Sitting of 16 June 1992

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

  GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  RIVER HUMBER (UPPER PYEWIPE OUTFALL) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    South Birmingham Health Authority
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings she or officials from her Department have had with Sir James Ackers or other officials of West Midlands regional health authority in respect of the deficit faced by South Birmingham health authority.
    The Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Officials from my Department have held a number of meetings with the West Midlands regional health authority to discuss this matter.
    Mr. Burden: Is the Minister aware that news of the multi-million pound cash crisis facing South Birmingham health authority started to filter out at the end of February this year, but was hushed up until after the general election? Is he also aware that the report into the causes of the crisis has still not been published, but the people of Birmingham are faced with proposals to close hospitals such as the Royal Orthopaedic hospital, the Accident hospital and several others? Will the Minister intervene to ensure that the report into the causes of the crisis is made public straight away? Will he further intervene to ensure that all options are considered before decisions are taken and that the people of south Birmingham will not be forced to suffer hospital closures as a result of financial mismanagement or Government underfunding, or both?
    Mr. Sackville: As the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as the problem came to light, a report into its causes was commissioned from KPMG Peat, Marwick, McLintock. Extra money was allocated to the district to ensure continuity of service and also that all bills were being paid on time. Extra money is to be allocated over the next three years to ensure that the proposed action plan will come into effect smoothly and cause no disruption to service.
    760
    The hon. Gentleman also knows that the report is a technical report to the region, which will have to decide whether and when it will be published.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that his denial of the allegation of any hushing up will be warmly welcomed by those in the west midlands who know the true facts? Is he also aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is mixing up two totally different issues? The first is the need to balance the books when there is underspending and the second is the BHB—Building a Healthy Birmingham plan—which is connected with the hospital closures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The two have nothing to do with each other.
    Mr. Sackville: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When Opposition Members see any change in the health service, they attack it. In the current case we are dealing with a £500 million capital investment plan to provide better and more modern hospital facilities for Opposition Members' constituents. That is what they are attacking.

    Residential Homes
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any proposals to change the current arrangements for the monitoring and inspection of private care or nursing homes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): We have no plans to change the existing statutory arrangements. In England and Wales health authorities remain responsible for registration and inspection of independent nursing homes and local authorities for registration and inspection of care homes.
    Mr. McAllion: Has the Minister read the recent report by the Royal College of Nursing, which reveals that the placement of elderly people in residential care has little or nothing to do with the level of care required or with the wishes of the old people themselves, and everything to do with keeping costs down and a lack of adequate available accommodation? The RCN also warned that the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, due to come into force next year, will do nothing to change a situation that it describes as a scandal waiting to happen. The Minister has been warned by those who should know. What does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Yeo: I wholly reject the second conclusion that the hon. Gentleman cited from the RCN report. We are confident that when the new arrangements come into effect next year, the process of assessment that everyone will undergo will ensure that an individually tailored care package appropriate to their needs will be available. Some people may be able to stay at home, some may go into residential homes and some may go into nursing homes. Whatever the appropriate solution is, it will be found.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend will be aware that monitoring homes costs money. Is he aware that county council authorities that have a relatively small number of private homes but a large number of social services departments find that they are penalised under the standard spending assessment arrangements? Cambridgeshire is a particular example. Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider that and to talk to my right

    761
    hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the composition of the SSA as it relates to care homes?
    Mr. Yeo: Decisions about SSAs are taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is a Cambridgeshire Member and will take a close interest in the Cambridgeshire SSA for personal social services expenditure.

    Community Care
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress on the implementation of community care.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We set out the timetable for implementing our community care reforms in 1990. Many of them have already been achieved. We are on course to achieve the remainder by April 1993.
    Mr. Griffiths: How does the Minister reconcile that with the statement by the Institute of Health Services Management that the Government have inadequately planned and inadequately funded community care? Social services departments are being starved of the £134 million that they need for community care this year. How does the hon. Gentleman expect tens of thousands of carers to meet the needs of disabled relatives when the Government are doing so little?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The Government are doing a considerable amount—indeed, we have just had the second round of reports from local authorities, and those reports show that the authorities are making steady progress towards implementing the arrangements that must be in place.
    Mr. Griffiths: Not true.
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is true. I am quoting from reports that we have just received. Funding will be considered within the public expenditure survey, and decisions on that have not yet been announced.
    Mr. Sims: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his intention that the private sector should play an important role in community care? As he studies the community care plans submitted by local authorities, will he satisfy himself that the private sector has been involved in the preparation of those plans and that it will be involved in their implementation?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance that we attach to giving people a clear choice in the homes to which they go. I also believe that the public generally attach some importance to having that choice. I assure my hon. Friend that, as we continue to progress towards the implementation of this important reform, we shall certainly bear in mind the point that he has made and will want to try to ensure that local authorities relate not only to the independent sector of provision but to health authorities, and GPs, because it is in the interests of everyone—primarily of users and their carers—that there should be a seamless robe as between the various statutory organisations.
    Ms. Lynne: Does the Minister accept that, without adequate resources for community care, there will be a disaster in April? May we have a commitment today that those resources will be provided and that they will be ring-fenced?
    Dr. Mawhinney: We have already made it clear a number of times that we shall ensure that the policy is adequately resourced, and I make the point to the hon. Lady again today. I understand her concern, but I hope that she will not be too keen to use words such as "disaster". This is an important policy, especially to people in the community who need opportunities for assessment. Many of them want to remain in their own homes, but thus far have not had the option to do so. We are not talking about disasters waiting to happen; we are committing all our efforts, with local authorities, to ensuring that the policy will be a real success.
    Mrs. Currie: Is the Minister aware that there continues to be considerable concern about community care for mentally handicapped people? Will he take an interest in the activities of VOICE, an organisation set up by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Boniface to campaign for better recruitment, training and monitoring of staff in small homes for the mentally handicapped following the recent tragic indecent assault on their daughter Nicole?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention and that of the House to that important matter. I can certainly give her the assurance that she seeks.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister acknowledge that last month's survey by the Directorate of Social Services found wild variations in standards? Is he aware that among the 20 authorities with the worst records in the provision of home helps were Suffolk, represented by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), Cambridgeshire, represented by himself, and, at the very bottom of the table, Surrey, represented by the Secretary of State? Would not it ease their joint embarrassment if Ministers were now to accept the advice of everyone else involved in community care that any extra money should be ring fenced so that those councils must spend it on raising their poor standards?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I do not accept for one moment that the reports which we have just received show that there are "wild variations". Of the 108 local authorities that have reported, all bar one have their assessment plans in place. We shall work with them to develop those plans so that when they are managed with adequate resources we shall have a community care proposal and policy which will be welcomed by users and carers alike. I very much hope that before he leaves his present position—should that turn out to be the case—the hon. Gentleman will throw his weight behind the policy to try, as far as possible, to remove from it any partisan elements for the benefit of the frail and elderly in our community.

    Patients Charter
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in implementing the standards set out in the patients charter.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Considerable progress has been made by the national health service in implementing the patients charter which came into effect on 1 April.
    The public and NHS staff have given the patients charter a warm welcome. The NHS has achieved significant success in putting the patients charter into effect. The efforts of the NHS in responding to and implementing the charter should be recognised.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellence of the care available under the national health service has for far too long been blighted by scant regard for patients' ordinary comfort and convenience, especially in the administration of out-patients departments and investigations? Does not the introduction of the patients charter signal the end of off-hand, inefficient and uncaring bureaucracy?
    Mrs. Bottomley: All agree that the clinical care provided by the national health service has almost invariably been outstanding, but there are times when patients have not felt that they were treated with the courtesy and concern that they would have wished. The provision of information, arrangements for making a complaint and a discussion about their care are all part of making a health service which is truly patient sensitive and patient centred. The NHS has taken the patients charter initiative to its heart and is now providing high-quality services across the country.
    Ms. Glenda Jackson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the patients charter is virtually worthless if patients and staff in the nation's hospitals can be subject to violent and, in the case of one of my constituents, mortal attack by intruders? Does she further agree that an independent inquiry into funding and staffing levels for hospital security is long overdue, and will she take the necessary steps to set in train such an inquiry?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Certainly, the case in the hon. Lady's constituency in which someone was fatally attacked on the third floor while using a telephone was appalling and outrageous. New guidance has been given for hospital security. Hospitals have a difficult balance to strike between being places to which visitors, families and staff can have easy access but at the same time places from which perpetrators of foul crimes can be removed. I understand that inquiries under way at the hospital in question have shown that there was adequate security. Of course, any further lessons will and must be learnt, and we must ensure that the guidance is properly applied throughout the service.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of trust hospitals in helping to carry out the objectives of the patients charter? Is she aware that the Royal Free trust hospital, which has already been mentioned this afternoon, has been responsible for treating many more patients since it became a trust hospital? Should not that be welcomed instead of being criticised by Opposition Members?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be well aware of the habit very quickly acquired by Labour Members of being able to refer to hospitals in their constituencies only by talking about the adverse aspects and the problems that emerge. Conservative Members are very much more ready
    764
    to identify the positive aspects and the work being taken forward, especially in NHS trust hospitals, to deliver the spirit of the patients charter.
    Ms. Harman: The Secretary of State will be aware that the patients charter made very specific promises to patients. One of those promises was that no patient would have to wait for NHS treatment for more than two years. In the first month of the operation of the patients charter, 1,999 people have been waiting for more than two years.
    Another promise made by the patients charter was that nobody would have to wait for an ambulance for more than 14 minutes in an urban area. Is the Secretary of State aware that in London in the first month of the operation of the patients charter, 10,000 people had to wait for more than 14 minutes for their accident and emergency ambulances to arrive? What does she say to all those to whom the Government made promises in the charters and for whom those promises are now broken?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady will be aware that we were deeply disappointed by the small increase in the number waiting for more than two years. The figure amounts to fewer than one patient per hospital throughout the country. The matter must be kept in proportion. Whereas there were 51,000 waiting for more than two years a year ago, the figure is now down to under 2,000.
    Once again, the hon. Lady has taken no trouble to investigate what is happening in a hospital in her constituency. I understand that at King's College hospital, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of patients waiting for less than 30 minutes. The figure for those waiting for less than 30 minutes was 30 per cent. a year ago; it is now 60 per cent. and rising. Better patient information is produced and more is planned. There are improvements in the accident and emergency department; there are improvements in the out-patients' department; there are improvements in the numbers of patients whose appointments are not being cancelled. There are further projects to improve the intensive therapy facilities—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Has the right hon. Lady finished?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There has been a great investment in new ambulances, in trained staff and in the communications service which is being modernised. Like the hon. Lady, I hope that the London ambulance service will continue to improve its standards and the care available to patients.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that patients in all parts of the country have access to NHS dental services.
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to assess the adequacy of the provision of the NHS dental services in all parts of the country.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We are committed to an NHS dental service for the whole country. The Government have built up NHS dentistry; there are 27 per cent. more dentists than in 1979, and more than 7 million more courses of adult dental treatment are carried out every

    765
    year. In most parts of the country, NHS dental treatment is readily available. Where there are difficulties, family health services authorities may make use of long-standing arrangements to employ salaried dentists. As part of our determination to safeguard access to NHS dentistry, my Department wrote yesterday to all FHSAs reminding them of this option.
    Mr. Hain: Surely the Secretary of State must accept that by increasing charges to patients and cutting fees to dentists, she is effectively privatising dental care, especially as many people cannot find an NHS dentist in their area. Instead of playing Mary Poppins, she has become the Cruella de Vil of the national health service.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman should look again at the facts. Our proposals would result in a reduction in the charges to patients. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that dentists on average should earn £35,800. It is proposed that they should keep a further £5,000 on top of that. More than £40,000 is a good salary from any professional standpoint. In addition, it is proposed that there should be an 11.6 per cent. increase in expenses. That is a good salary which should certainly safeguard NHS dental services.
    Mrs. Mahon: Are not the Government increasingly pushing dentistry into the private sector through their policies? Is the right hon. Lady aware that one third of children have not been registered with a National Health Service dentist during the first six months of the new contract? What is she going to do about it? Is she not failing British children?
    Mrs. Bottomley: On the contrary, there are 27 per cent. more dentists than in 1979; almost 30 million people have signed up for continuing care; and, there are about 7 million more adult courses of treatment than in 1979. The NHS dental service is effective. I hope that we can get over the present fee situation and work with dentists for a fundamental review of the way in which they are remunerated.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I recognise dentists' vital role within our national health service, but will my right hon. Friend tell the House that, were dentists allowed to keep the total remuneration that they receive, it would set a sad and dangerous precedent for other vital groups of NHS workers, not least doctors, nurses and paramedics? In an endeavour to bring the unfortunate dispute to an end, is she prepared to discuss with representatives of the dental profession their right to pick and choose their patients?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a number of important points. Certainly, the increase in dentists' income recommended by the review body, at 8.5 per cent., was much higher than that recommended for nurses or doctors. I have to consider not only the interests of dentists, but those of patients and other NHS workers. I hope that the dentists will find their way through the present difficulties. Given present figures, a 23 per cent. fee reduction would be required to deliver that income of £38,500. We are proposing a 7 per cent. fee reduction only, which is sensible and fair. My hon. Friend made other points about the way in which dentists work, which are rightly and properly matters for the
    766
    fundamental review. The Minister and I shall certainly be happy to see all interests concerned with the dentists on that review.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree—
    Several Hon. Members: Reading.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little tolerance in relation to new Members.
    Mr. Sweeney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Dental Association's withdrawal from the dental rates study group is an act of folly? Whatever the disagreements between the Government and the profession about fees, surely it is better for dentists to be fully represented in all negotiations over fees. If they disagree about the figures, is not the DRSG the correct way to discuss it—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would do well with his question if he would sit down now and allow the Minister to answer.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I agree with my hon. Friend, to the extent that the public will be confused if dentists fail to attend the dental rates study group with the independent chairman, because that is the setting in which detailed figures should be discussed and examined. For example, I have heard dentists refer to their expenses, but on each of the last three occasions that that issue was debated it turned out that they had been over rather than underestimated. This year an 11.6 per cent. increase in expenses is proposed. The profession should get back to the dental rates study group to discuss the details.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Secretary of State admit that the current dispute stems from the contract imposed by the Government only two years ago against the wishes of most dentists? If Ministers got their sums wrong then, why should dentists and their patients have to pay the price now? May I warn the Secretary of State that if, as a result of this dispute, more of our constituents are told by their dentists that they will have to go private, we shall not just hold her responsible for privatising the dental service but will suspect that the Government want such a privatised dental service?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the dispute results from the new contract. It is the result of the long-standing method by which we have remunerated dentists, which dates back nearly 40 years. It is time that we reviewed that system of remuneration, which is what the chairman of the review body suggested. We want to make progress on that review as soon as the dispute is settled. Of course, I am concerned about the needs of national health service patients. That is why I have reminded family health services authorities of their power to take on salaried dentists to safeguard the national health dental service. I hope that dentists will think long and hard before turning their backs on an average income, with expenses, of £88,000.

