the interested parties. Section 4, which deals with the display of warning statements in retail premises and on vending machines, will be brought into effect later in the year after separate consultations have been completed.

  Grants
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to meet all the proposals put forward by local education authorities for grants under section II of the Local Government Act 1966.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Not all proposals met the new criteria for grants. Those proposals which were eligible for grant exceeded in total the resources available. It will be for the local education authorities concerned to decide which of their eligible proposals should be funded within the total grant allocated to each of them for education purposes.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reason for the delay in reporting back to local education authorities on the size of grants for 1992 onwards under the new rules for grants under section II of the Local Government Act 1966.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Some 2,100 applications for project funding were received which was in excess of expectations. All applications had to be carefully scrutinised to see if they met the new criteria for funding. Decisions were notified to all applicants on 18 December.

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on plans to keep younger prisoners serving custodial sentences in secure work camps.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have no such plans.

  India (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his visit to India.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I made an official visit to India between 2 and 6 January, and to Pakistan on 7 and 8 January.

  In India, I visited Delhi, where I had constructive discussions with the Indian Prime Minister, the Indian Home Affairs Minister, and the Indian External Affairs Minister. We discussed in particular the importance of co-operation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and India in combating terrorism. I stressed our commitment to the fight against terrorism, and to co-operation with India in this. I also took the opportunity to express our concern about human rights. I also discussed the desirability of concluding a bilateral agreement to enable co-operation in the tracing, freezing and confiscation of terrorist funds and the proceeds of serious crime, including drug trafficking. In addition, I discussed the suggestion by the Indian Government that the existing extradition arrangements should be replaced by an extradition treaty. I agreed that our experts should again consider this, while having proper regard to the practical and legal requirements.
  467
  In Delhi, I gave a speech at the Indian international centre, a copy of which I am placing in the Library. I also visited and formally opened the new high commission immigration building, and held useful discussions with staff working in the immigration section.

  In Bombay I met the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, where I discussed immigration and drugs matters. I visited the police headquarters and the immigration section of the high commission, where I had useful discussions with staff and police officers.

  In Islamabad, I had meetings with the President, the Interior Minister, and the Minister for Narcotics Control. The main focus of these discussions was the importance of international efforts to combat drug trafficking. I stressed that it was in the interests of both Governments to develop effective programmes to reduce the production of heroin, to break the supply chain and to reduce demand for drugs. I also had useful discussions with staff at the high commission concerned with the control of immigration and narcotics.

PRIME MINISTER

  RECHAR
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will institute an official inquiry into the source of the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for the Environment to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales referring to the RECHAR scheme.

  The Prime Minister
  Where it appears that classified documents may have been leaked, it is for the Secretary of State for the relevant Department concerned, in the first instance, to decide, in consultation with his officials, what inquiries need to be made.

  Security Service
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the appointment of the new director of the Security Service.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 16 December 1991 that Mrs. Stella Rimington had been appointed as the new director general of the Security Service, in accordance with the provisions of the Security Service Act 1989.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what changes he intends to make in his policy for providing answers to questions from hon. Members on the Security Service;

  (2) if he will make it his practice to give information in reply to parliamentary questions concerning the Security Service;

  (3) if he will list changes made since 1987 in practice on providing answers to questions by hon. Members on the security services.

  The Prime Minister
  The functions of the Security Service and other statutory provisions were debated in Parliament during the passage of the Security Service Act 1989. The Government intend to continue the practice adopted by successive Governments of not disclosing information relating to the operation of the Security Service.

  Roman Catholic Church (Recognition)
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, following the repeal in part XVI of schedule 1 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978 of section 24 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, he will now make it the policy of Her Majesty's Government to accord the same degree of official recognition to the territorial sees and titles of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales as is accorded to the unestablished Anglican churches outside England.

  The Prime Minister
  This suggestion is currently being considered, and I will write to my hon. Friend about it as soon as possible.

  Government of London
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to reply to the letter dated 22 October from the hon. Member for Dagenham concerning the government of London.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has replied on my behalf.

  Government Achievements
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to his reply, on Her Majesty's Government's achievements, to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 16 December,Official Report, column 22, he will set out (a) the cost of making this reply and (b) the failures of Her Majesty's Government over the same period.

  The Prime Minister
  My reply of 16 December to my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge demonstrated a consistent record of success and achievement throughout 1991. The cost of that reply, based on the cost of staff and overheads in various departments involved in its compilation, and the printing costs, is estimated at £1,520.

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has agreed to or authorised in respect of the annex I entitled "Reference in the treaty to European Parties", in the draft treaty on European Union; and when, and under what circumstance, the places and formulation of such reference will be determined.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 December 1991]: It is for the presidency to propose a precise formulation and place in the treaty for such a reference before signature.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will state which body or bodies will define which associations or foundations are deemed charitable, in respect of the declaration on co-operation with charitable associations in pursuing the objectives of either version of article 117 in the draft treaty on European union.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 December 1991]: Declarations by the inter-governmental conference have political rather than legal force, and the existing arrangements for defining charitable status are not affected. In the case of the United Kingdom, the competent body remains the Charity Commission.

  Western Shoshone People
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for his office's library the 1989 report by the United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment to which reference is made in the letter by Ambassador Renwick to Chief Rowell of the Western Shoshone people.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: I have already done so.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the technical basis for the requirement for the United Kingdom to carry out tests from time to time to ensure the safety of the nuclear deterrent deployment by the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: It has not been the practice of this or previous Governments to give technical details of our nuclear test programme. Testing remains essential to ensure the effectiveness, safety and credibility of our independent nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to co-ordinate the United Kingdom nuclear weapons deployment and development programme with Her Majesty's Government's commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: For as long as our security depends upon the possession of nuclear weapons, the Government are committed to maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. This is entirely consistent with our commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Coopers and Lybrand
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Prime Minister which Departments, for what purposes, and at what cost, have used the services of Coopers and Lybrand since 1989.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: This information is not held centrally.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Libya about the Lockerbie bombing; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: The Libyans have issued various statements and indirect messages about the Lockerbie bombing. None of these provided a satisfactory response to the requests we made with our United States and French partners on 27 November.

  Lt. Col. Partap Singh
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to answer the letter, dated 12 August 1991, from Lt. Col. Partap Singh (retired), president of the Khalsa Raj party; and if he will place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: My office has no record of receiving Lt. Col. Singh's letter.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Population Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amounts of Overseas Development Administration grants to Population Services Family Planning Programme Ltd., Marie Stopes, for each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The list of ODA grants to Marie Stopes International is as follows:

  Years

  Size of grant

  1981–82

  89,916

  1982–83

  71,424

  1983–84

  95,397

  1984–85

  0

  1985–86

  11,265

  1986–87

  162,460

  1987–88

  99,739

  1988–89

  194,699

  1989–90

  520,520

  1990–91

  605,265

  These grants do not represent general donations, but are provided in support of specifically agreed projects in developing countries.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the types of oral and injectable contraceptives provided under the United Nations fund for population activities as part of its health and family planning programme for Ghana.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The UNFPA's programme of contraceptive supply to Ghana provides Microgynon and Micronovum—orals—and Depo-Provera—injectable.

  Road-Building Projects (Central African Republic)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Minister for Overseas Development has had from Dr. Alan Tye of the West African Ornithological Society in relation to the Dzanga-Sangha rainforest reserve and the Dzanga-Ndoki national park in the Central African Republic; and what is his policy on Government aid for road-building projects in such areas.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Dr. Tye has written to me about a rural development project in the Dzanga-Sangha rain forest reserve which was tentatively scheduled for presentation to the August 1991 session of the executive board of the African development bank.

  I replied that the project had been withdrawn at the request of executive directors representing several non-regional members of the bank, including United Kingdom, until a comprehensive assessment of its environmental impact has been undertaken.

  We would expect environmental and social impact assessments to be undertaken for road projects located in environmentally sensitive areas.

  Latvia
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the items of assistance provided by Her Majesty's Government to Latvia since 1 January 1991.
  471
  Mrs. Chalker
  The following projects have been initiated in the Baltic states. including Latvia, with funding from the know-how fund:

  Know how fund Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia

  Small business creation

  1. Mitaline Technology (Estonia).

  2. Preparation of a training programme for use by Estonian Small Business Association.

  3. Estonian Small Business Association.

  4. Approved.

  5. £4,000.

  Financial Services

  1. Transcend Technology (Lithuania).

  2. To provide assistance to the Association of Light Industry Enterprises of Lithuania to prepare individual state enterprises for privatisation.

  3. Association of Light Industries.

  4. Approved.

  5. £9,800.

  Political and Cultural

  1. Restructuring MFAs.

  2. Senior retired United Kingdom diplomats on short attachments to Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Latvia. Lithuania and Estonia. To advise on restructuring in a democratic society.

  3. Ministries of Foreign Affairs.

  4. Approved.

  5. £15,000.

  1. Police Training Missions

  2. Senior officers from Strathclyde police on short missions to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to advise on police training needs, restructuring etc.

  3.—

  4. Approved.

  5. £20,000.

  1. Low Cost Book Scheme.

  2. Subsidies for text books for retailers and individuals in three baltic states.

  3.—

  4. Approved.

  5. £66,000.

  1. Short Term Scholarships.

  2. One year scholarships for postgraduates and young professionals in the three Baltics. Target areas economics, finance and management.

  3.—

  4. Approved.

  5. £120,000.

  1. Bradford Baltic Unit.

  2. Attachment of students from the three Baltic states to the Baltic Unit of Bradford University.

  3.—.

  4. Approved.

  5. £70,900.

  1. Books for Parliaments.

  2. Provision of text books in key areas to libraries of Baltic Parliaments.

  3.—.

  4. Approved.

  5. £15,000.

  1. Seminar for Parliamentary Librarians.

  2. Training seminar for Parliamentary librarians from the three Baltic States.

  3.—.

  4. Approved.

  5. £8,000.

  1. Legal Attachments.

  472

  2. Attachments of young lawyers from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the Law Society of Scotland and Scottish legal practices.

  3.—.

  4. Approved.

  5. £40,000.

  1. Legal Concepts for Translators.

  2. Training in legal concepts in English for translators attached to the Office of the Lithuanian Supreme Council.

  3.—.

  4. Approved.

  5. £4,000.

  1. TV Training Project.

  2. Assisting trainees from the three Baltic states in British TV production procedures.

  3.—.

  4. Approved.

  5. £26,000.

  1. Visit of Lithuania Deputy Chief of Protocol.

  2. Familiarisation visit.

  3.—.

  4. Completed.

  5. £2,000.

  1. Publisher Training.

  2. Seminar on publishing and book trade in Lithuania.

  3. Open Society Foundation of Lithuania.

  4. Approved.

  5. £30,000.

  Note:

  1.= Title of project.

  2. = Purpose of project.

  3. = Local organisation involved.

  4. = Status of project.

  5. = Cost of project.

ENERGY

  Petroleum Engineering Directorate
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when work on the independent inquiry into the cost effectiveness of relocating petroleum engineering directorate staff in Aberdeen will begin; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the Treasury has produced a brief for the Government-ordered independent inquiry into the cost effectiveness of relocating civil servants from the petroleum engineering directorate in Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department has drawn up a shortlist of firms from those which responded to my announcement and press advertisement. Six firms have been sent terms of reference agreed between the Treasury, Scottish Office and my Department, and they have been invited to tender for the review of the case for relocating the petroleum engineering directorate in Aberdeen. I shall announce who is to carry out the review when the consultant has been chosen.

  Cold Weather Credits
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to meet representatives of the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no such plans.

  Deep-mined Coal
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the current level of deep-mined coal production in Britain; and how many people are employed in deep-mined coal production.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the most recent completed financial year, 1990–91, the British Coal Corporation produced 72·3 million tonnes of coal from deep mines. At the end of that financial year, in March 1991, the corporation had 61,351 industrial employees at its deep mines.

  Privately owned mines, with licences to work coal underground, produced 1 million tonnes and employed 1,628 people.

  British Coal
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will dismiss the chairman and board members of the British Coal Corporation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No.

  Heating
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what proportion of household income is spent on heating by households in each income group.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is not possible to distinguish expenditure on fuel for heating from expenditure on fuel for other household uses. Data on total spending on fuel, light and power by households in 1990 as a proportion of total expenditure, analysed by income group, are:

  Gross normal weekly income of household

  1Expenditure

  £

  Per cent.

  Under 60

  11·8

  60 and under 80

  10·8

  80 and under 100

  9·6

  100 and under 125

  7·3

  125 and under 150

  6·5

  150 and under 175

  6·4

  175 and under 225

  5·5

  225 and under 275

  5·2

  275 and under 325

  4·2

  325 and under 375

  4·1

  375 and under 425

  4·0

  425 and under 475

  3·8

  475 and under 550

  3·4

  550 and under 650

  3·3

  650 and under 800

  3·1

  800 or more

  2·9

  All households

  4·5

  1 Expenditure on fuel, light and power as a proportion of total expenditure.

  Source: Family Spending, published by HMSO.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to increase funding of the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have nothing further to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 6 December 1991, at column 258.
  474
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what plans he has to extend the home energy efficiency scheme.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no plans to extend the energy efficiency measures offered under the home energy efficiency scheme at present.

  Electricity Generation
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the cost to the domestic electricity consumer of the requirement for electricity generating companies to purchase their fuel from British Coal; and what is the difference between British Coal prices and the current world price for coal.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no requirement for electricity generating companies to purchase their fuel from British Coal. National Power and PowerGen currently have contracts with British Coal, in place until March 1993.

  The average British Coal price in 1990–91 was £41·78 per tonne, compared to an average price of power station coal imported into the European Community of approximately £25 per tonne, for the same year.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his policy on the future level of opencast mining in the Northumberland area.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The future level of opencast coal mining in Northumberland will depend on commercial decisions by operators and on the acceptability of new sites to the planning authorities.

  EC Energy Policy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is(a) the direct and (b) the indirect effect of the agreement reached at the recent Joint European Energy and Environment meeting on European Communities energy policy on the United Kingdom (i) nuclear programme and (ii) renewable energy programme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment explained on 17 December 1991, at columns 104 and 105, that the agreement reached at the recent joint session of the Energy and Environment Councils was to invite the European Commission to put forward formal proposals for measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions in the Community, including any necessary proposals for Community-wide taxation taking account of further studies and the conclusions of separate discussions by Finance Ministers. No such formal proposals have yet been made by the Commission. It is therefore premature to comment on the effect which any such proposals might have on the United Kingdom's nuclear and renewable energy programmes.

  Dounreay Investigation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport West on 16 December 1991,Official Report, column 17, he will set out the nature of the discrepancy under investigation at Dounreay nuclear power development establishment.
  475
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A report on the discrepancy has not been received to date.

  Trawsfynydd
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when his Department became aware of the decision to downrate by 22 per cent. the Magnox reactor at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, to enable operation to restart; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when his Department became aware of the new pressure temperature management regime at Trawsfynydd nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement on safety.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reactors at Trawsfynydd were shut down in February 1991 as a precautionary measure, to enable Nuclear Electric to review the situation with regard to the integrity of pressure vessel welds. Both reactors have remained shut down since then.

  Discussions are continuing between Nuclear Electric and the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate on Nuclear Electric's safety case for a return to power of the reactors. Changes to the operating regimes
  476
  of the reactors, which may or may not result in downrating, will form part of those discussions. The details of changes finally agreed prior to any return to operation will be a matter for Nuclear Electric and the NII.

  There will be no question of a return to power of the Trawsfynydd reactors unless and until the NII is satisfied that an acceptable safety case has been made.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in strengthening the powers of inspection exercised by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A number of proposals for strengthening IAEA safeguards have been made by the EC and others. However, no firm decisions have yet been taken on these issues, which will need full reflection by the IAEA board and its member states. The next meeting of the board of governors, in February, will devote much of its time to safeguards issues.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of compensation was paid during the most recent year for which figures are available to(a) women and (b) children as a result of sexual offences.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Criminal injuries compensation paid as a result of sexual offences

  (i) 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  (ii) 1 April 1991 to 17 November 1991

  £

  £

  Women

  583,510

  234,089

  Minors

  327,943

  352,122

  Gas Pipelines
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which routes for a gas pipeline from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are presently under consideration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The route of any gas pipeline from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will largely be a matter for decision by the private sector interests laying that pipeline.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the water courses which contain leachate from dumps containing tarry wastes in the Londonderry area; and whether plant and animal life in such water courses appear to have been affected by such leachate by reference to the plant and animal life present upstream and downstream of the dumps.

  Mr. Needham
  No significant traces of leachate associated with tarry wastes have been found in water courses within catchments in the Londonderry area; nor is there any evidence of adverse effect on plant and animal life. However, studies of flora and fauna in these water courses are under way and additional monitoring is planned in 1992.

  Immigration
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are estimated in each of the past 10 years to have(a) migrated from Great Britain into Northern Ireland and (b) emigrated from other countries into Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Migrated from Great Britain (a)

  Emigrated from elsewhere (b)

  1980–81

  5,100

  2,100

  1981–82

  4,400

  1,600

  1982–83

  4,800

  1,700

  1983–84

  5,200

  2,800

  1984–85

  6,900

  3,100

  478

  Year

  Migrated from Great Britain (a)

  Emigrated from elsewhere (b)

  1985–86

  8,000

  3,900

  1986–87

  9,500

  3,800

  1987–88

  9,500

  4,200

  1988–89

  10,200

  4,200

  1989–90

  10,800

  4,300

  Figures are derived from the mid-year estimates of population which cover the period 1 July in each year to 30 June in the following year.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated capital savings as a result of the present moratorium on new public expenditure on capital projects in Northern Ireland; how much of this saving is required as a result of expenditure on terrorist-related incidents; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is anticipated that the temporary deferment of new capital contracts should provide sufficient resources to offset the imbalance between new demands and easements within the Northern Ireland block amounting to some £30 million. This figure represents the net effect of substantial numbers of adjustments to budgets, both increases and decreases, arising since the start of the financial year, of which security-related costs are only one element. Final decisions on the adjustments required will be taken in the context of the spring supplementary estimates which will be laid before the House in February and the details will be made available then.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate the respects in which the provisions in Northern Ireland for the disposal of fallen and diseased animals diverge from those applying in the European Community for(a) animal health and food hygiene and (b) the environment, with particular reference to the possible pollution of water resources through on-farm burial; and how it is monitored.

  Mr. Hanley
  Arrangements in Northern Ireland comply with European Community provisions for disposal of fallen and diseased animals. Meat inspection systems operated by the Department of Agriculture and by environmental health officers aim to eliminate any risk to food hygiene. The Department of the Environment (NI) monitors fresh and marine waters for compliance with EC directives relating to water pollution.

  Infant Death
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 50, what pilot studies his Department is doing to test the feasibility of the proposals for the confidential inquiries into stillbirths and deaths in infancy set out in the report published on 2 July 1991; and whether the results of the pilot studies will be ready in time to be taken into account in finalising plans for the inquiries themselves.
  479
  Mr. Hanley
  A national advisory body, on which Northern Ireland will be represented, is to be established to guide and oversee the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. There are no plans for pilot studies to be undertaken in Northern Ireland.

  Public Spending Moratorium
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the capital projects planned for this financial year which are now postponed by the recently announced moratorium on public spending, indicating for each project the Department or public body concerned and the value of the contract.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Housing Estate Heating Systems
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list contract commencement and completion dates and the contract price for installing new heating systems in(a) New Mossley housing estate, Newtownabbey and (b) Springfarm housing estate, Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  The chief executive of the Housing Executive has advised me that the contract details for installing new heating systems in New Mossley and Springfarm are as follows:

  Start date

  Completion date

  Price £

  Springfarm

  September 1988

  February 1989

  428,715

  New Mossley

  September 1988

  February 1989

  588,728

  Northern Ireland International Airport
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if a pension fund actuarial valuation has been attributed to the employees of Northern Ireland international airport in preparation for privatisation; and if he will give the name of the actuary.

  Mr. Needham
  No pension fund actuarial valuation has yet been carried out.

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assurance he will give to employees of Northern Ireland international airport that their pension rights and expectations will be fully protected after privatisation.

  Mr. Needham
  Privatisation of Northern Ireland Airports Limited will not affect the pension rights and expectations of existing employees. If a new pension scheme were to be established in place of the existing scheme, it would be on terms that the benefits to be made available would be the same in all substantial respects as those presently enjoyed under current arrangements and any new scheme would receive the assets of the existing scheme.
  480

  Start Date

  Completion Date

  Price £

  Springfarm

  March 1991

  March 1992

  834,316

  New Mossley

  March 1991

  March 1992

  1,298,627

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list contract commencement and completion dates and the contract price for replacing defective district heating mains pipework at the New Mossley housing estate in Newtownabbey.

  Mr. Needham
  The chief executive of the Housing Executive has advised me that the contract details for the replacement of defective district heating mains pipework at New Mossley were as follows:

  Start Date

  Completion Date

  Price £

  July 1985

  November 1989

  880,627

  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the contract commencement and completion dates and the contract price for fitting new card operated district heating meters at(a) New Mossley housing estate, Newtownabbey and (b) Springfarm housing estate, Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  The chief executive of the Housing Executive has advised me that the contract details for fitting new card operated district heating meters in New Mossley and Springfarm estates are as follows:

  Buses (Pollution)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to reduce exhaust pollution from public service vehicles by Ulsterbus and Citybus.

  Mr. Needham
  I am advised by the managing director of Ulsterbus and Citybus that, to reduce exhaust pollution, the companies' buses are powered by diesel, rather than petrol, engines; new buses are fitted with emission efficient engines, automatic gear boxes and speed limiters; and maintenance schedules include specific measures to reduce exhaust emissions.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the tarry wastes arising from the production of acetylene gas at Maydown, Co. Londonderry, can be disposed of by incineration; and what research he has commissioned into the substances and chemicals which result when they are subjected to high temperatures.

  Mr. Needham
  I have not commissioned any research into the effects of incinerating these wastes but relevant work has been carried out elsewhere in the United Kingdom and internationally. Essentially, they are not incinerable without considerable pre-treatment. Official
  481
  guidance on the topic was published in 1977, in a code of practice entitled "Tarry and distillation wastes and other chemical based residues"—waste management paper No. 13. A copy is in the Library.

  A study will commence shortly into the scale and nature of the Tarry waste deposits in the north-west in order to determine the best practicable environmental option for their disposal and, if appropriate, the subsequent decontamination of the land on which they are situated.

  Year 1980

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  3

  7

  5

  6

  Belfast

  1

  1

  8

  23

  37

  59

  56

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Down

  0

  0

  1

  3

  3

  7

  6

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  5

  6

  North Down

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Antrim

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  7

  8

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  6

  3

  Ballymoney

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  3

  2

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  3

  Coleraine

  1

  0

  1

  1

  6

  8

  5

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Lame

  0

  0

  0

  1

  6

  5

  0

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  Moyle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  1

  2

  7

  11

  9

  Armagh

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  2

  1

  4

  7

  13

  Dungannon

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  6

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  2

  3

  2

  7

  10

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  4

  3

  Limavady

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Derry

  0

  2

  1

  4

  17

  23

  15

  Omagh

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  4

  3

  Strabane

  1

  0

  0

  3

  3

  4

  5

  Northern Ireland

  3

  5

  25

  60

  128

  174

  176

  Year 1981

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  2

  6

  Belfast

  0

  1

  4

  22

  51

  56

  48

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  4

  Down

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  5

  7

  Lisburn

  0

  1

  1

  4

  4

  6

  7

  North Down

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  8

  4

  Antrim

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  11

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  2

  2

  8

  7

  5

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  2

  3

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  8

  4

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  0

  7

  10

  12

  6

  Cookstown

  0

  1

  0

  3

  3

  1

  1

  Larne

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  1

  8

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  3

  Moyle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  2

  10

  5

  8

  8

  Armagh

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  5

  1

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  0

  2

  9

  15

  12

  Dungannon

  0

  1

  0

  3

  3

  2

  5

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  2

  4

  7

  7

  7

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  4

  5

  Limavady

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Derry

  0

  0

  0

  6

  18

  17

  23

  Omagh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  4

  Strabane

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  3

  Northern Ireland

  0

  4

  13

  83

  154

  189

  189

  482
  Should incineration be recommended further research may have to be commissioned to ensure that the full environmental significance of the process is understood.

  Teenage Mothers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of illegitimate births born to teenage girls in each year since 1980 in each registry area, giving the age in years of the teenage mothers.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  483

  Year 1982

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  5

  2

  Belfast

  0

  0

  6

  20

  41

  77

  54

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  Down

  0

  0

  0

  4

  6

  3

  8

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  4

  2

  6

  12

  8

  North Down

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  1

  Antrim

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  4

  10

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  2

  5

  6

  4

  13

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  0

  2

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  5

  6

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  1

  1

  7

  9

  9

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  4

  Lame

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  4

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  3

  3

  Moyle

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Newtownabbey

  0

  1

  1

  2

  10

  10

  11

  Armagh

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  6

  4

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  0

  7

  3

  16

  12

  Dungannon

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  3

  4

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  8

  10

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  0

  4

  8

  1

  6

  Limavady

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Derry

  0

  0

  1

  6

  16

  16

  21

  Omagh

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  1

  Strabane

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  13

  8

  Northern Ireland

  0

  2

  22

  74

  147

  214

  206

  Year 1983

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  1

  1

  4

  5

  8

  Belfast

  0

  0

  5

  20

  42

  83

  87

  Castlereagh

  0

  1

  0

  1

  6

  6

  6

  Down

  0

  1

  0

  1

  7

  9

  6

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  0

  4

  9

  8

  9

  North Down

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  2

  6

  Antrim

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  12

  11

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  0

  3

  9

  10

  10

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  3

  6

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  1

  5

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  5

  9

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  5

  3

  Larne

  0

  0

  0

  3

  9

  8

  6

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  7

  5

  Moyle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  0

  7

  7

  10

  10

  Armagh

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  4

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  3

  3

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  1

  3

  6

  9

  9

  Dungannon

  0

  2

  0

  5

  0

  4

  3

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  1

  2

  8

  4

  6

  Fermanagh

  0

  1

  1

  1

  7

  10

  5

  Limavady

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  4

  Derry

  0

  0

  5

  5

  19

  29

  23

  Omagh

  2

  0

  1

  1

  3

  12

  4

  Strabane

  0

  0

  1

  3

  10

  9

  7

  Northern Ireland

  2

  5

  23

  78

  177

  258

  256

  Year 1984

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  5

  12

  Belfast

  0

  3

  7

  18

  68

  99

  114

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  5

  Down

  0

  0

  1

  3

  4

  9

  11

  Lisburn

  0

  1

  2

  8

  13

  20

  9

  North Down

  0

  0

  0

  4

  7

  3

  4

  Antrim

  0

  0

  3

  2

  8

  11

  7

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  2

  3

  8

  3

  9

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  1

  1

  6

  4

  3

  Carrickfergus

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  3

  3

  Coleraine

  1

  1

  2

  6

  9

  11

  10

  Cookstown

  0

  1

  0

  0

  4

  1

  0

  484 485

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Larne

  0

  1

  2

  3

  8

  7

  6

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  1

  Moyle

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  0

  4

  11

  15

  17

  Armagh

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  4

  1

  Banbridge

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  2

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  0

  5

  8

  10

  13

  Dungannon

  0

  2

  0

  3

  2

  2

  6

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  0

  2

  11

  8

  17

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  2

  2

  3

  5

  6

  Limavady

  0

  0

  1

  3

  6

  2

  9

  Derry

  0

  0

  1

  11

  10

  38

  28

  Omagh

  0

  0

  1

  2

  7

  7

  6

  Strabane

  0

  1

  3

  3

  8

  11

  10

  Northern Ireland

  2

  12

  29

  92

  222

  288

  311

  Year 1985

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  2

  8

  6

  3

  Belfast

  0

  1

  5

  26

  67

  119

  133

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  1

  3

  5

  2

  9

  Down

  0

  0

  3

  4

  8

  5

  13

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  2

  5

  12

  22

  11

  North Down

  0

  0

  3

  5

  1

  11

  12

  Antrim

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  13

  12

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  2

  6

  6

  6

  10

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  7

  5

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  8

  5

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  2

  3

  11

  10

  16

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  4

  4

  Larne

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  3

  6

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  5

  3

  Moyle

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  4

  5

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  1

  4

  9

  16

  15

  Armagh

  0

  1

  1

  3

  4

  6

  4

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  5

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  1

  3

  11

  14

  11

  Dungannon

  0

  2

  1

  3

  7

  5

  5

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  0

  4

  10

  7

  10

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  3

  0

  7

  3

  10

  Limavady

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  4

  4

  Derry

  0

  1

  1

  4

  25

  29

  41

  Omagh

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  5

  9

  Strabane

  0

  0

  0

  2

  11

  13

  9

  Northern Ireland

  0

  5

  30

  97

  232

  330

  370

  Year 1980

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  15

  11

  Belfast

  1

  0

  7

  22

  78

  114

  109

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  0

  7

  5

  8

  11

  Down

  0

  1

  0

  4

  12

  16

  12

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  3

  11

  16

  17

  23

  North Down

  0

  0

  1

  2

  12

  12

  3

  Antrim

  0

  0

  0

  6

  10

  9

  12

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  2

  2

  5

  15

  12

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  6

  3

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  0

  6

  4

  4

  9

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  0

  5

  7

  12

  16

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Larne

  0

  0

  2

  4

  5

  7

  5

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  0

  3

  4

  4

  3

  Moyle

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  4

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  0

  6

  17

  16

  13

  Armagh

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  9

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  1

  0

  5

  5

  7

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  0

  6

  16

  17

  19

  Dungannon

  0

  0

  0

  1

  12

  10

  6

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  0

  3

  12

  9

  18

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  1

  4

  7

  9

  10

  Limavady

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  7

  10

  Derry

  0

  1

  2

  16

  24

  43

  42

  Omagh

  0

  0

  0

  4

  7

  5

  8

  486 487

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Strabane

  0

  0

  2

  5

  5

  9

  12

  Northern Ireland

  1

  3

  24

  120

  289

  378

  387

  Year 1987

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  2

  10

  12

  8

  Belfast

  1

  1

  5

  33

  84

  129

  128

  Castlereagh

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  7

  6

  Down

  0

  0

  0

  5

  8

  16

  20

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  1

  8

  21

  18

  17

  North Down

  0

  0

  0

  3

  9

  8

  10

  Antrim

  0

  0

  3

  3

  10

  12

  5

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  1

  7

  15

  13

  14

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  4

  5

  Carrickfergus

  0

  1

  1

  4

  6

  7

  5

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  2

  10

  10

  10

  13

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  3

  4

  Larne

  0

  0

  0

  4

  5

  8

  7

  Magherafelt

  0

  1

  0

  2

  1

  4

  3

  Moyle

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  2

  4

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  18

  20

  Armagh

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  6

  4

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  1

  3

  Craigavon

  0

  1

  2

  7

  19

  15

  28

  Dungannon

  0

  0

  2

  4

  8

  5

  10

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  1

  2

  1

  10

  17

  18

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  6

  8

  Limavady

  0

  0

  0

  5

  10

  13

  16

  Derry

  0

  1

  2

  6

  23

  34

  51

  Omagh

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  11

  7

  Strabane

  0

  0

  0

  3

  12

  15

  13

  Northern Ireland

  2

  7

  27

  120

  301

  394

  427

  Year 1988

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  1

  5

  6

  11

  13

  Belfast

  0

  0

  6

  36

  95

  143

  146

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  0

  3

  9

  11

  4

  Down

  0

  0

  3

  4

  7

  8

  14

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  3

  12

  20

  29

  26

  North Down

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  13

  17

  Antrim

  0

  0

  0

  4

  9

  15

  16

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  0

  2

  18

  14

  11

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  0

  2

  5

  7

  8

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  8

  8

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  2

  7

  6

  10

  12

  Cookstown

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1

  8

  5

  Larne

  0

  0

  2

  2

  10

  10

  7

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  13

  5

  Moyle

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  3

  3

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  1

  3

  13

  15

  15

  Armagh

  0

  0

  2

  3

  9

  6

  8

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  2

  3

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  0

  7

  13

  19

  23

  Dungannon

  0

  0

  1

  3

  8

  6

  5

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  0

  2

  12

  22

  21

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  3

  1

  10

  16

  12

  Limavady

  0

  0

  1

  1

  9

  9

  8

  Derry

  0'

  1

  4

  7

  20

  40

  44

  Omagh

  0

  2

  1

  7

  8

  9

  15

  Strabane

  0

  0

  1

  5

  3

  15

  10

  Northern Ireland

  0

  4

  35

  133

  303

  462

  459

  Year 1989

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  16

  12

  Belfast

  0

  1

  8

  31

  75

  126

  151

  Castlereagh

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  9

  7

  Down

  0

  0

  1

  4

  8

  10

  19

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  3

  6

  14

  23

  35

  488 489

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  North Down

  0

  0

  1

  3

  5

  14

  6

  Antrim

  0

  0

  1

  5

  4

  15

  17

  Ballymena

  0

  0

  0

  7

  5

  18

  15

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  9

  9

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  2

  4

  4

  8

  8

  Coleraine

  0

  2

  2

  8

  16

  28

  16

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  1

  3

  7

  5

  9

  Larne

  0

  0

  0

  1

  7

  9

  13

  Magherafelt

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  5

  1

  Moyle

  1

  0

  0

  3

  4

  8

  4

  Newtownabbey

  0

  0

  1

  3

  9

  18

  16

  Armagh

  0

  0

  0

  2

  6

  4

  12

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  6

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  4

  6

  15

  23

  29

  Dungannon

  0

  0

  1

  4

  8

  9

  8

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  2

  2

  9

  12

  20

  Fermanagh

  0

  0

  1

  3

  13

  12

  11

  Limavady

  0

  0

  0

  5

  7

  8

  9

  Derry

  0

  1

  1

  10

  22

  40

  48

  Omagh

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  7

  5

  Strabane

  0

  0

  0

  3

  6

  17

  12

  Northern Ireland

  1

  4

  30

  128

  272

  458

  498

  Year 19901

  Age of mother

  13

  14

  15

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Ards

  0

  0

  0

  1

  11

  12

  21

  Belfast

  1

  1

  13

  23

  86

  128

  125

  Castlereagh

  0

  1

  0

  1

  5

  7

  6

  Down

  0

  0

  3

  10

  14

  17

  14

  Lisburn

  0

  0

  4

  5

  10

  29

  38

  North Down

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  5

  11

  Antrim

  0

  0

  0

  3

  6

  6

  19

  Ballymena

  0

  1

  1

  1

  10

  18

  16

  Ballymoney

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  6

  7

  Carrickfergus

  0

  0

  0

  2

  3

  9

  11

  Coleraine

  0

  0

  0

  5

  15

  18

  23

  Cookstown

  0

  0

  0

  4

  12

  9

  8

  Larne

  0

  0

  0

  2

  7

  4

  14

  Magherafelt

  0

  1

  0

  4

  5

  8

  7

  Moyle

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  6

  Newtownabbey

  1

  0

  4

  5

  16

  18

  16

  Armagh

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  12

  9

  Banbridge

  0

  0

  0

  4

  3

  7

  6

  Craigavon

  0

  0

  0

  7

  16

  19

  25

  Dungannon

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  9

  7

  Newry and Mourne

  0

  0

  1

  1

  13

  25

  23

  Fermanagh

  0

  1

  0

  3

  10

  6

  13

  Limavady

  0

  0

  0

  3

  7

  10

  17

  Derry

  0

  0

  1

  12

  22

  40

  59

  Omagh

  0

  0

  1

  2

  4

  8

  11

  Strabane

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  13

  11

  Northern Ireland

  2

  5

  31

  111

  297

  444

  523

  1 1990 figures are provisional.

  Source: Statistics held by General Register Office.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the name of the present Northern Ireland local government officers' superannuation scheme pension fund adviser.

  Mr. Needham
  The Northern Ireland local government officers' superannuation scheme pension fund is managed by two fund managers, Mercury Asset Management and Gartmore pension fund managers. The fund also invests directly in property and forestry and is advised in these respects by Mr. J. W. Burgess FRICS and Tilhill Economic Forestry Limited respectively.

  Libyan Arms
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the amount estimated by the Government and the Government of the Irish Republic to be the total provision of Libyan arms and explosives to the IRA; and what amount of the IRA's Libyan arms and explosives cache have, to date, been(a) expended and (b) captured.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 17 December 1991]: Substantial quantities of Libyan arms and explosives reached the Provisional IRA in the mid-1980s. Their recovery has been the objective of a sustained programme of intensive searching by the Garda in the Republic of Ireland and by the police and Army in Northern Ireland.

  491
  This has had some success, although such arms and weapons continue to be used by PIRA in its terrorist campaigns. For operational reasons it would not be appropriate to give details of the amount of arms and explosives expended and recovered.

TRANSPORT

  Traffic (Nottingham)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about traffic in the Greater Nottingham area.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received a number of representations about transport strategy in Nottingham, including one from my hon. Friend which I discussed with him at a meeting last November.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the annual cost to British business of road congestion.

  Mr. Chope
  There are no reliable estimates of the annual cost of road congestion to British business, but the costs are clearly substantial.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the overall reduction since 1967 in the number of deaths in road crashes when at least one driver or rider was above the legal alcohol limit; and if he will publish the figures for each year.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures for each year since 1979 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  1,790

  1980

  1,570

  1981

  1,540

  1982

  1,670

  1983

  1,200

  1984

  1,280

  1985

  1,130

  1986

  1,060

  1987

  980

  1988

  840

  1989

  870

  1990

  800

  A13
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the division of responsibility between local and central Government on the development of the A13 and its approaches, with respect to the east end of London.

  Mr. Chope
  My Department has a major programme of works to the A13 trunk road to improve access to east London and docklands. The London Docklands development corporation has a complementary programme to provide new access roads within docklands. I have no plans to change the allocation of responsibility for the A13.
  492
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what time scale he envisages work on the Mardyke-Wennington link of the A 13 commencing.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope that the decision of the public inquiry will be announced in February, and subject to the completion of the statutory procedures, some advance work will commence in the autumn of this year.

  M66
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M66 from Denton to Middleton to be built and opened.

  Mr. Chope
  I expect work on the first construction contract at the northern end of the scheme to start towards the end of this year, subject to the successful outcome of the remaining statutory procedures. If all goes well, the new road could be open to traffic by 1997.

  Exhaust Emissions
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to reduce harmful emissions from vehicle exhausts.

  Mr. Chope
  The Government are to introduce two new measures prescribing even stricter limits on emissions of gaseous pollutants and particulate matter from motor vehicles. The first will apply to all types of new petrol-engined cars and light vans from 31 December 1992. The second, which applies to new heavy diesels is a two-stage measure commencing on 1 October 1993, with a further reduction on 1 October 1996. These measures set ambitious targets with a challenging but industrially realistic timetable, putting the United Kingdom on a course for substantial longer-term progress in improving the quality of air in our towns and cities.

  North Kent Rail Services
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail commuter services on the north Kent line.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are well aware that the quality of service on certain lines, including some of those running through Kent, is below what passengers can reasonably expect. However, an improvement scheme costing over £600 million is underway on Kent link lines. Improvements to Kent link services will be made with the introduction of new Networker trains from this May.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet with the chairman of British Rail in order to discuss privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend meets the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss a range of issues including privatisation.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to his Department's latest consultation paper on aircraft noise from small airfields; and when he expects to reach his conclusions thereon.
  493
  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend had received 391 responses up to 31 December. Careful consideration will be given to the points which have been raised and we aim to reach conclusions during the first half of the year.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the commercial potential of the channel tunnel to the north-west.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have made no specific assessment, but I believe that the opportunities created by the channel tunnel for new rail links with the continent will be very beneficial to the north-west and to other parts of the country.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Eurotunnel consortium management since the beginning of the new year on progress in completing the project and related matters.

  Mr. Freeman
  I hold discussions with Eurotunnel's management from time to time, but have not done so yet in 1992.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans exist for the Waterloo international terminal after the channel tunnel rail link has been completed;

  (2) if he will estimate the amount of rail traffic using the Brockley-Nunhead line after the completion of the alternative route for the channel tunnel rail link;

  (3) whether any householders living along the Brockley-Nunhead line have been contacted by British Rail about compensation or compulsory purchase;

  (4) what plans there are to create additional tracks cutting into the embankment or gardens on the Brockley-Nunhead line.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Waterloo international passenger station will continue to take some international passenger trains after the channel tunnel rail link has been completed. One aspect of the current studies to refine the proposals for the new line is to consider how best to provide access from it to Waterloo. No conclusions have as yet been reached. There are no plans for widening the Brockley-Nunhead line and therefore the question of compensation or compulsory purchase does not arise.

  Mrs. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans have been made to develop public transport systems which will serve the new Stratford terminal for the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are extensive plans for improvements to public transport infrastructure that will benefit Stratford: the docklands light railway extension, the refurbishment of the Central line, the Jubilee line extension—Stratford to Green Park and beyond via Canary Wharf, London Bridge, Waterloo and Westminster—and the east-west crossrail from Stratford via Farringdon and Paddington to important towns west of London such as Aylesbury and Reading.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he has had with the chairman 494
  of British Rail regarding the future of the channel tunnel rail freight terminal at Old Oak Common following the decision to route the main flow of channel tunnel rail traffic into central London via Stratford and Barking.

  Mr. Freeman
  Willesden—not Old Oak Common—and Stratford will be the two freight terminals serving London and the south-east when the channel tunnel opens. British Rail is currently considering, in close consultation with the Government, whether the proposed rail link between London and the tunnel should be used for freight. No decision has yet been made.

  Bus Deregulation
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in deregulating London buses.

  Mr. Freeman
  Deregulation of bus services in London is a long-standing Government commitment. Progress towards this objective started in 1985 when London Transport initiated a programme of route tendering. In 1989, London Buses Limited was restructured into 12 smaller bus operating subsidiaries in readiness for the transition to a commercial bus market. Last year, the Government confirmed their intention to proceed with deregulation and privatisation. A Bill will be introduced as soon as possible after the next election. In preparation for that, I have initiated discussions with a number of groups with a direct interest in the future of bus services in London.

  Rail Passengers Charter
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for discussions with the directors of British Rail South East for the implementation of the citizens charter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the development by British Rail of a passengers charter to ensure higher standards of service to rail passengers and to reduce train delays and cancellations.

  Mr. Freeman
  Discussions with British Rail about its passengers charter are well advanced. British Rail will publish its charter soon.

  Community Transport
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received recently on community transport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have not received any specific representations recently on community transport, but my Department is in close and regular touch with the Community Transport Association whose information and advice service we fund.

  London Underground (Escalators and Lifts)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of escalators and lifts that were not working at London Underground stations on 7 January.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 7 January London Underground recorded that 35 of its 274 escalators were out or service.
  495
  Of these, six were withdrawn for replacement, 11 for planned maintenance and 18 as a result of defects. In addition, eight of its 68 lifts were out of service. Of these four are being replaced and four were defective.

  King's Cross Underground Station
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the investment programme for London Transport for the period 1991–92 to 1994–95 announced on 6 November was set with London Underground's plans for the construction of a low level interchange at King's Cross underground station in mind; what plans London Underground has to proceed with this construction and against what proposed schedule; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The grant settlement announced on 6 November took into account the totality of London Transport's investment plans. With the exceptions of the Jubilee line extension and east-west crossrail. the settlement did not earmark funds for specific projects. The apportionment of the settlement between the different subsidiaries is a matter for London Transport, and the timing of particular underground schemes is a matter for London Underground Ltd.

  Coastguards
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will detail the different geographical areas of responsibility of the various coastguard sector offices following the coastguard sector review.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Her Majesty's coastguard coverage of the United Kingdom coastline is divided up into a total of six regions consisting of 21 districts, which are made up of sectors. Following the sector review, these sectors are as follows:

  Aberdeen Region

  1. Shetland District

  Sullom Voe

  Lerwick

  2. Aberdeen District

  Dornoch

  Inverness

  Moray West

  Moray East

  Peterhead

  Aberdeen

  Montrose

  3. Pentland District

  Pentland North

  Pentland South

  Thurso

  Wick

  4. Forth District

  St. Andrews

  Levan

  Fisherrow

  Eyemouth

  Yarmouth Region

  1. Tyne Tees District

  Amble

  Hartlepool

  2. Humber District

  Whitby

  Scarborough

  Flamborough

  Hull

  Cleethorpes

  3. Yarmouth District

  Hunstanton

  Great Yarmouth

  496
  Dover Region

  1. Thames District

  Sandings

  Tendring

  Maldon

  Southend

  Medway

  2. Dover District

  East Kent

  Rother

  Eastbourne

  Falmouth Region

  1. Solent District

  Wight

  South Downs East

  South Downs West

  Chichester

  Portsmouth

  Southampton

  2. Portland District

  Poole

  Swanage

  Wyke

  Lyme

  3. Brixham District

  Torbay

  Kingsbridge

  Tamar

  St. Austell

  4. Falmouth District

  Carrick

  St. Mary's

  Land's End

  Cambourne

  North Cornwall

  Swansea Region

  1. Swansea District

  Hartland

  North Devon

  Somerset

  Avon

  Gwent

  Ogmore

  Gower

  2. Milford Haven District

  Carmarthen

  Milford Haven

  Preseli

  Cambrian

  3. Holyhead District

  Tremadoc

  Dwyfor

  Anglesey

  Clwyd

  4. Liverpool District

  Merseyside

  Fylde

  South Cumbria

  Solway

  Kirkcudbright

  Clyde Region

  1. Belfast District

  Belfast South

  Belfast North

  2. Clyde District

  Galloway

  Clyde

  Kintyre

  3. Oban District

  Oban

  Mull

  Skye

  4. Stornoway District

  East Minch

  Uist

  Harris/Lewis

  497
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the number of coastguard sector officers, the total number of auxiliary coastguards and the number of regular coastguard officers employed(a) in 1984 and (b) at present.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The numbers of coastguard sector officers, auxiliary coastguards, and regular coastguard officers employed in 1984 and at present are as follows. It should be noted that numbers of sector officers employed in 1984 were not compiled separately, but included within the much larger category of coastguard officer grade one, and as such a meaningful comparison with present figures cannot be made.

  1984

  Present

  Coastguard sector officers

  N/A

  99

  Auxiliary coastguards

  7,684

  4,390

  Regular coastguard officers (includes sector officers)

  534

  491

  The reduction in numbers of auxiliary coastguards is largely due to the abolition in 1988 of breeches buoy companies and the introduction of search companies requiring fewer men. Reductions were made by natural wastage.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he intends to take to ensure that an effective coastguard service is maintained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Her Majesty's coastguard will continue to co-operate maritime search and rescue operations from its 21 modern and well-equipped maritime rescue co-ordination centres, and subcentres, supported by the local sector and auxiliary coastguard organisation around the coast.

  Steps are constantly taken to ensure that an efficient and effective coastguard service is maintained through the introduction and use of up-to-date equipment and a modern communications network, in order to meet changing patterns in coastal activity. Such an example is the recently completed sector review, the outcome of which I announced in the House on 3 December 1991. This included inter alia the doubling of the number of pagers and portable radios to improve readiness and response, and formation of 68 new auxiliary coastguard companies at new locations around the coast to provide better coverage and enhance surveillance and intelligence-gathering capabilities.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the areas where there will be a reduction in the number of auxiliary coastguards as a result of the sector review.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is to be a reduction of 566 in the overall number of auxiliary coastguards around the United Kingdom coast. This reflects the transition from manning levels required for operation of breeches buoy equipment—now withdrawn from service—to smaller units dedicated to surveillance and intelligency-gatherinng which is now the primary role for auxiliary coastguards. This reduction in numbers will be spread over four years, and largely achieved by natural wastage.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will(a) give for each office full details of the proposed
  498
  reduction in the number of coastguard sector offices and (b) list the coastguard sector offices whose designation will be suspended as a result of the coastguard sector review.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Under the recent coastguard sector review a reduction in the number of sector offices around the coast was proposed and accepted. In the main this will be achieved by the merging of old sectors to form fewer, new, renamed sectors in improved buildings which in some cases will accommodate two sector officers.

  In total there is to be a reduction of 38 sector offices around the coast. Within each region these are as follows:

  Region

  Present

  Proposed

  Change

  Aberden

  18

  12

  -6

  Yarmouth

  16

  7

  -9

  Dover

  12

  6

  -6

  Falmouth

  23

  16

  -7

  Swansea

  21

  19

  -2

  Clyde

  18

  10

  -8

  Totals

  108

  70

  -38

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to bring forward regulations amending the orange badge scheme; and when the new arrangements will be brought into force.

  Mr. Chope
  Amending regulations were placed before Parliament on 11 December 1991. They will come into effect on 2 March 1992.

  Motor Cyclists
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost of research carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on leg protectors for motor cyclists; and what results have been obtained.

  Mr. Chope
  The cost of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory's research on motor cycle leg protection has averaged some £300,000 per year, in current prices, over the past 10 years. This should be set against the estimated current cost of motor cycling accidents at £654 million per year.

  The research shows that properly designed leg protectors could eliminate or reduce the severity of at least 25 per cent. of leg injuries without increasing injuries to other parts of the body or to the head.

  Continental Freight
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans exist for the dispersion of freight arriving from the continent to areas outside London.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general this is a matter for the freight distribution industry.

  British Rail has announced plans to develop seven regional rail freight terminals outside London specifically to cater for European freight traffic when the channel tunnel opens next year. The sites chosen by BR are:

  Cardiff

  Birmingham

  Wakefield

  Trafford Park, Manchester

  499

  Seaforth Docks, Liverpool

  Mossend, Ianarkshire

  Wilton, Teesside

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department holds on the number or road accidents involving heavy goods vehicles in the last year.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department collects information only on accidents involving personal injury. In 1990, the last year for which information is available, there were 15,063 injury accidents involving at least one heavy goods vehicle, of which 791 were fatal accidents and 3,387 were serious accidents. More detailed statistics on heavy goods vehicle involvement in road accidents are published in "Road Accidents Great Britain 1990", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Train Drivers (Alcohol Limits)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to bring forward proposals to make it a criminal offence to drive a train with a blood alcohol concentration of up to 80 mg/100ml.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no current plans to do so. The Transport and Works Bill currently before the House provides for a criminal offence if certain prescribed persons, including train drivers, work on a transport system with blood alcohol concentrations exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The proposed limits will be kept under review and the Bill provides for them to be amended by regulations. It will also be an offence under clause 28(1) for a train driver to work when he is unfit through drink, even if he is below the prescribed alcohol limit.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will bring in proposals for train drivers to be temporarily detained if their breath tests are positive.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provisions in the Transport and Works Bill reflect our view that the decision to reinstate a train driver to duty is best made by the operator rather than the police. There will be no question of operators allowing safety staff to return to duty while they are still under the influence of drink.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the proposed limits of alcohol for train drivers and those for drivers of motor vehicles.

  Mr. Freeman
  The alcohol concentration limits are prescribed in clause 39(2) of the Transport and Works Bill and in section 11(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and are both as follows:

  (a) 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath,

  (b) 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, or

  (c) 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine.

  Drivers are also subject to employers' disciplinary codes.

  Road Schemes (Environmental Assessment)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate at what stage during the preparation of a road scheme the advice of the Department of the 500
  Environment is sought regarding the need for, and the scope of, an environmental assessment; at what stage the decision is taken on whether the EC directive on environmental assessment is applicable; and how the decision on whether the EC directive applies is made public.

  Mr. Chope
  Environmental appraisal is an essential part of the development of all schemes. Advice is sought from the Department of the Environment, and statutory environmental organisations among others, from the earliest stages of route proposals. That advice is taken into account by the Secretary of State for Transport in making his decision on the need for, and scope of, an environmental statement before publication of draft line orders. A public notice is issued at this point.

  Air Fares
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking following the European Commissioner's decision on the cases referred to recently by his Department in respect of the "double disapproval" arrangements on air fares.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Commission has announced that it has taken a decision on certain air fares which we referred to them under the current EC air fares regulation, but the formal decision has not yet been received and we shall need to study it carefully once we have it.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cases have been referred to the European Commission by his Department under the "double disapproval" arrangements on air fares; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A total of 106 fares have been referred to the Commission under the current EC air fares regulation.

  Folkestone-Honiton Trunk Route
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many separate road schemes are contained within the Folkestone-Honiton trunk route; and whether this route falls within the EC directive on environmental assessment;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the strategic impact of the Folkestone-Honiton trunk route.

  Mr. Chope
  The Folkestone-Honiton route is the only east-west trunk route across the south-east of the country south of the M25, and it forms an important access into the south-west. Traffic levels vary from section to section along the route. Proposals for individual improvement schemes are considered on their merits, and are designed to standards which reflect the forecast traffic flows for the particular sections concerned. The national roads programme currently includes 19 schemes for improvements to sections of the A259 and A27 between Folkestone and the M27 motorway, and another 14 schemes for sections of the A31 and A35 westwards from the M27 to Honiton. I announced on 8 January 1992 the addition to the programme of a scheme to increase the capacity of the M27 between junctions 4 and 12. The needs of the trunk road network are kept under constant review, and schemes may be added to the programme as needs are identified.
  501
  Directive 85/337/EEC applies to projects likely to have a significant effect on the environment. All schemes in the national programme are subject to full environmental appraisal. Environmental Statements have been or will be published where the environmental impact is judged to be significant within the terms of the EC directive.

  M25 (Upgrading)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the proposed upgrading of the M25, and the provision of a collector-distributor road, will be considered within a single environmental statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Road Schemes (Environmental Assessment)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road schemes contained in the current programme for which it has been agreed that the EC directive on environmental assessment applies.

  Mr. Chope
  All schemes in the national programme are subject to a very full environmental appraisal. An environmental statement will be produced for all schemes where the environmental impact is judged to be significant within the terms of the EC directive.

  RENAVAL
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect of his decision to proceed with the sale of the Tees and Hartlepool trust port on receipts from the RENAVAL programme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Commissioner Millan announced on 5 April 1991 a RENAVAL programme for the districts of Langbaurgh-on-Tees and Middlesbrough. Applications for grant under this programme include projects in which the Tees and Hartlepool port authority proposed to participate, in anticipation of its being released from the restrictions imposed by its local trust port legislation, and the new company will inherit these proposals.

  Speed Limits
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the interim report of the joint study into speed limits will be available; and which environmental bodies will be consulted in connection with this study.

  Mr. Chope
  The joint working party of officials from the Department and the County Surveyors Society on speed in villages is concerned primarily with developing technical measures for reducing vehicle speeds. It is planned to produce an interim report in April. This study is not a consultation exercise but we shall be consulting shortly on proposed revisions to departmental guidance on setting speed limits. The consultation document will be freely available.

  High Speed Rail Network
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland officials have met to consider the proposals for a European high speed rail network prepared by the European Commission working group.
  502
  Mr. Freeman
  A meeting took place last summer.

  Marchioness
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his written answer to the hon. Member for Battersea, 19 December,Official Report, column 237, what form the proposed inquiry into safety of vessels on rivers and inland waterways will take and under what statute; what incidents other than that concerning the Marchioness have been drawn to his attention; what is the name and qualifications of the expert adviser; and what are Mr. John Hayes's qualifications, other than legal, for conducting the inquiry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Mr. Hayes's inquiry is an independent investigation which is not bound by statutory provisions or procedures. The precise conduct and form of the inquiry is a matter for Mr. Hayes, but departmental papers are being made available to him and he will shortly be inviting views from interested parties.

  So far, the following accidents on the River Thames have been specifically drawn to Mr. Hayes' attention by the Department:

  Collision between

  Date

  Bowtrader and Hurlingham

  18 October 1981

  Shell Distributor and New Southern Belle

  8 June 1983

  Bowbelle and Pride of Greenwich

  9 June 1983

  Shell Distributor and Royalty

  1 September 1983

  Rosewood and John Marriott

  14 September 1986

  Vita and Fordson

  29 September 1986

  The expert adviser will be appointed shortly, and his name and qualifications will be announced at that time. Mr. Hayes will bring to the inquiry the important attributes of an independent mind and a distinguished record as a solicitor in local government.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what distinction he is making on the modified requirements in hull design and construction between vessels operating in tidal waters and those on shallow canals and non-tidal rivers of limited depth and width, consequent on the action he has taken in response to the report of his marine accident investigation branch into the Marchioness disaster.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The modified requirements for hull design and construction which are being developed, in consultation with industry, will make a clear distinction between vessels operating in tidal waters, those operating in the sheltered non-tidal reaches of rivers operating on shallow rivers and canals. In general a higher standard of survivability, in the event of hull damage, will be required in tidal waters whilst other requirements will apply to vessels operating in shallow waters such as canals.

  M25
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received recently about the M25.

  Mr. Chope
  We continue to receive many representations about the operation and the proposed widening of the M25.

  Trans-Pennine Road Study
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the Peak park joint planning board does not commence its review of the national park structure plan until the trans-Pennine road study findings are published.

  Mr. Chope
  I understand the review is already under way. It is for the board to decide what account it needs to take of our trans-Pennine study.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the findings of the trans-Pennine road study.

  Mr. Chope
  As soon as possible.

  British Rail
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give, both for Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, the total investment in British Rail originating from(a) revenue, (b) asset disposals, (c) Government grants, (d) local authority grants, (e) EC grants and (f) borrowings.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail's funding requirements for investment and losses over the period 1992–93 to 1994–95 are currently forecast at some £6·6 billion. Of this, nearly £4·4 billion—some two thirds—would be met from central Government grants and loans, with the remainder coming from passenger transport executive grants and internal sources. Particular sources of finance are not apportioned between investment and other expenditure.

  Bypass Schemes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will postpone further consideration of the proposed bypass schemes for the A6 at Disley and A628 at Tintwistle until the production of the national park structure plan.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The Peak Park joint planning board is being consulted as these schemes are developed.

WALES

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those individuals, and emoluments where appropriate, of all those persons whom he has nominated to serve in more than one public body in Wales in the past four years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The names of individuals nominated for public appointments are private and confidential. The information requested cannot therefore be given. However, the names of all those who currently hold public appointments for which I am responsible were provided in my answers to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 12 December 1991, and 19 December 1991, at columns 534–39 and 272–82.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any financial assistance other than the initial sum of £25,000 was given to Ysbyty Brongluis to assist in drawing up a trust status application and for associated purposes.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. To date, no financial assistance has been made available. However, the Welsh Office is prepared to consider on its merits any bid from prospective NHS trusts for a contribution towards the costs of preparing an application for NHS trust status.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether any financial assistance other than the initial sum of £50,000 was given to Pembrokeshire health authority to assist in drawing up a trust application and for associated purposes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if, pursuant to his reply of 19 December,Official Report, columns 266–67, he will give the cost of the Adams report on the future of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools service in Wales; if he will detail the relevant previous career and consultancy experience of Ms. Adams in the field of education and the inspection thereof; and what was the competitive tendering procedure that led to her selection.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The cost of the report produced as part of my right hon. Friend's review of the role and organisation of HMI in Wales was £7,575. Mrs. Adams has had considerable experience as an administrative civil servant. As a former civil servant she is eligible to be employed without competition. She works for the Welsh Office from time to time on tasks appropriate to her experience when a permanent member of staff is not available.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 December, what policy considerations led to his decision to restrict the circulation of the contents of the Adams report on the future of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools service in Wales; and if he will now make arrangements for its early publication.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The consultant's report is one element in the much wider consideration my right hon. Friend is giving to the role and organisation of HMI in Wales, alongside other policy initiatives currently being pursued in the education field generally and in the area of inspections in particular. Given this, my right hon. Friend has concluded that it would not be appropriate to publish the report. The report is being taken fully into account in the review of HMI.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of Her Majesty's inspectors currently engaged to report on primary, secondary and further education in Wales; and what changes he proposes in these numbers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of HMI currently engaged in Wales is 58. Until my right hon. Friend has
  505
  completed his consideration of the future role and structure of HMI in Wales, I am not in a position to say whether there will be any change in numbers. We hope to announce our conclusions shortly.

  Heart Surgery
  Mr Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many heart operations were carried out in each of the last four years in Wales.

  Mr Nicholas Bennett
  The most comprehensive information available centrally is that derived from hospital activity analysis individual patient records. The figures given in the following table are likely to understate the true position in that not all hospitals provide complete clinical details relating to patient discharges and deaths.

  The figures include surgical operations and other procedures on the heart carried out in NHS hospitals in Wales. In particular, contrast radiology is included, where the figures for 1988, 1989 and 1990 are 136, 457 and 1,418 respectively.

  The figures for the years 1988 to 1990 are based on OPCS 4th revision codes for surgical operations and procedures and are not strictly comparable to the 1987 figure which is based on the OPCS 3rd revision codes.

  Number of heart operations and procedures

  1987

  1,254

  1988

  1,408

  1989

  1,986

  1990

  3,083

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the secretary for Wales if he will make a statement concerning heart surgery in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Over £5 million will be made available over the next three years to enable the University hospital of Wales to perform 800 adult open heart operations each year with the associated level of cardiology. A further £2·5 million will be provided for the expansion of the hospital's paediatric cardiac unit which, when complete, will be equipped to undertake the full range of neonatal and infant cardiac surgery. Together, these developments will meet our objective of establishing the University hospital as a centre of excellence in the provision of cardiac services. Additionally, in 1992–93 further central funding of around £1·5 million will be made available to enable health authorities in south Wales to secure additional adult operations from other specialist centres.

  I have also announced that an option appraisal will be undertaken to assess how the balance of our target of 1,200 adult open heart operations per annum can best be met.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his target figure for heart operations in Wales; and what measures he is taking to enable more heart operations to take place in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Our target remains to increase capacity for cardiac surgery in south Wales such that 1,200 adult open heart operations are performed each year supported by the appropriate levels of cardiology. On 18 December, I announced a £6·5 million package of measures, centres at the University hospital of Wales, to 506
  commence the next phase of that development. Furthermore, an additional £2.5 million is being provided to equip the paediatric cardiac unit at the University hospital over the next three years to undertake the full range of neonatal and paediatric cardiac surgery.

  In north Wales, additional central funding has been made available to secure an appropriate level of cardiac services from specialist centres supplementing that already available to purchase services from Mersey regional health authority.

  Nebulisers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the recent letter from the director of the national health service in Wales to chairmen of the nine health authorities concerning charging for nebulisers.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No. It is not appropriate that such letters written by officials should be placed in the Library of the House. However, all health authorities have confirmed that they will be providing equipment in accordance with the requirements of the NHS Act 1977 and have undertaken to investigate all cases where charges are alleged to have been made.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the board of the Development Board for Rural Wales first considered the payment to Dr lain Skewis, the former chief executive, in respect of untaken leave; and on what date the payment was made.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I understand that the basis of this payment was agreed in late February 1990 between the chairman of the development board and the then chief executive in the belief that it was covered by the latter's contract of employment and terms of service and did not require consideration by the board. Payment was made in March 1991 following Dr Skewis's retirement, and was reported to the board in connection with the 1990–91 accounts.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he proposes to make to recover the cash loss arising from the irregular payment of £15,563 to Dr Iain Skewis, the previous chief executive of the Development Board for Rural Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A payment of £15,563 to Dr Skewis in compensation for untaken leave during his 13 years employment with the Development Board for Rural Wales was made by the board without the necessary authority from the Welsh Office and the Treasury. The payment was therefore irregular and the Comptroller and Auditor General has qualified his certificate on the board's accounts for 1991–92 accordingly. The board has been unable to enforce recovery or to obtain voluntary repayment of the sum. The Welsh Office, with Treasury agreement, has authorised the write-off of this expenditure as a cash loss.

  Laying Hens
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve the welfare of laying hens in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  507
  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall be seeking the adoption of the highest standards practical for all laying hens when the existing Community legislation is reviewed next year. The Farm Animal Wefare Council has recently published a report on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems and this will be circulated for consultation with the industry and other interested parties.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of mortgage repossessions in the valleys communities which have been initiated by lenders of second mortgages which are not building societies or banks.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The data collected on repossessions do not distinguish between first or second mortgages or between building societies and banks or other lenders.

  Child Care
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the percentage of children in(a) Wales and (b) each county in Wales for whom child care is provided from public funds between the age of three and school age.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on child care facilities provided or paid for by local authorities is contained in tables 11.1 and 11.2 of "Activities of Social Services Departments: Year ended 31/3/90", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Opera House, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the report he commissioned in January 1991 on the feasibility of the proposed opera house at the Pierhead, Cardiff, and his response to it.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have now received the report of the feasibility study commissioned by the Cardiff Bay development corporation on the proposed opera house in Cardiff bay. It is my intention to publish the report, in due course, after I have completed my consideration of it.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the establishment of Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools in Wales; and if he will make it his policy to preserve Her Majesty's inspectorate at or near its existing establishment.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 10 December 1991, at column 405.

  Hospital Construction, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to give approval in principle for the commencement of the new neighbourhood hospital on the site of the former St. David's hospital, Cowbridge road, east Cardiff; and on what date he anticipates that actual construction of the new hospital will start.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  South Glamorgan health authority is responsible for the preparation of an approval 508
  in principle submission for this scheme. A decision will be made in accordance with the usual procedures once a satisfactory submission is received. It will be for the health authority in the first instance to asses the priority to he accorded to this scheme in the light of its other bids for major capital.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the value of beef exports from Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information on the value of beef exports is not available separately for Wales. The value of beef exports from the United Kingdom in 1990 was about £233 million.

  Hospital Provision (South Glamorgan)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will specify the contents of the strategic review of hospital provision in South Glamorgan to be undertaken in association with Mid Glamorgan health authority and the University of Wales, College of Medicine, its expected date of completion, the consultants appointed and its terms of reference.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The review is a matter for the two health authorities and the University of Wales College of Medicine and requests for futher details should be directed to them.

  Hormone Replacement
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list preparations currently in use in hormone replacement treatment in which two or more drugs are currently packaged as one item together with the proportion of prescriptions(a) in Wales and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area in Wales which specified (i) both or all the constitutent items and (ii) only one of the constituent items in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The preparations currently used in hormone replacement treatment in which two or more drugs are packaged together are as follows:

  Cyclo-Progynova

  Estrapak 50

  Trisequens

  Trisequens Forte

  Prempak-C

  Nuvelle

  Syntex Menophase

  Information is not available on the proportion of prescriptions on which specify both or one of the drugs involved.

  University of Wales college, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects a conclusion to the discussions proceeding with the University of Wales college at Cardiff regarding the college's development proposals referred to in his letter to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West dated 16 December 1991.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The discussions are primarily a matter for the University of Wales college of Cardiff and the other
  509
  principal parties, including South Glamorgan county council, Cardiff Bay development corporation and Tarmac Atlantic Wharf Developments.

  Hospitals (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present procedure for giving approval in principle to hospital capital expenditure projects; how it will alter after 1 April; and whether he proposes any transitional arrangements to projects currently in the pipeline.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Under current management arrangements for the NHS in Wales, district health authorities are responsible for the management and control of health building schemes. In exercising this control, they are required to follow Capricode which provides the mandatory procedural framework for processing NHS capital building schemes. Under these procedures any scheme with a works' cost of £4 million and over requires Welsh Office approval in principle before the authority can proceed with its further planning and design. These procedures will continue in force after 1 April 1992.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on how the new capital allocation system for hospital projects in Wales will work from 1 April with particular regard to capital projects connected with hospital closure proposals he has already statutorily approved.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  My right hon. Friend will be announcing details of both capital and revenue allocations to district health authorities for 1992–93 later this month. At the same time, authorities will receive a paper summarising the new capital allocation and management arrangements on which they have already been consulted. I will ensure that a copy of this paper is placed in the Library of the House when it has issued.

  Teachers' Retirement
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many teachers retired from the local education authorities in Wales in 1989; and how many of them took early retirement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A total of 940 full-time teachers in maintained nursery, primary, and secondary schools in Wales retired between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989. Of these, 706 were below the age of 60. It is not possible without undue cost to determine the exact number that took early retirement.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many replies he received by 1 January to the groundwater consultation exercise following on the Hydrotechnica report on the side-effects of the Cardiff bay barrage; and when he expects Mr. Roy Stoner to complete his report on the groundwater consultation.

  Mr. David Hunt
  By 1 January 1992 a total of 140 representations to the groundwater consultation exercise had been received. I expect Mr. Stoner to complete his report as soon after the end of the consultation period as is consistent with the proper consideration of all the issues raised.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the items currently in common use by GPs or consultants for which more than one prescription charge is made under current legislation and regulations but which are currently packaged as one item by the manufacturers.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A prescription charge is payable in respect of each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed, unless the patient is exempt. In the case of items supplied in a combination pack, therefore, each separate item carries a separate prescription charge. The fact that for convenience two or more individual preparations may be supplied in one pack does not alter the patient's liability for prescription charges.

  Unless a patient is otherwise exempt, or holds a valid pre-payment certificate, the following items in common use attract more than one prescription charge when supplied against a NHS prescription.

  Betadine Pessaries with applicator and VC Kit

  Betadine Vaginal Gel with applicator and VC Kit

  Canesten Duopak

  Cyclo-Progynova Combination Pack Tablets

  Daktarin Twin Pack

  Diprosone Duopack

  Ecostatin Twin Pack

  Estrapak 50

  Flagyl Compak

  Gyno-Daktarin Combipack

  Gyno-Pevaryl 1 CP Pack

  Gyno-Pevaryl 150 Combipack

  Lasix + K Combination Pack Tablets

  Migraleve Tablets Duo Pack

  Migralift Tablets Duo Pack

  Napratec Combination Pack

  Nuvelle Tablets

  Nystan Triple Pack

  Pabrinex Intramuscular High Potency

  Pabrinex Intramuscular Maintenance

  Pabrinex Intravenous High Potency

  Parentrovite Intramuscular High Potency

  Parentrovite Intramuscular Maintenance

  Parentrovite Intravenous High Potency

  Pranavite Slim Diet Plan

  Prempak-C Combination Pack Tablets 0·625 mg

  Prompak-C Combination Pack Tablets 1·25 mg

  Syntex Menophase Combination Pack Tablets

  Trisequens Combination Pack Tablets

  Trisequens Forte Combination Pack Tablets

  Uvistat Pro-Ski Pack

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy for the proposed administrative arrangements for the identification and collection of payments and disbursements via the Child Support Agency in Wales from 1 April.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  From 1 April 1992, a child support unit will be established to take over the existing administration of child maintenance collections and payments from the Social Security Benefits Agency, prior to the introduction of the Child Support Agency from April 1993. The agency will introduce a new system for the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance to all families for whom maintenance is an issue. Administration of the system will be carried out by staff based in social security offices, who will provide a local service to customers. Work that does not require face to face contact with customers will be carried out in six centres to be based in Belfast, Birkenhead, Dudley, Falkirk, Hastings and Plymouth.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  New Members
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what preparations have been made for induction courses for new Members after the general election; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As far as the authorities of the House are concerned, no induction courses for new Members are planned. It is not known what arrangements are being made by individual political parties; and that is a matter for them.

  The Administration Committee and the authorities of the House are, however, preparing a handbook giving guidance to new Members on such things as the work and responsibilities of individual departments of the House asnd the general services at Member's disposal. That handbook will he issued to all Members returned after the general election and is designed to allow a section prepared by individual political parties to be included.

  New Parliamentary Building
  Mr. Hoyle
  To answer the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 11 November 1991,Official Report, column 463, what was the total cost of the new building in Parliament street; and what was the cost of providing the 32 offices in the Palace.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The final account for the construction of the new building in Parliament street is still being discussed with the contractor so it is not possible yet to give the total cost. Expenditure to date, however, including furnishings, fittings and consultants fees, charged to the parliamentary works programme is £32·309 million.

  Work on the main scheme to provide the additional offices in the Palace—the conversion of the former residences of the Serjeant at Arms, Deputy Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker's Secretary—is not scheduled for completion until later this year. The estimated cost of the scheme, and of the conversion of the two officekeepers' flats, the Clerks' Bedroom on Upper Committee Corridor (North), and former Library accommodation on the North Curtain, again including furniture, fittings and consultants fees, is £2·028 million.

DEFENCE

  NAAFI
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1991,Official Report, column 58, on President of the Service Institute and President of the Regiment Institute shops, what steps he is taking to investigate the selling of goods in PSI and PRI shops in competition with NAAFI.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The decision as to what goods can be sold in President of the Service Institute or President of the Regiment. Institute shops rests with commanding officers who are aware that competition with NAAFI is not permitted. There are well-established channels through which NAAFI managers may raise any concerns they may have about the trading activities of PSI or PRI shops.
  512
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1991,Official Report, column 58, relating to NAAFI, if he will list which recommendations have been implemented; what others are being considered; and what is the proposed time scale for implementation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The scrutiny made a number of detailed recommendations concerning the commercial management of NAAFI business. While it has been possible to implement some—for instance, on price lists and discounts—the effect of "Britain's Defence for the Nineties" changes are such that the full effect on NAAFI needs to be analysed before it will be possible to take action on some of the remainder. It is hoped that the position will be clearer later this year. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will then write to the hon. Member.

  Army Regiments
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if will list the total service personnel strength of the regiments currently recruited in Scotland and the anticipated full strength numbers of the 10 regiments to be in existence after restructuring on a regimental basis.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  HMS Challenger
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current lay-up costs of HMS Challenger pending its sale.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The identifiable additional costs associated with HMS Challenger's berthing at Portsmouth naval base since her decommissioning are negligible.

  Unused Sleeping Accommodation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites in Greater London where there is unused sleeping accommodation in the control of his Department.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Spearhead Battalion
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions over the past five years spearhead battalion has been deployed during its tour of duty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The battalion on a spearhead tour of duty has been deployed once in the last five years. Other battalions have also been deployed during this period to meet various short notice requirements when they were considered to be best suited to undertake the task.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the American Government have made towards the cost in each of the past five years to date of providing (a) external and (b) internal security at Menwith Hill Station, north Yorkshire.
  513
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Security at Menwith Hill Station is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence Police, but the majority of the costs are reimbursed by the United States.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who employs the civilian patrolmen deployed at Menwith Hill.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The small number of civilian patrolmen working at Menwith Hill Station are Ministry of Defence employees. They are engaged on general duties, and are not responsible for station security.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many people, in each of the last five years, to date, have been arrested at Menwith Hill and Hunter's Stone Tower for byelaw offences; how many have been reported for summons process; and how many people have been(a) convicted and (b) had summonses dismissed by the courts;

  (2) how many complaints have been lodged, in each at the last five years, to date, against Ministry of Defence police officers serving at Menwith Hill; how many such complaints have been (a) rejected and (b) upheld; and what disciplinary action was taken in respect of officers against whom complaints were upheld;

  (3) who issued instructions not to arrest peace campaigners for breaches of byelaws at Menwith Hill Station; and on what date they were issued.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what powers American military personnel at Menwith Hill are permitted to carry weapons; and in what circumstances such personnel are permitted to fire their weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  United States personnel at Menwith Hill Station do not carry firearms.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has to improve protection for occupational pensioners against improper use of the assets of the pension funds of which they are beneficiaries;

  (2) what proposals he has to improve protection for occupational pensioners against improper use by companies and their directors of the assets of pension funds.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 20 December 1991 at columns 374–75.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to bring forward legislation to prevent the misuse of occupational pension funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 9 December 1991]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 20 December 1991 at columns 374–75.

  Pension Fund
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what restrictions at present exist on a company's employees acting as trustees of its pension fund; whether he plans any changes; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The trust deed under which an occupational pension scheme is set up will specify who will be the trustees of the scheme and how they will be appointed. There is nothing to prevent employees of the company being included.

  Disability
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that claim packs for the disability living allowance will be available in bulk to all agencies who advise persons with a disability.

  Mr. Scott
  We have arranged that all citizen's advice bureaux will receive stocks of a version of the disability living allowance claim pack. In addition, we intend to arrange distribution of these packs to welfare rights organisations, and other groups advising disabled people, who ask for them.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that reviews will not be made by adjudication officers based on medical evidence obtained over the period 1992 to 1993 arising from the transfer of attendance allowance and mobility allowance claims to disability living allowance claims.

  Mr. Scott
  The transfer of existing attendance allowance and mobility allowance awards to their equivalent levels in disability living allowance will be automatic, without review. No medical evidence will be sought to confirm the validity of an existing award.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the date of claim for the new disability working allowance will be the date on which the coupon is sent in, or the date of despatch of the claim form.

  Mr. Scott
  Claim packs for disability working allowance will be widely available in post offices, social security offices, jobcentres and advice centres. Therefore, in common with most other benefits, the date of claim will be the date the claim is recieved in an office of the Department of Social Security or Department of Employment.

  Newcastle Office
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently employed in the DSS at Newcastle; and what number are expected to be transferred to other departments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 30 September 1991, the Department and its agencies employed about 14,000 people in the Newcastle area. As part of normal career progression 22 staff transferred to other Government Departments in the period 31 March 1991 to 30 September 1991, and similar numbers can be expected to transfer in the future.

  Councillors (Attendance Allowances)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what authority local concillors' attendance allowances are treated as earned income for benefit purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The definition of "employed earner" in section 2(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1975 includes a person who is gainfully employed in an elected office with emoluments chargeable to income tax under schedule E.

  EC Social Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those items agreed at Maastricht which have implications for policy on or administration of social security.

  Mr. Jack
  No changes to the treaty of Rome were agreed at Maastricht affecting the European Community's powers in relation to social security. A protocol to article 119 was agreed clarifying the Barber judgment.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all those offices that have had additional sums allocated to their social fund budgets this financial year; and the dates the new allocations were made.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is available in the Library.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the total numbers who have received cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the automatic scheme.

  Mr. Scott
  Under the improved arrangements for cold weather payments introduced in November, 1,424,671 people have received cold weather payments so far this winter.

  Income Support customers with deductions—by number and percentage of total customers

  August 1991

  November 1991

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Total number of Income Support recipients

  4,939,936

  4,942,479

  Number of Social Fund deductions

  523,600

  (10·60)

  569,000

  (11·51)

  Direct payments for:

  Community Charge arrears

  90,224

  (1·83)

  129,653

  (2·62)

  Fuel charges

  262,322

  (5·31)

  263,140

  (5·32)

  Rent arrears and service charges

  100,350

  (2·03)

  108,663

  (2·20)

  Water charges

  83,964

  (1·70)

  98,835

  (2·00)

  Notes:

  1. The figures used are based on the DSS Management Information Statistics collected at the end of August and November 1991. These figures are provisional and may be subject to amendment.

  2. The social fund figures are based on the number of people making repayments over the whole of August and November and not at the end of the statistical month. It is not possible to exclude from the figures repayments made by people not in receipt of income support.

  3. The information for rent arrears and service charges, fuel, and water includes cases where a deduction is being made for current charges only.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total number of items which can now be directly debited from income support prior to claimants' receipt of the benefit; and if he will list the date of implementation of each item.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The items which may be deducted at source in prescribed circumstances from income support are as follows:

  (a) Housing costs.

  (b) Residential care, nursing home and Polish resettlement home fees.

  (c) Rent arrears and service charges paid with rent.

  (d) Hostel service charges.

  (e) Fuel charges (electricity and gas).

  (f) Water charges.

  (g) Community Charge arrears.

  (h) Social Fund loan repayments.