    Patients Charter
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests her Department has received from members of the public for copies of the patients charter since its publication.
    Mr. Sackville: The Department has had nearly 900,000 requests for copies of the patients charter.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the patients charter not only gives rights to potential patients, but demands responsibilities from them? To that end, is he aware of the contents of the national fitness survey issued yesterday by the Health Education Authority, which not only showed that between seven and eight people out of every 10 in this country do not do enough exercise to keep themselves healthy, but that 80 per cent. of the population think that they are fit when they are not, including the parliamentary football team, as it displayed at lunch time? What action will the Government take to ensure that people understand the message, which is so important for good preventive health care?
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend clearly appears before us at the peak of physical fitness. However, having seen the results of the Lords and Commons tug-of-war match yesterday, I am afraid that I cannot apply that comment more generally. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the national fitness survey because it underlines the fact that the patients charter is a two-way street. It confers right on patients, but it also confers duties on them to try to keep themselves fit and healthy. We shall be making that message exceedingly clear.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: In view of the Secretary of State's comments to a local paper in Birmingham that patient care must come first, does the Minister share my concern at the letter sent by the South Birmingham health authority to general practitioners telling them not to refer patients for psychological services? Is it not time that the full details of the financial crisis in South Birmingham were published so that the people of Birmingham can see the full effects of those financial difficulties on patient care?
    Mr. Sackville: We have made it clear that we intend to take positive action to ensure no disruption in services as a result of the financial problems of the South Birmingham health authority. We have already commissioned a report and we have allocated extra funds to ensure that there is continuity of services.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that all those people who continually moan about the patients charter and national health service trusts should go and see them for themselves? They would find enthusiastic staff at all levels, more patients being treated and more money being spent on patient care. Will the Minister please give us more good news about the health service, because there is a hell of a lot of good news that we do not hear about?
    Mr. Sackville: I echo my hon. Friend's remarks, and I stress that the patients charter has been extremely well received by NHS staff.
    Mr. Miller: As one who has tested the services of the national health service recently in an attempt to obtain peak fitness, I suppose that I could make some remarks about the local health district, but I shall refrain from doing so. In the context of the patients charter, what success has been obtained in reducing waiting lists in neurology in the Mersey region? Will the Minister investigate what is going on and do something urgently about it?
    Mr. Sackville: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed information, but I will write to him.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a lot easier to keep fit if one did not have to spend so much time answering letters from one's constituents? Does he further agree that the substantial postbags that all hon. Members receive contain a large number of letters from constituents quoting the patients charter and using it as a yardstick against which to measure local services, the charter having had a salutary effect right through the health service and being taken into account by every decision-maker in the NHS?
    Mr. Sackville: I echo my hon. Friend's comments. The patients charter has not only provided a target for staff to strive for in the NHS but has informed patients of their rights, and that has had a salutary effect.

    NHS Trusts
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications she has received for hospital trust status; and if she will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: One hundred and fifty one applications have so far been received from hospitals and other units in England to become operational from April 1993. That is higher than the number of applications in the first or second waves and is a tangible demonstration that staff and managers in the NHS are behind the Government's reforms.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given the rise in the number of applications, does the Minister accept that one of the greatest concerns expressed by NHS employees appears to be the determination of trusts to write into their employees' contracts a gagging clause which prevents them from speaking out against or challenging bad practice? Given that a consultation process on the issue is in place, does the Minister accept that every NHS employee should have a legally protected right, preferably through independent channels, to speak out as appropriate to ensure the best level of practice, irrespective of the system?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the increasing popularity of trusts. She will be interested to know that about a third of NHS hospital and community health service capacity is now managed by trusts. From next April, that will become about two thirds.
    The hon. Lady rightly points out that this is an important issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have taken it seriously and have made it clear that consultations are to take place with a view to issuing guidance. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that that is a serious and considered response on a subject which has caused a certain amount of anxiety to a number of people, not least to the Royal College of Nursing.
    Mr. Marland: Having reluctantly accepted our policy on the sale of council houses, our policy for moderate taxation and, more recently, our education reforms, how long will it be before the Labour party also endorses our policy on NHS reforms?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively. There is already some evidence that Opposition Members are beginning to accept that our policies are

    769
    increasingly commanding support among patients and staff of the NHS. The change in attitude that my hon. Friend predicts, and which I agree will come, will be driven by Opposition Members' constituents.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that his last comments were totally and utterly inaccurate? Is he further aware that if he represented an area such as mine, where a trust is already in severe financial difficulty—and where many elderly people are deeply concerned because of an application for a second trust to turn all the elderly and geriatric services into a trust—he would know that his moves are distorting the provision of health care, upsetting the staff, putting many jobs at risk and in general leading to a definite downgrading of health care throughout the NHS?
    Dr. Mawhinney: No, I do not accept a word of what the hon. Lady has said because it does not accord with the facts and it certainly does not accord with the popularity of the policies. It is clear that the hon. Lady will be among the last Opposition Members prepared to shed their ideological prejudices.
    Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend will be aware of the fact that Thanet district hospital has submitted an excellent application for trust status to enable it to attain full district hospital status and provide the 24 accident and emergency services and other acute services that my constituents require. Will my hon. Friend assure my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and me that that trust status will be granted as soon as possible?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I assure my hon. Friend that, after the consultation process has been followed through—as, statutorily, it must be—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will give serious consideration to the application.

    Respite Care
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the level of respite care available within the NHS.
    Mr. Yeo: We are looking to health, as well as local authorities, further to develop respite care services as part of the implementation of the White Paper, "Caring for People". We recognise the contribution which such services can make to providing practical support for carers.
    Mr. Byers: Has the Minister had an opportunity yet to consider the recent survey carried out by the Carers National Association? Is he aware of the main findings of that survey, which are that no less than 20 per cent. of carers had no break for even a day from their caring responsibilities and that no less than two thirds of carers suffered ill health in discharging their caring obligations? In the light of those disturbing findings, will the Government take urgent steps to provide comprehensive respite care within the national health service, or is the Minister content to continue present Government policies which are clearly based on cynical exploitation of the compassion of those who care for others?
    Mr. Yeo: I am aware of the survey. Because of our concern about the position of carers, we have identified as the key objectives in our White Paper, "Caring for
    770
    People", first, to promote the development of respite services and, secondly, to ensure that the service providers make practical support for carers a high priority. Respite care is available in hospitals, nursing homes and people's own homes through better domiciliary services. The number of short-stay residents in care homes is double the 1979 level.
    Sir John Hannam: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the benefits given to carers have risen from some £4 million in the last year of the Labour Government in 1978 to more than £213 million this year? Is that not evidence of the importance that the Government place on the role of carers in the forthcoming programme for care in the community?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend, who is known for his expertise in the matter, is absolutely right. That level is likely to continue rising. It shows, in a practical way, exactly how the Government are determined to give carers the support that they need.

    Elderly People
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to develop alternatives to the institutional care of elderly people.
    Mr. Yeo: We are taking forward a wide range of measures to encourage the development and co-ordination of health and social services for elderly people, and to promote choice and independence.
    Mr. Bradley: I invite the Minister—or, preferably, the Secretary of State—to visit my constituency to see at first hand the high-quality alternative provision by Manchester city council. The elderly persons' resource centre, known as the Minehead centre, is a model which should be replicated throughout the country. It provides services for people in their homes and in the centre, co-ordinated by social services and the health authority. Since its opening, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of elderly people seeking residential care in its catchment area. If the Government would make capital money available to local authorities, such centres could be opened throughout the country. Will the Minister visit the centre to see for himself what can be achieved by proper local authority provision?
    Mr. Yeo: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman, unlike so many of his colleagues, has chosen to highlight some good practices. There are other good things happening in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The community health services have had a care team working with general practices and social services to maintain elderly people in their own homes, there is a new proposal for a hospital at home scheme to enable a number of elderly people to be rehabilitated in their homes, and the community care plan for elderly people in the district has been produced jointly by the health and social services and the voluntary sector. Those provisions reflect the additional help that we are giving in the community. Nationally, there are 37 per cent. more day places, 28 per cent. more home helps, 12 per cent. more meals on wheels and 19 per cent. more community nurses. Those are all Government achievements since 1979.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of care for the elderly through the private sector has developed some homely accommodation? Does he welcome Dorset Care Association's publication of a document giving a charter for the care of people in their homes, to be launched at the beginning of July?
    Mr. Yeo: I certainly welcome that charter, a copy of which has been sent to us. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the innovative work carried out by the private sector. It is because we want to see that work extended that we have invited local authorities to bid for £6 million to develop over the next three years more innovative schemes, particularly involving the private and voluntary sectors, to improve the range and responsiveness of day and domiciliary services so that more elderly people and others can stay in their own homes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hughes: Given the commitment that the Prime Minister gave to the biodiversity treaty in Rio over the weekend and in the House yesterday, while he advises other countries on how to solve their problems, will he try to solve some of the problems that we have in this country? Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency have been totally devastated by the peat extraction carried out by the Fisons company. Will the Prime Minister introduce legislation to stop the devastation of sites of special scientific interest, not just at Thorne and Hatfield moors, but throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is stringent legislation to deal with sites of special scientific interest. I am not familiar with the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, but if he will let me have the details I undertake to ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment examines the matter.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Field: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the general election campaign the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food visited the Isle of Wight, where he reacted to the policy of the Liberal Democrats to make the island a trial district for rabies vaccination? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate his Cabinet colleague on defeating the suggestion from Brussels that we should weaken our safeguards against rabies in pets, and for keeping mad dogs out of our country and the even madder leader of the Liberal Democrats out of power? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the Government will continue to maintain controls against both those terrible diseases?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend strikes a chord both with the House and with the country as a whole. I believe that yesterday's agreement of the Agriculture Council provides fully effective protection against rabies, and as such I think that it will be widely welcomed throughout the country.
    Mr. Hattersley: Now that the Prime Minister has agreed to Mr. Delors' reappointment, will he describe—principally for the benefit of his Back Benchers—the qualities in the President of the Commission which inspired the Prime Minister's confidence?
    The Prime Minister: As ever, the right hon. Gentleman starts with a misconception. No such agreement has yet been made.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Prime Minister must know that as recently as this weekend the Foreign Secretary was telling our European partners—and let Mr. Delors' office know—
    that the Government would not stand in the way of Mr. Delors' reappointment. Since the Prime Minister, or at least the Foreign Secretary, has said in private that the Government support Mr. Delors' reappointment, is it not deplorable that the Prime Minister does not have the courage to say so in public? Is that not typically second rate?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman, who has more experience of second-rate matters than most of us in this House, that no firm decision, no Cabinet decision, on the reappointment of Mr. Delors has yet been made. There are many things still to be determined about that appointment.
    Indeed, there are two appointments to be considered. I refer, first, to the temporary appointment for two years of the President of the Commission, to be made shortly, and thereafter to the appointment for five years, to run through the full length of the next Parliament. I am concerned to ensure that we get the right appointment for both terms.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Has my right hon. Friend appreciated that in August this year the transatlantic tall ships race will arrive in Liverpool? Is he aware that in the eight years since the race's last visit the port of Liverpool has been transformed, justifying the Government's decision to award free port status to Liverpool? Will my right hon. Friend wish the port and the organisers of the event August every success?
    The Prime Minister: I do so with great pleasure, for I think that such congratulations are well deserved—as are the congratulations to my hon. Friend on his recent award.
    Mr. Ashdown: In the light of the Prime Minister's answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), has he noted that one of his own officials described Jacques Delors as a President of the European Commission of outstanding integrity and competence? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
    The Prime Minister: I think that Mr. Delors has many qualities.
    Mr. Marlow: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how the exchange rate mechanism affects the ability of Her Majesty's Government to set interest rates compatible with the level of activity of the United Kingdom economy?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, since we became members of the ERM we have used it as the centre of our anti-inflationary policy. As a result, inflation—both headline inflation and core inflation—has fallen dramatically since a period when it was far too high. It remains the Government's policy to meet the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty, not just for the treaty but for their own sake as well. For that purpose, and for the reduction and eventual elimination of inflation, we intend fully to sustain our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McFall: Although the Maxwell spying allegations make interesting reading and may prove that the Government have more responsibility in the affair than has hitherto been stated, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the banks should return the —200 million assets which they do not own? Does he agree that he should direct the Treasury to use its powers under section 4(3) of the Bank of England Act 1946 to recover the money which the banks do not own?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the special unit announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will actively assist the trustees in securing the return of assets.
    If the earlier half of the hon. Gentleman's question was aimed in the direction I think it was, I can state clearly that the Government had no information about Mr. Maxwell's financial affairs, contrary to what was alleged in the Financial Times yesterday, whether in 1989 or subsequently. I saw no such information, my office saw no such information, and nor did any Minister—for the very good reason that it never existed.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is now required in considering the Maastricht treaty is some objective analysis of its detailed effects? Is he aware that the Conservative Lawyers recently published a pamphlet saying that the doctrine of subsidiarity was virtually useless in terms of providing any protection against the further unwanted expansion of European laws and institutions? In view of the considerable misunderstanding that has arisen since the passing of the Single European Act, is it not important to publish either the advice of the Attorney-General about the effect of the treaty or at least a White Paper? It would be unfortunate if Ministers advocated the treaty in general and euphoric terms but it was subsequently found to have a different meaning when considered by the Commission or the court.
    The Prime Minister: I always read carefully what the Conservative Lawyers have to say—often in agreement, but perhaps not always in total agreement. My hon. Friend asked about subsidiarity, and I agree with the substantive part of his point, which is that we should spedily clarify its practical applications. In the next few weeks that will most certainly be one of our priorities during our presidency.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Scottish football team on its tremendous, spirited performance in Sweden? Will he also congratulate Scottish fans on their exemplary performance to date and reprimand the Secretary of State for National Heritage for his ill-founded and ignorant comments about "British" fans when British fans were not to blame?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate the Scottish team on its fine performance and I regret that it was not successful in proceeding further in the competition. I hope that on future occasions the team will do better. I certainly condemn the lawlessness of a small minority of English supporters. As my right hon. Friend has made entirely clear, they have sullied our reputation abroad.
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend find time to read yesterday's Hansard, especially the Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)?
    Mr. Cryer: And the money resolution last night.
    Mr. Paice: There was no money resolution on the Adjournment debate. That debate was about the National Union of Students and about suggestions of abuse of public money, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley was supported by many Conservative Members. Will the Prime Minister urge the Secretary of State for Education to act quickly to remove one of the last bastions of compulsory union membership?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is considering action on student unions. As my hon. Friend said, we shall seek to move in the direction of the voluntary principle.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: We all know that the Prime Minister opposes a national minimum wage. There are millions of people on low pay and hundreds of thousands on poverty wages. Does he disagree with his predecessor that low pay is better than no pay, or will he do something to ensure that people have a reasonable living wage? Does he accept that in 1992 there should be a fair day's pay for a fair day's work?
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that anyone disagrees with the hon. Gentleman's final proposition, but it is equally true that people who receive low pay would rather that than receive no pay.
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend state whether his office has any information about the meeting in Liechtenstein tomorrow to explain the role of Liechtenstein lawyers and others in secreting away Maxwell family moneys? Will he confirm that the Government will take every action necessary against Liechtenstein to ensure that any money due to Maxwell pensioners is returned to the pension funds as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: I had no knowledge of that particular meeting, but in the light of my hon. Friend's remarks I will make inquiries.
    Mr. Hoyle: As the Prime Minister has read the reports in the Financial Times, he must be aware that they mention not only Maxwell but other national companies being under surveillance. If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman say who signed the warrants allowing that to take place?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of dealing with matters of that sort. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well. Every previous Government have consistently declined to comment on the activities of the intelligence and security services. I made the point perfectly clear in respect of Maxwell because of the damaging effect that the report could have had on Maxwell pensioners.