  (i) Overpayment recovery.

  Not all these deductions can apply in a single case. There are ceilings on the amounts that can be deducted for debts. With the exception of those for social fund and community charge, all deductions listed were carried forward from the supplementary benefit scheme, when it was replaced by income support in April 1988. The social fund scheme was introduced from April 1988, while community charge deductions were introduced firstly in Scotland from April 1989, and England and Wales from April 1990.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list (i) the numbers of claimants of income support, (ii) their partners, and (iii) their dependants for each of the last six months of 1991; and what numbers and percentages were liable to deductions of benefit for(a) social fund loan repayments, (b) poll tax arrears, (c) fuel arrears, (d) rent arrears, and (e) water charge arrears.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information is in the table. Monthly figures and those for partners and dependants could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the official engagements of each Minister in his Department for Wednesday 18 September 1991.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Those Ministers available on that day each had a number of meetings about a variety of subjects.

  Members' Correspondence
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether it is his Department's policy to pass on correspondence received from a member of the public to the hon. Member in whose constituency the person resides.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not our policy to do so. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, perhaps he would like to write to me.

  (A) Equivalent value at April 1991

  (B) Average real value at April 1991

  £

  £

  £

  Gratuity

  15 November 1978–13 November 1979

  1,166·00

  3,023·42

  2,820·37

  14 November 1979–25 November 1980

  1,391·50

  3,073·82

  2,842·13

  26 November 1980–24 November 1981

  1,622·50

  3,108·14

  2,946·53

  25 November 1981–23 November 1982

  1,765·50

  3,020·62

  2,922·12

  24 November 1982–22 November 1983

  1,958·00

  3,152·73

  3,094·03

  23 November 1983–27 November 1984

  2,029·50

  3,116·84

  3,053·78

  28 November 1984–26 November 1985

  2,134·00

  3,122·96

  3,031·21

  27 November 1985–29 July 1986

  2,282·50

  3,167·27

  3,136·79

  30 July 1986–7 April 1987

  2,310·00

  3,152·93

  3,102·54

  Weekly Pension

  15 November 1978–13 November 1979

  3·19

  8·27

  7·72

  14 November 1979–25 November 1980

  3·80

  8·39

  7·76

  26 November 1980–24 November 1981

  4·45

  8·52

  8·08

  25 November 1981–23 November 1982

  4·83

  8·26

  7·99

  24 November 1982–22 November 1983

  5·36

  8·63

  8·47

  23 November 1983–27 November 1984

  5·56

  8·54

  8·37

  28 November 1984–26 November 1985

  5·84

  8·55

  8·30

  27 November 1985–29 July 1986

  6·25

  8·67

  8·59

  30 July 1986–7 April 1987

  6·32

  8·63

  8·49

  8 April 1987–12 April 1988

  6·45

  8·43

  8·36

  13 April 1988–11 April 1989

  6·72

  8·45

  8·22

  12 April 1989–10 April 1990

  7·12

  8·29

  8·08

  11 April 1990–9 April 1991

  7·66

  8·15

  7·92

  10 April 1991–7 April 1992

  8·49

  8·49

  —

  DNA Testing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals for the use of DNA testing in the identification of responsible fathers for maintenance payments in the work of the Child Support Agency from 1 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Jack
  Under the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991, the resolution of disputes about alleged paternity will remain a matter for the courts when the Child Support Agency comes into operation in 1993.

  Family Expenditure
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been in percentage terms, the proportion of the gross income of a family on average earnings of husband, wife, and two children aged five and 10, and

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 89–90, if he will give the rates of disablement gratuities and pensions since 1979, at 1991–92 prices.

  Mr. Scott
  The rates of disablement gratuities and pensions since 1979 at 1991–92 prices are shown in the table.

  Column A refers to the equivalent value of benefit at April 1991 prices at the date of annual uprating.

  Column B refers to the average real value of benefit at April 1991 prices and calculated over the period between the uprating dates.

  For awards from:

  living in a council house, for each year since 1979, that was needed for (a) rent of the council house, after allowing for housing benefit, (b) rates and community charge, allowing for any rate rebate or community charge benefit, (c) income tax, (d) national insurance contributions and (e) water and sewerage rates.

  Mr Jack
  [holding answer 16 December 1991]: The figures in the table are for a standard tax benefit model family with children aged four and six. Although they are unlikely to be much—if at all—different, figures for the family type specified could be ascertained only at disproportionate cost.

  It is not possible to include figures for water and sewerage charges as some local authorities include sewerage charges in their rates/community charge while others do not.
  519

  Date

  Average weekly earnings (gross)

  Rent

  Rates/CC

  Tax

  NI

  Rent as per cent.

  Rates as per cent.

  Tax as per cent.

  NI as per cent.

  November 1979

  114·00

  6·50

  2·80

  23·01

  7·41

  5·70

  2·46

  20·18

  6·50

  November 1980

  135·00

  8·80

  3·55

  28·13

  9·11

  6·52

  2·63

  20·84

  6·75

  November 1981

  149·00

  12·10

  4·45

  32·33

  11·55

  8·12

  2·99

  21·70

  7·75

  November 1982

  161·00

  14·20

  6·40

  33·89

  14·00

  8·82

  3·98

  21·05

  8·70

  November 1983

  175·00

  14·75

  6·85

  36·38

  15·75

  8·43

  3·91

  20·79

  9·00

  November 1984

  187·00

  15·60

  7·35

  37·90

  16·83

  8·34

  3·93

  20·27

  9·00

  November 1985

  199·00

  16·50

  7·95

  39·77

  17·91

  8·29

  3·99

  19·98

  9·00

  July 1986

  211·00

  17·50

  8·85

  40·81

  18·99

  8·29

  4·19

  19·34

  9·00

  April 1987

  224·00

  18·35

  9·40

  40·78

  20·16

  8·19

  4·20

  18·21

  9·00

  April 1988

  246·00

  19·90

  8·20

  41·81

  22·14

  8·09

  3·33

  17·00

  9·00

  April 1989

  269·00

  21·80

  9·00

  46·22

  24·21

  8·10

  3·35

  17·18

  9·00

  April 1990

  296·00

  23·43

  13·22

  51·28

  23·42

  7·92

  4·47

  17·32

  7·91

  April 1991

  321·00

  26·03

  9·40

  56·14

  25·25

  8·11

  2·93

  17·49

  7·87

HEALTH

  Health Service Refund Scheme
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlie his respective policies in respect of the inclusion or otherwise in the health benefits low income scheme of refunds of(a) dental charges, (b) prescription charges and (c) optical charges, other than the hospital eye service.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government's policy on NHS charges is that those who can afford to contribute towards their treatment costs should do so whilst those who may have difficulty in paying should be protected. Extensive exemption arrangements on grounds of health or status are underpinned by the NHS low income scheme. The review of the administration of the low income scheme has re-examined the existing arrangements for charge remission including the availability of refunds.

  Maternity Services
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to his answer of 5 November,Official Report, column 102, what progress his Department is making with improving the quality of the maternity hospital episode system; and whether the information requested will be available in respect of the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92;

  (2) whether reliable information about method of onset of labour, method of delivery, use of anaesthetic for labour and delivery, the place of delivery and the person conducting the delivery, will be available for deliveries to residents of NHS regions and districts in the financial years 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is too early to make a precise assessment of maternity hospital episode statistics (HES) coverage in 1990–91, but indications are that about 70 per cent. of birth episodes and 60 per cent. of delivery episodes will be covered. Until the data are finalised, processed, and examined in depth, it will not be possible to comment on the quality and completeness of the data in these records, or to tell whether the specific information requested will be available.

  The NHS management executive monitors the data provided by regional health authorities and regularly meets with regional directors of information to discuss the quality of the data. The difficulties surrounding the completeness of maternity data have been identified as a
  520
  priority. This initiative has resulted in real improvements in most regions. Work has now been successfully completed in the area of linking maternity to other systems and an improvement will be evident when 1991–92 data are available.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the numbers of women resident in(a) Dacorum local government district and (b) St. Albans local government district who gave birth in 1990 in (i) St. Albans City hospital, (ii) Luton and Dunstable hospital, (iii) Queen Elizabeth II hospital, Welwyn Garden City, (iv) Watford General hospital, (v) Royal Buckinghamshire hospital, (vi) RAF Halton maternity unit, (vii) other hospitals, (viii) at home and (ix) elsewhere.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Infant Deaths
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, columns 183–84, what pilot studies his Department is doing to test the feasibility of the proposals for the confidential inquiries into stillbirths and deaths in infancy set out in the report published on 2 July 1991; and whether the results of the pilot studies will he ready in time to be taken into account in finalising plans for the inquiries themselves.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The working group on confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, set up by the Chief Medical Officer, gave advice about how the enquiry should proceed. That advice was based on experience gained from numerous locally based enquiries and did not recommend pilot studies.

  Link System for the Deaf
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement about the device known as the Link, details of which have been sent to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People;

  (2) if he will consult with the organisations of and for the deaf and hard-of-hearing about ways of making the device known as the Link as widely available as possible to people who can benefit from the new aid.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We are always pleased to learn of new equipment coming on to the market which has the potential to assist people who have disabilities. It would
  521
  not, however, be appropriate for the Department to promote this or other individual products. It is open to the manufacturer of the Link device to consult consumer organisations about ways in which to promote it.

  Tobacco
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the European Commission's proposal for a total ban on tobacco advertising in the European Community.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government consider the proposed EC directive on tobacco advertising is unnecessary for completion of the single market. It believes the present voluntary agreements with the tobacco industry on advertising and promotion provide an effective system of controls. There are other tobacco related issues in the Community which deserve a higher priority than advertising, in particular the need to cut back support progressively for tobacco growing under the common agricultural policy.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when children's playgrounds will be included in voluntary agreements on tobacco advertising.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Children's playgrounds were included in the provisions of the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising and promotion published on 9 September 1991, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the Government's assessment of the effects of the banning of tobacco advertising in Canada.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The effects of the ban are not clear. Steep rises in the real prices of cigarettes in Canada account for most of the decrease in consumption.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has consulted with the Government of the Netherlands on the report issued regarding their voluntary agreements on the advertising of tobacco.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. We have not yet seen a copy of this report.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 11 November,Official Report, column 408, about organ transplants, if he will make a statement about the meetings between the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority and members of the medical profession about improving the distribution of organs as effectively and equitably as possible among the health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The United Kingdom transplant support service authority has set up a number of professional groups to advise it on a number of matters concerned with the transplantation of different organs. The first meetings of some of these advisory groups have already taken place. Advice they gave is being taken into account in running the national organ distribution system.

  Community Care
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to set national standards for community care;
  522
  (2) if he will extend the principle of the citizens charter to include the setting of national standards for community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for individual authorities to set standards on the service which should be provided. Extensive national guidance and advice is available to help them do this.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors will be taken into consideration in deciding the level of funding for community care in each local authority area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It will be for each local authority to decide the appropriate level of funding for community care in its area, taking account of the available resources. The Government will take a view in the next local authority expenditure round of what is appropriate and affordable for the totality of local authority expenditure, having obtained the views of the local authority associations. This will include the sums to be transferred from the social security system to local authorities for community care. The White Paper, "Caring for people", set out the factors which will be taken into account in calculating those sums. Each social services authority receives a standard spending assessment (SSA) for personal social services comprising three separate elements namely services for children, the elderly and other adults. The way in which SSAs are currently calculated, including the factors taken into account, is set out in the Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (England), a copy of which is available in the Library. The Government will shortly be having formal discussions with the local authority associations on whether any changes will be needed to the method of calculation of SSAs to take account of local authorities' new responsibilities for community care.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any plans to make available ring-fenced funds for community care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No.

  Presciption Charges
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage change in the level of prescription charges between 1979 and 1991.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) on 5 November at column 99.

  Health Authority Membership
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names, occupations and addresses of the chairmen and members of(a) the Northern regional health authority, (b) Sunderland health authority, (c) Hartlepool health authority and (d) Durham health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The names of the chairman and members of the Northern regional health authority, and the chairmen of Sunderland, Hartlepool and Durham health authorities, are given in the table. Information concerning district health authority members may be
  523
  obtained from the regional health authority. Up-to-date information about the occupations of health authority chairmen and members is not held centrally.

  It is not our policy to give the private addresses of members of health authorities.

  Northern RH A

  Chairman: Mr. P. D. Carr CBE.

  Non-executive members: Mr. A. G. Brown, Prof. Rawlins,

  Mr. P. H. Reay, Mr. B. C. Spoor (and one vacancy);

  Executive members: Prof. L. J. Donaldson, Mr. A. Doran,

  Mr. T. G. Smith.

  Sunderland HA

  Chairman: Mr. F. S. Cronin.

  Hartlepool HA

  Chairman: Cllr. Mr. B. Hanson OBE.

  Durham HA

  Chairman: Prof. J. I. Clarke JP.

  Cancer
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will obtain a copy of the report entitled "From the Billboard to the Playground" published by the Cancer Research Campaign on the effect advertising has on children.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I understand that a copy of this report was sent to every Member of the House.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage of the privately insured population who also use national health service facilities for the majority of their hospital stays.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No such estimate has been made.

  Nurses' Grading
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the policies of Her Majesty's Government on regrading for nurses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A new grading structure for clinical nursing and midwifery staff was agreed by the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Negotiating Council (NMNC) in 1988, and staff were regraded on the basis of the new structure. Appeals against regrading decisions are being dealt with under agreed procedures, and the NM NC is currently considering whether any changes can be made to those procedures in order to expedite the hearing of appeals. I understand that the management side of the NMNC has no current plans to propose any changes to the grading structure itself.

  Operating Theatre Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the ratio of trained theatre staff to patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not available centrally in the format requested.

  The number of trained theatre staff for whom information is held is shown in the table. The provisional number of in-patient and day cases treated in hospitals in 1990–91 (finished consultant episodes) for all acute specialities was 7,014,000.
  524

  Trained Theatre Staff working wholly or partly in Theatres Hospital Medical and Dental staff at 30 September 1990 (England)

  Specialty

  Number

  WTE

  General Surgery

  3,786

  3,522·8

  Cardio-thoracic Surgery

  368

  352·5

  Otolaryngology

  1,135

  943·4

  Neurosurgery

  258

  246·2

  Opthalmology

  1,551

  1,155·7

  Paediatric Surgery

  135

  127·6

  Plastic Surgery

  285

  258·8

  Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery

  2,444

  2,199·2

  Urology

  537

  500·3

  Cardiology

  560

  437·3

  Paediatrics

  2,603

  2,316·2

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  3,409

  2,814·9

  Anaesthetics

  5,047

  4,497·4

  Radiology

  1,663

  1,552·0

  Radiotherapy

  522

  451·2

  Histopathology

  952

  839·5

  Oral Surgery

  1,111

  719·9

  Total of above specialties

  26,366

  22,934·9

  Hospital Non-Medical staff at 30 September 1990 (1)

  Number

  WTE (2)

  Qualified Nurses

  12,410

  10,880

  Grand Total

  38,776

  33,814·9

  Note: (1) Technical staff (including Operating Assistants (ODAs) and Perfusionists) play an important role in operating theatres but are not identified separately on statistical returns.

  (2) All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) Annual Censuses of NHS medical and non-medical manpower.

  HIV and AIDS
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions the Chief Medical Officer has given port medical inspectors with regard to incoming foreigners who have, or are suspected of having, HIV or AIDS.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department reissued guidance to port medical inspectors of health in the form of an executive letter (PL/C MO(9 1)1 5) in October 1991. A copy of which is available in the Library.

  The guidance provides information for port medical inspectors of health on the action to take should the immigration service ask for a report upon a passenger seeking entry to the United Kingdom who has, or is suspected to have, AIDS or other illnesses associated with HIV infection.

  The guidance informs port medical inspectors of health that HIV infection (including AIDS) should not in itself be considered justification for a recommendation on public health grounds to refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom. It provides information on how the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Amendment Regulations 1988 apply to HIV and AIDS services. It seeks to ensure that confidentiality is maintained where a passenger with HIV infection is referred to a port medical inspector.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the conclusion of his Department's report on AIDS and life insurance on whether people are
  525
  deterred from having an HIV test or counselling by the nature of the questions asked by life insurance companies on proposal forms; what representations he has made to the life insurance companies on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs Virginia Bottomley
  The report by the British Market Research Bureau jointly commissioned by the Government and the Association of British Insurers, concluded that thousands and possibly tens of thousands of people were put off taking an HIV test because of the questions on insurance proposal forms. We recognise that the insurance industry requires information for risk assessment, but believe that this can be obtained in ways which do not deter people from seeking testing or help. Discussion of this important matter is continuing with the Association of British Insurers.

  Teenage Mothers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by year from 1980 to 1990 the number of illegitimate births by year to teenage mothers by age.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The numbers of births outside marriage to women aged 19 and under in the United Kingdom for the years 1980–1990 were as follows:

  Age of mother at birth

  Year

  15 and under

  16

  17

  18

  19

  Total under 20

  1980

  1,418

  3,527

  7,040

  8,553

  8,544

  29,082

  1981

  1,276

  3,668

  6,808

  9,056

  8,943

  29,751

  1982

  1,306

  3,628

  7,607

  9,719

  10,249

  32,509

  1983

  1,397

  3,807

  7,715

  10,212

  11,243

  34,374

  1984

  1,469

  4,059

  8,529

  11,156

  12,303

  37,516

  1985

  1,544

  4,408

  9,328

  12,719

  13,829

  41,828

  1986

  1,517

  4,442

  9,907

  13,840

  15,345

  45,051

  1987

  1,458

  4,622

  10,099

  14,906

  16,655

  47,740

  1988

  1,444

  4,764

  11,018

  15,355

  18,034

  50,615

  1989

  1,472

  4,549

  10,417

  15,435

  17,502

  49,375

  1990

  1,454

  4,454

  10,590

  15,295

  18,716

  50,509

  Artificial Sweeteners
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of adverse reactions to the artificial sweetener Aspartame have been reported by Nutrasweet since 1983.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Nutrasweet company has submitted to this Department anecdotal complaints from consumers in the United Kingdom of adverse reactions to the artificial sweetener Aspartame on a quarterly basis since the end of 1988.

  Nineteen complaints have been received. The symptoms reported by UK consumers are generally mild in nature and range from sickness and headache to depression, all of which are common in the general population.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the official engagements for each Minister in his Department for Wednesday 18 September 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Two of the Department's Ministers were on holiday that day. The other two had a number of official engagements.

  Birth Control
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the three pilot studies set up in 1986 to evaluate voluntary organisations such as the Brook advisory centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department financed three family planning and pregnancy counselling projects for young people under 25 in three separate health districts. The aim of the projects was to help to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy among young people. The projects were independently evaluated by the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) and a report of the findings was published in November 1991. The report titled "Family Planning and Pregnancy Counselling Projects for Young People" provides a valuable contribution to the current family planning debate. Copies are available in the Library.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research was instituted by Her Majesty's Government before they introduced hospital trusts and other reforms within the national health service review.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Since the publication of the White Paper "Working for Patients" in January 1989, there has been considerable work going on throughout the national health service to develop all the proposals contained in it into practical actions. We have always made clear that in implementing the reforms we are aiming for steady incremental progress over a number of years, informed by the lessons of experience.

  Accidental Injury
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people die on average, per day, from accidental injury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1990, the latest year available, there were recorded 9,848 accidental deaths due to injuries in England and Wales (excluding accidental poisoning and surgical and medical misadventures). This represents, on average, 27 deaths per day.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the number of vehicles and staff available for 999 calls in the London ambulance service for the period 1 October to 31 December 1991, per shift.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. James Harris, the chairman of the London ambulance service for details.

  Hormone Replacement
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for health if he will list preparations currently in use in hormone replacement treatment in which two or more drugs are currently packaged as one item together with the proportion of prescriptions(a) in England and (b) in each district health authority or family practitioner committee area which specified (i) both or all the constituent items and (ii) only one of the constituent items in each of the past five years.
  527
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The preparations currently used in hormone replacement treatment in which two or more drugs are packaged as one item are given in the table:

  Cyclo-Progynova

  Estrapak 50

  Trisequens

  Trisequens Forte

  Prempak-C

  Nuvelle

  Syntex Menophasc

  Information on the proportion of prescriptions on which different numbers of ingredients are listed is not available.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the items currently in common use by GPs or consultants for which more than one prescription charge is made under current legislation and regulations but which are currently packaged as one item by the manufacturers.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A prescription charge is payable in respect of each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed, unless the patient is exempt. In the case of items supplied in a combination pack, therefore, each separate item carries a separate prescription charge. The fact that for convenience two or more individual preparations may be supplied in one pack does not alter the patient's liability for prescription charges.

  Unless the patient is otherwise exempt, or holds a valid prepayment certificate, the following items in common use attract more than one prescription charge when supplied against a NHS prescription:

  Betadine Pessaries with Applicator and VC Kit

  Betadine Vaginal Gel with Applicator and VC Kit

  Canesten Duopak

  Cyclo-Progynora Combination Pack Tablets

  Daktarin Twin Pack

  Diprosone Duopack

  Ecostatin Twin Pack

  Estrapak 50

  Flagyl Compak

  Gyno-Daktarin Combipack

  Gyno-Pevaryl 1 CP Pack

  Gyno-Pavaryl 150 Combipack

  Lasix + K Combination Pack 'Tablets

  Migraleve Tablets Duo Pack

  Migralift Tablets Duo Pack

  Napratec Combination Pack Tablets

  Nuvelle Tablets

  Nystan Triple Pack

  Pabrinex Intramuscular High Potency

  Pabrinex Intramuscular Maintenance

  Pabrinex Intravenous High Potency

  Parentrovite Intramuscular High Potency

  Parentrovite Intramuscular Maintenance

  Parentrovite Intravenous High Potency

  Pranavite Slim Diet Plan

  Prcmpak-C Combination Pack Tablets 0·625 mg

  Prempak-C Combination Pack Tablets 1·25 mg

  Syntex Menophase Combination Pack Tablets

  Trisequens

  Uvistat Pro-Ski Pack

  Sickle Cell Disease
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training general practitioners receive in the control of pain and the nature of sickle cell crises.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 December 1991] : Responsibility for the curriculum for undergraduate medical education rests with the General Medical Council
  528
  and the Universities. We would expect haematology, pain control and the role of counselling and screening in genetic disease to be covered during the undergraduate syllabus. General practitioner training is decided by the trainer and trainee on the basis of the needs of the trainee and delivered either through direct tuition from the trainer or from formal vocational training sessions. Advice is readily available to general practitioners from local consultant haematologists who can involve other colleagues with expertise in relevant areas such as pain control. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee working party on sickle cell disease includes a general practitioner and so will be able to consider this aspect of treatment.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on sickle cell and thalassaemia services; and what representations he has received about these services; (2) what action he has taken to ensure that people with sickle cell disease and thalassaemia, and carriers, have access to appropriate services; and what guidance has been issued to district health authorities; (3) if he will adopt the 10-point charter on sickle cell and thalassaemia drafted by sickle cell and thalassaemia organisations with community health councils and other user representatives.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: The Government are fully aware of the importance of sickle cell and thalassaemia services. We aim to ensure that a good standard of service is provided by health authorities and others interested in the support and care of people with these conditions and their families. The deliberations of the working party of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee which will meet in the new year will provide a useful basis for developing service further.

  The Department is currently providing section 64 funding to the sickle cell (£35,000) and United Kingdom thalassaemia (£28,000) societies. Funding is to help in the provision of information and education material for sufferers and their families, the health care profession and the wider general public, including teachers and employers of the effect which sickle cell anaemia or thalassaemia can have on the lives of those affected. Funding has also been provided to assist in the production of a video aimed at teaching children about sickle cell disease, and for one on thalassaemia featuring an Asian family and dubbed in various Asian languages. It is hoped that the former will be useful for teachers whilst the Asian language video will be a useful source of information and a teaching aid for people of Asian orgin.

  Health authorities are responsible for ensuring that appropriate services are provided to meet the needs of their resident populations, including those with sickle cell anaemia and thalassaemia. Evidence from health authorities suggests that genetic screening and counselling facilities are available in those areas where the local population is likely to be susceptible to haemoglobinopathies. Counsellors give advice on services for patients as well as often being the link with local authorities on housing and other problems. The recommendations in the 10-point charter are primarily for consideration by health and local authorities, taking account of advice from health care professionals and other interested bodies.

  Regional Health Authorities (Revenue Allocation)
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will announce regional health authorities' revenue allocations for 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [pursuant to his reply. 19 December 1991, column 262–63]: Regional health authorities have now been formally notified of their 1992–93 allocations for cash-limited general medical services. The equivalent 1991–92 figures published previously were provisional; the table has now been updated to include final 1991–92 allocations for comparative purposes and is as follows:

  GMS cash·limited allocations 1992–93

  Allocation

  Real growth per cent.

  1991–921£ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Northern

  33·268

  36·414

  4·74

  Yorkshire

  44·481

  47·237

  1·62

  Trent

  55·422

  59·193

  2·20

  East Anglian

  32·520

  34·427

  1·31

  North West Thames

  44·837

  48·657

  3·85

  North East Thames

  44·556

  48·688

  4·57

  South East Thames

  47·407

  51·144

  3·24

  South West Thames

  36·915

  39·865

  3·34

  Wessex

  38·904

  41·552

  2·21

  Oxford

  34·349

  36·627

  2·04

  South Western

  49·468

  52·886

  2·31

  West Midlands

  54·250

  59·060

  4·18

  Mersey

  28·566

  30·208

  1·19

  North Western

  39·094

  42·717

  4·56

  Expenditure

  £ million

  1988–89 Outturn

  1989–90 Outturn

  1990–91 Provisional Outturn

  1991–92 Estimate

  Youth Training (cash)

  1102

  1100

  183

  2103

  Youth Training (1991–92 cash prices)3

  126

  116

  89

  103

  Employment Training (cash)

  1134

  1111

  1106

  2102

  Employment Training (1991–92 cash prices)3

  166

  129

  113

  102

  Youth Training Places

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Total number of planned places4

  51,976

  50,268

  38,862

  37,469

  Total number of filled places4

  46,417

  45,268

  34,301

  6—

  Employment Training Places

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Total number of planned places5

  41,473

  28,931

  25,544

  18,555

  Total number of filled places5

  21,215

  26,380

  22,234

  6—

  1 These figures are taken from "The Government Expenditure Plans: 1991–92 to 1993–94: Employment Department Group" (Table 6.5).

  2 These figures are taken from Supply Estimates 1991–92 Class XV Scotland Vote 3.

  3 The figures expressed at 1991–92 cash prices arc derived by applying the GDP deflator to the figures for previous years.

  4 Youth Training places are calculated on the basis of trainee weeks; the figures shown represent the average number of young people in training per week

  5 The Employment Training places information provided gives the planned and actual numbers in training at 31 March for each of the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90, the planned average number in training for 1990£91 and 1991–92 and the actual average number in training for 1990–91.

  6 Not yet available.

  Liver Transplants
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to commence a liver transplant centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I expect to be able to make an announcement on this subject shortly.
  530

  Allocation

  Real growth per cent.

  1991–921 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Total

  584·039

  628·675

  3·01

  1 Figures in this column do not sum to the total because of roundings.

SCOTLAND

  Training
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for(a) employment training and (b) youth training in each of the years since 1988–89, and for 1992–93 and 1993–94 the (i) total outturn expenditure of estimated planned expenditure in both cash and real terms and (ii) the total number of planned and filled places in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  Decisions about the allocation of planned provision for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for 1992–93 and 1993–94 to specific budget blocks have not yet been taken. Figures for 1992–93 will be published in February 1992 in the departmental report for the departments of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Information for previous years is set out in the tables.

  Hospital Beds (Highland Region)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the weekly cost of a bed for care of the elderly in (a) Highland health board as a whole and (b) Skye.
  531
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The weekly cost per bed for care of the elderly, excluding the elderly with dementia, in Highland health board's area is £499. The equivalent cost in Skye is £418.

  Brittania Life Assurance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance, other facilities and resources were given to Britannia Life Assurance when the company obtained premises within the Inverclyde enterprise zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  No assistance was offered to Britannia Life Assurance in respect of premises within Inverclyde enterprise zone. However, assistance was previously offered to Crusader Insurance in respect of these premises, under section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. My officials are considering carefully the status of this assistance.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advance notice and information he was given by the Britannia Life Assurance concerning the decision to vacate the company's premises in the Inverclyde enterprise zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  My Department was given less than two days notice by Britannia Life Assurance in advance of that company's announcement.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his Department's estimates of how much local authorities have spent on publicity and advertising in connection with the poll tax.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The costs of publicity and advertising are not separately identified in local authorities' returns to the Scottish Office of their expenditure on administering the community charge system.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the respects in which the provisions in Scotland for the disposal of fallen and diseased animals diverge from those applying in the EC for(a) animal health and food hygiene and (b) the environment with particular reference to the possible pollution of water resources through on-farm burial and how it is monitored.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Directive 90/667/EEC requires the carcases of fallen animals and those killed in the context of disease control measures to be disposed of by rendering, burning or proper burial. By means of a derogation the directive also permits the continuation of the traditional knacker trade until 1995 at least. The same disposal arrangements apply to such carcases in Scotland. Water pollution is monitored by the river purification authorities and it is an offence to dispose of animal carcases in a manner which causes such pollution.

  Sheriffs
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were(a) the total number of full-time sheriffs and (b) the numbers of newly appointed full-time sheriffs in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The full-time shrieval complement and the number of new appointments over the period 1986–1991 are set out in the table:

  Year

  Initial complement

  Final complement

  New appointments

  1987

  90

  93

  3

  1988

  93

  95

  5

  1989

  95

  97

  4

  1990

  97

  97

  4

  1991

  97

  99

  5

  Holyrood Palace
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the recent attempted break-in at Holyrood palace; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There has been no recent attempted break-in at the palace of Holyroodhouse. On 28 June 1991 the security system at the palace detected that an intruder had gained access to the palace grounds and I received a full report on the incident at the time from the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the Government projections for student numbers in Scotland to the year 2000 based on the assumptions used in paragraph 2.4 of "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" (Cm 114).

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]:information in the exact form requested is not available. Projections for student numbers in higher education in Scotland to the year 2000 are given in the "Statistical Bulletin: Higher Education Projections for Scotland (1991) (No Edn/J1/1991/13)" a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of days in each of the last five years when duties in the sheriff courts in Scotland were carried out by temporary sheriffs; and what plans he has to appoint additional sheriffs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of temporary sheriff days provided in each of the last five years to enable the courts to deal timeously with increasing workloads is given in the table:

  Temporary Sheriff Days Provided

  1987

  1,982

  1988

  2,855

  1989

  4,046

  1990

  4,236

  1991

  5,100

  The need for additional full-time sheriffs is kept under constant review.

  Scottish National Heritage
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations, including voluntary conservation organisations, he consulted before appointing the members of Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend sought the views of a wide range of relevant organisations, including national voluntary conservation organisations, before appointing the members of Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost to Scottish Natural Heritage of establishing its own science division in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Natural Heritage will have a research and advisory services directorate to provide advice based on commissioned and in-house research for the formulation of policy and the management of the natural heritage. The directorate will be formed in part from the merger of the research and development divisions of the Countryside Commission Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council Scotland; its costs will be met from within the allocated grant-in-aid.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the likely cost of management agreements in respect of sites of special scientific interest in Scotland in 1992–93.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The cost of management agreements will emerge as they are negotiated and concluded by Scottish Natural Heritage. It will be contained within the budget provided through grant in aid by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take if the cost of management agreements on sites of special scientific interest exceeds the amount allowed for in the budget of Scottish Natural Heritage.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  Scottish Natural Heritage is required to manage its budget and determine its priorities in paying management agreements on sites of special scientific interest. I do not expect Scottish Natural Heritage to exceed its budget.

  Scottish National Liberation Army
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the activities of the Scottish National Liberation Army.
  534
  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The Government deplore any action by any subversive organisation which seeks to undermine the democratic process.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to the Irish Government in connection with persons purporting to represent the Scottish National Liberation Army.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  There have been no recent representations made to the Irish Government.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the value of section 94 consents for school buildings in constant and cash price terms since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local authorities in Scotland receive an allocation of consent to incur capital expenditure on schools, further education colleges and community education buildings. Within their overall level of consent, they are free to determine which educational building projects will proceed. I refer the hon. member to the answer given on 6 December 1991.

  Lockerbie Bombing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the charges against Libyans accused in relation to the Lockerbie bombing were first ready in the Crown Office.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The charges against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah were ready in their final form in the Crown Office on 12 November 1991.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the Government projections for student numbers in Scotland to the year 2000 based on the assumptions used in paragraph 2.4 of "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge" (Cm 114).

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: Information in the exact form requested is not available. Projections for student numbers in higher education in Scotland to the year 2000 are given in the "Statistical Bulletin: Higher Education Projections for Scotland (1991) (No Edn/J1/1991/13)" a copy of which is available in the Library.

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

Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that Her Majesty has appointed Admiral Sir Richard Thomas KCB, OBE, to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, in succession to Air Chief Marshal Sir John Gingell GBE, KCB, KCVO, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships' commands.
Whereupon the House directed that he be called in. Accordingly he was called in and officiated in his place.

Tributes to Sir John Gingell
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I feel privileged that it falls to me as Leader of your Lordships' House to pay tribute to the outstanding service which Sir John Gingell has given during his seven years as Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. He is held in great affection and we are sorry to see him go.
Sir John took up his post at the very moment when this House was first televised, January 1985. Through television Black Rod has become a well-known public figure because of the duty he holds of summoning the Members of another place to this House on the occasion of the State Opening. That is, however, a very small part of the duties attached to the post.
Black Rod holds office as Serjeant-at-Arms attending the Lord Chancellor, as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, and as Agent of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. As a
2
Gentleman Usher to Her Majesty The Queen, he is a member of the Royal Household, and of course has important duties towards the Order of the Garter.
Beyond all this, however, Black Rod is responsible for many mundane but crucial functions on our behalf: the regulation of visitors, the maintenance of order in the Chamber and within the precincts, and even ultimately the dusting and vacuuming of the House. What is more, Black Rod is responsible for our security and I do not need to remind your Lordships that that role has become more onerous in the past seven years.
I imagine that when Sir John arrived here seven years ago he found his new post somewhat different from the one that he had just left—which was Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Allied Forces Central Europe. He appeared to make the transition with effortless ease, although from the start there were big challenges to be faced. The televising of the House, which I have already mentioned, meant considerable extra work for the new Black Rod, negotiating with the broadcasters and ensuring that the presence of cameras in this Chamber made no difference to the atmosphere of the House. Seven years on, we all know that Sir John managed this brilliantly.
It has been a very busy seven years in your Lordships' House, and both the amount of work that we do and the number of your Lordships who are active in that work have increased. This has meant that Sir John has had to cope with an increasing demand for space and he has used great tact and diplomacy in meeting many of our new needs. During his period of office, No. 1, Abbey Gardens was acquired, and in the last few months—largely owing to an original initiative on his part—we have secured a floor in 7, Millbank. The Barry Room has been opened as an extra dining facility, and during the past two summer Recesses our kitchens have been entirely rebuilt. I am reminded also that when Sir John arrived he found the Peers' Lobby ceiling shrouded in scaffolding. All the difficulties of making progress with renovation were pressed upon him but progress was made and the scaffolding went.

3
On a personal note, I should like to say how helpful and supportive Sir John has been to me as Leader of your Lordships' House. I think I am right in saying that there is no Black Rod in living memory who has been held in higher or warmer esteem by all of us, and by all the staff of the House. Sir John combines an entirely natural affability with a remarkable and compelling dignity.
I am sure that all your Lordships would wish to join me in offering Sir John congratulations on the KCVO which he received in the New Year's Honours List. We send both him and Lady Gingell our very best wishes for a long and happy retirement. I should also like to take this opportunity to welcome his successor, Admiral Sir Richard Thomas, and to wish him well. He takes over a ship in excellent order and I know that he will be able to count on the help and support of all your Lordships.
2.42 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to support the warm tribute paid by the noble Lord the Leader of the House to Sir John Gingell. We have been fortunate in those who have served the House as Gentlemen Ushers of the Black Rod. To be successful, they must balance the ceremonial aspects of their office against the very real responsibilities that they shoulder. The finery, although attractive, is only a small part of the job.
We have been very fortunate to have Sir John in the office of Black Rod over the past seven years and we shall miss him very much. His commitment to the interests of noble Lords has been noteworthy in the fields of security, accommodation, services generally and the other duties mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.
Sir John has been assiduous and helpful at all times. People abseiling from the Gallery have always found him waiting for them! We shall above all remember Sir John for his kindness and good nature whenever we have approached him for help and guidance. He has assisted the noble Lord the Leader of the House over seven years. He has also been helpful and kind to me as Leader of the Opposition. Black Rod needs a sense of humour, and Sir John Gingell has that in abundance. In this office and throughout his distinguished career Sir John has been supported and sustained by Lady Gingell. We wish them both a long and happy retirement. We also wish Admiral Sir Richard Thomas every success during his tenure of office.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Leader of my party, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, is unfortunately away from London this afternoon. Therefore it is my pleasant task to speak in his stead at this moment. During the adjournment debate before the Recess I made some reference to the fact that Black Rod was due to leave this House. I echo what has been said by the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. I have as a Whip received enormous assistance from Sir John. I am sure the other Chief
4
Whips from the other parties echo that sentiment. I continue to seek accommodation here and Sir John has been of enormous assistance in that task. He reaches places in this Palace no one else reaches.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has already referred to the honour that Sir John received in the New Year's Honours List. I was reminded of a perhaps apocryphal message that was passed by a flag captain to the Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean fleet on a similar occasion during the war. It read: "Twice a knight at your age—congratulations".
It may well be said that with all the difficulties that Black Rod has faced he has never been wrongfooted by any of your Lordships. There was, however, one occasion on which I thought he had been wrongfooted. That occurred during a prorogation of Parliament when he left your Lordships' Chamber doing a smart left-about turn. When I was doing my National Service I was always told that the worst thing one could ever do was anything other than a right-about turn. I mentioned that to one of the doorkeepers. I asked him whether that was the correct procedure. He replied that it was not correct but that Black Rod could not help it. When I asked him why that was he said, "Air Force, my Lord". With that single blemish Black Rod has served this House extremely well. I wish his successor the greatest good fortune. Our good wishes go to Sir John and Lady Gingell.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, it is with the greatest pleasure that we on the Cross-Benches endorse the tributes to Black Rod's formal and administrative abilities. As he is not part of the usual channels not only the Convenor but also many of the Cross-Bench peers have taken unusual problems to him. All of us have been helped and advised with much patience, understanding, friendliness and, above all, lovely good humour. For all he has done for us and the House we thank him and wish him and Lady Gingell every happiness in their new life. We very much welcome Admiral Sir Richard Thomas and wish him well.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, it is truly a pleasure to associate my colleagues on these Benches and myself with the tributes that have been paid to Sir John. Sadly, Bishops are not able to attend the House as frequently as other noble Lords and therefore perhaps do not need quite as much care. However, we have been extremely grateful for the courtesy and help we have received from Sir John and we wish both him and Lady Gingell a happy, long and fruitful retirement. We extend our best wishes to his successor.