National Economic Development Council
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The National Economic Development Council and the National Economic Development Office were established in 1962. In the 1960s and 1970s, they provided a helpful forum in which the overall economy and the performance of individual sectors could be discussed and debated. Much useful work was done then, and successive Governments in that period valued the role that NEDC played.
But the era of corporatism has long passed.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In the last decade, Governments, not just in Britain but across the world, have pursued more market-oriented policies, the promotion of competition, and the smooth functioning of market mechanisms. There have been radical changes to the structure of business and industry. The number of small firms and of the self-employed has grown rapidly. Large parts of the former public sector have been privatised, and international markets are increasingly integrated.
The British work force have become more skilled and more specialised, with more flexible working practices and more varied career patterns. Trade union membership has declined, and in the private sector, decentralised wage bargaining has become the norm rather than the exception.
Against that background, it is clear that the NEDC no longer reflects the needs and realaties of the British economy in the 1990s. Since its inception, the council has been dominated by producer interests, but its membership and structure cannot hope to represent fully the interests and views of the whole range of industry or of the work force. And, paradoxically, the continued existence of the NEDC in those changed circumstances may actually have inhibited, rather than encouraged, the development of direct contact on specific issues between the Government and trade unions and other employee associations. Accordingly, and after careful consideration, the Government have decided that the National Economic Development Council should now be abolished. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The council's sector groups and working parties will also be wound up. Over the years, they made a valuable contribution, and some of the issues addressed by the council and those sub-groups will of course remain on the agenda. Those most closely concerned with the present range of NEDO's consultative activities may decide that they want to continue to liaise with each other, but it will be for them to decide what is done, and how.
The National Economic Development Office has served the council and the sector groups and working parties well, but with the end of the council, and the change in the way that the Government intend to approach more detailed issues, the office itself will no longer have a role. Accordingly, its work will be wound down in an orderly fashion over the next six months. The office will close on 31 December this year.
It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to offer employment to a small number of NEDO staff in his Department. There may also be opportunities in other Government Departments.
778
Those who do not secure employment in the civil service will be eligible for redundancy compensation by analogy with the usual civil service rules. There will be full consultation with staff and their representatives on the handling of redundancies, and the applicable terms of existing redundancy procedure agreements will be fully honoured.
I should like to make it clear that today's announcement is no reflection on the work done by the staff of the office, or the sector groups and working parties. I wish to add a particular note of thanks to Dr. Walter Eltis for his work as director-general.
The Government continue to attach particular importance to improving the effectiveness of our dialogue with industry. Indeed, in recent years we have consulted more frequently and with a wider range of interests than in the past on complex technical subjects. That is true both in the formulation of domestic policy, and in the development of the United Kingdom's response to the increasing range of draft EC directives as the single market approaches. This partnership has served Britain well, and it will continue. The Government will be alert to the interests of industry in developing policies across the range of its activities. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced his intention to reshape some of his Department on a more sectoral basis. He will be announcing details before the summer recess.
The Government remain fully committed to maintaining a close dialogue with industry and with all other relevant interests, but I believe that the decision to bring the National Economic Development Council to an end is the right one. A close relationship between the Government and industry remains as essential as ever if we are to develop policies to create in Britain a strong, dynamic and competitive economy, but the age of corporatism must be put firmly behind us.
Mr. John Smith: Does it not pass belief that—unemployment having risen for 24 consecutive months, growth having fallen for seven consecutive quarters and manufacturing investment having been in continuous decline for more than two years; with the number of business failures still rising and at record levels, and with a worsening balance of payments deficit in the midst of the longest recession since the 1930s—all that this wretched Government can do is abolish the only forum that brings together industry, finance and unions to discuss solutions to our deep-seated economic problems? That is an act of industrial vandalism.
Have not the Government noticed that all our most successful competitors encourage, rather than frustrate, the creation of a consensus about the priorities of economic and industrial policy? What makes a Government with such a dismal record believe that it is wise to dismantle a means of co-operation, dialogue and consensus? Is it because they do not like what NEDO has been telling them? Is NEDO paying the price for telling the truth about realities of the British economy?
Is NEDO to be eliminated because, in its report on the lessons to be learned from Germany and Japan, it exposed Britain's poor performance in education and training, and our poor record on innovation? Is it to be abolished because, in its report on electronics, it highlighted the urgent need to improve our technological base? Or is it to

779
be dismantled because, in its report on engineering, it revealed the poverty of our skills in engineering, compared to those of our competitors such as Germany?
Is it not a sad reflection on the Government that they react to criticism—however constructive, expert and well intentioned—by saying that the critics must be eliminated? The Government first ignore the message, then shoot the messenger.
Does the Chancellor recollect that in his book "Where There's a Will", published in 1987, the President of the Board of Trade observed:
"NEDO's potential value is high, as the one forum where Ministers regularly meet senior representatives of industry, the unions, and the City."
The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that the holder of his office, not the Chancellor, should take the chair. Is it not the case that, just as the right hon. Gentleman was about to claim the seat, the Chancellor has whipped the chair away?
Is not this the end of all the ludicrous pretences by the President of the Board of Trade that this Administration take a positive attitude to building a consensus for an industrial strategy? Is it not clear to everyone in British industry that as our economic prospects worsen, the Government are more concerned to control criticism than to benefit from the advice of those with real experience of the problems of industry and commerce in our country today?
Mr. Lamont: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's words might have more force if the course of action that we have taken today had not been urged on me by many on the council—many of the industrialists—who think it has outlived its usefulness. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will also find that the director general of the Confederation of British Industry has welcomed my decision. The right hon. and learned Gentleman used to go to NEDC many years ago, but it does not serve the purpose that it may have served in the past.
I made it clear in the statement that we believe that it is right for the Government to talk to industry on particular problems and via particular parts of the economy. That will be done more productively and effectively within Ministries rather than by having the highly publicised and highly politicised meetings that have produced very few results. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to various economic developments. I do not see why he thinks that anything in the British economy has been affected by what has happened at NEDC meetings.
Sir Edward Heath: If my right hon. Friend's lengthy statement, with its misuse of the word "corporatism", means that in future the vital discussions between all parts of industry for the future of this country will he undertaken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—or President of the Board of Trade, as he prefers to he called—I welcome this wholeheartedly, because it gets the Treasury out of the way. In all my experience of Neddy, the Treasury was a pain in the neck. Now, perhaps we will have proper consultation.
Mr. Lamont: I am pleased that, at least in some spirit, my right hon. Friend can welcome my statement. I am sorry that I have to disappoint him somewhat. As I have already made clear to the CBI and the Trades Union
780
Congress, it is our intention that all Government Departments will talk to both sides of industry about problems that have to be addressed in the interests of the economy. That will continue.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Why did the Government reject the CBI's earlier proposal for a smaller and less formal body working to the Department of Trade and Industry instead of the Treasury? Is not the main anxiety of business not what institution it has but whether the Government are taking any notice, which they have manifestly failed to do, of what industry has been saying about training, research and development and transport?
If there is no formal structure, what is to prevent the President of the Board of Trade from choosing merely those bits of industry to which he wants to listen rather than industry as a whole, and listening mainly to the new corporations who luxuriate in monopoly and use the monopoly powers that they have been given in the privatisation process to rip off the consumer?
Mr. Lamont: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that it is the macro-economic policies that determine industrial and economic performance. Setting up a committee in Millbank does not solve the problems of the real world and the real economy. Decisions are made by individuals and businesses, not at a sectoral level. As I have explained, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be looking at some of the work of the sectoral working parties. He will be seeing how the most valuable parts of that work could be used within the Department of Trade and Industry.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I can assure him that the CBI backs the Government's macro-economic strategy, and has said so publicly on many occasions.
Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that supporters of the free market welcome his statement, as it demolishes a pillar of the corporate state that is so beloved by socialists and, it seems, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? How many bureaucrats are employed by this organisation, and what will be the savings to the Exchequer as a result of his announcement?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must be careful about the use of the word "corporatist". There are 100 staff employed in the council. I have said that normal redundancy procedures will apply and that some staff may find employment in the civil service. It costs more than £5.5 million per annum to run the NEDC.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Since the Government have been contemptuous of Neddy for so long, is it surprising that it has had so little effect on the Government? When Harold Macmillan set it up, was it not clear that it was not a corporatist idea but a means of getting Government and industry together? We do not have so many such organisations today that we can dispense with the most important one that we have.
Mr. Lamont: It is certainly not true to say that the Government have taken no notice of what has been said at council meetings. I am afraid that the motivation for the announcement is quite different from what the right hon.

781
Gentleman is saying. It is simply that council discussions have not made a worthwhile contribution to the formulation of policy.
Having participated in those discussions for 16 months, I am genuinely convinced that, when there are specific issues to be addressed, a much more useful dialogue with both sides of industry can be conducted in private, rather than the highly confrontational, highly publicised and highly politicised discussions that we have had in recent years. I accept that the work of the sectoral working parties has had some value, and we shall try to preserve that.
Sir Peter Tapsell: If institutional changes are to be made at a time when Britain continues to run a huge adverse trade balance, may we perhaps look at some of the institutions in competitor countries that have contributed to those countries running large surpluses on their trade balance, such as the Industrial bank of Japan and the Export-Import bank of Japan, to see whether we may not have something to learn from them?
Mr. Lamont: I am sure that it is always useful to study what happens in other countries, but it is extremely difficult to translate the institutions of one country into another. It is extremely difficult to make an analysis, above all, of Japan and say, "We wish to incorporate into our economy the institutions that Japan has."
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the thrust of what I have been saying is that I do not think that, alas, the work done in the council in particular, rather than in the office, has had a big impact on policy making, the performance or the trade balance of the British economy. None of those things will be altered in future, and I do not think that they have been any different in the past because of what has been discussed and done there.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: While it must be a sad day for those people who will lose their jobs, I must tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I cannot agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about shedding tears for NEDO. Is the Chancellor aware that, in the past 13 years, it has done little to stop the pit closure programme? It has done nothing about the massive balance of payments difficulties that Britain is in.
We have a public sector borrowing requirement of probably £40 billion and, quite frankly, I do not want to see trade union leaders mixing with bosses and supping claret down in the City. I hope that what the Chancellor has said today will prove to them that it is time that they got back to the real job of representing their workers in the many class struggles that lie ahead.
Mr. Lamont: I thought that I was going to agree with the hon. Gentleman when he started off. The first part of his remarks were rather good, but they deteriorated towards the end, not just from the point of view of his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor but also from my point of view. But the hon. Gentleman is right: the NEDC has not had a bearing on industrial developments, the developments in the coal industry or other industries. Completely different ways of addressing
782
the problems exist, and I am sure that they will be more fruitfully addressed. I note how the hon. Gentleman describes the NEDC.
I should comment on one point that has been repeatedly made in the exchanges: the description of our balance of payments deficit as being massive. It was 1 per cent. of GDP last year, an amount which is easily financeable. Financing it will certainly not pose a problem.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend think that it will be lost on the general public that, at a time when the TUC is packing its bags and leaving NEDO, it is about to exercise a controlling influence on the leadership of the Labour party? Is not one of the more attractive aspects of the decision that my right hon. Friend has announced today the fact that this is another area of public life where the baleful influence of the TUC will be reduced?
Mr. Lamont: I note my hon. Friend's comment. The only point that I would make is that of course we shall talk to trade unions, but only when there are specific issues that can be usefully addressed. There has been no point in the regular meetings every three months at that level always discussing macro-economic issues, not producing anything particularly fruitful.
Mr. David Trimble: Does this mean that the Northern Ireland Economic Council will also be abolished consequentially? If so, does the Chancellor realise that that will be widely regarded as a retrograde step as the Northern Ireland council has been one of the few sources of decent analysis and scrutiny of the economy there, possibly because it is one of the few bodies that is not a quango appointed by the Northern Ireland Office?
The Chancellor said that he, or his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, will maintain sectoral sub-committees. Will there be committees operating on a regional basis, because that is just as important?
Mr. Lamont: The answer is no: my announcement today will not affect the Northern Ireland council. The hon. Gentleman may have slightly misunderstood what I was saying. It is not the intention to create lots of committees or to rebuild NEDO elsewhere, and it is certainly not the intention to re-create the sectoral working parties. There are useful aspects that can be kept but, as far as I am aware, there will not be regional committees of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is advocating.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend and all other hon. Members stop talking about "both sides" of industry? They are both on the same side. They are both in one team. If they cannot talk to each other, why on earth is it assumed that a quango could make them do so? How much has it cost to have all those officials and secretaries talking such nonsense for so long in that ridiculous organisation whose requiem we are attending today?
Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's first point about both sides of industry. That is obviously a correct point. As I have already said, the cost of the organisation was in excess of £5 million a year.
Mr. David Winnick: The responsibility for all the closures and the rest that have occurred which have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) lies with the Tory Government,