Soviet Union: Dissolution Developments
2.48 p.m.
Lord Juddasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the latest developments in what has been known as the Soviet Union.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Government have recognised as independent states eight former Soviet republics and are establishing full diplomatic relations with them. We consider Russia itself to be the continuation of the Soviet Union. We are intending to build up relations with these newly independent states in close consultation with our partners and allies with the aim of encouraging as orderly as possible a transition from central rule. We welcomed assurances given by the former republics on such key questions as control of nuclear weapons and human rights.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the volatile situation in the former Soviet Union calls for careful pragmatism in our response? Does he also accept that this is no time for insistence on dogmatic economic theory? Does he agree that more imaginative support should have been given to President Gorbachev last year? Will he explain to the House what effective measures are being taken to prevent the leakage of military nuclear technology, personnel, fuel and weapons into the adjacent Middle East, and what measures are being taken to safeguard the environment?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I agree that this is a time for pragmatism. I do not accept that our policy was wrong in respect of President Gorbachev. As regards arms, there is clearly a danger that disintegration of the former Soviet Union will lead to proliferation of weapons, weapons technology and materials and the movement of key scientists. Close Western co-ordination on recognition has taken place to help bring the republics to a responsible approach on those subjects. Given the unprecedented events which have taken place, Her Majesty's Government and the Western partners and allies are satisfied with the assurances given so far, but we need to keep up the pressure.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the Minister has explained that the Security Council and Her Majesty's Government have decided to accept Russia as the natural successor to the Soviet Union. Does he consider that to be wise? The charter refers to the Soviet Union, which does not exist. In view of the uncertainty of the situation in what was the Soviet Union, about the new republics and even about Russia itself, does not the Minister think that it was a rash move to take a decision which pre-empts further debate? Will he also say why the Prime Minister has decided to preside at a special meeting of the Security Council before the end of this month?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot answer the last question. It scarcely needs saying that the abrupt dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of last year presents daunting and unprecedented problems, and risks may exist. As regards the status of Russia, Russia is assuming the former Soviet seat among the five permanent members of the Security Council. We felt that that was necessary to avoid an intolerable international legal vacuum, especially for the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council is
6
working well at present and we do not want to see its work disrupted by squabbling over the former Soviet seat.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is there not some difficulty in trying to arrive at a reasonable and sensible solution in dealing with Russia at present? Is it not a fact that that country having been served by Communism for many years it will be very difficult for its rulers to settle down under a form of democracy and that therefore we have to give them every sympathy? Noble Lords may not be aware that it has been my privilege to listen, in my home, to broadcasts direct from the Soviet Union at various times and that there appears to be considerable difficulty in coming to what appears to us to be a sensible decision. Does the Minister agree that Russia needs our sympathy and understanding?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I cannot but agree with my noble friend. I hope that it will interest your Lordships to know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will visit Alma-Ata, Kiev and Moscow at the end of next week and will use his discussions with the leadership in each capital to re-emphasise our anxieties on nuclear questions and to discuss a wide range of matters.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 11th December last he explained to the House that Mr. Appleyard would be leading a mission to the capitals of the recognised new independent states? Will he now inform the House what were the major anxieties which Mr. Appleyard reported back to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Mr. Appleyard had a very testing and energetic trip. As a result, a basis was found for recognition of the states and matters relating to the various assurances we needed leading up to recognition were discussed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the Question refers to the latest developments in the Soviet Union and I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is a great deal of uncertainty about those developments. For example, can he say who the British nuclear deterrent is supposed to deter?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, in such a fast-moving situation it would not be wise to unscramble our nuclear deterrent this week in anticipation of a wholly different future state of affairs. Everything remains uncertain. I can see no reason for changing our policy on nuclear deterrence.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord define Her Majesty's Government policy towards extending diplomatic recognition to the new republics beyond Russia and the Ukraine? Given the very grave events developing in Moscow and beyond in the economic field and in the form of serious shortages this winter, will he say whether Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to make in this week's meeting of the European Community's Foreign Ministers?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on 31st December we recognised the eight former Soviet

7
republics as independent states. We did not recognise Russia as independent because we felt that there was no need to do so; Western governments are treating Russia as the continuation of the Soviet Union. Three republics were not recognised. Kirgizstan has transmitted its assurances to the EC presidency and those are still under consideration. We are still awaiting assurances from Tajikistan and expect them shortly. We have not recognised Georgia where the position is extremely confused following the overthrow of President Gamsakhurdia.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, perhaps I may revert to the question of nuclear weapons. According to the information I have received the Russians are having difficulty, strange though it may seem, in finding the necessary financial resources to dispose of the nuclear weapons they have promised to destroy and also the technical capacity to destroy them. In particular, as the Foreign Secretary is visiting Russia in the near future would the West consider an initiative offering Russia not only sympathy and help but also financial assistance and, if necessary, technological assistance in order to destroy those weapons?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is entirely right about those problems. I believe that the matter is being addressed by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, what is the attitude and policy of Her Majesty's Government towards three of the new republics—Kazakhstan, Byelorussia and the Ukraine—all of which have nuclear weapons on their territory and under their control? Is our recognition of those republics contingent in any way upon their accession to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that there are still 27,000 nuclear weapons in the four republics of the Soviet Union—the three I have mentioned and the republic of Russia? Does he agree that that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as to why we are maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, that is why we wish to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. I cannot confirm the numbers which the noble Lord mentioned. The assurances we have been given by those states which we have recognised have been contingent on their intention to join the NPT.
Lord Cheshire: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the rumours are true that there are organised international criminal elements in the republics attempting to pass military expertise and unpleasant military weaponry to the Middle East? If that is so, will those republics collaborate with us in trying to identify those attempts so as to safeguard the world?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the same reports about which the noble and gallant Lord expressed anxiety have reached me. Every effort is being made with the republics and our allies to find ways of dealing with the problem.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in view of the acute instability in the Middle East and pending a peace settlement in the Middle East as a whole it is impossible to give too much priority to the control of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union and to their effective dismantling?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is extraordinarily broad but I hope that I have said nothing which would diminish the importance which Her Majesty's Government attach to the issue.

The Arts Council of Northern Ireland
2.59 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Northern Ireland Arts Council budget is not being increased pro rata to the increase announced for the funding of the Arts Council in Britain.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): The funding for the Arts Council of Northern Ireland is not directly linked to that of the Arts Council in Britain, although in recent years we have been able to match per capita spending by government on the arts in Northern Ireland with that in Great Britain. This has not been possible for the 1992–93 financial year because of other pressures on the Northern Ireland budget.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer and for his reply to my earlier written Question on the same subject. Is he aware that to those who welcome, as we certainly do on these Benches, the substantial increase in the Arts Council budget of £27 million, or nearly 14 per cent., the fact that the increase in Northern Ireland is only half that level seems inexplicable? Is he further aware that the burgeoning arts scene in Northern Ireland is full of vitality and innovation and that it cuts across the sectarian divide? Does he agree that, in the tragically divided Province with which he and his colleagues have to grapple and about which we are all concerned in this House, anything that makes a positive contribution to the common life in Northern Ireland deserves the fullest possible support?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government agree with a great deal that the noble Lord has said about the importance of encouraging the arts in Northern Ireland. The up-rating by almost 7.5 per cent. for next year with regard to Northern Ireland should allow the Arts Council there some development of its programmes. In his Question the noble Lord said that the difference between that figure and the figure for Great Britain was inexplicable. It is a result of pressures across the whole of the Northern Ireland bloc, including the payment of substantial sums for compensation for terrorist outrages. Tragically, those outrages include the arts area where at present there is

9
extensive damage, and the rebuilding of the Opera House in Belfast. The Arts Council's gallery in central Belfast is also awaiting work.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain how the Arts Council in Northern Ireland has come off so much worse than the Arts Council in Great Britain? What is the arrangement between himself and the Treasury that has enabled that unsatisfactory position to be brought about?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I said in my original Answer that there is no linkage between the two arts councils. Nonetheless, we achieved parity in per capita funding three years ago and have managed to maintain that until the last public expenditure round. I have already explained to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, why there has been a difference in this public expenditure round.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does not the damage done to the Opera House and the art gallery to which the noble Lord referred provide an excellent reason for increasing, not decreasing, the grant to the Arts Council of Northern Ireland?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, support for the arts in Northern Ireland has continued to increase. Per capita funding has increased for the past three years and I am glad to say that, as a result of this year's public expenditure round, it will increase again next year.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I must briefly support my noble friend's Question because he pointed out that in Northern Ireland one of the few things that crosses party divergences and leads people to work together is the development of the arts. As an instance, the Ulster Orchestra, which appears almost weekly on the BBC, is excellent. Does the noble Lord agree that such things cannot be maintained unless they are given proper support and that anything less than that which is given in England and Scotland is certainly too little?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks from firsthand experience, having had responsibility for those matters in Northern Ireland in the past. I accept the general thrust of what he says. I should like to give him an assurance that we shall consider the needs of the arts during the current financial year.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House when he or any of his ministerial colleagues last formally met the Northern Ireland arts associations' client bodies or their representatives to discuss the problem of arts funding in Northern Ireland, and what other meetings are scheduled for the immediate future?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I met the Arts Council of Northern Ireland only about two and a half months ago and we discussed a variety of matters.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the careful and thoughtful way in which he has dealt with the Question. However, does he agree that, if his response is that the bombing of both the Opera House and the Arts Council building is a
10
reason for not giving more adequate support to the arts in Northern Ireland, perversely and paradoxically that will have the effect of encouraging those thugs to think that they can cut down on the communal life by their activities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point but, with respect, it is not an entirely accurate point. I said in my original reply and then in answer to the noble Lord's supplementary question that there are other pressures—and they are very great
pressures—on the Northern Ireland bloc as a whole. I simply gave as an example the fact that compensation for terrorist outrages is one of those pressures. Tragically, it so happens that compensation must be paid as regards the Opera House and, I suspect, as regards the Arts Council gallery.

Defamation Law: Reforming Measures
3.6 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampsteadasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the reform of the law of defamation.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Government have kept the law of defamation under review. In February 1990, in answer to a Question from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I announced two reforms; namely, an enlargement of the Court of Appeal's power to substitute its own award of damages and the recent provision enabling a plaintiff to apply to a judge for approval of a proposed statement before accepting a payment in. I also announced my intention to invite the Supreme Court Procedure Committee to examine the rules and practice and to propose reforms, and I shall make an announcement about its recommendation in due course. Following two consultations, which I then likewise announced, I have made clear the Government's intention to provide for the defence of innocent dissemination to be made available to printers; but I have concluded that the death of a party, or potential party, should continue to extinguish a cause of action.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his informative reply to my Question. However, does he agree that the value of the Neill Report—the excellent report that has been produced under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Neill—is substantially diminished by the fact that two crucial matters—namely, legal aid and the use of trial by jury—were excluded from the terms of reference? Does he agree that one of the features of defamation which adds overwhelmingly to the lengthening of those procedures and the increase in costs is the existence of a jury? Does he not think that the time has come to consider seriously whether the jury should be dispensed with in that type of proceeding as it has been dispensed with for some 50 years in all other types of civil proceedings?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, those two matters were excluded from the report that I requested from Lord Justice Neill because I did not consider that they were suitable for the type of work that he was to do. I should like to join with the noble Lord in saying how grateful I am for the excellent report that Lord Justice Neill and his group have prepared and which I am presently studying.
As regards jury trials, I have not been able to detect a sufficient consensus for doing away with jury trials in that type of proceedings. As the noble Lord will know, a recommendation generally along those lines was made by the Faulks Committee in 1975, but it has not been implemented. We have introduced a much wider power for the Court of Appeal to substitute its own award for that of the jury. I believe that that may well help to provide guidelines to juries in that area. As regards legal aid, no government have so far thought it wise to introduce legal aid in defamation proceedings, and I remain of that view.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that one of the most disquieting practices in recent years has been the threat of action to intimidate booksellers and other distributors? He may be aware that when I tried a year or more ago to purchase the biography by Tom Bower of the late Robert Maxwell, I was told by a private bookseller that they were not able to stock it, not because they had been sued or even directly threatened with an action, but because the possibility had been mooted. Does he agree that there is a real need to restrict pre-emptive actions against distributors in that way?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree that this is a difficult area. On the other hand, I believe that it is a matter best left to the court to decide on individual applications. The court will know the circumstances and will know what is required in the interests of justice.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, in line with a principal recommendation of the Neill Committee, would the noble and learned Lord consider a short Bill conferring a quick and cheap remedy on victims of libel in cases where newspapers are willing to publish a prompt correction and apology and are also willing to pay damages to be assessed by a judge in streamlined procedures?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is one of the extremely valuable recommendations of the committee chaired by Lord Justice Neill. Certainly it is one that attracts me very much. I shall announce a final decision upon the matter in due course.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of the want of consensus as to whether there should be the abolition of trial by jury, can my noble and learned friend say whether the Court of Appeal has yet, or may soon have, sufficient power to substitute its own award for that of a jury, and make all requisite consequential directions to save costs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is the power that was conferred under the Courts and Legal
12
Services Act. I believe that would be a valuable addition to the Court of Appeal's powers, and it would greatly help in dealing with the present situation so long as we have jury trials in those proceedings.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I did not fully understand the noble and learned Lord's reference to the threat of a writ. I do not see how the court can have anything to do with the threat of a writ. It does not reach the court. I did not understand the answer. Would he expatiate upon it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my answer was directed to the situation in which the court may grant an injunction. The bookseller to whom my noble friend referred was anticipating the possibility that such an injunction might be taken. I believe that the matter of interim injunctions is best left to the court. I cannot think of a very obvious type of alteration to the present law in this area which would still enable justice to be done between the parties. I hope that that is a fuller explanation of what I had in mind in answering my noble friend.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he would bring forward recommendations in due course. I am not so naive as to ask him when is "in due course", but can he tell us whether it is at least visible? Can we expect the recommendations within the reasonably foreseeable future?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would answer yes to that question.

Business of the House: Debates, 15th January
3.13 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Dean of Beswick set down for Wednesday, 15th January shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Clinton-Davis set down for the same day to two hours.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 to 16,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 17 to 20,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 21 to 36,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 37 to 58,

Schedule 1,

13

Clauses 59 to 67,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 68 to 83,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 84 to 90,

Schedules 8 and 9—(Lord Belstead.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Local Government Bill, has consented to place her prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 4 [Application to parish and community councils and charter trustees]:
Lord Simon of Claisdale Lord Simon of Claisdale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 41, leave out from ("expedient") to end of line 44.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deletes paragraph (b) from Clause 4(3). The ground for doing so is that the provision is unnecessary. Being unnecessary it is one of the many intrusions which go to swell the statute book. In 1975 the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation remarked on the prolixity of legislation. In that year the statute book ran to three volumes. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Renton Committee, 10 years later with fewer statutes it ran to five volumes. The format was then enlarged but within two years it still comprised five large volumes. These volumes are very expensive. They must now cost about £300. When I last inquired a few years ago, they were well over £200. Therefore, if only in the interests of the consumer, Parliament is under an obligation to scrutinise legislation carefully and to eliminate any provision which is unnecessary.
In Committee, paragraph (b) attracted a baleful glare from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, also looked askance at it. But the noble Baroness hastened to point out that it was quite innocuous, that it did no more than it said and that local authorities vary very greatly in extent of jurisdiction. She mentioned the county council, which is obviously quite different from a parish council in jurisdiction and resources. She said that all that was done in the paragraph was to take account of those differences and to allow the Secretary of State to make different regulations to suit the different circumstances.
It seemed so reasonable that the amendment was not pressed. I ventured to try to assist the noble Baroness by pointing out that not only was the provision completely reasonable but quite innocuous because it was unnecessary. The powers that are given in this paragraph are well contained in the earlier part of the section.
The noble Baroness kindly said that she would consider the matter and if she were advised that it was unnecessary, the paragraph would be removed. I rather discouraged her from hoping that she would receive such advice. It is a formula which has got into the computer in the parliamentary draftsman's office and anything that gets into a Whitehall computer is akin to being engraved on tablets of stone brought down from the holy mountain, in this case the holy mountain of the Medes and the Persians. I did not encourage the noble Baroness to hope that she would receive any positive advice on the matter.
The noble Baroness kindly invited me to discuss with her later amendments to which we shall come in due course. Being anxious to compromise and indeed to settle for half, I identified four separate areas in which there had been disagreement in Committee. I offered to concede two and a half if she would meet me on one and a half. However, when I visited that noble building in Marsham Street the noble Baroness kindly raised two other matters. One was this immediate discussion; the other was the Henry VIII clause that your Lordships condignly and rightly removed from the Bill. I do not believe that the noble Baroness raised those two extra matters for the pure pleasure of saying "no" six times rather than four, but that is how it worked out.
Although the architecture of that building was impugned that day, I could not help remarking on the spirit that animated the Minister rather than the architecture that surrounded us. It seemed to be the spirit that Goethe ascribed to Mephistopheles: the spirit that always says "no". At any rate that was the answer that I received to each of my points.
The noble Baroness is right. One requires different regulations for different circumstances, different localities and different local authorities. I must concede that the law is an ass, because Mr. Bumble said so. However, the law is not so ignorant that it does not know that local authorities vary greatly in size and responsibility, that a county council is not the same as a parish council, and that different regulations will be needed for each. It is quite unnecessary to go out of one's way to obviate a far-fetched argument that if this provision were not included any such exercise of regulation-making power would be ultra vires the main provision of the section.
The trouble is that there is absolutely no limit to the silly arguments that can be advanced in a court of law. If we try to obviate and forestall every argument the statute book will continue to fill in the way that I described. The provision is entirely unnecessary. I put it down again on Third Reading—I did not raise it at Report—because the Bill will go to another place and two committees are now looking into the structure and content of the statute book. I beg to move.>
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sad to find myself to some extent at variance with the views of the noble and learned Lord on this matter. In an immensely valuable and entertaining speech he described the legal consequences of the provision in the Bill. However, he did not refer to the subject matter: the exclusion of parish and community councils from the Citizen's Charter provisions. It is

15
well known that we on these Benches support the Citizen's Charter provisions; indeed, they were our idea in the first place. We believe that it is proper for them to apply to the larger parish and community councils; some are large and have substantial budgets. However, it would be quite improper to include the very small villages whose only concern may be street lighting or a parish hall.
Although I do not dare to disagree with the noble and learned Lord's legal interpretation, I hope that a degree of flexibility for the Secretary of State in this matter will be acceptable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I should like to say that I support the noble and learned Lord who proposed the amendment. I should be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench would explain to me—it may be that I am short on understanding—exactly what will be provided by subsection (3) (b) which is not already provided by subsection (3) (a).
Perhaps I may comment on the characteristic generosity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in referring to a holy mountain as the source of our legislative supplies. I believe that he was carrying his generosity a little too far. Before the reconstruction of Richmond Terrace and the mews behind it, there used to be an archway leading off to the main thoroughfare of Whitehall. For the guidance of those who passed underneath the archway there was a terse and laconic instruction, "Commit no nuisance". I am now beginning to understand the nuisance to which that notice was directed. Unhappily, with the reconstruction the notice disappeared and its efficacy with it.
The noble and learned Lord generously referred to the "noble building" in Marsham Street which is the current home of my noble friend. I am sure that her recent experiences of that building will cause her to decline the compliment offered to it by my noble and learned friend. I hope that my noble friend will pause to consider whether this tedious, tiresome and unnecessary sentence is essential to her purposes.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, in the context of a different clause, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, argued during Committee that the provisions that he seeks to remove by the amendment were unnecessary. As I explained at Report, I took advice on that and came to the conclusion that they were necessary. Nothing would have pleased me more than to have acceded to his wishes. Like him, I believe that we have an opportunity to take something out of the Bill if it is superfluous.
The order-making power in Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to bring parish and community councils and charter trustees within the scope of the provisions in Clauses 1 to 3 on the publication of information as to standards of performance. Clause 4 achieves that by providing that Clauses 1 to 3 shall have effect as if the bodies defined in the order were relevant bodies for the purposes of Clauses 1 to 3.
16
What that does in practice is to give the Secretary of State discretion to limit the sheer numbers of bodies to which those clauses would apply.
I am advised—and in matters of legal importance I have to be advised—that the effect of the amendment would be that either all or no parish and community councils and charter trustees could be brought within the scope of the performance reporting provisions. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, there are distinctions between some parish authorities and others. For example, there are some large ones to which specific instructions may well apply. The ability to be selective by, say, one of those types of authority, by expenditure, range of function, or other feature would be lost. Therefore something material would be lost by the removal of this part of the Bill.
Your Lordships will know that some parish and community councils spend only a few hundred pounds a year whereas others spend more than some full district councils. It would be a waste of public money to bring the smaller bodies into the net. Yet it may well be desirable in the longer term that the larger bodies should be brought within the discipline of providing information as to their performance. Again, the range of functions undertaken by the bodies affected by Clause 4 varies widely: some take responsibility for street lighting and others for district council services. Once it had been decided in principle to extend the application of Clauses 1 to 3 to parish and community councils and charter trustees, the effect of the Secretary of State exercising his discretion would be to reduce the number of bodies affected. Given the diversity of circumstances, I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that it is necessary that the Secretary of State should have the discretion not to bring some of these bodies into the scope of Clauses 1 to 3 and that this discretion should be beyond doubt.
If the removal of the provision from the Bill had no effect whatever, I should have been the person to have acceded to the wishes of the noble and learned Lord. However, with that explanation—and the explanation that I gave to my noble friend Lord Peyton, with whose remarks I concur in relation to my home at Marsham Street—I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I cannot pretend that the Minister's reply was not what I had expected. Therefore, it would be quite ridiculous for me to wax indignant about it. The Minister received me most courteously in what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, insisted I should call an ignoble building. She has replied courteously and carefully today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 8 [Procedure for competitive tendering]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 8, line 12, after ("may") insert ("after the report of an inquiry established in accordance with subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3. It

17
will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the Opposition Front Bench has confined the amendments which it has tabled on Third Reading to Clauses 8 to 10. That is not only because we are in agreement with a great deal of the rest of the Bill but because we wish to concentrate as much as possible on the increasingly unsatisfactory story of the preparation and presentation of that part of the legislation.
Noble Lords will recall that we attempted to have Clauses 8 to 11 taken out of the normal consideration of the Bill in order that the result of the consultation on compulsory competitive tendering and the Government's response to it could be available to Parliament before decisions were taken on CCT. The House, and indeed the Whips, did not see fit to accede to that reasonable request. We then pointed out that the consultation document had a number of self-evident defects, as could be seen from published documents.
Having had access to the report of the PA Consulting Group, which formed the basis of the Government's deliberations on compulsory competitive tendering, we found that the group did not support the concept of CCT to anything like the extent suggested by Ministers nor to the extent suggested in the consultation document. Therefore, not only is there the impropriety that the House is being asked to consider this legislation without having seen the results of the consultation or the Government's response to it, but the fact that the consultation document itself is defective because it does not adequately take account of the views of the consultants.
I agree with Mr. Portillo's response to our publication of the document: that Ministers take the decisions and not consultants. That is entirely correct. However, when Ministers commission research it behoves them to pay at least some attention to the expert opinions that they are commissioning and for which they are paying. They should allow that to be reflected to a greater extent than has proved to be the case in the consultation work.
During the past few days we have pointed out to the press that there are many ways in which the consultants' report is not adequately reflected in the consultation document. Although a number of local authority services are ruled out by the consultants for consideration for CCT they still appear in the White Paper, Competing for Quality. There is little evidence in the consultants' report of the type of savings which Ministers claim for CCT. The report points out that as regards many services—notably legal services, public relations, secretarial and accountancy services—experience has shown that private sector provision is substantially more expensive than public sector provision.
The consultants are lukewarm even about the services which they identify as being good candidates. They state that they are based on merely preliminary judgments, which are in turn based on case studies rather than on a comprehensive analysis. The consultants give the lie completely to Ministers' claims that quality is inherent in the Government's proposals and has been so since and including the 1988 Act. The
18
consultants state specifically that quality is not an acceptable criterion under existing legislation except under the circumstances of double envelope tendering.
Although the consultants recommend that construction and related services are good candidates for CCT, they fail to point out that the savings from that are on capital account rather than on revenue account and therefore will take a number of years to be realised. Moreover, the consultants point out correctly that there will be a high cost of processing small contracts which could outweigh the savings to be made. They suggest that there should be a de minims rule about the size of the services to be contracted out. That suggestion is not taken up by the Government.
The most important single point is that in paragraph 4.1 the consultants describe the requirement for a true market as a "key" requirement. The Government have completely ignored that consideration. They have substituted to a lesser extent the idea of an internal market as opposed to the idea of a true market. They have failed to take on board the consultants' recommendation that, in order to achieve a true market, there should be the possibility of cross-boundary tendering by local authorities themselves.
The consultants point out that under certain circumstances CCT could constrain administrative reform and innovative ways of delivering local authority services. They believe that that should be avoided. Again, there is no reflection of that view in the Government's consultation document, nor in anything that Ministers have said. The consultants point out a number of potential conflicts between CCT and the programme of local government reform which will be established by Part II of the Bill. There is no reference to that in the consultation document. They point out the potential conflict between CCT and the process of local management of schools and colleges. Again, there is no reference to that in the consultation document.
The consultants point out the possibility of conflict between CCT and the Citizen's Charter, which refers boldly to total quality. However, as is made clear in amendments that we have tabled, there could easily be a conflict between total quality and the requirement to accept the lowest tender, which is the essence of the Government's legislation. They point out the potential for conflict between compulsory competitive tendering and the performance of statutory duties. Again, the Government do not recognise that, but it is referred to in later amendments.
I could go on about this matter but I shall not do so. It is clear that the intellectual and factual basis of the Government's arguments for CCT are inadequate. The way in which the House is being asked to consider the matter is also quite inadequate. That is not to say—and I make this clear—that the consultants do not recognise candidates for compulsory competitive tendering and recommend that there should be compulsory competitive tendering in some areas and that savings will be achieved. That is hardly surprising because that was the remit given to the consultants.
However, I believe that the way in which this House is being treated not only as regards timetable but also

19
as regards the arguments is entirely unsatisfactory. I urge the House to accept these amendments. They would secure that that most important aspect of the relationship between central and local government should not be altered without a proper inquiry into all the costs and benefits involved. That seems to me the minimum requirement of good behaviour by central government if they are to retain their credibility with local government and with the people of this country. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is understood that every political party and grouping has its own principles and philosophy, but the question of compulsory competitive tendering seems to have become a dogma which threatens to overwhelm common sense.
Moreover, it shows a lack of trust in local government which lies ill with the words of praise which were spoken about local government in so many of our debates on the Bill. I shall not say a great deal about this matter and I shall not go into the detail of the report to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, save to say that so much of what we now discover in the report echoes so many of the things said and anxieties expressed in the course of our debates by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Were it not for the refusal to extend the consultation, we might not feel so strongly about this amendment. Clause 8(2) is now as it started. It merely states that:
"the Secretary of State shall consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate".
Obviously that immediately gives him such a discretion that the terms of the clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are desirable to rectify the faults and lacunas in that later clause. The amendment gives not only Members of this House and Parliament the opportunity to react to what may be about to happen, but it also it extends the debate and allows the input of all those who will be concerned. I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chose to speak mostly about what he perceived to be the differences between the Government's consultation paper and the report and not so much about the proposed amendment.
From all that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said, it is clear that whatever report they have read, they have not read very closely the Government's consultation paper because many of the anxieties which they have expressed and to which the noble Lord referred in his press release have been addressed in the Government's consultation paper.
These amendments would set up a new level of bureaucracy as a hurdle to the use of the powers in Clause 8. However, they do not affect the Secretary of State's power under Section 2(3) of the Local Government Act 1988 to extend CCT to new activities.
I assure noble Lords that the Government would not propose to extend CCT to any new service or to
20
make use of the powers under Clause 8 if we thought that in doing so we should harm the efficiency and effectiveness of those services. I would not expect Parliament to approve the extension of CCT to any new service, or any use of the powers under Clause 8, if it considered that such harm would result. If Parliament disagreed with the Government on the use of those powers, it would have the opportunity to reject the orders concerned. Given that safeguard and the safeguard in this Bill and the 1988 Act that orders could not be laid before consultation on the detail had taken place with representatives of local government, a requirement to set up an inquiry is wholly unnecessary, extremely cumbersome and expensive.
Wide-scale market testing of those services has not yet occurred. Therefore, any comments can only be subjective at this stage. It takes time for markets to adapt to the knowledge that new opportunities exist and for potential suppliers of those services to gear themselves up to the challenge of competing with local authority workforces. We should wish the timetable for the introduction of CCT for new activities to allow for that. We look forward to receiving comments on the timetable which we have suggested in the consultation paper.
As I have repeatedly made clear, CCT has advantages other than cost savings. It gives councils the freedom to concentrate on their strategic responsibilities rather than the mechanics of service delivery. The opportunity for provision of services by dedicated providers—whether in house or external—assists in the search for quality. The need for clear specifications means more careful consideration of standards leading to an increased responsiveness to the needs of clients. Increased efficiency leads to lower costs, higher quality or both.
It is no secret that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, approve of CCT. Almost any mechanism will be resorted to in order to ensure delay or that it should not happen at all. These two amendments are about delay and I hope that they will be withdrawn.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she tell the House whether the description that she gave of compulsory competitive tendering was in fact a very good and entirely welcome and appropriate description of competitive tendering? When it is in the discretion of local authorities, we on these Benches and every good local authority would support competitive tendering. However, the element of compulsion seemed not to be part of the Minister's argument.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness almost makes my point for me. Before the element of compulsion there was little competitive tendering. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the better and more enlightened local authorities used competitive tendering, but all too many local authorities would never have market-tested their services. Moreover, many good and well-run local authorities perceived themselves to be doing a good job and perceived their

21
services to be cost effective. It was only after market testing that they found that that was not necessarily so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the Minister thinks that she has responded effectively to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, then she cannot have read her own consultants' report. On page 42, when addressing the issue of feasibility of compulsory competitive tendering, the report talks about the more subjective aspects of quality, and it points out that
"whilst these more subjective factors (quality, demonstrated understanding, credentials) are perfectly valid in normal competition, they cause real problems in any compulsory environment".
It is the compulsory environment which is the clue to our opposition to the proposals.
We are not and have never been opposed to competitive tendering. I have no doubt that Labour and Liberal Democrat councils have taken part frequently in competitive tendering. We are opposed to the thoughtless, badly planned and badly argued extension of compulsory competitive tendering to a range of services which have already been subject to it under the 1988 Act but which have largely stayed in the hands of local authorities' own departments. The best that can be said is that the compulsory competitive tendering procedures under the 1988 Act are not proven. It certainly cannot be claimed that they are a success, nor that the results of the 1988 Act are an argument for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering in this way.
The Minister sought to give us her own personal assurances that the compulsory competitive tendering legislation, when finally implemented—in other words, when it is more than merely a series of regulation-making powers—will be applied sensitively, and that it will not be applied in cases where it will not work well. I am grateful for those assurances and, knowing her, I am inclined to accept their sincerity. But that is not what we are about. We are about legislation. We are dealing with provisions which may be implemented by any Secretary of State. Indeed, in one way or another they will need to be implemented by a Labour Secretary of State within a few months.
By those criteria the Bill as drafted does not stand up to the kind of scrutiny that we are attempting to give it. It does not stand up to scrutiny because all the attempts that we made to persuade the Government to come clean regarding their intentions, rather than simply issuing a consultation document, failed. It does not stand up to scrutiny because it gives the Secretary of State the power by order to extend compulsory competitive tendering to such services and in such a way as he thinks fit.
It is not good enough for the Minister to repeat that Parliament has the power to reject any orders made as a result of the proposed legislation. Even if there were no self-denying ordinance on orders in this House, in that we do not seek to overturn them when they are approved by another place, we all know the weakness of Parliament, which can approve or reject orders but cannot in any way amend them.
22
The provision is not a substitute for proper legislation; it is not proper legislation. We believe that the House should accept the amendment and provide this necessary additional safeguard to the proper control and management of local authorities. I shall therefore seek the opinion of the House.
3.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Birk, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennet, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mayhew, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Ennals, L.

Ogmore, L.

Falkland, V.

Peston, L.

Fitt, L.

Phillips, B.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hampton, L.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shackleton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stedman, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Campsie, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, v.

Crathorne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Arran, E.

De Freyne, L.

Astor, V.

Denham, L.

Balfour, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Bauer, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Effingham, E.

Beloff, L.

Elles,B.

Belstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Bessborough, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Blatch, B.

Elton, L.

Blyth, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Faithfull, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Flather, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Forbes, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gainford, L.

Carnock, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Geddes, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

23

Gridley, L.

Norrie, L.

Halsbury, E.

Orkney, L.

Hayter, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Henley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Hooper, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Howe, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Reay, L.

Joseph, L.

Renton, L.

Kimball, L.

Romney, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Davids, V.

Kitchener, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Knollys, V.

Shannon, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Slim, V.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Strange, B.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

[Teller]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Sudeley, L.

Manton, L.

Terrington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Teviot, L.

Merrivale, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mersey, V.

Thurlow, L.

Mills, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Milverton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Waddington, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Munster, E.

Westbury, L.

Nelson, E.

Wise, L.

Norfolk, D.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) No order made in accordance with subsection (I) above shall be applicable to the following services—

(a) the development of corporate strategy;

(b) committee administration;

(c) services to elected members;

(d) electoral registration;

(e) financial planning and advice; or

(f) personnel recruitment other than for senior posts.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the function of this amendment is to exclude from compulsory competitive tendering those services which the PA report deemed unsuitable and inappropriate. Crudely, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, the PA report recommends certain direct services, such as construction, as candidates for CCT, but says that most regulatory services such as planning or environmental health, are poor candidates for CCT; and that corporate services and those associated with the democratic process, should be excluded altogether. That is what this amendment seeks to secure.
The PA consultants' report looked first at the feasibility, benefits and risks attached to exposing the range of local authority professional services to CCT. When it came to feasibility the question was asked whether a core service exists that can be specified. The point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee,
24
and my noble friend Lord McIntosh was also mentioned. The report made a critical distinction between the suitability of a function for competitive tendering and its suitability for such tendering within a compulsory framework. The test of distinction between the two was whether it was auditable. The word used is "auditability". The report says that within a compulsory framework it is critical to be able to define such activity. The PA report goes on to say that much of the professional work put out by authorities cannot be dealt with because it involves perfectly proper subjective factors which may come into play where competitive tendering is voluntary, but not where it is compulsory.
The second criterion brought into play by the PA report as to whether CCT is feasible is whether clear, client responsibilities can be established. The report says:
"Whilst some of the professional services under consideration provide a direct service to the public"
—that is to say, the ones considered appropriate for CCT—
"others are enforcing statutory requirements, and yet others provide an entirely internal service to their council's operations. In all cases it is necessary, if contracts are to be issued, to be able to identify one or more 'clients' who will have responsibility for the definition, contracting and control of the service or activities and are, or can be, organisationally distinct from potential in-house contractors".
The report goes on to argue that many of the activities currently carried out by professional departments within local government are a mixture of client and contractor. The report says that while such separation may be conceptually straightforward, it can present real practical problems when the activities come to be disentangled in practice, particularly in ensuring value for money in small authorities.
The third test as to whether CCT is feasible is whether there would be any compromise of statutory responsibilities; for example, in quasi-judicial or policing capacities. Development control work is also one such example. Fourthly, the report goes on to ask whether performance indicators can be used. It states that in many areas a professional body exists which assists in defining and underwriting professional standards, and goes on to say that the qualitative element is especially important in the managerial/ professional area: poor design and poor legal services are more dangerous and difficult to spot than poor street-sweeping.
The Report says that it would be unduly constraining to assume that only functional activities need to be monitored. Quality needs to be planned and controlled. Throughout all of these areas and these tests, the PA believes that many professional services are not appropriate candidates for CCT.
The report then looks at the benefits associated with CCT and asks whether market potential exists. It says that maximum benefit will only be obtained if there is real external competition for the tendered work. No doubt that may exist in certain areas, such as architectural design and printing; in other areas, such as committee administration, no obvious external market exists and therefore such services are poor candidates for CCT.
The report looks at the risks associated with CCT and states that many of the professional service areas under consideration are close to what has always been regarded as the corporate centre of local government, where there is often a complex web of interrelationships between the service areas and other direct service departments. The report states that many authorities would find the transition to competitive ways of operating in such professional services areas very difficult to manage, and that they would be likely to incur significant transitional costs. The risks and costs need to be assessed against the possible benefits, but it is doubted whether in these areas of service, professional benefits and other possible benefits would accrue.
In that context, using the criteria of feasibility, benefits and risk set out in the PA consultants' report, the services in that report—that is, corporate strategy, committee administration, services to elected members, electoral registration, financial planning and advice and personal recruitment other than for senior posts—are services which should be excluded from CCT.
The PA report then looks at those particular services in some detail. Under corporate strategy it states that it does not consider that the elements of corporate strategy are suitable because:
"many elements of the process are central to the corporate and democratic core of decision making;
defining the areas for competition in relation to the corporate core could not be achieved satisfactorily on a rational basis;
the introduction of clear performance indicators and standards would be very difficult and the competitive selection process accordingly difficult to audit".
The report adds that many trends in local government, such as the local management of schools, increasing customer expectations and budget restrictions, will have the same effect of heightening cost consciousness within local government without forcing it to go out to CCT, which will cause maximum disruption. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, the report also shows concern that applying CCT to the areas of corporate strategy would result in a real danger of constraining innovation and reversing highly desirable trends in devolution and decentralisation. It would also undermine the corporate networking that these services require.
In other words, by implication the report says—as we ourselves argued at the Report and Committee stages—that CCT is rigid, centralist, anti-corporate and undermines the democratic process within local government. The report emphasises that in these services there are no real external markets and that they generate real problems of probity.
When the PA report moves from corporate strategy to committee administration, it again makes the point that we tried to argue at Report stage; namely, that the democratic control of local authorities is currently exercised primarily through the committee system. Because the core service is problematic the committee service is seen as supporting members rather than chief officers. That is a key obstacle to the matter going out to CCT. Even if that problem were overcome, the PA report states that the benefits to be
26
obtained are unclear since there is no current market or knowledge of the nature of the client. The response and the role of the authority would be severely constrained.
Similarly, when the PA report considers the third of the services which should be exempt from CCT—member services—the same point is made. That service too is very close to the democratic core of local government and presents problems for the clarity of democratic accountability if undertaken by an external contractor. Accordingly, the PA report considers that member services are not a good candidate for compulsory competition. Likewise, when the report considers electoral registration, its feasibility is questioned because electoral registration is at the core of the democratic process and its potential privatisation could be extremely sensitive. It argues that this, too, is not a good candidate for CCT.
Similarly, when we come to financial planning and advice, with the setting of targets for the establishment of appropriate performance indicators, in the judgment of the PA report this, too, is not a good candidate for CCT.
A more fundamental anxiety was the possible compromise of statutory responsibilities as is also the case in legal services. The requirements under Sections 151, 113 and 114 of the 1988 Act, responsibilities of the city treasurers and chief executive officers, causes this uneasiness. The report goes on to suggest that even where it has been tried, the costs have increased by an order of magnitude, as in South Oxfordshire. Though it is clear that the P.A. report doubts it, we very much hope that the benefits will outweigh the risks and the problems. It is without doubt that the PA Consulting Group report suggests that this is inappropriate.
Therefore, all the services that we have identified in the amendment are precisely those which the PA report has argued line by line are not good candidates, and are unsuitable and inappropriate for compulsory competitive tendering as measured by the tests of feasibility of benefits and of risks. The report's argument is heightened in that it draws attention to the fact that these services, which are at the democratic core of local government operations, are precisely those services most vulnerable when local government moves into a period of major change associated with the Bill introducing the council tax.
It would clearly be absurd to ask for financial services to go out to CCT at a time when we are trying to hand over from the poll tax to the council tax; at a time when we are talking about the management of schools and about the introduction of community care and internal markets and social services; at a time when there are substantial changes in housing management; at a time when such services are increasingly being affected by changes in EC directives; and at a time, above all, when local government faces major upheaval in its management and structure. For all these reasons, the PA report—on which the Government were alleged to have drawn for their consultative document—recommended that these services in this amendment should not be put out to CCT.
We on these Benches attempted to argue this fully at Report stage. We little thought then that the PA report which the Government had commissioned should so fully endorse so many of our arguments. Now that we know what those arguments are in the PA report, and now that we see how fully they support the arguments we made at Report stage, we wish to move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I understand that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, enumerates can be considered to be different aspects from the more traditional services. My belief is that this is the one area that can have the greatest impact on the changes that are necessary within local government. They are the very services that will make people think afresh about how things should be done; the very ones that will bring in new ideas and innovations and enthusiasm into what is necessary to make changes. I resist very much the idea that this amendment should be agreed to because I believe that if we can move forward in the way that the Bill now suggests, we can make one of the greatest changes for the benefit of the customer that the Bill presents to us. I hope that the Government will not give way on this issue.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lords opposite, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in particular, regard the activities listed in the amendment as being particularly sensitive and not well suited to a direct requirement for CCT. They clearly also misunderstand Clause 8 as it now stands, despite having been very strong supporters of the amendment, for it is applicable only on a common basis to any defined activity. This amendment, which picks out particular activities, therefore is gobbledegook.
Furthermore, if the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and her colleagues had spent as much time and energy reading our proposals as they spent reading other documents, they would see that we broadly agree on the sensitivity of those areas. All the areas named by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, are properly addressed in our consultative document; and indeed the sensitivity of those areas has been very readily addressed.
Perhaps I may single out particularly the administrative and corporate services. The noble Baroness will notice the figure mentioned in our document is 15 per cent. On the preparation of—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minster for giving way. In that case, does it mean that the Minister is happy to accept our amendment?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords. I am saying that the amendment is entirely defective. As the Bill now stands, it is not possible to take out and to single out particular activities for different treatment. The noble Baroness was a main supporter of the amendment that brought that about.
28
On the preparation of corporate strategies, committee administration and electoral registration, the consultation paper says:
"The closeness of these areas … to the democratic process and to the corporate core of an authority could … raise problems if they were substantially contracted out."
That can be found on page 27 at paragraph 2.5.5. On financial planning and advice, the paper notes that although it would be possible to draw up specifications for aspects of the work, at the same time it is recognised that:
"The location of this work at or near the corporate core of authorities … could make it necessary to limit the extent of this work offered for competition, and that such a limitation would in turn reduce the benefits likely to be derived."
That is from page 29, paragraph 2.5.14.
It is precisely because we are aware of the sensitivities surrounding these services that we have put forward in the consultation paper a flexible approach to CCT for corporate services. It is described by the consultation paper at page 31, paragraphs 2.5.27 to 2.5.36. In essence, we propose that following further legislation to require local authorities to set up internal trading accounts, either local authorities would be required to expose a limited number of appropriate specified elements of corporate services to competition or—and this is our preferred approach—we would require local authorities to tender at least a given proportion of each broad service category. Local authorities would be given a large measure of flexibility to choose which of their services they wished to put out to tender, and for which it would be more appropriate. We would expect authorities to be able to fulfil the proportion specified without prejudicing their statutory or democratic duties. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will feel that it is appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may first comment on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I am sorry that we are so far apart on the significance of corporate activities and why they are so vulnerable should CCT be applied to them. That would turn the clock back more than 20 years. It would turn the clock back before Bains, when Bains taught local government not to think departmentally but corporately. It would turn it back over the past 10 years during which local government has been trying to devolve, decentralise and flatten the management pattern and tiers by out-posting professional services into service departments. If the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, were valid, then all the very healthy developments of local government which emulate best practice in business would now be reversed.
However, I was happy to see that the Minister did not agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, because the Minister's argument—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I take some objection to the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is interpreting my views of what my noble friend said. I did not specifically refer to my noble friend. But I have to say to him that I agree with him. We have said two things in our consultation document: one is that we have agreed with the noble Baroness and her

29
colleagues opposite that there is a sensitivity about these services. But where that sensitivity does not exist, and where local authorities deem it appropriate, we believe that there will be opportunities to contract out, and we believe that that would be the right and proper thing to do.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was going to make a further two points, and I shall go back to the contribution made by the Minister. The Minister said that she shared the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wade; but her arguments in responding to this amendment suggested that the amendment on our side was largely unnecessary because the consultative document Competing for Quality embodied the very reservations made by the PA report.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am not sure that I should say this at Third Reading, and think we are probably both breaking the rules. I have said to the noble Baroness that contracting-out will be a percentage. It will be for local authorities to determine that percentage and to decide how and which parts of those services it would be appropriate to contract out. The noble Baroness constantly puts words into my mouth. I hope that she will read what I have said. The amendment makes no sense in regard to the position she supported on Clause 8. The amendment is gobbledegook.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister established two points. She said that defined activities under the 1988 Act do not incorporate such activities and that therefore, in her phrase, the amendment is gobbledegook. Is the Minister saying that the situation will stay that way? In other words, as the Bill winds its way through Parliament, can we expect that the amendment will not be necessary by virtue of the defined activities under the 1988 Act?
The Minister also made much of the fact that the consultative document Competing for Quality embodies the reservations of the PA report. She said that the report states that these services are sensitive and so on. In that case, I repeat the question. Will the Minister give an assurance that the services which the PA report states are poor candidates for compulsory competitive tendering will be exempt from compulsion? Where a local authority believes that a particular aspect of a service should go out to tender, that is surely reasonable. However, the PA report unambiguously states that such services as I have cited are not suitable candidates for CCT. If the Minister is correct in saying that those reservations are picked up in Competing for Quality she should have no difficulty in accepting the spirit, if not the words, of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to those two points. The document that I wish to be discussed here and now is the one that is in the public domain. I refer to the Government's consultative document. That is the document I stand by. It is the Government's view, having taken much advice into account, that there is some scope for percentages of those services to be contracted out. That is up for
30
consultation, and only when that consultation period is at an end will the Government determine a way forward.
The noble Baroness asked whether the amendment to Clause 8 will be addressed. I can promise her that it will be addressed in another place. Only when it is addressed will these amendments make sense in the way in which the noble Baroness has put them forward.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. She said that she stands by the consultative document because it embodies advice over and beyond what is in the PA report.
Perhaps I may refer to the comments made originally by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Government failed to publish the PA report. When they produced the consultative document it did not fully embody the reservations of the PA report. Now that they have published that document we are being asked to consider legislation before the comments on that consultative document can be taken into account. We have not had time to receive them. I include the housing management report. On that basis we continue to press the Minister to see whether, following the guidance that is available—the only guidance we have—she will follow the recommendations of her own consultants. It is clear that this matter will have to be pursued in another place at another time and possibly when amendments made there come back to your Lordships' House. In that context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) No order shall be made in respect of any individual service in accordance with subsection (1) above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the quality of provision in respect of that service made by local authorities will not deteriorate as a result of the effects of the order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was interested to hear the Minister say in response to the previous amendments that we should not be moving amendments to strengthen the position of rational control of competitive tendering because of the amendment that was passed in Committee. I have paid attention to the several ministerial press conferences that have taken place since that time. It was made clear, as the Minister has again made clear today, that the Government intend to overturn the amendment which we carried in Committee on 2nd December. We have always understood that to be the case and we have accepted that the Government have the right to attempt to do that. Under those circumstances we take the view that a series of probing amendments about the Government's intentions, which is what Amendments Nos. 4 to 9 are, is entirely appropriate. We are seeking to get the Government to be more precise than they have been so far about the way in which they see competitive tendering. I make no apology for continuing to put down amendments on the basis that the Government are not satisfied with their own legislation as amended and will be seeking to

31
change it. There are particularly good reasons why Amendment No. 5 should be adopted even with subsection (1) of Clause 8 as drafted. After all, all we did was to take out some superfluous wording from subsection (1). We did not add very much new wording.
The point which concerns us is the quality threshold. The PA Consulting Group asserts on page 32 of its report that the clear thrust of current CCT legislation is to obtain competitive bids and be able to judge clearly competence to undertake work at the price specified. The competition of those clearly able to undertake the work specified is then primarily on the basis of cost. The report goes on to state that quality is not one of the criteria which could, within the professional services area, form an explicit part of the evaluation of tenders under current statutory requirements. That is exactly what we have sought to change by the amendment that was agreed in Committee and that is exactly what the Government now propose to take out. It is not a question of flexibility at all. It is a question of whether the Government understand the concept of quality in local authority services and whether they are determined to uphold the principles of quality.
As the matter stands there is a strong suspicion that the Government want to take minimum tests of basic competence—with no reference to real quality—and, having established those, go on to demand that local authorities should accept the lowest tender. All kinds of people can establish basic competence. On page 115 of the report the consultants spell out what the quality threshold of basic competence might be. They refer to specified levels of professional qualifications and the qualification mix of staff, a track record of relevant experience either by the firm or by the people concerned, a requirement to respond to requests for service within a defined timescale and evidence of quality assurance systems under BS5750 or IS09000 registration or equivalent.
All tendering bodies, whether public or private, will have a long list of procedures covering matters of that kind. No one will be allowed even to submit a tender unless he meets those measures of basic competence. But the issue of quality is on top of that. It is quality valued against price which is the true criterion—what the French call rapport qualité/prix. That is what is ruled out by the Government's legislative proposals. Indeed, the PA Consulting Group confirms that in its report. It is therefore especially important that we should insist, as we do in the amendment, that quality should be a prime consideration in the evaluation of tenders. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I shall be brief. The House knows that I am concerned about this part of the Bill. I am heartened by the fact that my noble friend Lord McIntosh has put down this amendment. I was greatly interested in what he had to say, especially about quality assurance. I mentioned quality assurance at Report stage. I did so only in passing, in reply to an intervention by the noble
32
Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. I mentioned it only briefly and it possibly passed unnoticed. However, quality assurance is important in this part of the Bill.
I have been looking at a report entitled Inspection and Other Strategies for Assuring Quality in Government Construction—and we could extend "Government" here to cover local government, and so on. It is published by the Building Research Board of the National Research Council in the United States, and has just been published. It is important to ensure that we recognise and obtain quality in two respects. I believe that my noble friend underlined both of them.
The first area of quality assurance—and the most important in the long-term—is quality in the construction itself so that the whole life cost of the construction, whether it is a building or a structure of some kind, is economical, effective and efficient. I am sure that those are all aims of which the Government would approve. But that is only one element. As I tried to show during the earlier stages of the Bill, there are occasions where fee competition has led to bad construction and to fee bids which would not ensure good design and construction. The Government have not replied to any of my specific points but I daresay that they will do so in due course.
The second area of quality assurance is where the bidders have passed through some sieve where they have received, so to speak, a "consultancy kite mark"; in other words, they have achieved a mark of competence which indicates that they will and can be expected to provide good design and hence lasting work. If fee competition goes ahead—and it looks as though the Government are determined that it should—it is absolutely essential that those who are invited to tender should themselves be quality assured. I believe that my noble friend made that point. I strongly support him.
In my view, the Government have not approached the matter in the right way. I certainly hope that the consultations that the Government are having with the professional bodies of the construction industry will make some sense of the Government's aim. I support the amendment. I hope that the House will do likewise.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have heard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and indeed his noble friend, speaking as though the Labour Party was the sole defender of the concept of quality and provision of local services.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I must interrupt the noble Baroness to point out that I am not speaking now as a member of the Labour Party; I am speaking for myself.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I apologise most profusely to the noble Lord. However, my comments are very relevant to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Your Lordships will recall that the Labour Party has described its proposals for local government as "Quality Street". But, tell that to Camden, to Lambeth, to Southwark, to Liverpool, and indeed to

33
the once Labour-controlled Brent council whose legacy to the newly Conservative-controlled Brent is a history of administrative chaos.
With compulsory competitive tendering, we in Government are looking not for something fanciful, but at practical experience gained as a result of implementation of the requirements of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. Before CCT was introduced, many local authorities were doing a good job in carrying out building work, refuse collection or grounds maintenance. But let us be under no illusions. Some local authorities believed that they were producing effective and efficient local services at an economic cost, only to find when they were market tested that that was not always the case. There were also too many authorities which were not doing such a good job and for which the need to ensure that local communities enjoyed the right standard of service provision was the last consideration, not the first.
CCT has certainly led to cost savings in carrying out this work. At the same time, however, it has significantly improved the management of the services concerned through the discipline of the detailed specification which all local authorities have to prepare as the basis for their tendering exercises. That specification provides local authorities with the opportunity to set the standard of provision at the level which seems right to them, in the interests of their communities, and to insist that they obtain the quality of service which the specification requires. Competition, properly carried out, means that they will get that quality of service at the best price that the market can offer. Good management and effective competition have come together so that the services subject to CCT are now being performed more efficiently than before and generally to the same standards or higher. CCT has given local authorities the opportunity to do something positive about quality in service provision. They have generally made the best of that opportunity.
We believe that the benefits that competition has brought to the services currently subject to CCT should also be applied to other activities, notably professional services. Of course we intend and expect to safeguard and improve quality in these new services. But we recognise that the assessment of quality for professional services is more complicated than the assessment for manual services, and may need to be handled differently. In our consultation paper we expressed our willingness to consider the need to modify existing CCT procedures to meet quality concerns for professional services. We see a need for the Secretary of State to have flexibility in the application of the CCT requirements of Part I of the Local Government Act 1988 to such services.
Clause 8 as amended in Committee has removed the flexibility that was provided in the clause as introduced. I have already made it clear that we intend to address this lack of flexibility before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. I must re-emphasise, however, that the Government see CCT, in its existing application to manual services and in its proposed application to professional activities,
34
as supportive of quality and that we intend to take the Bill forward, and to use the powers under it that Parliament may approve, in a way which will mean that the quality of service provision is properly safeguarded. I know that that is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has made on a number of occasions. I believe, just as strongly as he does, that quality has to be a material consideration at all times for competitive tendering. Therefore, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that it will be withdrawn.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she would care to comment on the specific matters which I have raised from time to time during the passage of the Bill; namely, that a building might collapse and, on another occasion, I pointed out that certain fees were clearly not high enough to provide quality work. I do not necessarily ask her to do so now, but perhaps she would care to write to me on the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is nothing like the present time for answering such a question. I cited my own "home" building of Marsham Street as being an example of a building which could be built or designed in-house. However, it is not the best example. The important point which the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, is making each time he speaks—and which I support—is that quality, whether it concerns an in-house workforce or a private company, must be a material consideration. The other point that I have always made when speaking from the Dispatch Box is that quality as regards some services is a more straightforward matter and can be dealt with in specification. Quality as regards professional services, as indeed the noble Lord has often said, is not that straightforward. We believe that it requires a different method of determination.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was a tired old brief. The Minister believes that if she quotes Camden and I reply Elmbridge, if she quotes Lambeth and I reply West Wiltshire, if she quotes Brent under Labour control and I quote Brent under Conservative control or even Westminster and its cemeteries, we shall have advanced the argument in some way. I do not think that we have made any advance.
In my view, neither the Minister nor the Government really want to address the issue of quality in an objective way. We shall see the proof of that when they seek to overturn our amendments in another place. We have been making the point, and we have not been doing so in an especially sanctimonious way, that quality is a consideration which has been given inadequate attention in the consultants' report, in the consultation document where really the main emphasis on quality is in the title rather than in the text, and particularly in the legislation. Until we amended it, the legislation had no adequate safeguards for quality other than for architectural and engineering services. We have made the point, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No.6:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) No order shall be made in accordance with subsection (1) above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the unit cost of any service to which the order will apply is not greater among providers of the service other than local authorities, than the unit cost measured in respect of equivalent provision by those authorities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 7. We return here to a matter which causes the consultants considerable anguish of mind, as I read between the lines of the PA report. They point out on a number of occasions the difficulty of going for the lowest tender almost at all costs. They point out first that there are a number of occasions on which the total costs of carrying out the service under compulsory competitive tendering would be higher if it were privatised, even though the tender from the privatised contractors would in theory be lower than an internal tender.
The consultants also point out that there should be a de minimis rule which ensures that any financial benefits from compulsory competitive tendering should not be outweighed by the process costs, the costs of organising and controlling the outside tender.
These are consistent points made many times in the consultants' report and yet they find no reflection in the legislation and no adequate reflection in the Government's thinking. But the Government's thinking merely applies to local authorities. They do not apply it to the work of individual government departments. I have before me a tender letter from another government department, not this one—I shall not name it because we got the job—but after we had already been accepted on to a long list of contractors whose basic competence and suitability had been vetted and found adequate, we then received a letter from this department saying:
"The Department does not undertake to accept the lower or any tender and reserves the right to accept the whole or any part of any tender".
If local authorities were allowed to say what government departments are allowed to say, we might not be in the position in which we find ourselves.
To protect the interests of the poll tax payers and local authorities by ensuring that all the costs are taken into consideration, including the costs of controlling the tender, seems to us the minimum common sense. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, clearly my right honourable friend would not bring forward proposals to extend CCT to new services unless he believed that greater efficiency would result. But it is self-evidently impossible for the Secretary of State to point to cost savings or quality improvements from CCT for a given service until CCT has applied to that service and widescale market testing has occurred. The only way to find out whether his view that efficiency savings will be made is correct is through giving the market a chance.
No doubt the likelihood of efficiency improvements will be one of the issues addressed in responses to the consultation paper Competing for Quality, and we
36
shall consider those responses carefully. But to fall back on the Opposition's view that because something has not yet happened, it cannot happen even if the right framework is put in place is a counsel of despair.
It takes time for markets to adapt to the knowledge that new opportunities exist, and for potential suppliers to gear themselves up. We should certainly wish the timetable for new activities to allow for that and we look forward to receiving comments on the timetable proposed in the consultation paper. It is quite clear that CCT has produced important savings in the cost of work exposed to competition so far. Research carried out by the Institute of Government Studies has demonstrated that on average the annual cost of contracts subject to CCT has been reduced by 6 per cent. after competition, a saving which is enjoyed year on year as the contracts progress.
As for administrative costs, the same research has shown that there have been costs incurred by authorities in preparing for CCT and that these have on average amounted to 11 per cent., but on a once-and-for-all basis at the start of the contracts.
CCT has meant that local authorities are getting work done to the same standard or even higher than before and at a lower cost. It is also clear, however, that the considerable financial benefits that have resulted have not been the only positive results of CCT. Local authorities have had to get a grip on the management of services both in order to prepare the specification for the CCT exercises and to monitor the subsequent performance of the work by the successful contractor, whether that is the direct service organisation or a private contractor. On both counts, cost and quality, local communities are generally getting a better deal as a result of CCT. We believe that the same will be true when we extend the discipline of CCT to other services, including those in the professional sphere.
It is ridiculous to suggest that local authorities can reasonably consider whether or not work being done in-house is giving them the best value for money. Those who assert that external provision is more expensive, without testing the market, are like medieval monks who never set foot outside their monasteries and yet were convinced that the world was flat.
Your Lordships will recall that our proposals to introduce and extend the CCT which were embodied in the 1980 and the 1988 Acts were initially greeted with similar claims. Experience has shown how ill-founded they were. I repeat that the benefits of CCT are not only those of financial savings. The pressure to review how a service is being provided and to check on whether the standard of provision is right is no less conducive to securing a good deal for local communities.
Of course, many local authorities do their best to manage their professional services properly, but CCT brings the pressure for good management to bear universally. Our proposals for corporate professional services acknowledge that not all elements of those services can or should be exposed to competition and allow flexibility of approach which will underpin the discipline of competition with that of rigorous

37
accounting. We did precisely that in response to advice that was received. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that these amendments are unnecessary and will withdraw them.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I like that brief much better, particularly the reference to the flat earth. I did not think it was those in monasteries who were particularly insistent that the earth was flat. I thought that any of us outside could see that the earth was flat. There is no doubt about it, is there? I am amazed that the Minister should question it.
That was a much more interesting brief. The only trouble is that it bore no relation either to the experience of compulsory competitive tendering under the 1988 Act or to the amendment. With the 1988 Act, the Minister gives figures—and there are plenty of figures around—for the savings which it is claimed came from compulsory competitive tendering. She does not say that the vast majority of compulsory competitive tendering processes resulted in the tender going to the internal contractor. Therefore, the savings—if they really exist—would have occurred anyway as local authorities have been under financial pressure and are gradually re-examining the cost and value of their services.
That does not relate to the amendment which refers to two specific requirements which we think should apply to compulsory competitive tendering. One is that the unit cost of services should not be greater than the unit cost of equivalent provision by the authorities. That seems to me to be the minimum common sense. Secondly, the cost of the savings should not be outweighed by the cost of undertaking tendering in respect of those services. Again, that seems to be minimum common sense.
Now we have assurances from the Minister that such considerations will be taken into account by the Secretary of State. We have received many of these assurances on many occasions. We had them when we were dealing with the 1988 Act. Unfortunately assurances do not make legislation. Until those assurances are put into statute, or at least required to be made in regulations by statute, they are not adequate and the Bill is still inadequate in that respect. I have made my point and there is no reason to delay the House any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) No order shall be made in accordance with subsection (1) above in respect of the corporate services of local authorities before the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement that he is satisfied that the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering in respect of any such service will not constrain—

(a) voluntary decentralisation of such services by local authorities;

(b) innovations undertaken voluntarily by local authorities in the organisation of such services.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that on this amendment the Minister may be able to answer in a friendlier fashion even if she argues again that the amendment is not necessary because of the amendments that have already been made to Clause 8(1). As someone who is experienced in local government, I am sure the Minister is even more aware than I that substantial changes have been made in local government as regards the voluntary decentralisation of services, innovations in service delivery and changes in management structures, in trying to emerge from the rigidity which has all too often been a feature of local authority administration and service management.
The PA Consulting Group points out in its report that there is a risk that the compulsory competitive tendering process may obstruct those reforms which a local authority may wish to make, partly because of the sheer amount of time taken for senior officers of local authorities to prepare tender documents and partly because to prepare a tender document one almost inevitably freezes at that time the way in which a service will be delivered. Even if the Minister will not accept the amendment, I hope she will accept that I am discussing a real concern which her right honourable friend should take seriously when he is considering the regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord claims to have read the PA report and I make no comment on that. However, it is disappointing that he has paid so little attention to the consultative document. Paragraph 2.5.32 of that document states:
"the Government recognises that local authorities vary widely in their organisation of professional services, and that, unless the competition requirement was very limited, the specification of individual elements of these services for competition could cut across innovative organisation, such as dispersing financial or personnel work from the centre. It will be important to bear in mind the development of local management of schools (LMS) and the need for arrangements for compulsory competitive tendering for corporate services which complement the incentives to achieve service efficiency provided by the operation of LMS. An alternative approach [to requiring CCT for specified elements of corporate services] would be to require that a percentage of the total annual value of work carried out by a discrete professional service should be exposed to competition. This would allow local authorities considerable flexibility in deciding how to implement a requirement to go out to competition".
In the consultation paper we have made it quite clear that we favour this approach in order to give local authorities the flexibility spoken of. Respondents to our consultation document may press for a different approach and offer good reasons for doing so. I have no intention of pre-empting the consultation process and our consideration of responses by committing the Government firmly to one approach.
It seems to me, however, that the presentation of our proposals in the consultation paper shows that we are fully aware of the interesting and valuable organisational developments that have been introduced by a number of local authorities. These are matters that will be in the forefront of our minds as we take our proposals forward. I would hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have read the consultative document and I recognise the wisdom of some of its suggestions. I am neither saying that the consultation document is all defective nor that the consultants' report is all defective. Unfortunately we are considering neither the consultants' report nor the consultation document. We are considering the Bill. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to do what he likes in introducing compulsory competitive tendering. If we are to be persuaded on this matter—I do not think we shall ever be persuaded to allow this enabling legislation through—we seek some better indication of the Government's thinking than a consultative document which the Minister does not feel able to state represents the Government's view. I understand her reluctance to do so as consultative documents are designed to take the views of other people and then the Minister makes up his or her mind.
Unfortunately in this case the consultative document is issued at the same time as the legislation and Parliament is asked to make a decision on it before the consultation procedure is complete. Under those circumstances I must make it clear that it is the Bill we are unhappy with and not, in this respect, the consultative document. However, I see no point in prolonging this discussion. Our point has been adequately made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Power to define conduct as competitive or anti-competitive]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 41, leave out paragraph (f).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 10 is grouped with Amendment No. 11 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I am glad to see that the noble Lord is present in the Chamber. I am sorry if I caused him some alarm by not moving Amendment No. 9.
On this amendment we return to the question of the meaning of words. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I consider we have received a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer from the Government on that matter. Despite a number of well meaning attempts at clarification, we still did not receive any reply to our fundamental proposition. That proposition was that guidance is issued and those to whom it is issued have a duty to have regard to guidance, whereas orders or instructions are issued and those orders have to be adhered to or obeyed. If that is not done, they would be contravened.
The Bill refers to a contravention of guidance. We suggest that is a misuse of the English language and a debasement of it because it makes guidance appear to be more authoritarian—if not more authoritative—than it is intended to be. It would be dangerous if the idea got around that guidance—guidance is a valuable procedure in the relations between central and local government—had to be adhered to and the alternative to adhering to it was to contravene it.
40
There has to be something between an order or an instruction and something which is intended to be helpful. The idea of guidance that one must have regard to is a useful halfway house. It would be a shame to see it destroyed by this misuse of language as it exists in paragraph (f) of Clause 9(3). I have taken the wholehearted approach of seeking to remove the entire paragraph. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has sought to amend the detailed wording. However, I believe we are both trying to do the same thing. I beg to move.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am pleased to support this amendment with which my Amendment No. 11 is linked. On Report, I accused the Government of acting furtively in this matter. The Minister quite rightly took me up on that. I wish to withdraw the word "furtive". However, the effect of Amendment No. 10 cannot be more clearly stated than by the words used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in Committee. I hope I may be forgiven for repeating once more the words of the noble and learned Lord.
The noble and learned Lord said:
"Parliamentary democracy, like any human institution, is not perfect. But it is well tried. There is no reason why we should give up all the safeguards and all the value that it has shown over the centuries and submit to government by future letters of guidance. At this stage we do not know what the guidance will be; it is insufficiently defined. I therefore suggest to the noble Baroness, who has thus far conducted the Bill to general admiration, that she consider how far we are travelling down the road of bureaucratic rather than democratic government".—[Official Report, 3/12/91; col. 136.]
I turn to the words "contravention of guidance", which my amendment seeks to delete. If English is fast becoming the language of the world we owe a duty to see that our language is used properly. One of the bastions of correct use of the English language must be the statute book. The parliamentary draftsman is the guardian of the statute book. It does not behove governments to bully the draftsman into straining the English language in order that the Executive may seize further power at the expense of Parliament. The words "contravention of guidance" simply will not do. Failure to observe guidance is one thing; "contravention of guidance" is virtually meaningless.
5 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 11.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. As always, the noble Lord is zealous in his concern for the protection of the English language. Rather sadly the Government, once again, are less zealous in their concern for the language. Your Lordships may recall the rather curious phrase which arose some months ago relating to a voluntary ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa. A ban is by definition compulsory or it is nothing. One cannot have a voluntary ban; there can be a voluntary boycott or there can be discouragement. The wording

41
in question falls within that category. Of the two amendments I prefer that of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have little to say on the subject except to recall that a number of years ago I visited an emerging country in Africa where I was introduced to a man who was the minister of education and guidance. He was the chief of police. I do not suggest that the Minister is anything like a chief of police, but that example indicates that the word "guidance" has a number of meanings. I should like to guide the Minister towards the comments made by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and attempt to protect the English language, which is sorely in need of protection.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships are content that we should consider the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He moved an amendment at Committee stage which sought to delete Clause 9(3) (f), as does Amendment No. 10, and Clause 9(3) (e). We debated that amendment and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pressed matters to a Division in which the amendment was clearly rejected. Nonetheless, with the indulgence of the House I am happy to respond to the arguments which have been put to your Lordships for a second time today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to intervene? She has quite rightly corrected me regarding a breach of the rules of order in having put forward an amendment which is virtually identical to one which had been defeated. That was a mistake on our part for which I apologise. I shall be happy to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I hope that that helps the Minister when she replies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. Perhaps I may turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. While the noble Lord did not formally move the amendment which he tabled at Report stage he nevertheless expressed his anxieties during the course of our debate. I listened carefully to his points and offered a response.
As I did on that occasion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions of subsections (3) (e) and (3) (f) of Clause 9. They make it clear that the regulations which the Secretary of State would be empowered to make under Clause 9 would provide for guidance to be issued and would require any contravention of that guidance to be taken into account in determining whether an authority had acted anti-competitively. That would mean that the guidance in question would be clearly underpinned in regulations and would be as objective as possible.
It would be reasonable and appropriate to expect local authorities generally to act in accordance with that guidance and for the Secretary of State to consider the extent to which they had acted in accordance with or had contravened that guidance if and when he had to take a view on whether or not they had acted anti-competitively, as he must when
42
considering the possibility of the use of his sanction powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. It would also mean that there would be a test for the courts to apply if they were required to decide whether or not an authority had acted anti-competitively.
There has been considerable debate about the status of guidance. It is important that there should be clarification for all concerned, not just as to how local authorities should behave when implementing the measures but also as to how the Secretary of State should exercise his powers under the Act. Guidance, particularly in this specific sense, prescribes specifically the grounds for the Secretary of State to make a judgment as to whether or not a local authority has complied with the guidance. It improves certainty. It is for that reason that the word appears on the face of the Bill.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise that I have made those points previously, but they are the nub of the case for the provisions which have been brought forward in order to give a clear and objective basis for that guidance. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—who I believe supports the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in this matter—and other noble Lords who have spoken will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must repeat my apologies for an inadvertent breach of the rules governing amendments which can be put down at Third Reading. As the Minister said, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, which was not put to a Division at an earlier stage.
With respect, I do not believe that the Minister has answered the point that was made. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, would be fully justified in moving his amendment and pursuing it to a vote if he wanted to do so. I am sure that he will feel that attention will be paid to the case that he has made and that Ministers will see that this use of the word "contravention" in relation to guidance is entirely inappropriate. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("contravention of") and insert ("failure to have regard to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11 I am replying to what the Minister said just now in relation to that amendment. I should feel more comfortable about the matter if the noble Baroness had found a precedent for it. I expect that great searches of the statute book have been made to see whether there is any precedent for the extraordinary expression, "contravention of guidance". I do not think that the noble Baroness has found a precedent. She may say that she is not setting a precedent, but how does she know? In a few years' time, if it suits the government of the day to use those words as a precedent, you can bet your boots that they will do so. I listened very carefully to the speech of the noble Baroness. Every time she came to the word "contravention" it would have made just as good sense if she had used the word "disregard".
I do not think that it is right that the use of the English language should be strained in that way, the effect of which is, as I said earlier, to give power to the Executive at the expense of Parliament and to take control away from Parliament. We should test the opinion of the House on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Lord presses the amendment—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is entitled to reply to the amendment which has been freshly moved.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not wish to dissuade the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, from his intention, but perhaps I may make two points.
First, the effect of the clause as now drafted is not to oblige local authorities always to comply with guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Subsection 3(f) provides that the extent to which guidance has been contravened should be taken into account in any determination of anti-competitive behaviour. In other words, a contravention of guidance will not automatically lead to a determination that an authority has acted anti-competitively.
I understand the point being made by the noble Lords. The guidance will not be regulation by the back door. We intend a half-way house between regulation which must be complied with and circulars to which authorities must simply have regard, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. The guidance envisaged under Clause 9 lies between the two. The extent to which an authority complies will be a matter which the Secretary of State must take into account, but that is not the same as regulation, as I have just explained. The degree to which it is taken into account must be the ground that he uses for determining whether he believes a local authority has acted anti-competitively.
Secondly, perhaps I may comment on the English language point. If the English language is the main concern, the Government might consider whether there was a better word for this purpose than guidance. I should be more than happy to send that as a message to my colleagues in another place.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am much encouraged by the final words that the Minister spoke. I was not expecting them after the earlier part of her speech. Of course, I shall be pleased if the Government will reconsider the matter and do everything in their power to persuade the draftsman not to strain the English language. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Public service contracts and E.C. legislation
. The exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of State by and under sections 8 and 9 above shall be without prejudice to the exercise by local authorities of discretion in the selection of contract award criteria within the framework
44
of the rules laid down in European Community legislation relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make no apologies for coming back a third time to the issue of EC directives and within that the clauses of the Bill, especially in the light of the rather differing responses of the Government in Committee on the one hand and on Report on the other.
Perhaps I may refer to the Local Government International Bureau's occasional papers for local authorities on responding to the challenge of EC law. The bureau says that no one should be in any doubt about the importance of EC-derived law for local authorities. Nearly all our food law, animal feeding stuffs and fertilisers law and most of our weights and measures law is now effectively European law. It estimates that, within a few years, 80 per cent. of United Kingdom law will be EC-inspired. I need only remind your Lordships of previous debates within the framework of EC directives about bathing waters, drinking water and environmental protection for that point to be well established. Your Lordships may also be aware that there is at present a wide-ranging proposal for a Council directive on the liability of the suppliers of services which would render the supplier of a range of services liable for damage and financial loss directly resulting and would place the burden of proving an absence of fault on the supplier, a point to which I may wish to return.
In Committee and on Report, in the light of the Minister's response we established, first, that EC law takes precedence over British law and, secondly, that EC law provides that, where a public service contract passed through the equivalent of a quality threshold, EC law would permit a local authority a choice between the economically most advantageous tender on the one hand and the cheapest tender on the other. Thirdly, we established both in Committee and on Report that the intention of the EC directive was to enlarge local authority freedom, not to enable Ministers to limit it or to direct which of those two paths local authorities must follow; in other words, the cheaper one.
By definition, if national law was to have supremacy over that EC directive, there would be no point in having the EC directive at all. However, if, as the Minister said, the EC directive should reign supreme, Ministers surely cannot determine for local authorities that choice which the EC says belongs to local authorities. At the very least, in the light of the proposal for a Council directive making the supplier of services liable for financial loss directly resulting, it puts a question-mark over the right of a council taxpayer to pursue through the European Court of Justice his claim for any financial loss that may fall on the local authority, should it be required by the Minister to take the cheapest and not the economically most advantageous tender. I hope that the Minister will comment on that point.
The Minister's comments in Committee and on Report raise at least three questions. First, if she insists that local authorities should not have that choice, she is in effect saying that local authorities should not be able to choose the best value for money,

45
but only the cheapest. What is the difference between the economically most advantageous tender and the cheapest? It is value for money. Value for money judges inputs and outputs. It sees the situation in the round. The cheapest does not. It measures only inputs cost without consideration necessarily of outputs.
By going for the cheapest when it is not the economically most advantageous, local authorities will pay less to get even less. For example, instead of paying £5 for £5 worth of service, or £7 for £7 worth of service, or £10 for £10 worth of service under the economically most advantageous, the cheapest would mean paying £4 for £3 worth of service. If the Minister meant what she said in the earlier debate on the Audit Commission, as I am sure that she did—namely, that local authorities should set standards and the Audit Commission should judge the performance in meeting those standards—that is the freedom to choose, which local authorities should have expressly empowered by the European directive.
In real life, no one would choose the cheapest when it did not represent the economically most advantageous. I am sure that the Minister would not do that in private life. The Government do not do that when it comes to public procurement, nor do they do it in the tender document to which my noble friend Lord McIntosh referred earlier. Why should local authorities be expected to use the cheapest when it is not the economically most advantageous in ways that would be regarded as profoundly stupid if carried out in private life or under Government policy? Yet local authorities will be required to apply that standard.
The second question that is raised is that of quality. The Minister said earlier today that quality should be a material consideration. However, with regard to architecture, for example, the two-envelope system proposed in the consultative document simply will not work. On the assumption that all architects are RIBA-qualified, going through that quality threshold means that thereby the local authority must accept the cheapest of all architects' tenders, irrespective of their quality of design as known to the local authority or the judgment that the local authority may wish to make about the sensitivity and appropriateness of an architect's track record for a particular site. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, given that architectural services are capitalised, when such savings would be minimal it is clear that going for the cheapest would be a foolish path to follow.
Thirdly, by Ministers insisting that local authorities must follow the path of the cheapest as opposed to the economically most advantageous, they are—I do not use these words lightly—showing yet again their contempt for the capacity of local authorities to make judgments in the interests of local taxpayers. We have seen that with regard to the poll tax Bill when two or three voices in central government knew better than thousands of officers and experienced councillors what was sensible. We have seen it with regard to capping and capital control rules where local authorities that bought land 400 years ago are not allowed to recycle it and use the proceeds in ways that would inhibit even the running of a whelk stall. We have seen it in the refusal of central government to
46
sign the EC charter on local self-government at the same time as Members of this House and another place go to eastern European countries and persuade them to do precisely that. The irony is that the same central government that so vigorously defend parliamentary sovereignty from European interference have no respect at all for democratic local decision-making and seek to deny to local authorities what almost all EC member countries regard as appropriate.
Can it be sensible to require local authorities to take the cheapest when it is not the economically most advantageous course or path for their local taxpayers? Surely it is profoundly stupid to deny to local government that area of judgment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we have discussed at some length in Committee and at Report stage whether our proposals for a double envelope tendering system are or are not consistent with the draft EC directive on public services contracts. I hope it is now accepted that they are consistent and that our proposals do nothing to damage the principle that inter-state competition for the provision of services should not be distorted, which is the principle that underlies the directive.
Moving to the context of the Bill, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness on all her areas of concern. The point now at issue goes to the root of many of our discussions on this part of the Bill. In our view it is necessary to introduce restrictions of various kinds on local authorities' discretion to conduct tender evaluations as they see fit. The regulations which we propose to issue under Clause 9 on the matters to be taken into account in tender evaluation are some examples of those restrictions. They are necessary to clarify the framework of CCT and to ensure fair competition. In some cases they require the Government to form a judgment about the right balance to be struck when evaluating short-term costs against long-term benefits. I know that noble Lords opposite disagree with us, but we are convinced that it is necessary to restrict authorities' freedom in this way, so as to ensure that they are not unduly biased in favour of their in-house teams.
Our proposal for a double envelope tendering procedure raises questions of the same kind. It amounts to a method of structuring decisions about which tender to accept. First, there will be a quality sift and then a choice based solely on price. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that is entirely consistent with what the draft directive refers to as the economically most advantageous tender. I am sorry if my remarks at Report stage may have led her to believe otherwise. I can see that they may have done.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Can he explain what he understands to be the difference between the economically most advantageous and the cheapest?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the difference is as I have just stated. It incorporates the idea of value for