783
not with NEDO. Is the Chancellor aware that his decision today shows that the Government have no time at all for any continuous dialogue with the trade unions and have contempt for the representatives of working people and for what Harold Macmillan tried to do? However much we disagreed with him in various aspects, nevertheless he tried to moderate Government policy and recognised the necessity for co-operation in industry involving the trade unions. Is not this decision one of sheer spite and malice, which will be recognised as such by a large body of people in the country?
Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman is talking complete and utter nonsense. I know that Opposition Members are instinctively bureaucratic—see a problem and they want to set up a committee. That is their answer to every problem. We all know what the shadow Chancellor wanted to do with Neddy, because he set out his proposals in his manifesto. He wanted it to make a national economic assessment, and he intended to use it to introduce a minimum wage in Britain. That would have done wonders for the British economy.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is typical that the Labour party still believes that the formal mechanisms of the 1960s are right and appropriate for the needs of the 1990s? Will not British industry fully welcome the dialogue with the Government, which it wants, being conducted more directly and effectively in the revamping of the sectoral groups under the DTI's aegis?
Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We believe in dialogue with industry, as I said explicitly. Right hon. and hon. Opposition Members seem to believe more in theatricals than in useful talking.
Mr. Ron Leighton: What assurances can the Chancellor give those of us who are getting worried about the position of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)? Under the previous regime, he used to write books advocating an industrial policy and used to say that we should not ignore the deficits. Therefore, when we saw the announcement on the monitor, we thought that we were going to be told that he was to become the president of Neddy, but it is to be abolished. What does it mean? Does it mean that the right hon. Member for Henley has been taken prisoner and that his ideas have been completely swamped in the Government?
Mr. Lamont: What it means is that my right hon. Friend and I are in total agreement on this issue.
Mr. Simon Burns: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having the courage to take a decision that should have been taken a long time ago? Does he accept that, to ensure a thriving industrial and commercial sector of the economy, it is necessary to have business men with entrepreneurial skills who have the capability to seek and identify the needs of the marketplace and then to satisfy those needs rather than an irrelevant, highly politicised talking shop where the occupants go around in circles, listening to political hyperbole?
Mr. Lamont: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; what he says is right. We talk about an industrial strategy, but what
784
we need is a strategy for low inflation, low taxes and profitability of industry. That is what the country needs, and that is how we shall achieve growth.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Chancellor accept that one interpretation of the announcement is that it increases the powers of Mr. President who is sitting beside him? Does he believe that the right hon. Gentleman is fully equipped to deal with all the awesome responsibilities being heaped on him? How many extra civil servants will the DTI need to pursue sectoral work previously undertaken by Neddy? Is not the real reason for the Government abolishing Neddy the fact that any analysis of a Neddy report would show that the Government had already abolished economic development?
Mr. Lamont: As I said, it is possible that a few of the personnel employed in NEDO may be found employment elsewhere in Whitehall, and a small number in the DTI. We shall not be increasing numbers in the DTI; we are talking about a small number of officials. I made it clear that we hope that work of value by the sectoral working parties can be preserved and developed, but it can be done in a much more useful way in the DTI than in the existing structure.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend talked about the welcome given to the announcement by the Confederation of British Industry. Has he had any consultation with the Engineering Employers Federation or the Association of British Chambers of Commerce about the matter, because they are known to be rather more responsive than the CBI to the needs and interests of manufacturing industry? Does my right hon. Friend accept that manufacturing industry is a vital ingredient in a stable and successful economy? Will there be a forum for manufacturing industry under the new regime?
Mr. Lamont: Both the Engineering Employers Federation and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce are of course constantly engaged in discussing problems with the Government, and their views are very much taken into account in Government decisions. We know that they are very much in favour of dialogue, and we intend to continue discussions with them.
As for manufacturing, as I have said many times, and as I have told my hon. Friend, who I know is deeply interested in and deeply committed on the subject, we see manufacturing as an extremely important part of the British economy, to which we should devote special attention.
Mr. John Spellar: Before my reincarnation in the House, I was a member of the electronic components committee of NEDO. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that nobody ever attended for the quality of the lunch. The meetings were attended by many senior chairmen of electronics companies, and very effective dialogue took place.
Dialogue can take place only on an on-going basis rather than on the basis of people being called in on a specific issue. When a specific issue is discussed, no future strategy—in an industry such as electronics, no long-term strategy—can be developed. It will be astonishing to countries such as Germany and Japan that we are taking

785
such a decision to break down the dialogue between Government and industry. Can the Chancellor not show some humility by listening to the views of industry and learning from the experiences of other countries where such a system works so effectively?
Mr. Lamont: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman would make of the United States or Canada, and I am not sure how he thinks their highly successful economies are performing and how matters there are arranged in terms of discussion between industry and Government. The hon. Gentleman talks about dialogue on an "on-going basis" and says that that is the only basis on which there can be dialogue. That seems to be a recipe for bureaucracy rather than for anything else. Dialogue on specific issues is what we should seek.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend seems to place all his faith in macro-economic policies, such as maintaining high levels of real interest, and the Treasury as a panacea for the ills of British industry. Will he therefore at least talk to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and ensure that he finds time in this place to make it a genuine forum of the nation for debate on industrial issues? Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at least reconstitute at the earliest possible date the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which was admirably chaired in the previous Parliament by Mr. Kenneth Warren, the former Member for Hastings and Rye?
Is it not a fact that industrial experience in this place is gravely deficient, not least in the ranks of Government? Is it not true that probably only half a dozen members of the Government have any real industrial experience? Should they not welcome any dialogue they can obtain with people engaged in industry?
Mr. Lamont: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in manufacturing industry. I am not in any way altering the balance between macro-economic policy and micro-economic policy, or the the balance between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. My hon. Friend may like to think of it in these terms. I am simply addressing the forum and the form in which discussions between industry, the Government and the Trades Union Congress take place.
Having participated in those discussions, in my opinion—I know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade strongly agrees—the NEDO does not practically today serve the interests of the British economy. It has outlived its usefulness. I will, of course, draw the attention of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend's point about the Select Committee.
Mr. Alan Williams: Is not the small-minded announcement of the abolition of the NEDO today really a smokescreen to cover an intensely embarrassing announcement which the Chancellor had to make? Is it not intended to divert attention from the really crucial point at the end of the statement, which is that we shall return to a sectoral role for the Department of Trade and Industry? Does not that mean that the philosophy that
786
the Chancellor followed in his previous years at the Department of Trade and Industry—the hands-off, non-interventionist policy—is being reversed by the President of the Board of Trade, and that the Chancellor is trying to find a way to hide that fact?
Mr. Lamont: That is not the case. The right hon. Gentleman has considerable talent for seeing plots everywhere; they do not accord with reality. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are at one on the issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the next business.

BILLS PRESENTED
  REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
  Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to abolish the House of Lords as presently composed and to provide for a new directly elected membership based on Parliamentary constituencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
  WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
  Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide for the drawing up of a written constitution for the United Kingdom; for its consideration by the people and Parliament of the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide protection in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which the United Kingdom is a party; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 December and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  DRUG TRAFFICKING (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  FORFEITURE ORDERS (SCOTLAND)
  That the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Opposition Day
  2ND ALLOTTED DAY

    Water Privatisation
    Madam Speaker: Before we commence, I should tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.5 pm
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move,
    That this House is alarmed at the record profits, record dividends and record salaries and perks of top management in the water companies, especially at a time when households are facing record water bills and record levels of disconnections; and calls on the Director General of Water Services to ensure that the interests of water consumers and the environment are given greater priority than the interests of shareholders.
    This issue is causing increasing concern to many families. Water bills are now at such a level that they are a major item of expenditure for many, and an increasing number of people have found themselves in debt as a result. Many other families and small businesses have found that, in the main, the privatised water companies are unsympathetic to the problems that they have created, and use every opportunity to maximise their profits—from charging churches, mosques and scout huts as commercial operations, to demanding infrastructure charges for the change of use of a property, when no new connection is required. All that is happening at a time of severe restriction on water use.
    To add insult to injury, in the year since we last debated the issue there have been further massive increases in the salaries of top management, and we have learnt more about the multi-million pound perks on offer to the favoured few.
    Several years ago the present Secretary of State for the Environment—who is absent from the debate—and I served on the Standing Committee on the Water Bill, with other hon. Members. I regret that the Secretary of State for the Environment does not see fit to speak in this debate, as the issue is important enough to warrant the attention of a Cabinet Minister.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): Who says so?
    Mrs. Taylor: Me. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the problems faced by so many people in this country—the problems of the water industry and of water resources—warrant the attention of a Cabinet Minister. It is to the Opposition's credit that we felt that it was appropriate for a member of the Shadow Cabinet to have responsibility for environment protection. It is a pity that the Government cannot take the matter as seriously.
    In Committee. the Government always had a majority, but we always won the arguments. The Secretary of State has returned to the Department of the Environment. Despite his absence, we shall remind his junior Ministers and others of what has happened to the water industry since those Committee days.
    I shall draw the attention of the House to three main problems. The first is the difficulties that water privatisation has caused to so many people and families and the second is the inadequacies of the present system of
    788
    regulating the water industry. Thirdly, I shall explain why the Government's obsession with water privatisation has directed attention away from the real and significant problems faced by so many consumers, which was highlighted by yesterday's decision by the National Rivers Authority.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Lady confirm that the water industry needs more investment and that, since privatisation, there has been a massive increase in such investment?
    Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must bide his time, because I intend to talk about investment in the water industry. I share the concern expressed by the Director General of Water Services that consumers are having to pay too much for that investment. The responsibility for the size of the bills rests fairly and squarely with the Government because of the deal that they did at the time of privatisation.
    Throughout the debates on the water industry in the late 1980s, Labour hon. Members warned of the problems on the horizon in relation to water resources. We now know that those problems could be even more severe because of global warming. Had the Government devoted as much energy, not to mention taxpayers' money, to tackling those problems as they did to privatisation, the problem posed by water resources might not be so severe today.
    What has water privatisation meant for ordinary families? In Committee the then Minister of State, now the absent Secretary of State, often accused me of scaremongering when we discussed prices and the likely effect of privatisation on water bills. Let me remind Conservative Members of the increases in water bills faced by their constituents since privatisation. The increases range from 35 per cent. in Yorkshire Water to 56 per cent. in South West Water. The average household water bill has increased by 47.1 per cent. since privatisation. Water charges have risen by almost three times the rate of inflation. As I said, the then Minister of State accused me of scaremongering when I suggested such price increases.
    I have looked at the Hansard reports of those Committee proceedings, which are very interesting, and which perhaps explain the Secretary of State's absence, because he then said:
    "any price increase will be modest."
    When he was cornered, he produced his own figures. He claimed that, by the end of the century,
    "the increase in charges … is likely to be between 7.5 per cent. and 12.5 per cent."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 26 January 1989; c. 539-42.]
    I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be here to tell us why he was so wrong and we were so right, but he has failed to turn up to listen and to answer for the consequences of his remarks.
    Sir Jim Spicer: The hon. Lady said that water charges had risen by 56 per cent. in South West Water. In her calculations has she taken into account the fact that South West Water, like other water companies up and down the country, has had to carry out a massive capital programme, which was forced upon it by edicts from Brussels and elsewhere?
    Mrs. Taylor: Conservative Members are searching for somebody else to blame. The simple fact is that at the time of debates on the Water Bill, we knew all about all the anticipated obligations from Brussels and we made our

    789
    calculations on the basis of all the information that was available. It is such a pity that the Secretary of State sought to mislead the House and the country at that time.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Lady referred, fairly, to the cost of water charges in the west country and we will hear more about them today. Is she saying that the work being done in that region to clean up coastal waters is not necessary? While savouring that point, will she reflect upon the fact that if her arguments on privatisation mean that she would want to return the industry to state control, that means that, in addition to the £8 billion that would be necessary to renationalise the industry, she would have to find an extra £25 billion to go ahead with the investment programme? Will she deal with those points?
    Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is not well known for his patience—[Interruption.] If he exercises a little patience today and stays for some of the debate, I promise to explain why the nature of the privatisation is increasing the cost of that capital investment to the consumer and is causing concern to the director general.
    It is not surprising that the enormous price rises should have led to difficulties for many families. Those difficulties have been made worse by the harsh attitude of some water companies, as is clear from the number of court actions for debt taken by companies and by the level of disconnections. It is a staggering fact that in one year alone, 900,000 court summonses were instigated by water companies. That meant about one house in 25, or at least one household in every street, receiving a summons for water debt. Many of those summonses were taken out against people who had never been in debt before. Often they were pensioners or people on fixed incomes, who receive no help with their water bills and for whom the water bill is often larger than the poll tax bill.
    In addition to the financial difficulties that water bills have caused, plus the cost of the summons, some water companies have taken the ultimate step against consumers of turning off water supplies—of disconnecting families in debt. Last week's Ofwat report on disconnections showed the tragic consequences of water bills, with 21,000 households having had their water supplies disconnected. That represented a staggering 177 per cent. increase in the number of disconnections in just one year.
    We also received last week a National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report giving graphic examples of the hardship that has been caused and of the cavalier attitude adopted by some water companies. The company in mid-Kent, in the constituency of the Secretary of State, disconnected a customer who was 80 per cent. disabled. The company then even refused to talk to the CAB representative about the problem.
    The CAB in Berkshire reported on a water company that had gone so far as to seek possession of a tenant's home for arrears of £38.63. Yorkshire Water sent those behind with their bills incorrect information claiming that the DSS would make an allowance for those on benefit who were having difficulty paying their water bills. That statement was not true.
    Disconnections on such a scale are not acceptable. I was informed—I checked the information—that 19 of 80 flats in a block of flats in Sandwell had their water disconnected
    790
    last year. That is the scale of the problem. The Director General of Water Services has expressed concern about the issue. He should be concerned. So should the Secretary of State for Health. But it is not good enough simply to be concerned. The Government should be intervening to give protection to consumers facing such problems.
    The water companies' licence should be amended to ensure that no one is disconnected unless they wilfully refuse to pay. Ministers should re-examine with a sense of urgency the arrangements for helping those on benefit, who receive inadequate assistance with their water bills at present.
    All those problems for individuals and families must be viewed against the background of the water companies' financial performance. As the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), acknowledged in Rio, this country is in a deep recession. One of the consequences of the recession has been the record number of business failures and the downturn in profits for so many previously successful companies. Indeed, only last week we heard that Pilkington's profits had halved and companies in every sector, from construction to motor manufacture, have suffered because of the recession.
    However, that has not been the case for the water companies, which is not surprising, as each of them has a private monopoly of an essential service. Ministers always object to our quoting water company profits, which is not surprising either when one looks at those profits. Thames Water announced recently that its profits were up to £236 million and North West Water's profits stand at £230 million. But in some respects, I agree with the Minister.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does not the hon. Lady accept that North West Water's investment programme for badly needed environmental improvements is substantial? It is therefore inappropriate for the hon. Lady to criticise North West Water when it is clearly doing much to improve water quality, particularly in my constituency, and to combat the serious problems that were caused over many years by lack of investment by the Labour party.
    Mrs. Taylor: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman consult Blackpool landladies and ask them what they think of their water bills. If he is proud of the investment programme, he should look at the salary of the chairman of North West Water and the share option perks that he has received, for which consumers are paying.
    I was going to say that I agree with the Minister that profits do not tell the whole story. We should also look at dividends and share prices and at how the water companies' performance compares with that of the stockmarket as a whole. In general, water share prices are 80 per cent. above their level at the time of flotation in December 1989. Dividends were 16£3 per cent. more than predicted in the flotation prospectus in the first year alone. Such a performance by the water companies should not surprise us. After all, the Government rigged the system so much in favour of the water companies at the time of privatisation that those results were inevitable.
    Even City analysts accept that that is so. If the Minister and Conservative Members do not believe me, they may believe Credit Lyonnais Lang. In its assessment of the water companies, it says:

    791
    "we think that investors in water shares will earn a very high total return. But this high return will be because the taxpayer has sold the industry cheap".
    It was not the taxpayer but rather the Government who sold the industry cheap. When Ministers first talked about water privatisation, the expectation was that it would result in an increased income to the Exchequer of some £5 billion. Ultimately, water privatisation cost taxpayers £3.3 billion. That is the figure which we used and which the National Audit Office verified in its report this year.
    The report of the National Audit Office also confirmed our suspicions about perks. If any local authority had misused the money for which it was responsible in the way that Ministers have misused taxpayers' money, it would have been, at best, surcharged, and its officials might well have ended up behind bars.
    When the Government made their arrangements for the privatisation of the water industry, they did a deal with the industry's top management, giving them hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of perks. Three chairmen of water companies have benefited from share options to the tune of £250,000. The lowest benefit available to a water chairman is £62,000, at a time when record numbers of consumers have had their supplies cut off. How can the Minister defend that?
    Mr. James Molyneaux: In her list of beneficiaries, does the hon. Lady include those in charge of the publicity for water services and regional boards? I recently wrote to the chairman of the Water Services Association and received a reply, not from him, but from an obscure publicity officer who clearly felt that I was about to trim his empire. Does the hon. Lady agree that the amount of junk mail arriving through our mail boxes, even this week, seems to have multiplied? It has now reached a level where every water board bombards us with completely useless and expensive literature.
    Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Individual water companies have bombarded us with information, most of it useless, and, as the right hon. Gentleman says, junk mail—misinformation. It is a sign of the water companies' weakness that they feel it imperative to defend themselves by going over the top and employing so many public relations companies.
    At the time of privatisation, we warned what would follow, and we gain no satisfaction from being proved right, especially when the cost to so many people has been so great. However, the problem does not merely involve prices. We also warned that access to old water authority land would be restricted or charged for after that land had passed into private hands, without any compensation being given to the public to whom the land belonged. Both warnings have proved correct.
    Yorkshire Water has restricted access to land such as Wessenden Head moor, where it has taken steps to block public access, at the insistence of its grouse-shooting tenants. Now, North West Water is drawing up plans for widespread charging. A document available from North West Water given to me at the weekend makes it clear that North West Water is planning a new charge structure for recreational activities on its land—from fell running to canoeing. It is even considering charging for birdwatching. The one decision that North West Water has made is that it will not charge for hunting, which shows whom it wants to keep in with.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Welsh water authority has gone into the hotel business in a big way and made huge investments in it? It has also bought 15 per cent. of South Wales Electricity, at a time when the number of Welsh Water customers being disconnected has reached record levels.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The record of diversified activity by the water companies is incredible. As he said, Welsh Water has invested in a chain of hotels. In addition, one water company has purchased a stake in a television franchise—so much for its priorities.
    Mr. Roger Knapman: Can the hon. Lady confirm that in socialist France the private water companies are encouraged to diversify? So why would a socialist Government in this country think differently?
    Mrs. Taylor: France has a completely different system of public accountability in the water industry. That is what is so clearly absent in this country since privatisation.
    Accountability brings me to the position of the watchdogs established at the time of privatisation. I will come to the role of the Director General of Water Services in a moment, but first I want to discuss the drinking water inspectorate—a rather grand title for the 20-odd civil servants at the Department of the Environment who monitor the information about drinking water quality given to them by the companies themselves. The last report of the inspectorate revealed more than 32,000 incidents of contamination. Such incidents are bound to happen from time to time, although with modern techniques and fail-safe devices they should be infrequent and minor. They are not always so, however.
    What does the drinking water inspectorate do when there is a major incident? During debates at about this time last year, I asked the Minister about the outbreak of cryptosporidium in Humberside between December 1989 and May 1990, when 477 people were infected. It was clearly caused by the decision of Yorkshire Water to bypass the slow sand filters at Barnby treatment plant. Those affected have still not had a proper response from the drinking water inspectorate. The Yorkshire customer services committee has been pressing the Minister for action. He has refused action: he will not tell us in parliamentary answers what he intends to do.
    Section 54 of the Water Act 1989 empowers the drinking water inspectorate to recommend that a supplier in these circumstances be prosecuted. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us whether such a recommendation has been made by the inspectorate and what he is doing to look after the interests of the people who were affected by the outbreak in Humberside? Either the drinking water inspectorate is toothless or the Minister is gutless and will not take on the privatised water companies.
    Privatisation has meant record bills, record hardship and record disconnections. Where do we go from here to obtain proper protection for consumers and to deal with the essential problems of resource management? The role of the regulator is crucial in all this. We have said from the start that he has a difficult task. First, he is asked to serve two masters, the shareholder and the consumer, when what we need is a clear voice for consumers.
    The second difficulty facing the director general stems from the initial deal that the Government gave the water companies. It was so generous that it is difficult for the

    793
    director general to plough it back. That Government deal set the framework for what has followed—the debt write-off, the green dowry and the assumptions about the financial regime of the water companies. I refer especially to the assumptions about the ratio of debt to equity, which were far too generous to the water companies. So desperate were the Government to be rid of this industry that they did a ridiculous deal with the companies, as the report of the National Audit Office shows.
    The director general has rightly raised the issue of the cost of capital. He has issued a consultation document about that cost, which clearly shows that water company investment could be financed in other and cheaper ways. The director general says:
    "There is no reason why investors in the water industry should be rewarded with returns in excess of those generally available in the finance markets."
    The Government's priority was privatisation, and not the easiest or the cheapest way to bring about some of the necessary improvements. Their priority was the triumph of privatisation dogma, even over common sense.
    The financial regime of the water companies means that today's consumers are paying not only for underinvestment in the 1980s but for the assets that will benefit future generations. Those assets should be funded over a longer period and the Director General of Water Services should demand that the water companies invest more through borrowing and not at the immediate expense of today's bill payers. The director general recognises that and must pursue the matter. It would help consumers if the Government backed him.
    Last year, the Director General of Water Services took some action on the windfall profits of the water industry, which were higher than they would otherwise have been because construction costs fell significantly. Unfortunately, consumers benefited from that action to only a limited extent. The estimated balance of savings on operating expenditure was £132 million. The director general negotiated a voluntary abatement with the water companies on their K factor of just £40 million. That left a big gap of £92 million, which was used to boost the return to shareholders. What is worse, the deal between Ofwat and the companies was struck in private and no one was able to ensure that the public interest was protected.
    The Secretary of State should oblige the director general to give a full account of the way in which that clawback was calculated. After all, the Ofwat annual report stated:
    "The regulation of an essential public utility can only be successful if it wins the trust and support of the public and the industry. The basis of this trust is transparency in decision making and the involvement of the general public and industry as far in possible in that decision making process."
    That public need to have confidence in the regulator, and
    such confidence does not exist. Part of the problem is that the Government have abdicated their responsibility and have opted out of treating water as a vital natural resource. They are treating it as a marketable commodity. Water is too important in individual and public health simply to be left to the market.
    That brings me to my third area of concern, the resource management of water. The Government recently announced that they intend to issue a consultation paper on water conservation. Perhaps we shall hear more about that in the debate. That action is at best a bit late in the
    794
    day. It would have been better if the Government had addressed such problems in the late 1980s rather than pursuing their obsession with privatisation. The fact that they intend to act is, I hope, an acknowledgement—albeit a tacit one—that they cannot leave everything to the market.
    Yesterday, the National Rivers Authority announced that it was stepping in to tackle the problem caused by the water companies abstracting too much water from rivers and ground water sources. It is right for the NRA to be concerned about that, although it is strange that, while that action is being taken, some water companies are being allowed to supply water to owners of race tracks so that horses can have ideal conditions on which to practise. Golf courses are also receiving abundant supplies. The NRA was right to act, but it should not make decisions without a national strategy for water management and, without a Government lead, there cannot be such a strategy.
    It is too easy for the NRA to make decisions affecting water companies' costs and for the companies then to apply to the regulator for cost pass through and for the customer to end up paying even more. That shows again the priority that ought to be given to someone who can speak up for consumers.
    Water metering is the most obvious example of an apparent solution to water shortages which could create more problems than it overcomes. The case for metering on conservation grounds is not proven. Countries using metering generally have average higher consumption than Britain. Furthermore, increased water usage is often at the luxury end of the market—dishwashers, jacuzzis, garden sprinklers, and even swimming pools. Those who can afford such fixtures can probably afford to make an extra payment. At the other end of the spectrum, the impact of metering on large families and those who need extra water for medical reasons can be severe.
    I read in the newspapers recently—perhaps I should not use the word "newspaper" in connection with The Sun, but similar reports appeared in other newspapers—that Ministers favour water metering. An unnamed Minister was quoted as justifying metering in this way:
    "There is no excuse for draining the Lake District so that people in the south-east can fill their swimming pools and dishwashers."
    I do not know whether the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, whose constituency is adjacent to the Lake district, was responsible for that comment. It would be helpful if he would tell us.
    We are told also that the director general favours metering, and from my own discussions with him I believe that that is the case. As a northerner, I am not in favour of draining the Lake district, but it is simplistic in the extreme to seek compulsory universal metering as the answer to water shortages. It would be very costly. Estimates vary, but it is put at about £2 billion, and it would create problems for many. Incidentally, I am concerned that the survey on the social impact of the metering trials has not yet been published. Perhaps the Minister can tell us more about that.
    Metering has also been promoted with the argument that rateable values will not exist after the year 2000. I do not like the council tax, but it would be better than putting people on compulsory metering. It is strange that a Government who talk about choice should even consider compulsory metering and will not offer the consumer a choice between it and banded charging.

    795
    The compulsory metering of new properties has already created many problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) provides an example from his constituency. He has even given me photographs, but I cannot show those to the House. In one clearance area of Blackburn, the same type of new properties have been built on the same site by both the local authority and a housing association.
    The local authority homes were completed first, and their tenants receive water bills according to the properties' rateable values—typically of £170 a year. At the other end of the Calder Bank development are to be found the housing association properties, which were completed slightly later. The average water charge to their occupiers is double that paid by local authority tenants.
    Mr. George Howarth: The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), whose constituency is served by the same water authority as that which operates in my constituency, correspond almost precisely with figures currently being cited in respect of housing association properties in the Kirkby area. My hon. Friend's example is not unique, but is typical of the effect of water metering in the north-west.
    Mrs. Taylor: It is not just North West Water that is creating such problems. They exist also in Yorkshire. Most water companies are stinging the owners of new properties. The experience of water metering generally is that it produces much higher bills and a great deal of hardship. I hope that before anyone goes headlong into promoting water metering, they will pause to consider the problems that it creates.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does the hon. Lady accept that for many people, especially elderly people living alone, water metering may seem an attractive option? She seems to have entirely written it off.
    Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening. I was advocating choice. Those who want water meters should be allowed to opt for them; what I object to is compulsory metering by water companies for people who will gain no benefit and, indeed, will pay more.
    Let me issue a word of warning to the hon. Gentleman. He should not mislead many elderly people living alone into thinking that their bills will be reduced automatically as a result of metering. Owing to the structure of payment, the standing charge is often so high that the total bill is substantial.
    When we discuss water resources, we should bear in mind one of the industry's most significant problems, the easing of which would help to increase those resources. I refer to the problem of water leakage from the infrastructure. Figures from "Water Facts" show that, in 1990–91, leakage amounted to 29.3 per cent., or 97 litres per head per day. That far outweighs any likely saving from water metering and is of great concern to those who are currently subject to restrictions on water use.
    Unfortunately, there is no incentive for the privatised water companies to decide, on the basis of common sense, to make leakage control a priority. That is no way in which to make decisions about our vital resources. The Government and the director general should insist that leakage is tackled, rather than pushing for compulsory water metering.
    796
    It is clear that water consumers face many problems, relating to both the level of charges and surety of supply. The Government should not sit back and leave the problems to the market: water is too important to each and every one of us. What is needed is proper public accountability, along with proper public decision making. It will be a sad look-out for every consumer if the Government turn their back on the problems.
    4.47 pm
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'congratulates the Government on its highly successful policy of privatising the water industry, which will lead to £28 thousand million investment on water and sewerage infrastructure, maintaining the quality of drinking water, improving rivers, and reducing discharges into the sea, thereby benefiting customers and the environment alike; and welcomes the action of the National Rivers Authority to safeguard the water environment and the role of the Director General of Water Services as the powerful independent regulator to provide effective protection for the interests of all the industry's customers.'
    The House may fairly ask why we are debating the water industry today. We are debating it because the Opposition are in a muddle: they are devoid of a leader, and devoid of policy or direction. In such circumstances, the Opposition always fall back on their old instinct to attack industry, enterprise and other people's successes.
    No doubt in due course the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—who has now left the Chamber—will initiate yet another policy review, commission a few more opinion polls, consult even more gurus in the shadow communications agency and conclude that Labour can win the next election only if it supports the free market economy and private investment and rejects the renationalisation of industry, including the water industry. Until that uncomfortable truth eventually dawns on Her Majesty's Opposition yet again, however, they will continue with their old prejudices—prejudices which they have aired in the Chamber today.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend be fair to the Opposition, and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)? Although the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—and, for that matter, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)—were keen for the industry to be renationalised, the hon. Member for Derby, South was doubtful whether the party would be able to afford it in the foreseeable future. Opposition Members are not entirely agreed about that.
    Mr. Maclean: That is absolutely true. There is quite a bit of confusion about Labour's plans for renationalisation of the water industry. I note that we have not heard from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) exactly what was meant by taking the water industry into "public control", but I may touch on that later.
    Mr. Richard Burden: How does the hon. Gentleman square his comment about renationalisation with the fact that, as far as I know, the only Government ever to nationalise the water industry were the Conservative Government, who did so in order to privatise it a couple of years later?
    Mr. Maclean: That is rather too subtle even for an Opposition Member.