47
money, just as the noble Baroness made clear. It incorporates the idea of a quality sift, so to speak, in the context of the double envelope procedure.
We do not, as the noble Baroness suggested, insist that local authorities must adopt the second criterion, which is known as the "lowest price only", allowed by the draft directive. We have taken very much on board the spirit and substance of the EC directive and should like to apply them to these situations also.
We believe that the double envelope system will ensure quality, technical competence, technical assistance, service levels and other matters with which the noble Baroness is right to be concerned. It is not, therefore, simply the cheapest at the expense of quality, as she suggested. In addition, the procedure should ensure that these qualitative matters are dealt with separately, explicitly, in as objective a fashion as possible and in a way that can be seen to be fair by tenderers and clients alike.
In conclusion, it may assist the noble Baroness and the House if I summarise our position. First, we are satisfied that our proposals are consistent with the draft directive. We are also satisfied that it is justified to restrict local authorities' discretion in the choice of tendering regimes when their own in-house team is involved. We do not accept that adopting the double envelope procedure amounts to accepting the cheapest without regard to an authority's fiduciary duty—quite the contrary.
In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply but I am baffled by it. I do not fully understand it. Clearly, I shall have to read it.
I realise that there will be no opportunity to return with this matter to your Lordships' House. On the one hand, the Minister seemed to argue that there was no difference between "economically most advantageous" and "cheapest"; on the other hand, he implied that the economically most advantageous had been protected through the quality threshold and thereafter one could go on to the cheapest. In bringing the double envelope together one has value for money.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may just clarify that point. We regard the double envelope procedure as a single tendering process. It is one process with part one and part two as its stages. There are not two tendering procedures. It is simply one procedure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will indulge me if I infringe the procedures of the House, but perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a direct question. Is he saying that local authorities need not take the cheapest tender or the lowest price if they regard that—and have good reason for believing it—as not the most economically advantageous route for their local taxpayers?
Earl Howe: Yes, my Lords.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in the light of that assurance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
48
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Duty to conduct reviews and make recommendations]:
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 21, at end insert:
(" (iii) that he should make no structural, boundary or electoral changes, but that he should make arrangements for joint working among authorities in coastal or estuarine areas for the purposes of development planning functions as are specified in the recommendations.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. These two amendments highlight the need for local authorities in coastal and estuarine areas to adopt joint working practices in respect of development planning in the coastal zone. We touched on this matter at Report stage but at that point the response from the Minister was not very satisfactory. The Minister appeared not to make a distinction between land and marine areas. Obviously many people feel that there is a distinction to be made between them and that special arrangements are necessary for marine areas.
Amendment No. 13 is an enabling provision which broadens the function of the Local Government Commission. As drafted, Clause 13 allows the commission to do one of two things: it can recommend either structural, boundary or electoral changes or that there should be no changes at all. The amendment creates a third option which would enable the commission to consider whether development planning functions may best be served under a joint working arrangement which does not require a boundary change. The amendment is constructed in relation to coastal and estuarine authorities only since, as I said, a special case can be made for joint arrangements in those areas.
The second amendment is also an enabling provision which would allow the Secretary of State to make an order which requires local authorities to work jointly with neighbouring authorities in carrying out development planning functions. Again, this provision relates only to coastal and estuarine authorities.
The two amendments do not seek to create joint authorities. The creation of joint authorities is already provided for in Clause 21. The purpose in promoting the new provisions is rather to encourage co-operation between coastal authorities and to establish joint working arrangements. As I said, we feel that there is a special need in marine areas. The amendments are supported by the RSPB which points to the value of our estuaries for wildlife and particularly bird life. I beg to move.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems sensible, at least to me, that our coasts should be managed rather differently from inland areas.
On Amendment No. 13, in many cases the coastal zone needs to be considered on a resource basis and not, as at present, on a sectoral basis. Such considerations are reflected more accurately by

49
geography and economy than simply by administrative boundaries. Clearly a more holistic approach is needed for coastal planning. Development pressures and natural processes do not respect artificial boundaries made by man.
Those views are shared by the National Coast and Estuaries Advisory Group. In its recent memorandum of evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment on Coastal Zone Protection and Planning, the group stressed,
"the urgency of providing a framework through which policies for the coastal zones can be integrated".
It also specifically identified,
"the lack of co-ordination between the various bodies with power and interests in the coast zone".
There is clearly a need for planning along our coasts and estuaries to take place in a cohesive and integrated manner, a need which is not satisfied by present legislation but which could be provided for within the Bill. Without requiring joint authorities or creating boundary changes, the amendment enables the Local Government Commission to consider whether development planning functions could best be served by joint working arrangements between local authorities. As such, it would improve the present planning arrangements and is therefore a measure that I support. If the amendment is not accepted, will the Minister confirm whether or not the Local Government Commission will have any powers to administer joint working arrangements between local authorities in coastal areas?
On Amendment No. 20, many local authorities in estuarine areas have one small part of an estuary's shoreline within its jurisdiction. That may well lead to a lack of co-ordination in development planning matters resulting in both the development of fragmented or even isolated policies and inconsistency and duplication of planning efforts along the estuary.
I accept that in some cases voluntary arrangements for coastal and estuarine areas have been created between local authorities—for example, the Ribble Estuary Liaison Group in Lancashire. The group discusses matters affecting the Ribble estuary which lies within a single county but has five district councils along its length.
However, such voluntary arrangements do not provide the necessary forum for specialised land use planning and lack the powers associated with formal development plans. Other areas of estuary and coast in the UK have no liaison arrangements. As a consequence, in those areas our estuaries are vulnerable to piecemeal development which, although it may affect only small areas of land, will eventually lead to habitat fragmentation and loss.
Our coastline and estuaries are vitally important areas and are used for a wide variety of activities of great economic value. However, many of those activities are potentially damaging not only to the environment but to each other. It is therefore essential to reconcile the diverse interests of those who need to exploit, construct, defend or dump with those whose objective is to conserve or recreate environmental harmony.
Such reconciliation can be made possible only if joint arrangements exist for proper strategic planning
50
in coastal and estuarine areas—a measure which I believe this amendment would help to bring about. In its absence I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me what arrangements the Secretary of State will be able to make to ensure that co-operation and joint working takes place between local authorities in coastal and estuarine areas.
Perhaps I may make one final point that relates to the amendments but is not necessarily covered by them. It is the issue of seaward planning control. Local authority control extends only so far as the low water mark. Beyond that point the Government view procedure operates. Those two sets of planning controls need to be brought together if true integrated planning of the entire coastal zone is to be achieved. There is a real need to address that issue as well as those covered by Amendments Nos. 13 and 20.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am fascinated by this discussion. Many of the coastal functions are surely now managed by the river purification boards under the environmental protection legislation. In the old days many English local authorities were involved in tremendous expense with coastal defence and the problems of coastal protection and pollution. A vast amount of that responsibility has now been taken over by the National Rivers Authority.
Earl Howe: My Lords, many noble Lords will recall that we discussed this topic during the passage of the Planning and Compensation Bill. These amendments, as the noble Baroness explained, seek to amend this Bill to ensure that the Local Government Commission can make recommendations to the Secretary of State relating to the development planning functions of authorities in coastal or estuarine areas. Let me first confirm to your Lordships that, even without Amendment No. 13, the commission may do so. The geography of the coast or estuary will be one of the factors the commission will consider.
Amendment No. 20, however, goes on to suggest that the Secretary of State might have a power to impose joint arrangements on certain coastal or estuarine authorities to prepare development plans in respect of the coastal, or estuary parts of their areas. These amendments would reintroduce the concept of the subject plan for the coast.
We do not deny that in some areas coastal subject plans have served a useful purpose. But they have done so against the background of very patchy local plan coverage. Under the new system introduced by the 1991 Act, the situation will be quite different. All the planning authorities will have to prepare comprehensive, district-wide plans, setting out policies for the whole of their areas. Given such comprehensive coverage, the case for coastal subject plans is much less compelling.
We do not accept the need for separate coastal zone plans. Planning policies for the coast can and should be incorporated in structure and local plans. Separate plans would tend to destroy the clarity of the framework of development plans for which the 1991 Act provides. They would in effect reintroduce the notion of the "subject" plan dealing separately with a

51
specific topic. There is in our view a great deal to be said for sticking to a clear and simple planning framework.
That is not to say that we do not expect local authorities to get together, as a means of achieving coherence and consistency in the treatment of a particular area. That is a subject that my noble friend Lord Mills raised. County and district authorities concerned might work together to produce a joint statement of planning policy for a coastal or estuarine area. Such a statement would itself be non-statutory, but would form the basis for policies in the relevant structure and local plans and would help to secure the consistency of those plans. Such joint working by agreement is a possibility which may deserve further consideration in particular areas. It is an approach which may need to be used sparingly, and would need to be supplementary to the statutory development plan framework. But that, we believe, is as far as we should go on the face of the legislation.
However, before closing today, perhaps I may lift the veil on our new planning policy guidance on development plans, PPG12, which is to be published on 10th February. That will contain two references of particular relevance to coastal planning. The first will encourage local authorities to consult other authorities which may be affected by development plan proposals, even though they are not directly adjacent to the authority producing the plan. In this way, where structure plan policies would affect an authority across an estuary, we would expect that authority to be consulted by the plan-making authority.
The second point is that we shall be making clear in the planning policy guidance that authorities should ensure that interactions between key policies to be included in structure plans are fully considered. Their policies need to form an integrated whole; for example, by forming an overall strategy for the coast. In this way each authority should consider the special development plan policies that its coastal area requires. It should prepare them only after consulting all those authorities with an interest.
I hope that at least the latter part of my remarks will have assured the noble Baroness, and that on the basis of my assurances she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, for his support. I am also grateful to the Minister for his careful reply. Indeed, I found the second half of his reply most interesting. I should like time to study it, although there is no way in which we can discuss the matter again in this House in this context. However, I am sure that we shall return to the subject in the future.
I am grateful for the care with which the Minister replied. I am a little disappointed that I am still unable to persuade the Government that there is a special case to be made for marine areas. I shall read the Minister's remarks carefully and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morrismoved Amendment No. 14:
52
Page 11, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("regard") in line 36 and insert ("In recommending any structural, boundary or electoral change the Local Government Commission shall have").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the wording of the amendment is in precisely the same terms as that which appeared in Committee. I make no apology for raising the matter again. That is strictly within the rules of your Lordships' House because this is purely a drafting amendment.
I raise the matter again on Third Reading as a result of the way in which it was greeted on Report. My noble friend Lady Blatch then stated:
"the effect of the amendment will be to lay a duty on the commission to have regard to the terms of reference in recommending any structural boundary or electoral change".
That is absolutely correct and is precisely what I said in arguing for the amendment. My noble friend also stated:
"This change would make no practical difference to the way in which the commission goes about its work".
Again, that is precisely what I said in arguing for the amendment, although I put the matter in a different way. I said that I did not believe that it made a substantive change to the Bill. My noble friend further stated:
"I can assure the noble Earl that the commission will be required to have regard to the matters specified in Clause 13(5) (a) and (b) in carrying out its reviews".
That is absolutely right, and my amendment provides for that also. My noble friend went on to say:
"The drafting of the Bill does not leave that in doubt". -[Official Report, 19/12/91; col. 1483.]
It is on that point that we differ slightly. I believe that the drafting of the Bill leaves the matter in doubt. The virtue of my amendment is that it makes the matter a great deal clearer for the simple reason that it states in 17 words what the Bill states in 31 words. It makes no substantive change to the Bill. Because I am worshipping at the altar of brevity and clarity I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I am puzzled about the reason why it was not accepted in the first place.
If my noble friend Lady Blatch were to answer my amendment —but I know that she will not do so—I might have appealed to her ever kindly and gentle nature. I might have reminded her that there is nothing more hurtful to an ardent suitor than to have his gifts, however humble, spurned, however politely. As my noble friend will not be answering the amendment I shall not raise that fact. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris has raised a principle about brevity and clarity in legal drafting with which all noble Lords will concur. He has drawn attention to an apparent growth of Plato's beard on the face of this part of the Bill to which he is inclined to apply Occam's razor.
We are sympathetic to the general point made by my noble friend in Amendment No. 14. However, we have not yet ascertained whether his suggested wording will make any substantive difference to the legal meaning or force of the clause. It may, but if we are advised by parliamentary counsel that it does not,

53
I can give my noble friend an assurance that the points he has raised will be looked at again when the Bill reaches its Committee stage in another place.
I hope that my noble friend will understand that I can go no further today. I thank him for his remarks and assure him that the point is firmly lodged. I turn to his second amendment—
Lord Morris: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 presents a different point. It should not have been grouped with Amendment No. 14 as it deals with a totally different issue. I wish to deal with that amendment separately.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am content.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the assurances that he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("and convenient").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled the second drafting amendment because I have considerable doubt about whether the inclusion of the words "and convenient" add anything to the clause. I am convinced that:
"to secure effective … local government",
if it were inconvenient, would not be effective local government.
Secondly, I have serious doubts about whether the word "convenient" is capable of juridcal test. For that reason I believe that my amendment is an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understand the point that my noble friend has made. Nevertheless, I believe that the inclusion of the word "convenient" is more than merely an adherence to a traditional form of words. The term "convenient" has a good pedigree. It formed part of the terms of reference of the Local Government Boundary Commission established by the Local Government Act 1972. It applied to the recommendations of the previous Local Government Commission under Part II of the Local Government Act 1958. In the light of that reason we see no reason why the term should be changed for the new commission—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Has the term "convenient" ever been applied to government? It appears to me to be almost a contradiction in terms.
Earl Howe: My Lords, not to my knowledge. A point of emphasis also arises. The terms of reference which the commission will be given will include a requirement to have regard to the interests and identities of local communities. The underlying aim in that requirement is to create local government that is both close at hand and accessible, without defining those terms too closely.
I believe that there is a value in having the word "convenient" alongside the word "effective". It draws
54
the spirit of the aim clearly on the face of the Bill. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will feel comfortable about withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that full explanation. It is not an issue about which I would go to the wall, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Changes that may be recommended]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 42, after ("plans") insert:
(" (ia) be required individually to prepare a separate structure plan and local plans;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 16 seeks to provide the Local Government Commission with greater flexibility in respect of land use planning. Clause 14 (5) (d) was introduced by the Government on Report in response to anxiety about the special implications of the Bill for planning. At that stage I expressed my anxieties about the extension of unitary development plans for shires. This is one of the options allowed for by the Government's amendment. The Government's amendment also allows for the continuance of structure and local plans. However, there are a number of ways in which that can he achieved with a new system of unitary authorities. In my view some of the options are likely to be more effective than others. My reason for moving this amendment is that I am not sure that the Government's amendment will allow the Local Government Commission the scope to address all available options and be sufficiently specific in its recommendations.
It seems to me there are two clear options for strategic planning within a unitary system of local authorities: structure plans prepared jointly by neighbouring authorities; and structure plans prepared individually without joint arrangements.
I shall not rehearse the arguments against the first option now, but I remain of the view that this would be an unsatisfactory outcome. Unitary authorities need to be large enough to carry out separate strategic planning effectively.
I believe the Local Government Commission should be able to distinguish between each of these approaches in making its recommendations. I am not sure, however, whether under the clause as it now stands it would be possible for the commission to recommend that unitary authorities should prepare their own separate structure plans.
I wrote to my noble friend the Minister on this matter before the Recess and I am grateful for her recent reply. She said:
"the powers in this Bill are sufficient to empower the Secretary of State to amend the planning Acts so that where a large unitary authority is responsible for both structure and local plan preparation, the local plans may be drawn up for areas within that of the unitary authority …"
That answers my questions in part. It does not, however, make it clear how far the Local Government Commission will be able to recommend that new unitary authorities should be responsible for preparing their own separate structure plan as

55
opposed to being party to the preparation of joint structure plans. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that for me.
It is unclear also what procedure will be followed to help a unitary authority decide how to draw up local plans on an area-by-area basis. I should like to know also how the Government consider the planning Acts might need to be amended to allow for all options that I have mentioned.
I make no apology for pressing this issue. These are important questions which my amendment aims to clarify. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie has spoken of a structure plan in relation to planning. I support the amendment in relation to other services within the local authority. In particular I speak of social services, housing, and, in some cases, roads.
First, as one who has been a chief officer, I submit a view for the consideration of the commission; that is, that unitary authorities provide a more effective and less costly structure than is provided by any structure which has divided responsibility.
Secondly, I consider that a county structure supplies the most satisfactory and wisest structure. Within the local authority it is worrying for any chief officer to have to consult with an enormous number of other authorities whereas if all the services are within one authority covering one wide area—preferably a county area—much time is saved.
There is another point which is rarely considered; that is, the attitude of the authorities as regards services outside the local authority. If there are a large number of small district authorities, then each authority has to consult with, for example, the police and regional and district health boards. A county authority is able to formulate a policy to cover its area with the police and health authorities. I know that that makes for greater efficiency.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that district authorities should be set up with an "overlord" of regional authorities. From a local point of view it is difficult to be loyal or to have a feeling for the regions. One has a feeling and a sense of loyalty for one's county but a region is quite a different matter.
Therefore, I support the idea of a county structure to be considered by the commission, taking into account the services within the authority and the services outside the authority with which it is necessary to work.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie has once again returned to the subject of planning, after the long and detailed debates which we have had on this subject on Report and in Committee. I hope that what I have to say will be reassuring to him. He seeks clarification of the position in relation to the preparation of structure and local plans. As my noble friend Lady Blatch mentioned when we discussed our amendments to this clause at Report stage, the Local Government Commission will have the flexibility to recommend either that the present
56
system of separate structure and local plans outside the metropolitan areas should continue, adjusted as appropriate to unitary authorities, or that the new unitary authorities should prepare unitary development plans, as the London borough and metropolitan district councils do at present. The power to recommend the transfer of functions of both county and district councils, including the preparation of structure and local plans, to a single authority is covered by Clause 14(2) (b). Where a large unitary authority is responsible for both structure and local plan preparation, the local plans may be drawn up for areas within that of a unitary authority, where to do otherwise would cause disproportionate administrative difficulties, due to the size of the plan or some other factor. Such provision would be made under Clause 17(4). We share the objective that development planning should be properly catered for by the commission in its recommendations.
My noble friend Lord Norrie asked how we intend to amend the planning Acts, for example, in the case of large unitary authorities. That will depend on the recommendations of the commission and the Secretary of State's response. We may also need to give guidance on how area-based plans should be drawn up, if they are justified, within a large unitary authority.
The commission will look at what should happen to particular functions including planning. It will be able to look at whether there should be joint arrangements under Clause 14(5) (c). I hope that, in the light of what I have said, my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his long and detailed reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Procedure on a review]:
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 15, line 3, at end insert:
("(aa) submit to him a statement which shows that its recommendations do not prejudice the constitution of an authority independent of any other tier of local government in any National Park.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we were all hoping that the Government's response to the National Parks Review Panel would be known in time for this Third Reading debate. It is disappointing that that is not so.
As matters stand we have a Bill whose impact on national parks is not neutral. It risks undermining national parks' administration and it cannot fulfil the Government's intention that each national park should be administered by an authority independent of any other tier of local government.
I remind the House that on Report there was clear agreement that, if it were not possible to create independent authorities for parks in the Bill, then it was vital that the Local Government Commission should say nothing which might inadvertently disrupt the Government's wish to create independent authorities as soon as possible. There was a strong feeling that a safeguard to that effect should be secured on the face of the Bill.

57
Amendment No. 17 seeks to achieve that. At the point of reporting to the Secretary of State, the Local Government Commission would be required to submit to him a statement showing that its recommendations for any area, including a national park, would not affect the creation of an independent authority for that park. I hope that the Government will consider introducing something along those lines. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the reason we had to return once again with this amendment is that the promised response from the Government to the report, Fit for the Future, has not materialised. I do not know whether, when she replies, the Minister will be able to tell us that the response is imminent and, if so, what it contains. In the absence of that, our worries remain regarding the possible difficulties faced in the interim by the national parks.
We have gone over many times the chaos that may ensue if we are not clear about the Government's intentions and I do not wish to weary the House by doing so again. But if the Government are saying that there must be separate legislation and nothing can be done within the Bill, it is clear that there is obviously not time before the end of this Session of Parliament to bring in that separate legislation. If the Government do not intend to accept the amendment, the Minister must reassure us about what they intend to do to prevent the chaos occurring between now and the establishment of a new government. It is a serious matter. I support Amendment No. 17, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and I hope that we obtain a positive response.
Baroness White: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and my noble friend Lady Nicol. This matter was discussed at some length at an earlier stage of the Bill. I was recently in communication with the chairman of the National Parks Review Panel, who is greatly disappointed at the delay in the publishing of the official response to what all those who are familiar with the matter considered to be a well thought out and valuable report. We do not know why the Government are taking such a long time to produce their official response. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us some definite reassurance in that regard.
In the meantime, as my noble friend Lady Nicol pointed out, we have no confidence that there is likely to be other substantive legislation on the matter in the life of this Parliament. It is extremely important to have something on the face of the Bill which will secure the situation. I do not wish to elaborate further. At an earlier stage I mentioned that one of the problems is that three national parks are within the principality of Wales. Its arrangements for local government reform and the timetable are different. Unless we can obtain something in the nature of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, we shall encounter further difficulties in regard to ensuring the compatibility of the position in the national parks.
58
All those with any real knowledge of the situation in the national parks feel strongly that their administration in the two countries must remain compatible. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure us that we shall receive that official response quickly—why it has not been secured already I do not understand—and that we are given the kind of safeguard covered by Amendment No. 17.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in response to my noble friend and the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicol and Lady White, and I am sure if he was in his place we would be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I can say that I am told that the response to the report is imminent. I sympathise with much that has been said and I can promise that I shall continue to press for that response on behalf of the House.
Perhaps I may remind all those who have spoken so far, and indeed my noble friend Lord Norrie, that to take the road of the Local Government Commission in these matters would be a much slower track than it will be to acquire independent status for the national parks. It will not be possible simply to take national parks areas; if taken area by area one would need to wait bit by bit for that work to be completed. It is therefore important that, once the response is determined and the Government's public commitment to the independent status of national parks fulfilled, it should be fulfilled as quickly as possible.
The House will recall that in answer to earlier amendments during Report stage I said that there was no reason to believe that the work of the Local Government Commission will in any way affect the establishment of independent national park authorities. I went on to explain that the Government will be issuing guidance to the commission to make it clear that we are committed to the establishment of independent park authorities. A draft of that guidance is already out to consultation, but we shall amend the document before it is issued to the commission to ensure that the commission carries out its reviews with that commitment in mind.
I believe that that is the right way to proceed and that the future of the national parks will be fully secured by that means. The proposed amendment would require the commission to submit a statement to the Secretary of State to the effect that its recommendations do not prejudice the constitution of independent national parks.
Such an amendment is unnecessary. The first point to make is that the commission will be obliged to follow the Secretary of State's guidance, and it is quite simply inconceivable that the commission would ignore it on a matter of this kind. But if, for the sake of argument, we think the unthinkable and assume for a moment that the commission do make recommendations which conflict with the Government's policy towards national parks, the second point is that the Secretary of State will simply not implement them.
With that answer and my assurance that I shall do all I can to ensure that the response is put into the public arena as soon as possible, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Perhaps I can say that the only way that this House will be satisfied is for the Government to introduce a national parks Bill at the earliest opportunity. However, at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 9, at end insert:
(" (4A) When making recommendations under subsection (3) or (4) above the Local Government Commission shall prepare a statement which shows how its recommendations will secure the effective performance of strategic functions in the wider public interest.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 seeks to ensure that strategic services such as strategic planning, transport, waste disposal and mineral workings are properly addressed by the Local Government Commission. Rightly, I believe, we spent a considerable time on the issue of the strategic role of local government. That issue is intimately bound up with the issue of joint arrangements, many shortcomings of which have been referred to by noble Lords on both sides of the House.
I was reassured by the response to amendments I moved at earlier stages that the Government are in no doubt as to the importance of strategic functions and the need to avoid a proliferation of joint arrangements. At Report stage my noble friend the Minister said that it would be inconceivable that the Local Government Commission should ignore the effective and efficient delivery of strategic services. Prior to that, at Committee stage, she said that it would have to be shown that strategic planning issues are satisfactorily covered.
Given the degree of unanimity on the issue, it is remarkable that the Bill provides no safeguards. There is no mechanism on the face of the Bill which will ensure that the Government's intentions are fulfilled. Amendment No. 18 provides such a mechanism. It will require the commission to prepare a statement, both when preparing draft and final recommendations, which specifically addresses how the effective provision of those strategic services will be secured. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I can say briefly that I applaud the Government's proposals to set up the Local Government Commission. I applaud also the contents of the clause which lays down how the review shall be conducted and the considerations that the commission shall have in mind. I share the view of my noble friend that a gap exists which his clear amendment reasonably sets out to fill. For the life of me I cannot see any reason why the Government should not welcome this addition to their thinking. It seems to me to be entirely complementary to the ideas contained in the clause.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, as chairman of a regional planning council I represent both counties and districts. I have toured the whole of my region and spoken to many county and district members. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that the Government appreciate the work of the regional
60
councils as does, I believe, the Opposition. My worry is that the lack of understanding by some people of the amount of work done by specialist officers which is provided by the counties to the regional councils would make it extremely difficult for districts or small unitary authorities to be able to supply those very special services. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware of the large airport study that is going on at the moment with very specialised staff involved.
That is a matter about which I am very worried. In my tour of the South East (I am meeting the other regional chairmen very shortly) the districts have been unable to satisfy me that they will be able to supply the kind of expertise and joint authority which will enable regional councils to carry out their duties. In addition to their duties as regards this country, I am sure that in future they will be responsible for regional liaison in Europe. That is another very important factor which must not be overlooked by the Local Government Commission when bringing forward its recommendations. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again this is a very important subject revisited in the course of this debate. I have assured the House that the Government fully recognise the importance of the strategic functions of local authorities. All that has been said here today and at all stages of this Bill cannot be overstated. I have made it clear that before any changes to local government structure can be made it must be shown that all strategic functions are satisfactorily covered.
The Local Government Commission will certainly be in no doubt about the importance of the strategic functions of local authorities. It will be well aware that recommendations which do not cover these functions properly will not be acceptable and will not be brought before Parliament for approval. This amendment would require the commission to prepare a statement showing how its recommendations would secure the effective performance of strategic functions in the wider public interest.
The need to secure the effective performance of strategic functions in the wider public interest will be an important factor which will be central to the commission's work. It is set out clearly in the guidance to which the commission will be required to have regard. Draft and final recommendations will be available for public scrutiny and there will be ample opportunity for comment on the crucial matter of strategic functions. We do not believe that it will be useful to require the commission to prepare a separate statement to demonstrate how its recommendations will secure the effective performance of strategic functions in the wider public interest.
That requirement will be an essential part—indeed, it will be a central part—of the recommendations themselves. The proper coverage of strategic functions should be an integral part of the recommendations not covered in a separate statement. Anyone who considered that strategic issues had not been properly covered in any particular recommendation would have the opportunity to say so.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will also need to be satisfied that strategic functions

61
are properly covered before bringing before Parliament for approval an order to give effect to the commission's recommendations. I cannot emphasise too strongly just how important the strategic functions will be in this context. It will not be possible for the commission to dip into some functions and not others and to make recommendations to Parliament. In the first place it will have to convince the Secretary of State that all the functions will be properly delivered and that there will be proper arrangements for their efficient and effective delivery. It will be for Parliament itself to consider those matters.
I appreciate the concern of my noble friend Lord Norrie and that of all other noble Lords about the strategic functions, and my noble friend's intention in tabling this amendment. I do not believe the amendment to be appropriate. In view of the assurances that I have given about the central nature of strategic functions in the work of the Local Government Commission—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, if the commission is to be obliged, as I understand it will be, to give its reasons in its report to the Secretary of State, for the life of me I cannot understand why the reasons should not be published.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the first instance the report to the Secretary of State will be considered by him. A draft report of the commission's work will have gone out for public consultation. The recommendations that come before Parliament will also be public documents. This amendment is asking for a separate report stating what will be a central and an essential part of the recommendations of the commission to the Secretary of State. There will be a gap of at least six weeks between the Secretary of State receiving the recommendations and them being presented before Parliament.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister's reply. This is a matter that we should follow up either by a meeting or by letters. I hope that the commission's final guidance will be an improvement on the draft which I do not believe to be satisfactory at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Implementation of recommendations by order]:
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 16, line 2, after ("report") insert ("or where modifications are proposed, before the Secretary of State has published his proposals and allowed sufficient time for interested persons to make representations and for him to take them into account").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment in the context of the implementation of the commission's recommendations to allow for comment if the Secretary of State proposes to modify the commission's recommendations. The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to ignore or to amend the recommendations of the Local Government Commission as he sees fit without, as it stands, an
62
opportunity written into the legislation for public comment. That is a very considerable degree of discretion. It could mean that decisions may be taken which do not have widespread public support.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us that a Secretary of State would not do any such thing. Perhaps the way to counter that is to say that the Secretary of State concerned may not be a Secretary of State of the same political party as the present Minister. Sometimes that helps us to put these matters into context.
The amendment provides for statutory consultation on modifications, but still allows the Secretary of State the ability to exercise his judgment. At Committee stage the Minister assured us that if there were to be substantial modifications the Secretary of State could direct the commission to conduct a further review. That still leaves him or her with considerable discretion on various counts—that is to say, whether or not to pursue the original recommendations; to decide what is a substantial modification; and if he or she does not believe that the modification is substantial, the discretion not to direct the commission to conduct a further review.
This amendment is seeking to clarify those points and to allow for adequate publicity and the opportunity to comment. I also anticipate that the Minister may say that consultation can go on forever, but there are times when a decision has to be made. I suggest that this amendment strikes the right balance. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I understood the noble Baroness to accept that we have taken great care to build into the commission's review procedure substantial opportunities for public comment. The commission will be required to make available for public inspection copies of its final recommendations to the Secretary of State. It will be required to take such steps as it considers sufficient to secure that persons who may be interested in the recommendations are informed of them and of the period within which they may be inspected.
Further, the Secretary of State will be required to wait for at least six weeks after receiving the commission's final recommendations before making an order implementing them, to allow time for further representations to be made. Any modifications to the commission's recommendations which the Secretary of State recommends to Parliament will take account of views expressed during this period about the commission's recommendations. If the Secretary of State considers that the commission's recommendations need to be modified substantially, he will have the power to direct the commission to conduct a further review and to make further recommendations. The commission will be required to publish any revised recommendations and make them available for public comment following the procedures set out in Clause 15.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, anticipated that I would say—and I do indeed feel—that there comes a point where consultation must cease and decisions have to be made. In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness is not contesting the idea that the

63
Secretary of State should exercise his judgment. His decisions will be made having full regard to both the commission's recommendations and to representations made to him by interested parties. I hope that with the substance as well as the tone of those remarks, she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I entirely accept the tone. But I am afraid that I do not feel that the substance has taken us any further because we are told again that the opportunity for public comment is at the earlier stage. However, it would be churlish to press the amendment at this point. I hope it may be something that will be taken up at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Agreements as to incidental matters]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Orders, regulations and directions under Part II]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 22, line 22, leave out from ("areas") to end of line 23.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a modification of an amendment which I moved at Committee stage. If your Lordships will look at the strange structure of Clause 26, subsection (1) provides that regulations shall be subject to the negative procedure with the three exceptions paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraphs (a) and (b) are picked up in subsection (2) and made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Paragraph (c) is not dealt with at all with the result that there is no parliamentary control over the regulation in question which relates to electoral changes and parishes—hardly matters to be dismissed as of absolute inconsequence.
At Committee stage, I moved that paragraph (c) should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. But in an attempt to come to a compromise with the noble Baroness, as I said earlier, I was prepared to concede two-and-a-half of the four points where we differed, in exchange for one-and-a-half points on which I wished her, if she could, to meet me. This is the half point. What I now propose is that paragraph (c) being deleted, regulations effecting electoral changes or relating to parishes, shall be subject to the negative procedure because they fall under subsection (1).
This is no time to deal with a matter, even of constitutional importance, at any great length. It was after half past eleven that I moved the amendments in Committee. I did not table them for Report stage because if I had done so, they would have been discussed at about five o'clock on the day that your Lordships rose before Christmas. I felt that such would be complicity in a devaluation of your Lordships' House. What I do now is to ask your Lordships to say that these regulations (which, as I say, are not to be dismissed as of no consequence) should be subject to the negative procedure.
This matter cannot be dealt with except in the context of the current surge in bureaucracy to the detriment of Parliament, to the detriment of the law
64
and to the detriment, as we saw in the Child Support Act of the last session, of private individual rights and interests. I shall not enlarge on that, but that is the immediate context.
There is an historical context because the last time we had a bureaucratic surge of this sort, it culminated in the disaster of Crichel Down—a traumatic experience for the party to which the noble Baroness belongs. It ended with the resignation of an able, popular and competent Minister, Sir Thomas Dugdale, and the moving sideways of two senior civil servants—rightly a move seen only as sideways because although they had behaved badly, they had behaved no worse than many of their colleagues in similar situations in the previous five years. Therefore I ask the noble Baroness to take account of this, not only in its immediate context, but also lest she and the Government may be drifting into another Crichel Down situation.
When your Lordships considered this late at night in Committee, the noble Baroness advanced two arguments. The first was that most of the orders in question are of a local nature. But she said "most", not "all". Some will be of a greater importance if she puts it like that. The second was that the commission would consult widely.
However, consultation is not a substitute for parliamentary consideration. Wide consultation was consistently offered in the proceedings before Crichel Down. The consultation proved purely nugatory. Objections were dismissed. Anybody complaining was regarded as a trouble maker. It is all there in the report of Sir Andrew Clark.
So one comes back to the two arguments. The first is that most of them are of a trivial and local nature, but not all. The second is that even then all that is offered is consultation. The negative procedure is the minimum that can be considered here. In fact, the negative procedure in the other place is very rarely efficacious at all because the orders are not reached in time before time has effluxed.
In your Lordships' House, the great advantage to the Government of the negative procedure is that only those matters that are considered by your Lordships as of importance come before your Lordships at all. There is no question here, under the negative procedure, of Parliament being flooded with a whole number of trivialities under this provision. Nor would the department be harassed by having its orders discussed. One cannot avoid the general background that at the moment the department is understandably anxious to emancipate itself as far as possible from parliamentary and judicial control. I have been both sides of the baize curtain and I know how maddening it is to officials to have every word of a Bill scrutinised and every clause considered. The great advantage of regulations from their point of view is that there can be no amendment at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, reminded us at an earlier stage, it is a convention, although I think a weak convention, that your Lordships do not vote against a body of regulations even under the affirmative regulation procedure. As

65
this is a matter of constitutional moment—namely, parliamentary control over law-making powers—I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I missed the first half of the noble and learned Lord's speech I intervene only to say that, from what I heard, I agree very much with him. The noble and learned Lord described it as a weak convention that we do not divide against statutory instruments, even affirmative instruments. I suspect that what he means by a weak convention is that the Labour Party does not do it but the Conservative Party does so on occasion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I meant that it is the kind of convention that can be quite easily revoked on a change of circumstances.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the reason that we do not divide against statutory instruments is clear. There is a permanent Conservative majority in this House. If we did so divide, it would be done to us all the time.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I feel at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to pitting my wits against the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble and learned Lord seeks to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny is exercised over the actions of the Executive. But these orders relate to very minor matters, and I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord can want Parliament to concern itself with every single executive action. My understanding is that virtually all the decisions that are subject to these orders are minor. If Parliament were to attempt to do so, I think your Lordships would find yourselves facing many more late nights. Effective parliamentary scrutiny is surely about concentrating on matters of more substance.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the orders which would be affected by this amendment are concerned with council electoral arrangements and parish councils. The electoral orders are virtually all about minor changes to the boundaries of council wards. Parish orders can establish new parish councils or they may alter the boundaries of a parish. For example, where a new housing estate was built which straddled an existing parish boundary, a typical order might move the boundary so that the whole of the estate was in one parish.
I should like to emphasise to the House that the Government are not proposing a change to the arrangements for the scrutiny of these orders. Such orders are currently made following recommendations by the Local Government Boundary Commission. That commission's responsibilities will pass, by virtue of provisions in the Bill, to the new Local Government Commission. Therefore it seems to me entirely reasonable for the Bill to repeat the arrangements for the making of the relevant orders. That is just what the Bill does. It repeats exactly the procedures that have been in operation since at least 1974. None of these orders has previously been subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
66
I am not aware of any complaints or indeed any difficulties that have arisen by virtue of the fact that these orders have not in the past been subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I think it is worth noting that any decision that comes forward to the Secretary of State, and hence to Parliament, arising from the work of the Local Government Commission as it relates to the structural changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am always diffident when appealing to the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments but I hope that he will feel able to do so on this occasion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not expect me to be very happy with her reply. She yielded to the blandishments of the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Morris, so I cannot help asking what it is about myself that leads her to set her face so stonily against anything that I suggest. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 22, line 27, leave out from ("Parliament") to end of line 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to leave out the last three words of line 27 and the rest of the subsection. The words desired to be left out exclude the hybrid regulations procedure. As your Lordships are well aware, Bills coming before Parliament are public, private or hybrid. The public Bill is one introduced by a Member of Parliament and dealing with the public generally. A private Bill is introduced by someone outside Parliament seeking some advantage for himself. It is generally a local authority or a public undertaking. Individuals who are adversely affected, as they are probably likely to be when a particular petitioner is seeking an advantage for himself, can themselves petition against the private Bill. The hybrid Bill is a public Bill which adversely affects a private interest.
Your Lordships' House alone has a procedure whereby the private interest which is prejudiced is considered initially by the Hybrid Instruments Committee and possibly further. A Minister can avoid the nuisance of the hybrid investigation by merely taking a regulation-making power and can adversely affect the private interest in the regulations and not in the Bill. So Parliament stipulated a long time ago—more than 60 years ago—that where a regulation adversely affected a private interest, notwithstanding that it was under a public Bill, it should be subject to the scrutiny of the Hybrid Instruments Committee in exactly the same way as a hybrid Bill. In other words, it ensured that private interests were not overridden without being considered.
The procedure does not stipulate that the private interest must be vindicated in all circumstances. It is exactly the same as under a Private Bill; that is to say, Parliament will weigh the public good against the detriment of the private interest. That is an extremely important parliamentary safeguard of private rights and private interests: the liberty of the individual as

67
against the omnipotent state. It was considered by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of 1972–1973 and considered at very great length.
However, before I deal with that aspect, I hope that the noble Baroness will not state in her reply that there are precedents for what is proposed in the Bill. I know very well that there are such precedents, but in this matter a precedent from the past is not an excuse for supineness in the present; it is a call for vigilance in the future.
Having said that, I turn now to two short passages from the report of the Joint Select Committee. I should point out that the report was accepted by both Houses of Parliament. The first passage at page XXV reads:
"Your Committee conclude that this procedure has for nearly 50 years provided valuable safeguards for private interests affected by delegated legislation, and should be retained".
The other passage, which appears slightly later at page XXXI, says:
"Parliament should, however, be vigilant to ensure, in every case of exclusion from the hybrid procedure by statute or by Standing Order, that such exclusion is genuinely justified".
Further down on the same page, when studying the considerations which should be weighed by the Hybrid Instruments Committee, the report refers to,
"whether the matters complained of in the petition have already been adequately inquired into",
and states that that point must be covered.
When the noble Baroness dealt with the matter in Committee, she did not say for a moment that any of those matters had been inquired into adequately or otherwise; she merely said that the commission, and indeed the Minister, consults widely. That is by no means the same thing and by no means adequate. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord implores me not to make references to other examples. However, I have to point out that the Local Government Act 1972 also disapplied the procedures relating to hybrid instruments in respect of orders which were not dissimilar to those covered by Clause 26(2) of the Bill. I refer the House to paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1972 under which the Secretary of State gave effect, by order, to the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for the creation of the non-metropolitan district councils. The words used in that provision are rather different from those used in this Bill, but I am advised that they have exactly the same effect. Under that provision, as here, the orders concerned were likely to be hybrid principally because they were essentially local in character.
The disapplication of the procedure is, therefore, well precedented. I am not aware of any claims that individuals have been disadvantaged as a result of the 1972 Act provisions. There is no evidence that it was wrong to disapply the hybridity procedures. The hybrid instruments procedures exist to ensure that the private interests of people affected by orders are taken
68
into account. Your Lordships should have no fears that any interests will not be taken into account as a result of the disapplication of these procedures. Before the Secretary of State makes an order, the Local Government Commission will have conducted a review which will have involved extensive public consultation. Those whose interests will be affected as a result of structural changes or the establishment of joint authorities will have at least three opportunities to make their views known. There will be the initial period of the review, before the commission has published its draft recommendations. The commission will then invite comments on its draft recommendations. Thereafter, the commission will submit its recommendations to the Secretary of State who will wait at least six weeks before making an order.
In considering whether to accept the amendment, I have also had to take into account the view expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House about the proposed timescale for making structural changes. The House has urged me to make changes to the Bill which would have required the changes to be implemented more speedily. Noble Lords were particularly concerned about the uncertainty that would be caused by prolonged delay. I had to resist those amendments on the grounds of practicability; indeed, on the grounds that the noble and learned Lord referred to today—namely, to give room for full and proper consultation. But I have to tell the House that the amendment would have the opposite effect. If the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees ruled that an order was hybrid—and my information is that this almost certainly would be the case—and subsequently the Hybrid Instruments Committee found that the petitioners had locus standi, the implementation of orders could be delayed by many months.
I do not believe that that potential delay would be justified, given that the disapplication of these procedures is well precedented. Moreover, given also that there will be ample other opportunity for views to be taken into account before orders are made, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, whether I coo like a dove or roar like a lion, it seems to have no effect at all on the noble Baroness; indeed, she did what I begged her not to do and said that there was a precedent. Your Lordships all know by now that there is a precedent. However, what the noble Baroness did not do was to meet the criteria of the Joint Select Committee. For example, have the Government shown that the exclusion is really justified or merely convenient? Further, if the hybrid instruments procedure is denied to a private individual whose interests have been adversely affected, have the Government shown that his grievance has been "inquired into"? Neither of those criteria have been met. In conclusion I only desire to say that, in taking this bureaucratic line to try to exclude Parliament from normal traditional processes for the defence of the individual citizen, the Government are making a

69
very hard rod for their own back should another party come to power. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
At the outset I should like to take this opportunity to place on record a formal apology to noble Lords opposite and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. A straight question was put by the noble Baroness to my colleague and noble friend Lord Howe, as to whether it would be open to local authorities to reject the lowest tender following consideration of the second envelope in the double envelope tender procedures. The answer given to the noble Baroness was, yes. However, the answer that should have been given was, no. I have written to the noble Baroness offering profuse apologies for the wrong answer. I know that, while it is no excuse, my noble friend misheard the question and answered it incorrectly. I understand that he also has written to the noble Baroness.
The point that we sought to make at the time was that this approach was nevertheless consistent with the criteria in the European Community directive producing the economically most advantageous tender, rather than the alternative of lowest price only. That is so because the first stage of consideration of bids could incorporate quality, technical competence and the other matters noted in the directive under the economically most advantageous option. It would be for local authorities to set the threshold used in the first stage, subject to any regulations or guidance defining anti-competitive behaviour which the Government made or issued. However, under the proposal they would not have discretion to reject the lowest tender passing the quality threshold in favour of their own in-house teams.
I repeat our profuse apologies for what I believe was a difficulty for the noble Baroness. Had she been given the correct answer, it is just possible that she may well have pressed the amendment. For the record, I hope that that will be noted by another place along with the points made by the noble Baroness in the course of that debate as well as the answer given. I hope that the apology will also be noted and that there will be an opportunity for the debate to be continued in another place.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill promotes healthy competition and value for money in local government services. It will place the customer or citizen at the heart of local government activity and it provides for structural changes within local government which will command greater community support and will result in more effective and efficient local government service.
Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill deal with performance standards of local authorities and other bodies, auditors' reports and recommendations and with publication of information by the Audit Commission and the Scottish Accounts Commission. There have been differences of opinion between us on such ideas as customer contracts but there has been general
70
support for the roles of the commissions. The Bill sets a framework in which the commissions will operate; noble Lords have accepted that the commissions can be relied upon to get on with the job within that framework.
I am pleased that the provisions on auditors' reports and recommendations which require bodies to make a prompt, formal and public response and the provisions allowing publication of certain information relating to contraventions and public interest reports commended themselves to your Lordships.
Clauses 8 to 11 of the Bill dealt with compulsory competitive tendering and have given rise to the liveliest debate. Research indicates that savings of around 6 per cent. on average have been achieved. However, CCT is not just aimed at maximising value for money. Too often in the past local services were run by some authorities more on behalf of their workforce than on behalf of the local communities that they were supposed to serve. CCT has begun to change that. Local authorities are now able to take a clearer view of their proper role, and to think more carefully about the services provided for their communities. Many have responded to the challenge in a positive way. As the chief executive of a Labour-controlled authority put it:
"There is much greater information and knowledge of particular service areas. It exposes an awful lot of inefficiencies formerly taken for granted. We are a more efficient, slimmer organisation. It's had real and definite benefits".
Those benefits should not be confined to the existing services for which CCT is required. The Secretary of State already has the power, under the Local Government Act 1988, to extend CCT to new local authority activities. That power is not affected by this Bill. What the Bill, as originally drafted, would have done was to enable the Secretary of State to take account, in extending CCT to professional and technical services, of the particular demands of those services, where quality is more difficult to judge in a straightforward and demonstrably fair way. That flexibility has been removed by the amendment passed in Committee, and I should make it clear that the Government intend to return to this issue in another place.
The other provisions of this part of the Bill are aimed at following through the commitments in the Citizen's Charter to ensure that private firms have a fair chance to compete for local authority work, and to promote greater openness about the way in which local services are delivered. They provide for the Secretary of State to clarify in regulations the framework for CCT, and set down what is or is not to be considered anti-competitive. The greater clarity this will bring to the process will be widely welcomed.
As with the extension of CCT to new services, we shall be considering carefully the responses we receive to the consultation document Competing for Quality, and will bring forward our final proposals for the content of regulations when that consideration is complete. It is important, if CCT is to continue to be successful in ensuring greater efficiency in the delivery of local services, that private sector bidders should be able to feel confident that they will not be unfairly

71
discriminated against. The powers under Clause 9 will be used to ensure that a clear and fair framework is put in place.
The second part of the Bill is concerned with the structure of local government in England. We are committed to an accountable and effective structure of local government based on authorities which reflect more closely the communities with which people identify. Local authorities based on real communities will be stronger local authorities, better able to voice local views, more accountable to local people, and better placed to respond sensitively to local needs and priorities. Part II of the Bill will provide the framework which will enable that commitment to be put into effect.
We are not prescribing what local government structure people should have. Instead, the new Local Government Commission for England will make recommendations, area by area, for improving the structure of local government in the shire counties, with a view to moving to unitary authorities.
We have discussed at some length the factors which the Local Government Commission will need to take into account, and the way it will carry out its review. The identities and interests of local communities will be central to the commission's reviews, as will the need to secure effective and convenient local government.
I have assured the House that nothing in this Bill will inhibit our plans to establish independent authorities for national parks. I have also assured the House that the commission's recommendations for changes to local government structure will take account of the need for effective delivery of local government services, including particularly strategic services. I have also made it clear that the commission will not recommend changes unless they are worthwhile and cost effective.
These issues will be covered in more detail in the guidance which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to issue to the commission, and to which it will be required to have regard, about the factors it should take into account in carrying out reviews. We welcome comments on the draft of this guidance and we shall consider them carefully.
This House has also scrutinised the framework set out in the Bill for the procedures the commission will follow in conducting its reviews, including the arrangements for consultation with local authorities, local people and other interested organisations. We have promised to issue guidance on these procedures. There will be consultation about this guidance.
I must not let this opportunity pass without paying my own tribute to all who have contributed to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, combine to bring an enormous wealth of experience to these debates. The work that I had to do in order to make sure that at least I understood what they were saying and was able to make an intelligent response is testimony to the skills that they have deployed, always courteously and to the point. They certainly make the presence of the
72
Opposition felt in this House. They have been ably supported by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who is not in his place, again bring an expertise to the House which has been thoroughly welcomed. I believe that any government of any persuasion should be put on their mettle when producing legislation. Indeed the combination of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has certainly put me and my noble friend Lord Howe on our mettle as we have had to field a plethora of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has been supported by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Airedale.
I must also refer to the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Guildford and Exeter. They are not present in the Chamber but I must acknowledge that they not only spoke in general to the Bill but also in specific terms as regards their historic cities. Their points were well made and well taken.
My noble friends on these Benches who have contributed to our debates on this Bill are far too many to mention. However, I hope I may be forgiven for singling out a few of my noble friends as regards the subjects covered in the course of our debates. The strategic matters in the debate have been supported on all sides of the House. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has made contributions. My noble friend Lady Carnegy has held the flag for Scotland but she has also represented her interests in the rest of the country in terms of ensuring that the part of the Bill referring to structure is correct and will stand the test of time.
I also pay tribute to the contributions of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. My noble friend Lady Faithfull could be relied upon to pick up important points as the Bill proceeded. I am grateful to her for her support. My noble friend Lord Norrie has contributed to a number of aspects of our debates. He has spoken particularly on all matters concerning the countryside and the national parks. He has tried to ensure that the planning aspects of local authorities are not neglected in the work of the Local Government Commission. My noble friend has been ably supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I thank him for his diligence. I hope I have been able to satisfy many of his concerns raised during the course of the Bill.
Finally I wish to pay the highest possible tribute to my Whip on this Bill, my noble friend Lord Howe. This has been his first parliamentary Bill and I have received the best possible service from him. It is a great relief to have someone on whom one can rely when one is in the front line. I believe all noble Lords will join with me in thanking him for his courtesy and for his skill at the Dispatch Box. His one slight indiscretion at the Dispatch Box was a result of a genuine misunderstanding on his part. I accept that we cannot excuse ourselves by saying that and we must all take responsibility for our remarks but, that incident

73
apart, my noble friend has done a sterling job. He has faithfully served these Benches with his diligence, expertise and great courtesy.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I introduced our contributions—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sure it is unforgiveable of me to speak again at this stage. However, I intended to refer especially to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I hope the House will allow me to rectify that unpardonable omission. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has implored me and appealed to me on this Bill. He has visited me in my office and he has outwitted me and charmed me.
Noble Lords: That got him nowhere!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I claim no credit for his having got nowhere. At all times the noble and learned Lord has been most courteous and he has been extremely effective in pressing his points. Due to my ignorance and his expertise I have always been the subject of advice. I do not hide behind the advice. I hope I may say that in the back room I have been a good devil's advocate on his behalf. However, I have been defeated too. I am most grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to rectify a naughty omission.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when we started our consideration of this Bill I said it was a Bill we would like to support. The best I can say now after lengthy consideration is this is a Bill we would have liked to support more of. As noble Lords will know, it is a Bill which contains much with which we agree. After all, the Citizen's Charter is not an invention of the present Prime Minister. The phrase was coined by Herbert Morrison in 1920 and it has been a theme of the socialist approach to local government for many years. The difference between us on the Citizen's Charter is not that we merely want to protect the interests of local electors and ratepayers, but that we believe that can best be done by collaboration between local authorities and their own people rather than by means of orders or instructions given from on high by central government. We think that the charter as envisaged by the Government as regards local authority services is misconceived. We are sorry that the Government have not recognised the doubts we have in their response to our amendments.
We also believe the Government seriously underestimate the complexity that will arise in setting standards for local authority services and ensuring that those standards are practicable. We believe there is far too great a tendency on the part of the Government, not just in this area but in education and other spheres, to rely on league tables as a substitute for judgment. We find that regrettable.
The worst part of the Bill, as we made clear from the outset, has been the compulsory competitive tendering provisions in Clauses 8 to 11. The amendment that was carried on 2nd December made these provisions a good deal less offensive than they
74
would otherwise be. Nevertheless we believe that this part of the Bill was misconceived both in terms of procedure and respect to Parliament and in terms of the factual and intellectual argument behind it. It was misconceived with respect to procedure because, if it had been their intention, the Government should have issued consultation, allowed for a response to it and responded to the response to consultation before placing legislation before the House. The effect of the consideration in Parliament being concurrent with the consultation procedure means that in effect Clauses 8 to 11 do not mean much. They do not tell us much. They simply provide that the Secretary of State has the power to extend compulsory competitive tendering as he thinks fit. At least, that is presumably the power which the Government will restore when they seek to overturn our amendments in another place.
I hope when they seek to overturn our amendments, they will not seek to restore one of the most offensive aspects of the Bill which was corrected by our amendments. I refer to the Henry VIII procedures. I hope the Government will understand that they will face renewed opposition if the Bill returns from another place repeating the errors of the Henry VIII procedures and the error of insisting that the Secretary of State has the power by order to overturn primary legislation. I am sure they will face renewed opposition from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I heartily echo the tributes that have been paid to the noble and learned Lord. The Government will also face renewed opposition from all sides of the House.
Even with the amendment, this part of the Bill is thoroughly unsatisfactory. We had to winkle out the consultants' report on which the consultation document was based. We found both the consultants' report and the connections between the consultants' report and the consultation document wanting. We shudder to think what will come out of the whole process. It certainly will not be a process that has been adequately scrutinised by Parliament.
On the issue of local government structural reform —that arises in Part II of the Bill—there has been a good deal of agreement. However, proper anxieties have been expressed in all parts of the House about some of the implications for the environment and for planning and structure plans. A number of noble Lords have effectively pleaded that case. I hope, but rather doubt, that they have been satisfied by the answers they have been given.
In principle, what the Government propose—broadly, a move towards unitary authorities on an area-by-area basis—is something we would support. However, we are still very concerned about the composition and powers of the Local Government Commission. We are very concerned about the lack of a firm timetable, and we are particularly concerned about the fact that the Government intend that the recommendations of the Local Government Commission shall be implemented piecemeal rather than all at one time. We very much fear that that is a recipe for continued disturbance, unrest and insecurity in local government.

75
We wanted to support the Bill. We supported those parts of the Bill which we could support, but I am afraid that there is a great deal which we were unable to support. The noble Baroness spoke of there having been a "plethora" of amendments. My dictionary says that a plethora is:
"a morbid condition marked by an excess of red corpuscles in the blood; (fig.) over-supply, glut"
If it is a matter of red corpuscles in the blood we shall shortly see a few more red corpuscles in the House —both Houses, indeed—and we shall be able to deal with these matters more effectively.
The debates on the Bill have sometimes been difficult but the Bill has been conducted, without exception, with courtesy. I must express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the way in which she has conducted the Bill, even the less defensible parts of the Bill. She has always been courteous and considerate and she has always listened carefully to the arguments.
I should like also to echo what the noble Baroness said about the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is the first major Bill which he has dealt with at the Dispatch Box. He comes to it as one who has been doing that for many years and as a real expert, or one who manages to suggest expertise even if he does not have it. His conduct of that part of the Bill for which he took control was impeccable. We are very appreciative of that.
Of my noble friend Lady Hollis I can hardly say less than the Minister. She has been a tower of strength and has taken enormous responsibility to very great effect. I am most grateful to her. The contributions of my other noble friends who have taken part in the debates on the Bill—Lady Nicol, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Desai and Lord Howie of Troon, in his own particular area—have been greatly valued. It would have been a more boring but perhaps a shorter Bill without their contributions.
It has been very enjoyable to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We have found ourselves very close in our thinking on many aspects of the Bill, even though we have sometimes called in aid different examples of local government. She has shown her command of the subject matter and it has been a pleasure to work with her. I shall not name other noble Lords who have taken part in the debates: there have been many.
I am sorry that the Bill goes forward with so little amendment. I am sure that with goodwill and with a new Secretary of State many of the provisions of the Bill could be made to work to the advantage of local democracy. I hope that some of the invitations to a denial of local democracy which remain in the Bill will not be implemented.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that I wish that I could support more of the Bill, although there is a great deal of it which we on these Benches support. The Bill would have been improved by many of the additions which were proposed during the various
76
stages. On the whole the changes proposed were additions rather than deletions. So far as concerns the performance standards—the charter provisions—everyone must welcome improvements in local authority services.
We wish the Local Government Commission well. It has a hard task ahead of it, not just in reconciling strategic considerations with government at the lowest possible local level and all the matters which we discussed, but also the very local and parochial interests which we have quite rightly tried to steer clear of in debates in this House. The commission will have its work cut out, but I hope that it will be able to get on with its work speedily because of the uncertainties which have been mentioned.
I am particularly sad that the opportunity was not taken with this Bill to deal with the question of London and the metropolitan authorities. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, nods in agreement. I hope that when the heat of the next few months has passed the subject can be considered more calmly and more productively.
It is no surprise that feelings have run so high on the question of compulsory competitive tendering. We feel that the idea of compulsion is distasteful. It is rather sad that it is to be found in a Bill which in many ways is so well designed to improve what happens in local authorities. I hope that by the time the Bill reaches the statute book it will be more acceptable.
For my part I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, from all of whom I have learnt a great deal. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who have helped me find my way through the maze. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who I believe answered his first Question from the Despatch Box on the day when I made my maiden speech, so we have shared a number of stressful occasions, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who gave me a very warm welcome. She has set an awesomely high standard for newcomers to emulate. I hope that that does not sound patronising because it is not meant in that way. I hope that I can start on that path.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I intruded on your Lordships' deliberations because I wanted to draw attention to some drafting points and some constitutional aspects of the Bill. However, I very soon realised how much I was learning about a very important part of the constitution in a debate by great experts. I should like to express my thanks for that.
It would be invidious to refer individually to those of your Lordships from whom I have learnt so much, but I should like to mention three, and I hope that I can do so without impertinence. My first point relates to something which was said by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He warned us against considering local government as inferior government. It is subordinate in the sense that it yields to the directions of Parliament, but it is in no other sense subordinate. On the contrary, it has its own independent part to play in the Constitution.
That brings me to another point which I wished to make, which was made constantly by the noble Lord,

77
Lord McIntosh; namely that local government is very much closer to the citizen and that closeness should be fostered at all price. We gird understandably against the bureaucracy of Brussels; subsidiarity is made an empty term and a concern for a level playing field seems to give entitlement to give directions about every wormcast on it.
Applying that principle to our own case and taking up the constant theme that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, nothing should be decided by a parish council that cannot reasonably be decided by the parishioner himself. After all, a society is democratic in so far as its members can influence the decisions that affect them and the best way to do that is to give the decision to the citizen himself. Next to that, we should give it to the authority which is nearest to him and which he can influence. So nothing should be decided by a district council that cannot be decided by a parish council; nothing by a county council that cannot reasonably be decided by a district council; and, above all, nothing by Whitehall that cannot reasonably be decided by any of the local authorities. Only when we have vindicated that are we entitled to go on and say that nothing shall be decided in Brussels that cannot be decided in Westminster.
I should like to pay a particular tribute to the Front Bench speakers on whom so great a burden has fallen. I refer to both the noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, but above all we owe a great deal to the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has conducted the debate from her side. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, cogency of argument on this Bill has been perfectly compatible with courtesy and good humour. The noble Baroness obviously comes to this subject with a profound knowledge, but that does not mean that the conduct of a Bill such as this does not involve an enormous amount of work in mastering a brief.
When the ancestor of my noble friend Lord Lytton returned from his vice-regal duties in India, his grandchildren put on a play to welcome him back. It was very suitably concerned with the return of a crusader from the East. The small girl who played the crusader's wife pointed to the array of dolls around the stage and said to him, "I too, my Lord, have not been idle". So may the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, say, and we are greatly in her debt.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I would not normally rise to speak, but in the light of the Minister's opening comments perhaps I should do so. Obviously, I do not want to be unreasonable. As I think President Reagan once said, we all occasionally mis-speak. I am happy to acknowledge the graceful letters from both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but we have now had four differing versions from the Government in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading and at the Bill do now pass stage on an issue that we on this side believe lies at the heart of some of the debates over CCT; namely, the questions of cheapness and of quality and value for money. Where, for a little extra cost, a tender offers considerable additional quality
78
and value for money, on the last ruling of the Government, after three previous attempts, it looks as though local authorities will be obliged to refuse it at the cost of good housekeeping and perhaps at the risk of fiduciary duty.
I regret that the House has lost the last opportunity to explore the issue still further. However, as the Minister rightly said, the matter will no doubt be pursued in another place, perhaps with less confusion and, from our point of view, even greater success, although I doubt with as much courtesy as we on this side have received from both Ministers opposite.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Non- Proliferation
7.25 p.m.
Lord Kennetrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the roles of the non-proliferation treaty and the anti-ballistic missile treaty in the context of a non-proliferation regime.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we can only hope to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we look at reality without confusion or sentiment and, above all, without double standards.
In 1945 Mr. Attlee decided to start up the United Kingdom nuclear weapons programme because President Truman went back on the perfectly clear agreement about nuclear weapons between Churchill and Roosevelt. Attlee said later,
"We could not allow ourselves to be wholly in their hands, and their position wasn't awfully clear always."
The direct motive for nuclear proliferation is the fear of some other country's nuclear weapons—China, India, Pakistan, Israel, the whole Arab world and Iran. The indirect one is an unwillingness to depend on one's senior ally. The two are not mutually exclusive. The British and French learnt that in 1945. In the 1950s the Chinese learnt that they could not rely on the Soviet Union. Israel is now surrounded by unfriendly countries, some far richer, on which the United States depends for oil. Unless those motivations are understood and respected, there can be no hope of curbing proliferation, and that is why we still have proliferation.
The partial test ban of 1963 did not succeed. Massive testing continued underground. The nonproliferation treaty of 1966–68 did not succeed because, as the non-aligned countries put it at the time, it was a case of,
"the drunken pastor preaching abstinence".
They had been arguing for the control of vertical proliferation as well as horizontal. The French Foreign Minister called it a treaty to castrate the impotent. Few of the nuclear weapon-capable powers signed. Canada and Sweden did. Most notably, the United States' client state, Israel, was not required to sign. A large number of the truly impotent did sign, hoping to see their security increased.
However, many of those optimistic signatories are now objecting to the nuclear threats that they perceive

79
and have been refusing inspection rights to the International Atomic Energy Authority. Syria seeks a small reactor without safeguards until Israel accepts safeguards too. Iran states that it has a right to develop nuclear weapons if it wishes. Algeria is suspected. I shall deal with North Korea later. That Argentina and Brazil have agreed to reciprocal inspections under IAEA auspices is a rare instance of statesmanlike foresight.
A web of mutual fear suffocates the world and smaller things get caught in it. One of those is President Reagan's strange and silly dream of an ABM deployment, perhaps by many countries, which would have broken the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 and introduced a general hair-trigger threat to the whole world. The United States was still proposing to what remained of the Soviet Union only last autumn that the treaty should be replaced so as to allow deployment. Still to this day, the United States is paying already nuclear Israel to work on a miniature version called Arrow. Britain has been tagging along in the hope of financial crumbs. If Arrow ever is deployed, it will destabilise the Middle East just as the full Reagan pipedream would have destabilised the whole world. But perhaps after three test failures it will not be deployed.
In 1991 the START agreement reduced the former super-powers' strategic missiles, but at United States insistence it did not reduce their warheads, any more than the earlier INF agreement had done. Last year the five permanent members of the Security Council discussed arms transfers and non-proliferation and made some worthy joint statements. Our Government say that they:
"have no reason to doubt that all five governments intend to observe the spirit of these agreements".
But those governments are still arranging the shipment of arms to the Middle East for many billions of dollars. The Gulf states want 25 billion dollars' worth; Saudi Arabia wants 18 billion dollars' worth and Syria wants Scuds. In truth the big five have learnt nothing and are still acting as though the economic health of their arms industries was their principal concern.
The problem of controlling and perhaps eliminating the former Soviet Union's possible 30,000 nuclear warheads is horrendous, and concerns the whole international community. The Minister may tell us what monitoring of the destruction of tactical nuclear weapons is taking place. Several of the republics will not allow the residual Commonwealth military authorities to take charge, let alone the Russian Republic. The very temporary commander-in-chief of the Commonwealth of Independent States, Colonel-General Shaposhnikov, suspects that the new republics' governments want to gain control over the former Soviet armed forces in their territories in order to sell the weapons.
Certainly they need the money. Meanwhile, our Government have decided that Russia is the legally valid successor state to the Soviet Union. Mr. Yeltsin, who was elected president and also declared himself prime minister and unlawfully took over all the Soviet
80
KGB and interior ministry files, now sits in Moscow issuing decrees like a thistle shedding its down. They are not effective even within the Russian Republic. He is less effective this year in Russia than was Gorbachev last year in the whole Union. Why did our Government jump so eagerly to recognise his Russia as the heir of the Soviet Union? If it is true that it was to avoid triggering wider changes in the Security Council, it is something that they may live to regret.
Elsewhere, there are a few good signs. They are principally in Korea. The British Government and others have long been protesting to North Korea about its refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect its nuclear facilities, as it should have done since it signed the non-proliferation treaty. Those protests were part of the bad old world of humbug and double standards. What did we expect? The United States silently but conspicuously kept nuclear weapons in South Korea and was proposing to conduct the annual Team Spirit exercise even this year. Consequently, and because its vulnerability was increased by the collapse of the Soviet nuclear umbrella, a North Korean nuclear programme was only to be expected. American talk of "taking out" the North Korean programme was smartly and correctly rejected by both China and South Korea.
But all that hypocrisy was unnecessary. The United States has now unilaterally decided to withdraw its nuclear weapons from South Korea, and indeed elsewhere. Just as Western negotiators have always rightly insisted on foolproof verification of arms control agreements, so North Korea has been promised verification of the US withdrawal in return for inspection of its own nuclear facilities. It would be renewed humbug if the Americans were now to try to insist on North Korea dismantling enrichment facilities which they appear content to see Japan possess on a far greater scale.
What are the chances that an equal realism might be displayed in the Middle East? Israel has had a nuclear weapons programme for several decades, and now holds probably well over a hundred. It also has long-distance missiles which it claims can reach southern Russia. The United States has always tolerated and sometimes assisted that programme. It still does so. The British Government, at least since 1979, have feigned ignorance. For those reasons Arab countries have taken trouble to acquire nuclear weaponry and delivery systems. Iraq has done so more than most.
In 1981 Israel bombed and destroyed the Osiris nuclear establishment in Iraq. The attack went unpunished. That no doubt finally convinced Iraq and other countries that the United States did not intend to abide by either the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty or the letter of its own anti-proliferation laws, in so far as those affected its assistance to Israel. From that there followed the hidden Iraqi programme that the United Nations is now uncovering and destroying. The threat which Israel's neighbours see in the Israeli programme is now exacerbated by the Arrow programme: ABMs are an adjunct to a first strike

81
posture, as well as having a defensive use. The Israelis think they need Arrow because of the Iraqi Scuds. This is a nuclear arms race in operation.
Unless the international community is wiser than usual, Iraq's motives for developing nuclear weapons will be inherited by Iran. With the scattering of Soviet nuclear and other weapons scientists, it will probably be easy for oil-rich governments to buy expertise. The United States nuclear weapons programme is also shedding experts.
The non-proliferation treaty itself comes to a kind of end in 1993. What then? Neither the treaty nor the general regime are self-sustaining. Three things are necessary for a state to live in virtue: to sign this treaty, to ratify it, and to admit International Atomic Energy Authority inspections. The Arab countries score low in all three. Israel scores nil in all of them.
I turn now to the totality of the regime of which the non-proliferation treaty is part. Is the anti-ballistic missile treaty a central part of it? Our Government say that they are fully convinced that the treaty has been a valuable source of stability. I think we would all agree with that. But the Bush Administration apparently still want to renegotiate it. What is the Government's view? Do they favour cancelling the treaty (which is what it amounts to) and, along with the remains of the Soviet Union, deploying a global protection against limited strikes—GPALS for short—which would presumably be built by the United States and paid for by the rest of us?
Does our Government intend to go along with the desire of the United States for its allies to extend their co-operation on theatre missile defence work? The noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred to it on 14th November in those terms; he said that we must "extend our co-operation on theatre missile defence". That presumably means collaboration with the Israeli-Arab programme. Or do they think that ABM technology should be included in the Missile Technology Control Regime, which would be an opposite and beneficial action? That regime, together with COCOM and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, constitute supply side anti-proliferation. But what we need now is action to remove the demand.
The proposal of the Prime Minister and now the United Nations for an arms export register is good. May we take it that Britain's arms exports will now be published and that Ministers will answer questions on them?
On a global scale, the International Atomic Energy Agency must now be shoved swiftly right into the forefront of world affairs. Clearly it cannot continue as before. It has been alleged that its two roles—to encourage the availability and safety of civil nuclear power, and to establish that neither technologies nor materials spread from the civil side to the military—are incompatible. There has to be an early UN inquiry into that question and early action on its findings. Either way, the duties of the IAEA are now closer to the heart of world security than they have ever been. Perhaps there will be jobs for unemployed American and former Soviet weapon makers.
The IAEA needs its own sources of information. Proposals for an international monitoring agency
82
have long been on the table. Now is the time for it. The still partial test ban has to be completed. The United States opposes it on increasingly implausible grounds: the wish to produce a third generation of nuclear weapons, to make nuclear weapons "cleaner" and smaller, to improve reliability upwards from 75 per cent., and so on.
Now that the Soviet Union is out of the race, many governments see the completion of the partial test ban as the test of US bona fides; and they are right. In the interests of obtaining an effective non-proliferation regime, our Government should now slide away from their automatic support of this and other unjustifiable US positions. Minimum nuclear deterrence does not require more sophisticated weapons.
Last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, made an important statement in this House. He said that the Government have suggested to the Secretary General of the UN that a consultative committee of some of the signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention should be called. That is the 1949 convention concerning belligerent occupation of territory. It would examine ways "to ensure Israeli respect" for that convention. [Official Report, 9/1/92; col. 1677.]
I congratulate the Government on deciding to do that. The Government are now calling not just for the specific Security Council resolutions to be applied to the Arab/Israeli conflict, but for one of the general laws of civilisation to be applied. That is good. But will they go further and make it a point of British foreign policy—an identifying point—that all the laws of civilisation must apply in the Arab/Israeli conflict? They include the non-proliferation treaty. That is why I ask my question today.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing the matter before us to debate today. As he so rightly said, it could turn out to be one of the most vital matters for the world. With the changes that are taking place, this issue could affect the lives of everyone.
Since the end of the Gulf War, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the regime of which it is part has been closely scrutinised and heavy criticisms such as those of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have been levelled against it. The inability of the international community to prevent Saddam Hussein from attempting to achieve a nuclear weapons capability has been held up as an example of the failure of the non-proliferation treaty and the threat of proliferation by other states such as North Korea. It has also been held to demonstrate the redundancy of the NPT.
However, it is my belief that the NPT continues to play an important role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Undoubtedly the proliferation of nuclear weapons is the primary concern in relation to our security. Undoubtedly proliferation threats exist and are growing ever greater. However, in criticising the NPT I believe that there has been too much discussion about what the non-proliferation treaty does not do: I suggest that there has not been enough

83
emphasis on what it achieves. There is a danger that, in criticising the NPT for not preventing certain states from attempting to obtain a nuclear capability, the baby may be thrown out with the bath water. I suggest that the NPT is the linchpin of the non-proliferation regime without which the other elements of the regime cannot prove effective.
I wish to emphasise the importance of the non-proliferation regime for our security. Let us be clear what it is. The NPT is a political vehicle which enables the international community to identify nuclear proliferators as acting outside the accepted international norms of behaviour. It identifies what is legal and illegal within the nuclear industry. It legitimizes action by the international community against states such as Iraq which renege on their agreement not to manufacture nuclear weapons. It identifies those states which have not signed the NPT and which have a nuclear weapons programme as acting outside those accepted international norms of behaviour.
Some people appear to believe that the NPT, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency, should act as a world policeman, scouring the globe for fissile material and the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons. That is simply not acceptable or feasible in the world of independent nation states in which we live. It would be impossible to enforce. The NPT should be accepted and applauded for what it is—the means through which a line can be drawn on the sand beyond which potential proliferators know that it is unacceptable for them to take further steps to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.
Of course the NPT is not the only element of the non-proliferation regime. There are the export control groups for the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons and the control of missile technology—the missile technology control regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency can and should be strengthened to enhance the non-proliferation regime. However, without the treaty itself the nonproliferation regime is in danger of appearing to be a suppliers' cartel, and, moreover, a cartel that is rapidly losing its control of the marketplace to new and perhaps less particular suppliers. The treaty represents the international political consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If this consensus is destroyed, it will be impossible to contain potential proliferators.
The treaty holds a review conference every five years. It is right and proper that Her Majesty's Government too should review the contribution that the NPT makes to our security. However, I believe that it would be extremely inadvisable to attempt any amendment of the NPT as part of this review process, since the fragility of the consensus that the treaty represents could be destroyed by such a move. The numerous contentious issues between the 140 and more signatories that would be opened up in the amendment process would make it practically impossible to achieve a new consensus.
84
However, in such an area as this, where technical developments lead to new areas of concern and provide new avenues for circumventing present surveillance and controls, it is appropriate that the methods and procedures of the International Atomic Energy Agency should be improved and updated and that other elements of the regime such as the monitoring and control of exports and technology should be continually reassessed. I therefore ask Her Majesty's Government to reiterate their commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as the linchpin of the non-proliferation regime.
Further, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is to be considered for extension in 1995. In order to reach agreement on its extension, it is important that consensus between the states parties to the treaty is maintained. Many developing states resent the perceived inequalities inherent in the treaty and are seeking concessions from the nuclear weapon states and other developed states to redress this perceived imbalance. In conjunction with that, many have severe reservations over the value of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to their own security. Will the Government let us know what steps have been taken to ensure that the necessary consensus is being achieved and that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will be extended in 1995?
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also referred to the anti-ballistic missile treaty. I am sure that the noble Lord understands that it is a treaty only between the United States and the Soviet Union and that the United Kingdom Government were never a signatory to the treaty but lent their support to it because of the contribution it has made to preventing vertical proliferation.
In the post-cold war, post-Gulf War era, that contribution must now be reviewed. The fear of vertical proliferation is past. Fear of a massive nuclear exchange between the super powers is also fading. The deployment of an ABM system on the scale envisaged by the Strategic Defence Initiative project is therefore no longer contemplated. The primary concern of the United States and Europe is now the existence of rogue undeclared nuclear weapon states and the presence of perhaps loosely controlled nuclear weapons in the states of the former Soviet Union. Europeans—in particular Southern and Eastern Europeans—may be tempted to consider the utility of a limited ABM system to counter the threat of limited nuclear weapon strikes by developing countries. Since the rationale behind the ABM treaty depended on the bipolar global political structure, such contravention of the treaty does not raise the same fears of vertical proliferation as it did in the past.
However, the debate surrounding the ABM treaty raises a number of questions about ABMs in a broader context; that is, it raises fears related to horizontal proliferation. If the developed states acquire ABM systems while the developing world does not obtain them, suspicions and resentments are likely to be raised which may damage the non-proliferation consensus.
My anxiety relates to the dissemination of the ABM systems to the developing world, a point raised by the

85
noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The perceived success of the Patriot system during the Gulf War and fear of the proliferation of ballistic missiles both conventional and nuclear at a reasonable level has encouraged developing states to seek ABM systems off the shelf. Others such as Israel are being helped to develop their own systems. Many developing states are thus now eager to obtain anti-ballistic missile systems or anti-tactical ballistic missile systems.
I believe that the dissemination of the ABM systems to the developing world may have severe consequences for the non-proliferation regime. There is a danger that the dissemination of anti-ballistic missiles and anti-tactical ballistic missiles will lead to the dissemination of technology required to build offensive ballistic missiles. The publicity surrounding the illicit production of nuclear weapons often ignores the fact that a significant nuclear capability does not exist without the capability to deliver the weapons.
Thus the transfer of such technology is a danger to the non-proliferation regime. For example, Taiwan is believed to have constructed a surface-to-surface ballistic missile from ABM technology supplied to it by the United States of America. The missile technology control regime prohibits the transfer of key ballistic missile components. The transfer of a complete ABM or anti-tactical ballistic missile system would provide a potential proliferator with a substantial amount of the know-how required for a delivery system for nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, that technology, once outside the control of states dedicated to preventing nuclear proliferation or with less strict security and controls, could more easily transfer to third countries which are potential proliferators. I should be most grateful if Her Majesty's Government would express their views on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also referred to the breakdown of control in what was formerly the USSR. Quite clearly that will have enormous implications for the non-proliferation regime. I understand that Byelorussia, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine have reaffirmed their intention to observe the provisions of the NPT and their intention to support the non-proliferation regime. However, we must accept that a number of redundant nuclear aeroplanes and facilities are already available in the world markets. I understand that last year it was possible to buy plutonium from certain sources in Switzerland and that clearly it was coming out of the Soviet Union. There are some 3,000 to 5,000 people in the former Soviet Union who hold sensitive information on the design and operation of installations for plutonium production and uranium enrichment. What will they do now that their jobs and opportunities are at stake?
I believe that this issue must be tackled with the utmost urgency by the British Government, the American Government —which have already indicated that they will do so—and by NATO. I welcome the recent comments made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on this issue. We must consider what, if suddenly we were to wind up our own industry, or if the Americans were suddenly to have no
86
further armies or centralisation, the people employed in them would do. I hope that, as a result of the debate, the Government will form a more serious view of how Western nations can take a grip on the issue, build upon existing non-proliferation and aim to take more control of what might be a serious and dangerous situation for us all.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has rightly identified one of the major international political problems that faces this and many governments in the world. In this context I concentrate mainly on what the noble Lord has called horizontal proliferation; that is, the spread of nuclear weapons to those countries which do not at present have a nuclear weapons capability from those which do. In this post cold war period I regard that as being by far the greatest threat to international security and stability.
Furthermore, several matters germane to the issue were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I must take issue with him or at least put a slightly different emphasis on some of the points that he made. The noble Lord mentioned the arguments that have circulated for more than 20 years about vertical and horizontal proliferation. He mentioned the derision with which some smaller non-aligned and non-nuclear countries refer to the non-proliferation treaty as being in a sense the preaching of total abstinence by drunkards. I recognise that argument; it was familiar in Geneva in the 1960s and remains familiar today. However, I must point out that the object of Article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which was deliberately inserted in the treaty to try to meet some of those worries—the article refers to the control of the nuclear arms race and the requirement upon the nuclear powers to reduce their own nuclear capability —is to some extent under way.
Before the current events in the Soviet Union it and the United States—the two major nuclear weapons powers—were reaching a whole series of agreements to reduce their own nuclear capabilities. They did so perhaps in response to enlightened self interest rather than in response to Article 6 of the treaty. Nonetheless, some of the worries of the non-aligned and non-nuclear powers at the time of the signing of the non-proliferation treaty were being addressed.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has always had a special and somewhat hostile view of the concept of the strategic defence initiative. In its earlier manifestations I could understand a good deal of his feelings. The original concept of creating some kind of nuclear carapace over the Western alliance in such a way that it became invulnerable to an enemy nuclear strike, always seemed to me to be somewhat ambitious. However, I am not entirely sure that I should regard it as being totally destabilising. Indeed, I should advance a view perhaps somewhat diametrically opposed to the noble Lord's: it may well be argued that the strategic defence initiative and the reaction to it by the Soviet Union was the beginning of the developments which have lead to the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It would not be too