    797
    It is clear that there was total confusion during the election campaign as the Leader of the Opposition said one thing, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said another and the hon. Member for Dewsbury said yet another. The truth did not emerge then, nor has it emerged today, but we may touch on it later.
    The Opposition have chosen to debate the water industry today, not because they are concerned about the real water issues but because they can think of nothing better to do than indulge in some private enterprise bashing. What have they chosen to highlight? Is it the massive investment programme of £28,000 million? No, they pooh-pooh that. Is it the management of water resources and conservation—the most important long-term issue facing us? No, all we had was a little bit about that tacked on at the end of the hon. Lady's speech. Is it the drought in the south-east or the EC directives on drinking water quality and bathing beaches? No, none of those things, infinitely important though they are, appear in the Opposition motion today.
    Instead, at a time when they want to distract attention from their internal squabbles and failings, they have fallen back on the old socialist certainties of knocking profits and dividends without having the nous to realise that there is no investment without profits, and without dividends there would be no shareholders to invest in the first place.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I appreciate that the Minister is new to his Department and thus may not recall that the Opposition had a similar debate earlier this year, which proves that we are consistent in our concern about consumers and the environment. The Minister has attacked our motion, so do I take it from that that he is happy to defend the level of salaries, dividends and perks paid to water authority chairmen?
    Mr. Maclean: I do not mind being patronised. I have broad enough shoulders to take it. I shall refer to the level of salaries later. The Opposition always complain that they do not have enough Supply days. This is only their second this Session and they have a paltry 25 Members present to launch their attack. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many do the Government have?"] This is an Opposition day. It is not a Government day. We are supposed to be on the back foot defending a major Opposition attack. That is the level to which the Opposition have sunk.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I want to continue a little further.
    We shall address the real issues. The fact that the Opposition do not know what they are is a measure of just how confused they are on this as on other policies.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister give way on the real issues?
    Mr. Maclean: I will come to the real issues myself.
    For many years the water industry was held back from doing what needed to be done by the fact that it was part of the public sector. Time and again, the amount that it could invest was subject to severe limits or even, as happened after 1976, to savage cuts. It is hardly surprising that serious backlogs developed.
    798
    The water industry could never compete with the national health service or education in public expenditure rounds.
    Mr. George Howarth: Before the Minister broadens his argument so much that he loses sight of the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), will he explain to me the justice in a new three-bedroomed housing association property in Southdene in my constituency being charged twice as much through a meter for its water as a three-bedroomed council house just over the road whose charge is fixed on the basis of its water rates?
    Mr. Maclean: I shall not comment on individual cases in different water authorities. That is the job of Ofwat and its director general, who has a broad over-view of how metering may work and how water companies fix their charges. The hon. Gentleman falls into the standard Opposition trap of pretending to like independent regulatory agencies, but at the slightest excuse he wants Ministers and politicians to rig the system, to fiddle it, to pull strings. That we will not do.
    The water industry has had severe under-investment over the past 20 or 30 years. Privatisation solved that problem. Transferring the water industry to the private sector has given the industry the freedom to invest and to manage its investment programme in the most efficient and economical way. Necessary investment no longer has to be put off because of more pressing public priorities. The programme will involve expenditure of £28,000 million at 1989–90 prices in the present decade.
    There were many doubts about whether such an enormous increase in capital expenditure could be achieved so quickly. Last year it is estimated that expenditure increased by a further quarter to £3.1 billion, improving on the planned levels. That investment is more than double the total retained profits of all the companies put together.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: On the question of past investment, will the Minister accept the figures which have oft been quoted in the House that the average investment in the water industry under the last Labour Government was £1,254 million per year and the average investment pre-privatisation under the Conservative Government was £922 million per year? That is a fact.
    On the cost of capital, will the Minister say clearly whether he accepts the statement of the Director General of Water Services about the balance between equity and debt? Does he accept the questions posed by the director general in his paper on the costs of capital, which showed that if the financial regime of the water companies were different, investment could be provided at a lower cost to consumers?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady is always scrabbling around for statistics to try to justify the huge cuts that the last Labour Government had to make in their investment programme. She has to rake over history to try to justify their position. I accept that under all Governments investment in the water industry was not good enough, but at least we had the sense to recognise that only through privatisation could we achieve the massive level of investment that we require. The hon. Lady is now trying to suggest that if the water industry were restructured, there would be more investment. The hon. Lady's policy is to

    799
    take public control of the water industry. I shall not take lessons from her on how to raise investment for a privatised water industry when it is her policy to take control of it.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I want to make some progress.
    I have said that our investment in the water industry has been £28,000 million. That is a magnificent achievement by any standards. It is an indication of the Opposition's lack of confidence in the subject matter for today's debate that they cannot acknowledge that, but simply try to pooh-pooh it.
    Mr. Nicholls: I acknowledge everything that my hon. Friend has said so far. Will he reflect on a particular difficulty that has arisen in the west country? Because that area has far more coastline than any other water authority, about 2 per cent. of the population are supporting 10 per cent. of the nation's coastline. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is understandable that that consequence could not have been foreseen, now that water charges are to rise well in excess of 15 per cent. for the next five years and for the foreseeable future it will require a unique solution and may have to be dealt with by central funding? My hon. Friend is aware of the representations that I have made to our right hon. Friend the Minister. Can he comment on it?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That is far too long for an intervention.
    Mr. Maclean: I understand my hon. Friend's concern because of the problems that have arisen in the west country. I hope that the Director General of Water Services will be able to look at this carefully when he reconsiders the K factor to see whether a unique solution can be found. However, although I accept that those circumstances are special, the west country is not unique. There are problems in other parts of the country. The Anglian Water area has the unique problem of high levels of nitrates in the water, and a considerable amount of investment needs to he made to remove those. In the north-west, cleaning up the Mersey basin requires billions of pounds of investment. That must be funded locally. Each area has particular, unique and special circumstances which require water charges to rise to pay for cleaning up the local environment.
    I mentioned the magnificent investment records of the privatised water companies. The Government made that possible, but the private water companies and their managers have risen to the challenge. The Opposition are always telling us how much importance they attach to investment—although not today, of course—and especially investment to improve the infrastructure. The performance of the water industry stands comparison with the rest of the private sector, and with the best of the private sector.
    The total investment being undertaken by the industry represents more than 50 per cent. of turnover, compared with large market leaders such as ICI, BP and RTZ, whose investment as a proportion of turnover is less than 10 per cent. If I remember rightly, the hon. Member for Dewsbury quoted Pilkington's, which has one of the better investment records—10.5 per cent.—yet the water industry invests more than 50 per cent. The Opposition seem quite
    800
    unable to recognise a success story when they see one. They want to manipulate, to meddle and to rig controls which would prevent such essential investment.
    Before the election, we heard much from the Opposition about an investment plan to kick-start the economy. My hon. Friends will remember the £1 billion that was to be the salvation of our industry. Let me tell the Opposition that the water companies invest that amount every four months.
    I will give the House some examples of the projects now being built throughout this country. In the north-west, £100 million has been spent at the Davyhulme works in Manchester. That much-needed modernisation will bring improvements to the Mersey and Manchester ship canal.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman from Cumbria at the end of this section. If he listens carefully he might hear some news about his area.
    When the London ring main is completed, it will deliver 285 million gallons of water daily to 6 million people in London. It will replace inadequate water mains, which far too often have burst and disrupted traffic, and it will enable supplies to be switched, as necessary, between the Thames valley and the Lea Valley. When completed, it will have cost £250 million and be 50 miles long.
    Thames Water is spending £450 million on treatment plants to improve the quality of drinking water. North West Water has already completed, or will shortly complete, five major plants in east Lancashire at Cowpe, Laneshaw, Mitchells House, Loveclough and Ashworth Moor near Rochdale.
    In Cumbria, North West Water is spending £6 million this year on two projects that, in total, will cost more than £30 million to improve water quality at Barrow-in-Furness.
    Across Yorkshire, water investment is proceeding apace to provide the improvements that customers are demanding. Yorkshire Water is spending £25 million on an incinerator in the Calder Valley to dispose of sewage sludge. It will have the lowest gas emission performance in Europe—the highest standards in Europe.
    In the constituency of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and surrounding areas, Yorkshire Water is spending £71 million on water quality and £35 million on security of supply. In addition to the Calder Valley incinerator, Yorkshire is spending more than £50 million on improving sewage treatment standards. It has entered into a contract with ICI to treat effluent through ICI's Huddersfield works. That is a substantial investment for a small part of Yorkshire Water's operational area.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on the need to borrow money to fund all these commendable projects, which we support because we welcome this investment. Why do not the water companies borrow more money as against raising it from consumers, who in these difficult times cannot pay the increases? Why do not they simply borrow more on the markets, as normal business men do?
    Mr. Maclean: Once again, the hon. Gentleman betrays the Opposition's irresistible desire for politicians to tell companies how to operate. He asks why we do not tell the water companies how to raise their finances.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I only asked.
    Mr. Maclean: And I have given him the answer—they must judge how to fund their investment. They can borrow if they wish. Our water industry's investment programme is second to none, and it must be funded. I regard it as perfectly acceptable that consumers should pay a major share of that investment.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister have an opinion on the document issued by the Director General of Water Services on the cost of capital?
    Mr. Maclean: I have opinions on many documents, including those issued by the Opposition. The point is that we have set up independent and tough regulatory machinery. I am not in the business of second-guessing or criticising our regulators.
    I give another example—
    Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend mentioned the London water ring main being built by Thames Water. Will he join me in congratulating Thames Water on the fact that the project is ahead of schedule?
    Mr. Maclean: I should be delighted to do so, but my hon. Friend should not assume that that is a unique achievement—many of the investments by water companies are ahead of schedule. They are pressing on apace, and I look forward to being present at the opening of many more sewage and water treatment works and watching investment take place for the benefit of the consumer.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
    Mr. Soley rose—
    Mr. Maclean: I must make some progress. I have have already given way many times.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) mentioned Thames Water's investment. Thames Water is investing nearly £400 million a year, and there are a considerable number of other investments across the country which I do not have time to mention now.
    Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a custom of the House that when a Minister mentions one's constituency, he usually has the courtesy to give way? The Minister mentioned the Calder Valley and Calderdale, and Halifax is right in the middle.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Maclean: I thought that I had been very generous in giving way. I gave way four times to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), although I did not intervene in her speech.
    My hon. Friends will want to know how British contractors and British plant manufacturers are benefiting from the investment. It is all very well to quote the figure of £28,000 million but it represents work being done by our constituents across the country and investment by British firms.
    The National Economic Development Committee for the construction industry made a special analysis of the situation and confirmed that British contractors and plant manufacturers have benefited considerably from the programme. For example, John Brown Engineering, Trafalgar House Construction and John Laing are
    802
    benefiting and playing their part in the provision of new infrastructure. I should like to know how many tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on those construction projects, the ones that the Opposition are pooh-poohing.
    What is the £28,000 million being spent on?
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: How wonderful.
    Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is wonderful, he should tell the hon. Member for Dewsbury so that she can praise it occasionally.
    What is the money being spent on? What benefits is it bringing to customers and consumers? In the years to 1995, forecast expenditure in the water industry will be £17.2 billion. Better treatment of drinking water accounts for £2.5 billion of that money. That accords directly with the priorities of customers. In the recently published survey carried out by MORI for the Office of Water Services, 98 per cent. of customers thought it essential or very important that tap water should be safe to drink.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: That is what the money is being spent on. A further £3.9 billion is to modernise and renovate water distribution systems. There is no point in sending out clean water from the treatment works unless it reaches the customer through clean pipes. Renovation also reduces leakage. New water resources and other works will account for another £1.8 billion.
    An even greater proportion of the programme—£9 billion—is accounted for by renovation and repair of the sewerage system. That includes £2.4 billion for building new sewage treatment works and for improving existing ones.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: No.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister has been generous in giving way and I am grateful. The debate should be about the quality of service as we are talking about a monopoly supplier. What troubles us is the issue of sewerage and I will give an example from my constituency. In my constituency, pipes apparently come near the surface and cause backflows in heavy storms such as we have had recently. There are at least half a dozen houses in which the basements have been flooded with sewage, one on three occasions. This is why they trouble the Minister on the issue. Why is the answer from Thames Water that it cannot even provide help-line advice? It says that it can provide no compensation, that it cannot pump out the sewage, and that it cannot do anything. If British Gas were involved, one could get something done.
    I have constituents who are literally ankle deep in sewage in their living rooms because the pipes are too near the surface. All they have been told is that they should ensure that they insure against such an event in future. Will the Minister give the House a commitment that he will check with all water authorities to ensure—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is too long. I make a plea to the House. Many hon. Members want to contribute. Interventions are acceptable, but they should be short.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point which goes to the heart of the investment programme about which we are talking. There is a huge backlog of work which needs to be carried out on sewerage systems throughout the country. Thames no doubt has its priorities. Providing the London ring main for fresh water is one of the top priorities. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance because I should not want to interfere or to direct Thames into priorities that I as a politician would impose. Thames must service its customers and that is what Ofwat is there to ensure. I hope that as it clears the backlog of its major works and priorities, Thames will be able to direct attention to other important problems.
    I am not surprised that we need to spend an enormous amount on sewerage and sewage treatment. The amount is substantially more than needs to be spent on water supply. Vital though it is, sewerage has been an invisible and unappreciated service—unless and until something goes drastically wrong. As a more responsible attitude to the environment develops and spreads, the old attitudes are changing. In the MORI survey, 88 per cent. of customers said that it was essential or very important to have sewage treatment to EC standards.
    I emphasise that much of the expenditure is needed so that the United Kingdom can comply with EC legislation, and rightly so. By 1995, £2 billion will have been spent by water companies to achieve compliance with the standards in the EC drinking water directive. We have accelerated our programme to achieve compliance with the bathing water directive and to bring the great majority of bathing beaches into compliance by 1995. The total cost in England and Wales until 1998 will be £2 billion.
    In this area, as in all others, improvements must be paid for. The Opposition always seem to fail to grasp that point. They want control of the water companies—
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: I want to make this point. The Opposition want control of the water companies. They would either buy them back at the market cost of £8 billion or they would carry out the sinister threat of the hon. Member for Dagenham, who said:
    "A Labour Government would take action to regulate the water industry which would reduce the profitability of the privatised water companies and, therefore, would be likely to depress the share price."
    Another option trailed by the Opposition is to "take control", without spelling out what that means. We have not heard a single word from the Opposition today about what they mean by "taking control" or "taking over" the companies. Whether that distorted thinking prevails, or the hon. Lady's, at election time, the Government, in either scenario, would have to find the £28 billion for investment and Labour Members are now telling us that they hate the thought of the PSBR rising. The £28 billion investment programme is the equivalent of £130 a year for every household in England and Wales, which is more than £67 million per day, or more than £5,000 per minute of every day, for 10 years. In the time that the hon. Member for Dewsbury was speaking, the water companies invested £235,000.
    The water companies need to make profits to finance that programme. The Director General of Water Services, Ian Byatt, recognised that when he published his annual report in June. He said:
    804
    "Many customers criticise the profits made by water companies … It is important that the companies should be profitable otherwise investors will not provide the funds essential for the completion of the £28 billion investment programme. Our surveys show that customers want safe, clean drinking water and clean rivers and beaches. Over 70 per cent. of these profits are reinvested in the water business to achieve this."
    The Opposition have again ignored that point today, concentrating instead on bosses, salaries, no doubt believing there are votes to be gained in the process. We have always made it clear that salaries are a matter for the shareholders and that the best people are needed to manage that huge investment programme, but that companies cannot expect the workers to exercise restraint unless management does so likewise.
    Before the Opposition get totally hooked on knocking the water companies, they should remember that more than 50 per cent. of water workers own shares and benefit from the enterprise they work in. Total investment last year is estimated to have been twice the companies' pre-tax profits. That is an exceptionally high proportion by any standard.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maclean: I want to make progress. I have been generous in giving way.
    If the hon. Member for Dewsbury does not want water companies to make and spend those profits, which elements of the investment programme does she want to sacrifice? Does she want raw sewage to go into the sea? Does she want us to continue to dump sewage sludge at sea? If she wants to freeze water bills and profits, what schemes would she cancel—which of the 595 on-going projects in South West Water area, which of Anglian Water's 210 sewage works that are being improved? How about the Severn Trent £20 million scheme at Stoke Bardolph, which is an investment of £40 for every adult and child in the Nottingham area?
    Perhaps she would have stopped the £30 million refurbishment of the Knostrop sewage works in Leeds—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am grateful to the Opposition. They do not want to cancel any of those things. Of course not. The hon. Member for Dewsbury is always berating us for not doing things faster. The Opposition seem incapable of grasping the confusion and contradiction of their position. Without those necessary profits, there would be no investment in the first place.
    Benefits have to be paid for, but the hon. Member for Dewsbury begrudges the margin needed to attract the necessary funds, which would have to be found from the consumer to raise the funds, if it were a public sector investment, as she wants, and if the water companies were taken into public ownership.
    Of course water charges are increasing in order to pay for that investment. Charges are planned to increase by 63 per cent. in real terms by the end of the century, because that is the only way to pay for the improvements that the public have clearly said that they want and expect. There is no secret about the increase—it was set out clearly in the prospectus issued for privatisation—but the figures are not carved in stone. They are liable to change if the relevant circumstances change.
    The House should remember that when we are considering proposals for further environmental improvements, and new European Community environmental legislation, we must not fall into the trap of thinking that