87
extreme to say that the SDI, which postulated the use of the enormous technological skills and industrial base of the United States of America, was the first time that the Soviet Union began to realise that it could not win the arms race against the United States of America. It is not too extreme to argue, therefore, that it was then that the Soviet Union began to realise that the future of the USSR, apart from the rest of the world, relied not upon an arms race with the United States of America, but upon some kind of accommodation with the West.
In any event, whether or not that is true, the idea of the space-based, four-phase nuclear system, which was at the heart of President Reagan's strategic defence initiative, has now lost any relevance or validity, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. It was intended as a means, by defensive instead of retaliatory methods, of deterring the Soviet Union from attack on the West. I think that everyone will agree that the likelihood of a first strike by the Soviet Union is now extremely remote.
However, we are now entitled to look at what one might call the relevant spin-off from the strategic defence initiative in the form of point defences and theatre defences. Surely if we can, within reasonable limits of expense and resources, construct defensive systems against nuclear attack, it would be foolish in the extreme not to do so especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, if we are to be faced with innumerable, perhaps maverick, nuclear powers which would not even be as responsible in their use of nuclear blackmail as was the Soviet Union.
I suspect that the United States has now realised that the useful spin-off from the SDI will be a form of limited ballistic missile defence. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will go along with that if it appears to offer a successful defensive system as a result of further United States development.
The noble Lord mentioned the 27,000 or 30,000 nuclear weapons still existing in the commonwealth of independent states—the former Soviet Union. That is where a great deal of the problem lies. It is not simply that those states still pose a potential threat. It would be unwise to forget that. As I have said on many occasions in your Lordships' House, when assessing the future actions of a potential enemy, one must consider both their intentions and their capabilities. The intentions of the Soviet Union as it used to be —the intentions of Russia—may now be pacific in the extreme. However, intentions can change overnight.
Capabilities are a different matter. A country which still has on the soil of four of its republics 27,000 to 30,000 nuclear warheads and which are continuing to produce nuclear weapons daily and the missile systems to deliver them cannot be considered by any prudent military and political planner as anything but a potential threat. We must regard it as such until it disappears.
Also, I refer briefly to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on the dangers of proliferation in the Middle East. Those are very grave dangers. In the debate which we had a few days ago in
88
your Lordships' House some noble Lords concentrated on that aspect of the Middle Eastern problem. I suggest with all diffidence to the noble Lord that it is rather perverse to expect Israel to take a lead in that by some form of unilateral renunciation of a nuclear capability. We are all aware of the general belief that Israel already has a nuclear capability but I do not believe that we can argue from that that the reasons which led President Saddam Hussein to attempt to construct his own nuclear capability was entirely in response to that. Nor do I suppose that the clandestine enrichment operations which are going on in Iran at present are entirely a reaction to the Israeli nuclear capability. If that were so, it is not applicable to countries like Pakistan which, according to Benazir Bhutto, has a nuclear capability, nor to India, and is hardly applicable to other countries in the world which are regarded as near nuclear powers.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the Middle East, I hope that he understands that I was not calling for Israel to engage in unilateral nuclear disarmament. That was not what I was saying. But would he not recognise that in any given part of the world the first country to obtain nuclear weapons bears a special duty to take a lead in getting rid of them in that part of the world?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, within limits, yes. Perhaps I should preface my response to the noble Lord by saying that I have never been a great believer in regional arms control. I do not believe that that is the correct approach to any form of arms control although he may point to the Treaty of Tlatelolco which has created a nuclear free zone, so far at any rate, in Latin America. However, if one is aiming at a nuclear free zone in the Middle East, it is indeed true that Israel has a very special responsibility, but the noble Lord will know that the Israeli Government have already offered to participate fully in a regional nuclear free zone. One hopes that that may have some effect on the rate of proliferation in that area.
However, the point that I wish to make is that the real danger of proliferation in the Middle East lies in the fact that a number of countries, many of them hostile to Israel, are and have been developing for some time a nuclear capability. The proliferation process cannot be halted by Israel. There must be a broader and more universal approach to the problem of arms control, especially in the Middle East.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I do not wish to continue to interrupt the noble Lord, but does he recognise that Israel is not alone in saying that it would be willing to see a denuclearised zone? That has been proposed by Egypt on many occasions over many years and it was also proposed by Iraq long before the beginning of the recent war.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it was indeed proposed by Iraq at the very moment that it was attempting to construct an advanced nuclear capability.
I point out also to your Lordships, in the context of what the noble Lord has just said, that in the Middle

89
East there is the greatest concentration of countries which have either not signed or not ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Leaving the Middle East for a moment, for the sake of clarity I revert to one point made by the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Wade. Unless I am much mistaken the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to the NPT ending in 1993. In fact it ends in 1995, the year of the review treaty. The reason for that is that although the treaty was signed in the late 1960s, it did not come into force until 1970. Therefore, the review treaty, as provided for in the NPT, will take place in 1995 and not 1993.
In that context, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about the folly of attempting at that time to engage in any piecemeal amendments to the non-proliferation treaty. It took many years and many long and weary hours of negotiation to complete. I believe that it was Ernest Bevin, when Foreign Secretary, who once said of an international issue, "If you open that Pandora's Box, you never know what Trojan Horse will jump out". I believe that that is particularly true of the non-proliferation treaty.
As I understand it, the options open to the review conference are to terminate the treaty, to extend it for an indefinite period—in other words, for ever—or to extend it for a prescribed period. I hope that those three options will be concentrated upon and that there will be no attempt, as the noble Lord said, to meddle with the details of the treaty.
I conclude by saying that I believe that a number of steps can be taken to enhance the effectiveness of the non-proliferation regime and to underpin its impact. The first concerns the increased use of intelligence systems to detect proliferation. It is now time that much of the highly sophisticated intelligence effort that was in the past devoted to attempting to detect the military developments and intentions of the Soviet Union should now be released to try to find out precisely what is happening at any given time in any of the near nuclear powers or any power suspected of engaging in clandestine programmes. New methods of intelligence gathering are so sophisticated and effective that if they were to be properly put into effect it would be difficult for any non-nuclear or near-nuclear power to achieve a nuclear weapons capability without the knowledge of the Western and for that matter Soviet or Russian intelligence systems.
I can go further than that. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, in concert with other friendly and allied powers, will seriously consider the possibility of releasing intelligence gathered on these subjects, suitably sanitised, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The one thing that that body needs if it is to be properly effective—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—is access to the kind of intelligence that sophisticated modern intelligence-gathering agencies can provide.
Finally, perhaps I can take this opportunity to congratulate the Government—when I say, "the Government", I mean not only this Government, but British governments for some considerable time past —on the efforts made in the field of non-proliferation. It is no exaggeration to say that much of the
90
intellectual stimulus for arms control and disarmament for the past 20 years or more has to some extent had its seed in the British Foreign Office. A great deal of serious and profound thought on this subject goes on there. Noble Lords may be surprised, on examining the various arms control treaties signed since the 1960s, to find how many of them contain clauses and concepts which had their origin in our own government and Foreign Office. In saying that I pay tribute not only to this Government, but to all British governments which have been engaged in this process in recent years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, repeated, the major problem threatening international security and stability is the spread of nuclear weapons. Within that general proposition is another problem. But the major problem about proliferation of nuclear weapons now comes from the instability of what used to be the Soviet Union—the Commonwealth of Independent States. There are 27,000 to 30,000 nuclear warheads; there are technicians of enormous skill and subtlety, many badly in need of food and money. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that nuclear weapons, warheads and certainly nuclear technology and know-how may be sold out of a disintegrating Soviet Union into areas of the Middle East which are especially sensitive and explosive.
In that context I hope that Her Majesty's Government will confirm that they regard proliferation as one of the most serious problems on the international horizon and that if there is serious disintegration in the Commonwealth of Independent States—as I said in the debate in your Lordships' House last week, I confidently forecast that there will be a cataclysmic upheaval in those countries before long—Her Majesty's Government will confirm that they recognise the threat to international security and stability which springs from that.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, we are not dealing with a non-proliferation regime; we are dealing with non-proliferation anarchy. I do not believe that even the Soviet military know how many weapons it possesses. I returned from Lithuania last week. I am told that there have been active sales of T.72 tanks for the price of £30,000 which previously sold for £1 million.
I am sure that there is no difficulty in negotiating with either Yeltsin or Kravchuk, or any other leaders. The problem is whether or not they can deliver. With regard to intercontinental ballistic missiles, before anybody can press the button the chief of staff must be consulted and so on. But with regard to the small atomic weapons—land mines and artillery shells—some of them weigh less than 40 kilos each. Two of those can be transported in a mini-van. Above all, they are mostly operated by mechanical locks by the local commander and soldiers.
When I was there a few months ago I was told that some of the Lithuanian people who deal with Kazakhstan, Byelorussia and the Ukraine, found that they could not obtain accommodation in hotels in

91
Minsk, Kiev and Kazakhstan. The reason was that the place was full of Pakistanis, Libyans and Iranians all shopping around for what the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Wade, described as skilled people who can be seduced or induced to come down.
In Kazakhstan, which is a Moslem country where fundamentalist Moslems are active, it may be not only a matter of simple bribery or commercial considerations; they may think that it is fair to allow a fellow Moslem country such as Iran to have the benefit of atomic weapons. I am told that shells can be fired from any standard Soviet artillery piece. They will probably not be aiming for the United States right across the Atlantic, but any threat may arise from a quarrel between two generals.
The likelihood of Yeltsin or Kravchuk eventually staying in power is at best a moderate one. Eventually it will be a showdown between military men who believe that they are able to impose order where at the moment anarchy rules. Therefore, first, no treaty can be negotiated with people who cannot deliver. We are looking at a shifting situation. How does one counteract it? As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pointed out and as the noble Lord, Lord Cheshire, mentioned in his memorable maiden speech, the best way is active intelligence on the spot. It is not difficult. At one time one did not even know where the atomic weapons were constructed. Now, if one goes to Vilnius in Lithuania, they will tell you where the plutonium is made, where the steel cases are made and so on. It is all quite open. What is required is the monitoring of precisely what is happening.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships a joke that I was told in Vilnius. Two chaps were in the market place selling brooms. One said to the other, "I steal the stems; I steal the string; I steal the bristle and you undercut me". The other chap said, "Yes, because I steal complete brooms". Unlike Saddam Hussein, one no longer needs large amounts of capital to build up atomic capability; one can find the ready made articles and hire the total team. It only requires nine men to handle one of those units.
What might deter is stabilisation of the country. At the moment there is one thing on which the Baltic countries and Ukraine are agreed, and that is anti-sovietism and anti-bolshevism which changed into anti-Russianism. When one is in Lithuania one has the feeling that it is not a country with one president and 3.5 million people, but a country with 3.5 million presidents trying to run the country in different ways.
One factor becomes very clear even when one is in the country for only a very few days. There is the feeling that things will not stay the same. When things move, the situation will go to extremes and become neo-fascist. Some of your Lordships may remember the days of the Weimar Republic. What is happening now in the East is inflation, anarchy, total disbelief that a government can deliver and total cynicism against any ruler or politician. People in the queues now refer not to the bad old days, but to the good old
92
days because now they queue in bitter frost for three hours to buy bread. They say "at one time at least we used to have our ration and now we do not have that".
Stability is very fragile. Any change will be inevitably a change to the extremes. The only factor that could prevent that and allow the present governments which were democratically elected, especially in the Baltic states, to continue is if they could show a visible sign of improvement. I do not mean an improvement in terms of having the British standard of living, but an improvement in terms of having soap, razor blades and things of that kind.
The experience of Gorbachev has not been lost on everybody else. He relied on the West. Democracy is not now considered to be the panacea by the broad masses. If one took a conscious decision to show positive steps in helping the people to raise their standards of living and to alleviate their shortages, that could save the present situation, otherwise it will deteriorate.
The interesting point is that the Germans and the Japanese are the only countries which have moved in in force. The German Government are not necessarily sending food, but they are buying up complete plants and joint ventures. The Japanese are doing the same thing in the Far East on the Siberian side. If the West wants to give positive signs—taking an example from our way of life—if we were to deliver some signal, the situation might improve and the present rulers who are in charge now may have a chance to survive. If that does not happen then we can discuss from now until Doomsday what treaties should be made, but there will be no one to treat with. The failure to support Gorbachev when there was still a chance may be deemed by history to be the biggest mistake that the West has made. Now is possibly the last chance to do something about that.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I believe that we are all agreed that the problem of nuclear proliferation has become vastly more urgent and disturbing. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for raising the subject. We are probably also agreed that the major cause is the break-up of the Soviet Union closely followed by the related problem of the nuclear arms race in the Middle East. We are also worried because of the revelations, as a result of the Gulf War, of the limitations on the traditional methods of inspection and control of the IAEA.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who said that there are now four republics with nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. I believe that he was referring to strategic nuclear weapons.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, that is right.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, if we take tactical nuclear weapons into account I believe it is true to say that they are in at least seven of the new republics and it may be more. It may be that 11 of the new republics have them. It is a nightmarish situation. There are more than 25,000 nuclear warheads spread over at least seven, possibly 11, new republics. Some of the republics are very small and very unstable. Until quite

93
recently there were hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons located in Georgia. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us about that because as far as I know they are still there, but under whose control? It seems doubtful that they are under the control of the Russians if they are in Georgia.
What about the Georgian Government and which Georgian Government? It is a nightmarish situation. Are these weapons beyond the reach of terrorists and of corrupt politicians? Are they beyond the reach of the agents of Libya and Iran? Perhaps I may ask a specific question of the Minister: can he confirm or deny that three tactical nuclear weapons have been sold to Iran for 150 million dollars? I very much hope that the Minister can deny that, but there is no reason to disbelieve it because it seems all too possible in the existing situation.
One begins to feel nostalgia for the old East-West balance of terror. How simple, effective and successful it was! It produced the splendid START agreement which is now falling apart as a result of the new developments in what was the Soviet Union. We have all been exchanging views on the nightmarish situation, but what can we recommend the Government to do? It is very difficult to say. I believe I heard someone say that the new republics should accede to the non-proliferation treaty. To do that while they still have nuclear weapons would result in the worst solution of all. That would mean seven or 11 new nuclear countries which would be proliferation on a gigantic scale. It would set an example to other countries, such as India or the Middle East countries, to do the same. The worst solution of all is to have the republics accede to the non-proliferation treaty while still keeping their nuclear weapons.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I believe that there is a slight intellectual dichotomy or confusion here. The point of requiring the new republics to accede to the non-proliferation treaty is that they will become non-nuclear powers.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, of course the noble Lord meant that. In fact, I do not believe that he said it. If they accede to the treaty as non-nuclear powers, that is what needs to be done. But that means that they must get rid of their nuclear weapons first. First, catch your hen and then enjoy your egg. The difficult problem is what to do with the nuclear weapons which they now have. If they are yielded to the Russians, for instance, in the absence of an effective commonwealth, if, as they should be, these weapons are yielded wholly to Russian control, that is probably the safest thing. That is what the Government should go for. The weapons should be located and listed. There should be insistence upon complete Russian control of the nuclear weapons. It does not mean that the Russians have to withdraw them from the territories of the republics. The republics can still be non-nuclear members of the non-proliferation treaty and keep Russian nuclear weapons on their soil just as the Americans, for a long time, kept their nuclear weapons on German soil.
However, the essential thing that the Government should go for is Russian control over all these nuclear
94
weapons, and no recognition either of Russia or any of the other republics until this is done in the nuclear field. That is vital and it is the best action I can think of to recommend the Government to take.
Before turning to the Middle East, perhaps I may pick up a remark from the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He said, in opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the old argument against vertical proliferation—indeed, about the whole system—that the nuclear powers were keeping their weapons and stopping the others getting them, was like a drunkard preaching temperance. I side here with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the nuclear powers were reducing their nuclear weapons, is not true of this country.
It gives me an opportunity to remind the Government that so far from helping in this process with their nuclear policy, they are increasing enormously the nuclear capability of the United Kingdom. Not only is Trident a vastly more powerful system under their arrangements than Polaris, but they are adding an entirely new tactical air-to-surface nuclear missile system. What kind of a contribution to non-proliferation is that? That is vertical proliferation of the worst and least necessary kind.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but this is a very interesting debate and for once a real debate. The point about Article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty is that it requires the nuclear powers to begin the process of nuclear disarmament. My point was that that has begun. I fully accept that neither the French nor the British—nor, as far as I know, the Chinese—have any intention at the moment of reducing the level of their nuclear striking forces. But I make the point that the nuclear powers have begun this process in strategic arms negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. I do not want to go any further and become involved in the question of Trident.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, two of the nuclear countries have started the process of disarmament. But my point is a fair one that the others have not begun the process of disarmament, and the British have begun the process of increasing our nuclear capability in the ways that I have suggested. However, this is by the way.
I want to say a word about the nuclear arms race in the Middle East, which was well described by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Here one has to avoid double standards. One has to begin by noting that there is at present an Israeli nuclear monopoly in the Middle East achieved with French and American assistance at a time when the United States was most emphatically insisting on non-proliferation all over the world; penalising the Pakistanis unless they agreed, and so on. It was turning a blind eye to the nuclearisation of Israel's defence forces.
I believe that a speaker said in this debate that Israel cannot be expected to achieve non-proliferation in the Middle East. However, it is the fault of Israel that she started the process of proliferation. But it has done no good to her. It may be that it can be argued

95
that it backed up her territorial expansion. However, the weapons are, in practice, unusable except as suicide weapons. Yet inevitably—predictably—the Arab neighbours and Iran have responded and have searched for their own nuclear capability. They can hardly be blamed for that.
The great problem is how on earth to avoid a major nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It has to involve all the countries in the Middle East, including Israel. Any idea that one can ban Moslem atomic bombs and permit Jewish atomic bombs is so impracticable and unprincipled as to be not worth discussing. It has to be all countries. All the countries of the region have to be organised into a non-nuclear region. It is not impossible. It has been done before, but it requires statesmanship from Israel.
Here I come on to the next point that I want to make. It requires a very great strengthening of IAEA. I think here I parted company from the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Surely the experience in Iraq shows that vastly stronger powers need to be given to the IAEA. That must be so. If in the Middle East we are to have a non-nuclear zone, we are not going to get Israel to dispense with its nuclear weapons unless it is 100 per cent. certain that the new non-proliferation regime, that the powers of the IAEA are sufficient to make certain that her neighbours and Iran and Pakistan do not have these weapons.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, surely that is the whole point. How can one strengthen the atomic energy regime without giving it such power that it itself has to have force? The purpose of having the treaty is to be able to isolate those countries that are not conforming to the treaty. Then there can be international activity against them. That I think is accepted and understood. However, when it is said that we must give the Atomic Energy Commission more authority, from where will that authority come? Who is going to give it the power to force the point? That is the difficulty.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the authority will be the Security Council: the same body that has given the IAEA authority to take the most drastic measures against Iraq. It might be worth my reading out Security Council Resolution No. 687 laying down the powers of the IAEA in relation to Iraq. The Security Council granted the agency:
"inspection rights such as unlimited movement of inspectors within Iraq, full access at any time to all locations, persons and information as deemed necessary by the IAEA for verification purposes, including unannounced inspections, ongoing notification of inventories of nuclear materials and installations and of the changes therein; the right to restrict or bar movement of suspected material or equipment; and submission of information on planned installations six months before starting construction".
That is draconian. I do not deny that that is interventionist.
However, I ask: is it not worth paying the price to have something on these lines applicable universally? We are not going to get nuclear-free zones in the Middle East unless people can rely on the observance
96
of IAEA's restrictions by other countries. It can be done. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned Korea. That is a very good example.
However, considering the outlook for nonproliferation and for this agency, I feel that apart from the Middle East and apart from the break up of the Soviet Union, in recent years, there has been a success story. Korea was a success story. The South Africans have agreed to accede to the treaty; and there is a prospect now of the whole continent of Africa being nuclear-free. The Argentines and the Brazilians have agreed to accede and to exchange mutual information. That opens the prospect of an entirely nuclear-free Latin America and Caribbean. Those are achievements. The French have recently agreed to accede. The Chinese are about to accede to the NPT and thus end their wicked career of supplying nuclear technology to Algeria, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan. These successes can be built on. Perhaps I may say at this point how glad I am to see that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, is taking a keen interest in this debate. It shows an appreciation of the topicality and importance of this subject.
Good guidelines on the powers needed in Iraq are necessary for an effective, universal, non-proliferation regime. I am glad to know that the board of governors and the director general of the agency are to discuss next month just this question of strengthening those powers in that way. I note that the director general said recently that the world could have an effective, universal, non-proliferation regime in place by 1995. He may be optimistic but it is the duty of all of us to do all we can to see that he succeeds.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend, Lord Kennet, for asking this Unstarred Question. I say without qualification that it is the most important question facing the international community today. As the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, said, we have to recognise that there is a serious danger of nuclear proliferation and we have to try to do what we can to stop it. Even though the attendance has been small and the attention from the Press Gallery has been limited on this important topic, this has been one of the most constructive and interesting debates that I have attended in the House. I believe that the Government will read with enormous interest what has been said by noble Lords.
The main question which arises from the debate is to what extent the treaties cited by my noble friend in his Unstarred Question have relevance today in the light of the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, rightly pointed out that the non-proliferation treaty has had many successes. The noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Kennet pointed to Korea and South Africa. They pointed also to France and China. We must welcome those developments. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lord Kagan put his finger on the point when he said that the old Soviet Union, which is disintegrating into anarchy, and the successor republics cannot be relied upon to observe any of the treaties signed by previous

97
administrations of the Soviet Union or indeed previous administrations of the republics themselves. That is the point we must consider today.
Where exactly are we in this connection? There are 3,000 to 5,000 Soviet scientists with direct experience of nuclear technology, the production of plutonium and uranium enrichment. A further 2,000 are experts in weapons design. As my noble friend Lord Kagan pointed out, the head-hunters are already in place. Iraq, Libya, Syria and possibly Algeria—and even Israel, I understand—are head-hunting in the former Soviet Union. What do we do about the Soviet nuclear brain-drain? If we can do nothing about it—it is difficult to see what we can do about it—what do we do about the outright sale of nuclear materials? As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, what do we do about the sale of tactical nuclear weapons out of the Soviet Union? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, will be able to reply.
Even if we can answer those questions, what do we do about the problem of the delivery systems that are not ABMs or anything of that kind but are simply housed in suitcases? What do we do about a terrorist who appears in Whitehall or in the Champs-Elysées with a suitcase which happens to contain a newly-constructed nuclear device? These questions will have to be answered within the next decade or else the whole world will be blown up.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I confess that I have no specific answers. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made the same point. We must rely on what we have. We have the non-proliferation treaty. It has been to a certain extent a success, but to make it a greater success we have, as other noble Lords have argued, to make sure that the enforcement procedures are much stricter than they are at present. I do not object to the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the IAEA should have the power of inspection by challenge. It should be able to go in at any point, use the authority of the United Nations Security Council and say, "We believe that you are doing something against the NPT and we want to know about it. We have the right to do so". I do not believe that we can operate any system other than severely controlled satellite-based intelligence techniques, maintained and developed under the IAEA. Certainly suitable information—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, used the word "sanitised" —should be made available to the public.
I do not believe that we can operate a system to control what is an enormously difficult situation—that is especially so in the Middle East—unless we accept that we ourselves in the United Kingdom must stop nuclear testing. We have to make a gesture. The gesture that I suggest is that we should stop testing and invite everyone else to do the same.
The post-Gulf War investigation in Iraq showed that the existing techniques of monitoring who is developing a nuclear weapon capability are sadly deficient. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, argued that we should not muck about with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the 1995 revision.
98
Nevertheless, I believe that the rules of the nuclear suppliers' club, known as the London Club, should be included in any revision of the treaty.
My noble friend has raised an extremely complex and important problem. Most noble Lords have said what I intended to say. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, made a very impressive contribution. I believed half of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, although I would differ with him on the role of the SDI as a mechanism for ensuring that the Soviet Union broke up and finally disappeared. I agreed almost entirely, unusually so, with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. His were words of very great wisdom and great persuasiveness.
I very much hope that we shall have another debate on the matter. I also hope that such a debate will be one of the full House at a proper time and in a manner which is dignified for this House. I return to what I said at the beginning. In my view, this is the most important issue facing this country and our world at this time. I think that it is a shame and a disgrace that we should be having a debate in this House at this time of night on a matter which is of such great importance.
Nevertheless, having said that, I must again express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Kennet for raising the issue. It is to be hoped that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who is sitting courteously on the Front Bench will take the matter away for the Government and will stimulate from that side of the House a further debate in the not too distant future.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for bringing this extremely important issue of non-proliferation before the House tonight. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, it has been an excellent debate. My colleagues will read what has been said with the greatest possible care. The Gulf War has brought home to all of us the importance of non-proliferation of all forms of weapons of mass destruction and has highlighted the need for the international community to redouble its efforts to achieve this objective.
Iraq's billion dollar endeavours to try to build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction are a sobering reminder of what a ruthless and dedicated proliferator can do.
Further, the implications for the non-proliferation regime of the disintegration of the Soviet Union are still far from clear. There is plainly a danger that it will lead to a proliferation of weapons, weapons technology and, as has been said, the movement of key scientists. We and our NATO allies have impressed upon the newly independent republics our concerns. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be reinforcing that when he visits Russia, the Ukraine and Kazakhstan later this week. I accept that there are few issues which rank as important as the one which we are debating tonight.
The House will need no reminding of the uniquely destructive nature of nuclear weapons in particular. The prospect of such instruments in the hands of irresponsible and irrational men is a very frightening one. It was with the purpose of trying to avoid just

99
such an eventuality that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was concluded in 1968, entering into force in 1970.
The NPT has since become the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. As a depositary state for the treaty we have a special interest in it and we attach the greatest importance to our responsibilities in this field.
We should recognise the great success of the NPT. Here I take issue a little with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. It remains the most successful arms control treaty in existence. Well over 140 countries are now states parties to the NPT. The NPT has established nuclear non-proliferation as the norm and ensured that proliferators cannot claim respectability.
Since it is germane to this debate, I should like to take this opportunity to correct a few points of detail raised in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in the House last Thursday when he talked about those states which have not signed or ratified the treaty. I hope that he will not mind me pointing out that, contrary to what is in the Official Report, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar are already parties to the non-proliferation treaty. The noble Lord also raised the question of Algeria. Although that country is not a party to the NPT, it has stated clearly that the reactor which China is supplying will be placed under IAEA safeguards. We understand that the agreement will be put to the board this February. We hope that the IAEA will be able to visit the site in the very near future.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked as a sort of broad question, reflecting what I believe he felt to be the whole tenure of the debate, whether any of these treaties were still relevant. After reading the background to the debate and listening to what has been said, I am struck by the fact that, even if we cannot look for guarantees or even if I cannot stand here and say that we can attach this or that amount of weight to any particular guarantee, it is significant when a new nation seeking the respectability about which I was talking is asked to address a problem and says that it will do so. It is trying to make its way in the new world in which it finds itself.
I continue now to talk about the success of the treaty. There are still only five states which have declared that they have nuclear weapons—the same number as when the treaty was opened for signature over 20 years ago. We should not forget that the prospect of 20 or 30 states equipped with nuclear weapons, which so many people foresaw in the 1960s, has not come to pass. We should be grateful for that fact.
Further, the significant accessions to the treaty since the Gulf War, including that of South Africa, as well as the decisions of China, as has been mentioned, and France in principle to accede, are eloquent testimony in themselves of the international community's continuing faith in the NPT.
As a depositary state for the treaty, the United Kingdom has worked hard to encourage such accessions and will continue to work for others. The NPT remains the only global instrument through
100
which states can make a formal commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. It provides a framework for stability and it remains an indispensable feature of regional and global security.
Nevertheless, the experience with Iraq has highlighted certain shortcomings in the workings of the regime. These need to be addressed urgently if international confidence is to be maintained. Those issues are being tackled and the United Kingdom is playing an active role in the process. Work is going on in the International Atomic Energy Agency on the strengthening of safeguards. Together with our European Community partners and other like-minded states, we have given strong support for this process, and put forward our own specific proposals. These include the greater use of special inspections, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Such inspections can provide a mechanism whereby undeclared but suspect nuclear sites can be visited.
The problem of undeclared sites is fundamental and limits the effectiveness of the present safeguards system. Special inspections can help to ensure that other states parties to the NPT do not follow Iraq's example and pursue an entirely covert nuclear weapons programme. The UK has long advocated greater use of such inspections and stands ready to provide whatever help it can to the IAEA to make sure that such a system will work.
Other things are also being done to buttress the non-proliferation regime. Supplier controls play a vital role in restraining the transfer of equipment for use in a covert weapons programme. Again, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned that point.
The UK has always been a strong advocate of strict controls and we have been active in promoting them. We therefore welcomed the reactivation in 1991 of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and strongly supported work to draw up a regime to control nuclear dual-use items. The use of such items seems to have been key to Iraq's programme. We have played our part in this work and hope that it can be finished before the full NSG meets again next spring.
In this context I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that, in an effort to strengthen the barriers against nuclear proliferation, the UK decided on 24th September last year to adopt a policy of full-scope safeguards as a condition of nuclear supply. This means that Britain will not allow the export of any significant new supplies of nuclear materials to any country, other than the nuclear weapons states, where there are any nuclear installations not subject to IAEA safeguards.
We are not complacent. There will no doubt be other challenges. As I have said, the implications for the non-proliferation regime of the disintegration of the Soviet Union are still anything but clear. In the face of such challenges the proposed improvements I have described obviously cannot guarantee that the non-proliferation regime will be watertight. The UK cannot solve the problems unilaterally, but, with vital international co-operation between supplier countries to stem the kind of procurement activity carried out by Iraq and others, we are optimistic that the

101
improvements will make a significant contribution to such an objective. We believe that it is by seeking to strengthen the existing instruments of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, not by seeking to create new ones, that we can best pursue our objectives. I sense that that was the mood of the debate tonight. In the final analysis our best hopes lie in universal adherence to the NPT and full compliance with its provisions. It is because of our faith in the treaty that we shall work for its indefinite extension in 1995. We call upon all like-minded nations to join us in this endeavour.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has also raised the question of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Before I address that question specifically, I should like to say something about the missile technology control regime. We and our G7 partners established the missile technology control regime in April 1987. The regime is designed to prevent the proliferation of missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. The use by Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War of missiles against civilian targets has further underlined the need to prevent the spread of these uniquely destabilising systems. The MTCR has an important role to play in countering that threat.
The regime has had significant successes. The efforts of MTCR members have led to some missile programmes being stalled or even abandoned. But there is clearly much more which can be done to reduce this threat and we and our partners are seeking every opportunity to improve the regime yet further.
As a result of the drive to expand the regime, launched in London in 1989, membership has grown to 18 countries, thereby bringing into the regime a number of key suppliers of missile technology. We hope to see further expansion, and continue to urge all states to abide by the MTCR guidelines. We are also looking at how to involve the other major suppliers and emerging suppliers of missile technology, who are not currently members.
There is also concern about missiles with payloads below the current MTCR parameters, which could be used to deliver chemical and biological weapons. While we and our partners agree that it would be desirable to cover these, it may be that changes to the scope of the regime would create practical difficulties and undermine the present effectiveness of the regime. In consequence, we are urgently examining these issues with our partners.
We continue to look at ways to toughen implementation. We have recently adopted a revised and updated list of the technology covered by the regime, and are looking at ways to improve harmonisation of implementation by all the member countries.
As far as the ABM treaty is concerned, US activity on ballistic missile defence was centred originally on the concept of a strategic layered defensive system against attack from long-range missiles. We know that Soviet research was focused on similar areas.
In response to the much reduced threat of an all-out Soviet nuclear attack, President Bush announced in January 1991 the refocusing of the SDI programme as Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). The more modest objectives of GPALS are to protect
102
against accidental, unauthorised or limited ballistic missile attacks against the US and its allies, and threats of the sort which the world faced in Iraq 12 months ago.
The development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems by the US and the Soviet Union is governed by the ABM treaty and its 1974 protocol which, among other things, prohibits the testing or deployment of space-based ABM interceptors and limits the permitted numbers of fixed ground-based launchers. By maintaining confidence in the deterrent capability of strategic nuclear arsenals, the ABM treaty has made an important contribution to stability and to the reduction of tension and prevention of large-scale war.
However, given developments in technology and the threat presented by the wider proliferation of ballistic missile capabilities, the US has frequently spoken of the need to re-examine the treaty in its existing form and has on occasion discussed this with the Soviet Union, without result. For instance, the US Congress has urged the President to begin negotiation of some amendments to the treaty provisions in order to accommodate defences against new potential threats. The US has also indicated its intention to deploy an ABM treaty-compliant system for defence of the US before the end of the century.
Although the ABM treaty's interpretation and future is a matter for the two signatories, we do of course have a strong interest in the treaty in so far as it affects the effectiveness of our own deterrent. We and our NATO partners have been kept closely in touch with the re-orientation of SDI towards GPALS, and would be consulted about any review of the treaty which the US was considering.
The United Kingdom continues its full support for the SDI programme and has, along with other US allies, participated in SDI-related research. UK participation is intended to enhance our research capability in areas of high technology relevant to both defence and civil programmes. It has resulted in awards of research contracts to British companies.
At present GPALS remains a research initiative. Deployment of space-based elements would be a matter for negotiation. We hope that the dialogue which the United States has established hitherto with the authorities in the Soviet Union—that is the old Soviet Union—will lead to improved understanding on strategic defences.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but could the noble Lord please explain what he means by "the old Soviet Union"? Which authorities are being engaged in discussion?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we are talking with everyone. As the noble Lord may have heard me say, we are dealing with Russia as the continuation of the Soviet Union. We are also dealing with the various republics. We have given recognition to the republics in some cases but in other cases, for reasons which I have given, we have not yet done so. We still feel dialogue is relevant and will make a contribution to overall strategic stability.

103
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me to comment on what might be done in respect of nuclear weapons situated in the old Soviet Union—I hope that I may use that term again. We and our allies have made clear to the leaders of the former Soviet republics the importance we attach to ensuring safe, responsible and reliable control of nuclear weapons and to preventing their proliferation. At the North Atlantic Council Meeting on 19th December, NATO foreign ministers announced that the Alliance was ready to respond as fully as possible to requests for practical assistance in achieving those objectives. The President of the United States has already offered to discuss the safe transportation, storage and dismantling of nuclear weapons with the relevant authorities. The US Congress has voted 400 million dollars for practical assistance with that task.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, why is this being done through NATO and not through the United Nations?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: No, my Lords, I cannot answer that at present. I should be able to answer the noble Lord, but I shall certainly inquire about the matter and write to him. Reference has also been made to the proposals between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gorbachev. We welcome the far-reaching proposals of Mr. Bush and the positive response made by President Gorbachev which together will mean the global elimination of nuclear artillery shells and nuclear warheads for short range missiles, the withdrawal of maritime tactical nuclear weapons and the standing down from alert status of strategic bombers.
Those proposals mark a potential turning point and fully accord with our own policy of working for secure defence at a lower level of armaments. I particularly wish to emphasise that point as leaders of the new Commonwealth have undertaken to honour Gorbachev's proposals to eliminate tactical nuclear weapons. The commitment made at Alma-Ata to withdraw tactical nuclear weapons by July 1992 for dismantling under joint supervision is a positive step forward in this objective.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, what the Minister is saying surely is a little outdated. I am afraid that the agreement on tactical nuclear weapons with Mr. Gorbachev is meaningless. There is no one now to carry it out.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I made the point that nothing is certain any longer in that part of the world. I cannot say the news is all good news, but I am saying that the people who even for the time being are taking responsibility have at least made the gesture of accepting the responsibilities of the former leaders. To that extent I believe that the commitment I have mentioned must be described as encouraging news. It is for the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, to decide how much weight he wishes to attach to it. I cannot guide him on that.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I apologise for again intervening, but this has been such a good debate that
104
it would be a shame if anything confusing were left in the air. Perhaps I may approach the matter in another way. Have Her Majesty's Government any reason to believe that the Republic of Russia under Mr. Yeltsin will honour any of the agreements arrived at between the United States and the Soviet Union? If they have information to that effect, it is of course encouraging.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I can go no further than say that I think the indications are that the new leaders wish to take that responsibility. That is what we, our allies and partners are working for. To that extent we can feel encouraged. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about our involvement with Arrow. The co-operation between the United States and Israel on the Arrow programme is carried out under the terms of a bilateral memorandum of understanding between those two countries. Interpretation of the ABM treaty is not in this context a matter for the UK. I hope the optimism—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we know that. The point is we want to know what the British Government's policy is towards the action of the United States in helping Israel to develop a medium range ABM system. Are we helping that development? If we are not helping it physically or financially, do we think the policy of the United States is correct or incorrect? I asked that question in my speech and I also asked it in a letter that I wrote to the Minister in advance of this debate.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked the question on a number of occasions. As I said, the matter is subject to the memorandum between the United States and Israel, and from our point of view it is a defensive development so far as concerns Israel. I am afraid that I cannot be drawn further on that matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the noble Lord help me once more? Does he know whether we are helping physically or financially in the Arrow development? If he does not know, will he find out and let the House know in due course? If he does know, will he tell us fairly and squarely whether or not it is confidential?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is a bilateral agreement. That has been made perfectly clear to the noble Lord on a number of occasions. I am sorry that we cannot go further.
The noble Lord also asked me about North Korea. I hope that the optimism which has been expressed about North Korea is well founded. We understand that North Korea is about to sign a safeguard agreement with the IAEA. We welcome that news. We look forward to the agreement's speedy ratification and implementation.
My noble friend Lord Wade spoke of the danger of proliferation of ABM technology. I can assure him that ABM technology is closely held between the United States and the signatories to the bilateral memoranda.
Several questions were asked and there was some speculation about how the NPT will be taken forward, renewed or brought to an end. It is my understanding

105
that it does not end but is extended in phases. The next extension conference will be in 1995. My noble friend Lord Wade raised the question of proliferation resulting from the exodus of Soviet nuclear scientists. Naturally that is a matter giving rise to great anxiety. The UK is consulting closely with the United States and our other NATO partners on ways to prevent proliferation. We have made our anxieties known. the possible effects of Soviet scientists selling their expertise is one of the major problems which is receiving attention. We have made it clear to the individual republics that their approach to nonproliferation will be crucial in developing our bilateral relations with them.
I noted with interest the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that advanced intelligence currently targeted on immediate defence should be switched to give additional strength to the nonproliferation effort. I should be very pleased to investigate that matter and see whether any further thought has been given to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke of an alleged sale of tactical nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union to Iran. I can say that I am aware only of the press reports and have no confirmation of the matter. Having been alerted to the possibility we shall continue to monitor the situation.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Chalfont, that all republics except Russia should fulfil the commitment which most have already made to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states, leaving Russia as the continuing nuclear weapon state. That is what we are urging them to do.
I hope that I have dealt with the questions which have been raised. These are vital issues. They touch on the security of this country and on the security of the whole world. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to place the highest possible priority on meeting the challenges which the non-proliferation regime will undoubtedly face in the years to come.

Croydon Tramlink Bill [H.L.] Durham Markets Company Bill [H.L.] Humber Bridge Bill [H.L.] Llanelli Borough Council (River Lliedi) Bill [H.L.] London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.] Price's Patent Candle Company Limited Bill [H.L.] River Humber (Upper Burcom Cooling Works) Bill [H.L.] River Humber (Upper Pyewipe Outfall) Bill [H.L.] River Usk Barrage Bill [H.L.] South West Water (St. Ives) Bill [H.L.] South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill [H.L.] Ulster Bank Bill [H.L.]
Presented and read a first time.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 23rd DECEMBER
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL, 23rd DECEMBER
  WEU: TURKISH MEMBERSHIP
  WEU: TURKISH MEMBERSHIP
  WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACCOUNT
  WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME IMMEDIATE RESPONSE ACCOUNT
  KNOW-HOW FUND
  KNOW-HOW FUND
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ESPOO CONVENTION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ESPOO CONVENTION
  HOUSES FOR RENT
  HOUSES FOR RENT
  MORTGAGE REPOSSESSIONS, LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING
  MORTGAGE REPOSSESSIONS, LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING
  ESPOO CONVENTION
  ESPOO CONVENTION
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: ADDITIONAL FUNDING
  SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE: ADDITIONAL FUNDING
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT 1948: CONSOLIDATION
  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT 1948: CONSOLIDATION
  DEMENTIA SUFFERERS: AVAILABILITY OF HOSPITAL BEDS
  DEMENTIA SUFFERERS: AVAILABILITY OF HOSPITAL BEDS
  FAMILY HEALTH SERVICE AUTHORITIES: REMIT
  FAMILY HEALTH SERVICE AUTHORITIES: REMIT