    805
    every possible environmental improvement is costless of, at least, easily afforded. Sooner or later, hard choices will have to be made. We are certainly not making light or the increases that are necessary in water charges or the difficulties they may, perhaps, cause for a small minority of customers.
    The fact that water charges are increasing may well have contributed to the increase in complaints about water companies received by the director general, and, possibly, to the rise in disconnections of customers, which he has reported. [Interruption.] I shall come to that matter later.
    Bills must, of course, be paid. The power of companies to disconnect customers must remain as a legitimate last resort to deal with those who do not pay their bills. It would be entirely wrong that people who pay should have to subsidise those who do not. In fact, a substantial proportion of customers disconnected, almost three quarters, are reconnected within 48 hours because the bill has subsequently been paid or arrangements made for the arrears to be paid by instalments. Almost 10 per cent. of disconnections are made to households that have "gone away" leaving unpaid debts for others to pick up. For the small minority, who have genuine difficulty in paying, the director general is encouraging companies to review and improve their procedures to ensure that every possible assistance is provided.
    It is hardly surprising that the number of complaints to Ofwat should have increased because this is the first time that the water industry's customers have had an independent regulator to whom to complain. He has set out deliberately to ensure that customers know that they can refer their complaints to him and that they can be sure that they will be listened to. We have published a citizens charter, which encourages them to expect and demand higher standards of service. We are proud of that. Consumers are taking advantage of that opportunity. The complaints naturally cover a whole range of matters, but about 63 per cent. of them are about charges or billing.
    The same MORI survey for Ofwat shows that 80 per cent. of customers are satisfied with the overall service that they received. I am certain that companies want that percentage to be higher and will take steps to achieve that.
    Yet another success of the system we introduced in 1989 is the framework of independent regulation of the industry. We saw that at work yesterday. The National Rivers Authority—NRA—is exerting its influence, and, if necessary, its authority, to protect rivers from excessive abstraction. The water companies—indeed, ultimately the water consumers concerned—may find that painful.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being more generous in giving way than the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was when I tried to intervene in her speech. Does my hon. Friend accept that many Conservative hon. Members accept that the preservation of river environments is an important part of water usage and that we very much welcome yesterday's statement? I do not know what influence my hon. Friend has over the chairman of the NRA, but will he ask him to extend his review of rivers to include the River Kennet in my constituency? At present, it is at severe risk, but it is not included in the present list.
    Mr. Maclean: I am sure that the chairman of the NRA will want to read this debate carefully. By the action that the NRA took yesterday, it has shown that it is a good independent regulator which can take the necessary action without any prodding, prompting or kicking from me or any other politician. We should leave such action to the good sense and judgment of the independent regulators. No doubt my hon. Friend will draw his concern to the chairman's attention.
    Equally, the Director General of Water Services is a tough and independent regulator of prices. His influence has been seen in the way in which most companies have chosen to contain their price increases below their permitted K factors. It has been seen also in his proposals for reducing the allowance for the cost of capital. He has not hesitated to ensure that the water consumer is not disadvantaged by diversification by the parent companies. He has not hesitated to criticise where necessary. I am sure he will do so again—for example, when he publishes, in July, his overall review of the companies' annual results.
    Opposition Members seem incapable of accepting that the framework is working as we intended. They want us to dictate to the independent regulators how to do their jobs. They cannot resist reverting to the failed policy of Government interference.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Maclean: I agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury that water is an important national resource. In our climate, people tend to think that there is rather a lot of it and that it should be delivered free. The truth is that some parts of the country are very short of it. It costs a lot to deliver to EC standards, and even more to treat the sewage that we do not all like to think or talk about. All the water delivered to our homes is of drinking water standard, but only 2 per cent. is used for drinking, and each year our annual consumption of water increases by 1 per cent.
    The Government take the view that we need a proper debate about the long-term management of our water resources. So we shall shortly issue a consultation paper which will look at the merits of water conservation and discuss options for the management, custody, distribution and use of our water resources. I want to see a wide range of responses, not just from those areas short of water but also from areas which are perceived as having plenty of it. The Government will then consider action in the light of those responses.
    Mrs. Mahon rose—
    Mr. Maclean: I do not know where the hon. Member for Dewsbury gets the idea that the Government are backing compulsory metering. It is one option which will be considered in the consultation paper. The hon. Lady should not jump to hasty conclusions.
    Because of the unavoidable increase in charges, the customers, the consumers, of a privatised water industry are benefiting from an unprecedented investment programme to raise standards of service and improve environmental quality.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Maclean: I have been generous in giving way to Opposition Members. I must make progress.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I am sorry. Having given way generously to Opposition Members, I have tried to restore the balance by giving way occasionally to my hon. Friends.
    We have seen an unprecedented investment programme which has raised standards of service and improved environmental quality.
    That investment is being managed by companies which, because they are subject to private sector discipline, are achieving progressively greater levels of efficiency and, therefore, economy. They are protected for the first time by powerful independent regulators in the form of Ofwat, the National Rivers Authority, and the drinking water inspectorate.
    The hon. Member for Dewsbury fails to understand the concept of the drinking water inspectorate, which performs an audit inspection task of the water companies. I shall not prejudice its decision on the cryptosporidium case. It is a complex issue and any prosecution that it might wish to take would need to be very well founded indeed.
    Water services in Britain are among the best in Europe, but water charges in Britain are among the lowest. They average only 46p per household per day for the combined cost of water supply and sewerage. That is the price paid by an average family of two adults and two children for the delivery of nearly 1,000 pints of water and taking away the same quantity of sewage. It is substantially less than the French, the Germans or the Italians have to pay for their water services. It is a penny a day more expensive than The Times or The Daily Telegraph but less than the cost of a cup of coffee outside this place. I reckon that that is a magnificent bargain, and as the benefits of privatisation are fully realised, it will become an even better bargain.
    In the two months since their election defeat, Opposition Members have clearly not learnt from their mistakes. Their internal analysis document of their defeat said that Labour was seen
    "as a party of the past"
    with
    "a set of negative and off-putting associations"
    and
    "too much baggage from the late 70s and early 80s to persuade people that they can really trust us".
    In this debate, where they picked a subject to deflect attention from their present failings, they have merely highlighted their prejudices, which are deeply rooted in the past. They are still saddled with the renationalisation baggage that their union masters will not let them jettison, and they have shown why they still cannot be trusted. I commend the Government amendment to the House.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Jimmy Wray: I am disappointed in the Minister because he would not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
    Several organisations have asked me to speak in this debate, but it would be unfair of me not to look at the position in England and Wales. I listened carefully to the Minister when he spoke about privatisation and who the shareholders were. He said that 50 per cent. of the shareholders were workers in the industry but he did not say how many shares the workers had compared to managers and directors. That matter was a scandal and a national disgrace. Indeed, the privatisation of the water industry was the sale of the century.
    808
    I remember when we were debating the matter in the House in 1988. The Government sold the public assets of this country, worth £27 billion, and 435,000 acres of prime land. They sold land and property worth some £3 billion and made a profit of some £745 million. Various organisations warned us about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) mentioned one of those organisations—the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which warned us about section 7 of the Act referring to relevant bodies. The relevant bodies turned a blind eye to the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which had been in operation for some 40 years. The relevant bodies defined in the Act include the National Rivers Authority, the water undertaker and the sewage undertaker. Section 7 has eroded the protection of access rights for the public since privatisation.
    I was worried when the Government told us about French interest in British water supplies. Three French companies were interested in water and its treatment—Lyonnais, Generale and Saur—and that interest was shown for the first time in the deal between Trafalgar House and Saur. Three months after Saur and Trafalgar House had entered into a deal, the business was sold on to Generale at a vast profit.
    The Council for the Protection of Rural England is still worried about the selling off of the Welsh valleys by private developers, who will rape the unspoiled landscape and sell it for a profit. That is what it is all about.
    The high water charges are a national disgrace. The Minister has the nerve to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that this is about purifying water. Profits in 1988 were £745 million. In 1991–92, they are £1.5 billion. What an increase. By 1992–93, water companies are expected to show bumper profits of some £1.65 billion.
    Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He shows much more gallantry than the Minister. I shall help my hon. Friend, because 1 was trying to be helpful to the Minister when he was talking about the price of water. Those paying for the increased profits are people on benefits. I looked into the matter today and found that, in my constituency, people on income support, receiving as little as £66.60 a week, were paying more than £3 a week out of that benefit for water.
    There have been massive increases in charges since privatisation and the Minister should be aware of the percentage of people's benefits being paid for water. I shall put my findings on the board for him. Those people are the real payers for the profits in the privatised industry.
    Mr. Wray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and glad that she has been able to make that point.
    The Government have deceived the Scottish electors. During the general election campaign Conservative Members spoke of the privatisation of the Northern Ireland water industry, but did not mention the privatisation of the Scottish water industry. We know what there have been meetings between the Scottish Office and Ofwat about the possibility of privatising the nine regional and three island water authorities in Scotland by setting up six water companies, which will be hived off to private enterprise. Why has that plan not been discussed with us?
    Why has there been no mention of the meeting proposed in the near future between Scottish Office officials and financial analysts from NatWest? The

    809
    Government mentioned nothing about that—indeed, they denied it in the Scottish press. The Scottish Office said that it had no plans to do so, but it is on record as planning to have such a meeting.
    I have read the report produced by Strathclyde water committee three years ago that stated clearly that, if the waters of Scotland were to be privatised, £4 billion would first have to be invested in Scottish water to meet European Community standards. Strathclyde, one of the biggest regional water authorities, is on record as saying that it would have to spend £800 million over the next 15 years to bring its water up to EC standards.
    The Transport and General Workers Union, the GMB, the Labour party, the nationalists and the Scottish people are all against privatisation of water. One reason we are against it is the number of disconnections that have taken place in England and Wales, where last year there were 21,000 disconnections, compared with 7,673 in 1990–91. How does that tally with what the Minister has to say? Complaints have increased to 10,635—a 130 per cent. increase. I would not be happy with such an increase if I had set up a water authority consumer protection service.
    We are worried about water metering; we do not want the very food of life to be cut off from the people we represent—people whose only fault is poverty. It is a cardinal sin for water or electricity supplies to be cut off.
    One of the major worries in Scotland involves the Greater Glasgow health board, which is now putting forward plans to regional authorities on the fluoridation of public water supplies. We are worried because we thought that the local authorities hired directors of water to treat water to make it wholesome, not to treat the people who drink the water. In 1975, we took the case to the Court of Session on moral, medical and legal grounds, and won. The matter was ruled ultra vires, and the Government had to introduce an Act to give permission to local authorities to fluoridate and mass-medicate the nation.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Wray: Once I have finished my speech, I shall give way.
    We believe that fluoridation takes away the fundamental right of freedom of choice in medical matters. We have often asked the Government to state whether fluoridating public water supplies comes within the terms of medicinal products as defined by the Medicines Act 1968. Section 130 of that Act clearly states that any substance mixed with an element and administered to an animal or human being to prevent disease is a medicine—the disease in that case being dental caries. So fluoride in this case would constitute a medicinal product, and before a local authority could give its permission to put fluoride in the water the proposal would have to be passed by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines.
    Under the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act 1926, mixing fluorides with foodstuffs is prohibited. Incidentally, fluoride is a poisonous byproduct of an aluminium smelter's waste. When it enters the water, it does not become fluoride; it becomes acid. It then goes directly into the body, where I am told it is attracted to calcium and teeth. I did not invent the diseases with which fluoridation of water is associated—chronic fluoride
    810
    poisoning and skeletal and dental fluorosis. Not being a medical man myself, I am worried by the differing views that we have heard on this subject in recent years.
    I should like to repeal the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 if I ever have the chance to introduce a Bill. That would certainly be one of my priorities.
    I hope that, after examining the privatisations of all our national resources, a Labour Government would take them all back into public ownership, to ensure that we take profits from the very few and distribute them to the many.
    5.42 pm
    Sir Giles Shaw: I commence by declaring an interest, as a non-executive director of a water company. It is high time we had the opportunity to discuss this industry. The fact that it has been attacked by the Labour party for being successful probably denotes an accolade for the industry. If so, that proves that we have come of age in two years—not an unreasonable track record.
    The House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) and his analysis of the problems, as he sees them, in Scotland. I shall confine myself to the main issues related to the industry today.
    I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—perhaps typically—designed such an oddly worded motion. It talks of being "alarmed" at the record profits, record dividends and record salaries in the industry. I do not see why that should be a cause of alarm to the hon. Lady. She has always been extremely anxious that improvements should be carried out quickly, and that as many innovations as possible should be effected in the industry.
    She was one of the first to say that there should be no derogation for sewerage systems in Yorkshire. She said that they should all meet the required standards by the due date. She was one of the first to welcome new European directives and to demand that they be instantly absorbed in our water industry. She would be the first to recognise that a huge onus has been laid on the industry since privatisation to deliver change as quickly as possible. That is why there is record investment leading to record levels of improvement. Record levels of improvement mean record levels of customer satisfaction.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned his role with Yorkshire Water. Is he prepared to comment, where the Minister was not, about the director general's suggestion in the cost-of-capital paper? What is his view on restructuring the investment programme?
    Sir Giles Shaw: I shall not give that view today, but I agree that all companies will have to adopt a considered approach to a review of capital investment. I remind the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who did not appear to recognise the fact, that, quite apart from capital investment out of profit, there is investment through large borrowings. Some £1.5 billion profit in the industry in 1991–92 contributed to an investment of £3 billion during that year. On average, 70 per cent. of profits are ploughed back into investment.
    It is not correct for the hon. Lady or the hon. Member for Workington to assume that the consumer is carrying the load for capital investment. Consumers make a contribution to profit, a significant amount of which is

    811
    invested. Every company must ensure its credit-worthiness, and the share price of a private utility reflects the company's worth, enabling it to engage in low-cost borrowing. Every board must review borrowing year by year and event by event, because it must meet its costs.
    The Minister gave an admirable tour d'horizon of the way in which the industry is coping. I emphasise the speed with which the industry has to move. People say that borrowing can be spread over a long time, but the industry must meet deadlines for the implementation of entirely new standards for water quality, and that requires an enormous effort in a short time. Yorkshire Water has about 4,500 employees and it is therefore not huge in terms of manpower, but it is a high-quality company and needs significant resources in technical and qualified manpower to deal with contracting and sub-contracting, and must acquire the necessary talent speedily to develop the investment processes.
    The privatisation programme was about the only way to develop the nation's assets above ground and subsequently below ground. Those are entirely different phases. Most companies are currently investing in above ground assets, such as sewerage works, reservoirs and treatment plants. However, as the Minister said, another great tranche of investment will be required for the review of underground assets, and I suspect that it will be beyond the £28 million programme of which he spoke. All those programmes must be skilfully managed to time, and above all to cost, and the water companies have shown themselves capable of achieving highly desirable results.
    Since privatisation, there has been a real shift in price, and I entirely accept Opposition suggestions that that has brought hardship to some people. However, as the Minister said, the absolute price for water of 46p per household is not high. We and our fathers inherited the belief that water was not only a natural resource but was free and that delivery costs were absorbed by other commodities. The old domestic rating system was undoubtedly the vehicle for that, because it contained the water rate, which was not easy for the householder to determine. The rate element for sewerage has always been much higher than that for water.
    We have a major task in taking the public with us while maintaining speed of development. We must ensure that the quality of service is satisfactory and appreciated and that people understand the necessity for the investment that has led to higher charges.
    Mr. Derek Enright: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the unfairness imposed by the very board on which he serves, whereby a single-person household has to pay three times as much as a neighbouring one comprising a family of six? That arises from the disgraceful way in which Yorkshire Water meters water. Does not that go against all the tenets of the hon. Gentleman's forefathers and foremothers, who provided water at an affordable price because they knew that it was good for the public's health?
    Sir Giles Shaw: I accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that the public will ultimately have to accept that water is good value for money. In terms of the method of payment, obviously a range of alternatives is available. There is some metering, but the majority of domestic bills
    812
    are still based on the old rateable values formula, which gives rise to much more grief than metering would in respect of the single owner-occupier.
    I am sure that a correct method of charging will eventually be found, and that, after the immense rush of capital investment that has been made for the reasons that I gave, the price of water will stabilise at a level that is bound to be acceptable to the public.
    The question of debt and disconnection was raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury, as well as implied by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). Yorkshire has an Ofwat of its own, which states:
    "We continue to be concerned at the numbers of people who experience difficulty in the paying of their water and sewerage bills … The number of domestic premises suffering disconnection in the region has continued to rise to a total of 1,931 in the year ending 30 September 1991. We have monitored the systems employed by the Yorkshire company and by Yorkshire Water before disconnection occurs, and are satisfied that the code of practice is being correctly applied."
    Disconnection is a threat and a last resort. As the hon. Lady said, court action is involved—but that is prior to disconnection, as part of the process of ensuring that it does not occur without proper statutory backing. It is not necessarily something that stands in its own right.
    Water prices are rising faster than inflation because the rate of capital expenditure is passing through an extremely rapid phase.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people on low incomes—£66 per week if they are a couple on income support, or £86 per week if they are a pensioner couple—suffer disproportionately because of rapidly rising water prices? They receive no rebate, and so pay a disproportionately high price.
    Also, coming as I do from a local authority background, I find it difficult—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should confine her intervention to one question. She asked one very fair question, but she cannot have two bites of the cherry.
    Sir Giles Shaw: I accept the hon. Lady's point about the difficulty of making up the payments. There is a strong case for ensuring that water is encompassed by the benefits system in the same way as electricity and gas. I have strongly argued with the Department of Social Security that that should be so. Water is an essential service, as is power, heat, and light. The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I would certainly support efforts to win DSS recognition of it.
    The scale of investment is high in national terms, and also in relation to Yorkshire Water. We are currently spending about £2.5 billion, and that figure is likely to increase by the end of the year, and by another £1 billion or so before the end of the current capital programme is reached. The capital programme is therefore roughly two thirds the size of the company's entire annual turnover. That is a substantial amount for a company to find.
    Mr. Martlew: Surely Yorkshire Water is one of the authorities that cannot supply consumers with the water they require. Yorkshire has water shortages. What is Yorkshire Water doing about that?
    Sir Giles Shaw: Fortunately, the management of Yorkshire's water resources is not a matter for me; I am a non-executive director. As the hon. Gentleman probably

    813
    knows, the problem occurs in the Hull aquifers, and the present climate has caused a reduction in the water-bearing rock. The Yorkshire grid, however, transfers resources from most parts of the county to where they are needed, and water is currently being extracted from the River Derwent and sent to Hull.
    Despite four years of exceptional weather of one kind or another, most parts of the country have succeeded in managing water resources. In the past, there has been insufficient investment in collection and storage, and probably insufficient examination of methods of moving water from one area to another. Such examination is needed now.
    There is also the question of leakage of resources. I accept that there is an onus on the industry to reduce the amount of water that is wasted from the pipework, preferably to an insignificant level. Underground renovation on a huge scale will be needed, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury will appreciate; that will be part of the next phase of major capital investment.
    Some companies have already managed to reduce leakage, however. Anglian Water, for example, has achieved a reduction from 22 per cent. to 18 per cent., and Thames Water a reduction from 25 per cent. to 18 per cent. That shows that the problem can be corrected, and I hope that it will be; but we should also recognise that a large proportion of leakage may occur on domestic customers' own premises, where ancient pipework is now porous.
    Obviously, the regulator will determine the way in which the industry progresses. A review of the regulating formula is currently under discussion, and I have little doubt that debates such as this represent an element of the evidence that he will seek in relation to both prices and allowances. It is clear, however, that most companies have been able to make progress without applying the full increase allowed by the regulator, and that should be recognised as a mark in their favour.
    The fact remains that the industry is in the early stages of renewing the nation's assets for the distribution, consumption and treatment of probably the most important substance that mankind can have. We should appreciate that we are blessed with an extremely high quality of water for household use—much of it not for drinking, but able to be put to the many other domestic uses that are possible in the modern dwelling. We have a world resource, and we have world standards of conservation to observe. Only a high-quality, profitable and well-managed industry can deliver that resource to our people.
    5.58 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The core of the debate is the difficulty—nay, impossibility—of introducing any element of competition into a natural monopoly. I am disappointed to see not just that there are comparatively few Conservative Members but that they are not dressed in sackcloth and ashes for what surely must be the privatisation programme's one huge failure.
    It must be apparent at the outset that the legislation has failed to distinguish between a natural monopoly and one that can be mitigated by competition. That was why I and
    814
    my hon. Friends tabled an amendment which, sadly, has not been selected, relating to the organ grinder, the Minister, rather than the monkey, the director general.
    In the 1989 legislation it was impossible to introduce a positive commitment to competition and the use of market mechanisms. Instead, it simply followed the Thatcherite path of negative opposition to public ownership of a public utility. Had the Government taken on board the rhetoric of competition and produced some realistic solution, we might not be having this debate. Instead, they were more concerned with selling off the family silver than providing effective consumer control.
    Sadly, we cannot start again and it is already apparent from the contribution from Opposition Members this afternoon that although some now wish to do a U-turn, or perhaps a U-bend, there are others who wish to find some form of renationalisation, however prohibitive the cost.
    We must now consider how some element of competition or, in default of competition, some form of effective regulation on behalf of the public interest, can be introduced into what otherwise will inevitably continue to be a monopoly.
    Surely we can learn some lessons from the other regulators. Ofgas has referred the gas industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but there has been no such reference, except on a minor issue, in the water industry. That might be a route to be explored. The Minister might wish to consider that.
    Oftel has had some success in introducing an overall price cap and, perhaps even more important, in disaggregating the basket of charges and costs, looking at them individually. That would be a major benefit if it were applied by Ofwat to the water industry.
    An extremely effective step would be if Ofwat were enabled to consider the range of connection charges, which vary enormously from one part of the country to another without apparently any rational basis.
    Perhaps most important of all, Ofwat should be looking at the notorious standing charge which encourages households to use more water, which must be against all conservation principles. The average standing charge in the south-west in 1991–92 was £27.50, a not inconsiderable amount for such a low-income area. We certainly wish to abolish all standing charges for pensioners.
    Mr. Nicholls: Even billionaire pensioners?
    Mr. Tyler: Certainly, I do not believe that they should be excluded from such a benefit; nor, I understand, does the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way again on that point.
    One way in which the director general could make a substantial difference is if he were permitted to transfer his consideration of charge increases, to look at them in terms of rate of return. The problem about a rate of return basis is that it is backward looking. It takes into account historic costs and demands, but the K factor looks forward to future demands and productivity improvements. It also has the disadvantage that it can be a disincentive to cutting costs and improved productivity. On balance we must agree that the K factor, if properly used, is more likely to be effective than a rate of return regulation.
    What we could do is to ensure, as happens in the United States, that the process by which that regulatory decision

    815
    is taken is carried out in the open with the support and encouragement of consumers and consumer representatives, enabling the utilities to put their case so that future charges can be scrutinised in public. If there is a capital underspend, Ofwat should automatically be able to curtail the intermediate price increases.
    There has been much discussion today about alternative methods of paying for water. Clearly a new method must be found before the current rateable values are disallowed in the year 2000. The proposed bands for the council tax will not prove an effective instrument. They will be a blunt instrument. But whatever advantages there are in metering in monetary and environmental terms, they must be set against the considerable difficulties that have been referred to this afternoon, if for no other reason than that the cost would be astronomical. The original estimate based on the Isle of Wight pilot area was about £4 million and the actual cost could well be £12 million. In those circumstances, we must analyse the present situation, not just wait for a new system of charging which we think would be a great deal better.
    It was originally anticipated—this is what has changed since the original legislation was enacted—that the K factor would be a minus figure. As the Minister said in answer to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), the changes that have taken place in those three years in terms of increased environmental responsibilities and, therefore, increased costs, have been so dramatic that it must now be evident to everybody that the basis of the original calculation is wildly out of date. The Act is no longer relevant.
    That is also true of the way in which the drinking water inspectorate's role has changed dramatically. The inspectorate is still hidden in the bowels of the Department of the Environment. It has never instigated any prosecution or attempted any public exercise to ensure that we meet EC standards. There have been widespread failures in attempting to meet the EC standards.
    It is anecdotal, but I am told that the pigs at the food and farming festival in Hyde park a few weeks ago refused to drink the tap water and water had to be brought from Harrods. They may not be the arbiters of taste, but there surely comes a point when we must consider carefully whether the effective regulation of water standards in rivers by the National Rivers Authority is not rather higher than the quality of tap water.
    The problem is that the regime set up in 1989 is too inflexible. There are all sorts of examples that hon. Members can quote showing what has changed since then. In his latest report the director general says:
    "The requirement to meet new environmental obligations, mainly the acceleration of the Bathing Waters Programme, announced by the government in November 1990 in order to meet European Community obligations has resulted in an increase in customers' bills in the South West this year of some 16 per cent., and will involve further heavy spending largely concentrated during the next three years. It is of concern that the estimates submitted to me by South West Water in October 1991 were considerably in excess of those made to the Secretary of State in October 1990."
    The director general himself is not satisfied with the quality of information available to him in making his determination.
    We need two major changes. Clearly we need legislation to increase the powers of the regulator to protect the consumer and, at the same time, we clearly need a
    816
    recognition that there needs to be an injection of public and EC money to pay for the improvements that we all demand.
    It seemed to be apparent—I hope that the Minister will make it abundantly clear when he replies—from the answer given to the hon. Member for Teignbridge that no further Government money will be available to help areas such as the south-west with its enormous new obligations.
    Two weeks ago, in a minor dress rehearsal to the debate, I initiated an Adjournment debate. At the end of it, the Under-Secretary was asked a number of specific questions. As he has had time to consider them a little further, I hope that this afternoon I will receive more detailed replies than I did on that occasion.
    I first asked whether he was satisfied with the powers available to Ofwat. On that occasion he seemed to be over-satisfied, but we have to wait and see. Secondly, I asked whether he was satisfied that the customer is adequately protected from excessive water charges. The Under-Secretary seemed to think that it was perfectly acceptable that the average household in the south-west was paying 62p per day for its water. We have heard today that the national average is 46p per day. That differential already calls into question whether it is a fair system of charging. When it is set against the average household income, 62p in the south-west is very high.
    Thirdly, I asked the Under-Secretary whether he would reintroduce Exchequer support by way of equalisation to deal with problems such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Teignbridge—our long coastline and comparatively small resident population. He did not say no, but he did not say yes. This afternoon the Minister seemed to say that the answer was probably no.
    Another question related to the eligibility of the privatised companies for public funds from the European Commission. I asked whether the Minister would ensure that the rural development fund of the European Commission was available to the privatised companies. He said yes, but he did not seem to accept that that would require a degree of additionality from Whitehall. I asked whether he was aware that Ofwat powers to prevent distracting diversification—such as, for example, into shareholding in television companies—were unacceptable to the public. There was no answer to that. Finally, I dealt with the issue of chairmen's perks. Today the Minister seemed to be unaware of or unworried by that.
    Last weekend, a retired couple in my constituency aged 71 and 66 spoke to me. They live in a modest bungalow in Bude which, ironically, until recently was within a few hundred yards of a discharge point into the sea for raw sewage. They told me that their poll tax for two people was £530.34 and that their water charges for the current year are £510.92. That is the scale of the problem and hon. Members on both sides of the House must come across the same problems in their postbag and surgeries.
    The Minister claimed today that the Act is working as the Government intended. Was that what hon. Members voted for and what they intended in 1989? We believe that the Act needs to be reviewed and overhauled urgently. If it is not, the water charges in this country will bear far too heavily on far too many people who simply cannot afford them.
    6.13 pm
    Sir Jim Spicer: Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary I think that we heard just what we expected from the Opposition. In other words, they hear no good, see no good and speak no good. That will be the tenor of all that we hear during this debate from them because it is sour grapes on their part. What has happened in the water industry has been done by our Conservative Government for the good of the country. I want to speak up loudly and clearly for the water companies, especially Wessex Water.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman probably owns it.
    Sir Jim Spicer: I do not own it. If I played any part within that company, I would declare it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
    Wessex Water is a fine company and it has done a great job since privatisation. Since privatisation, 80,000 samples of drinking water have been taken every year and are subjected to over 1 million tests for purity. A total of 99.6 per cent. of the legally required tests complied with United Kingdom and European Community standards last year. One cannot do much better than that. There have been no water restrictions in Wessex since 1976 and I would give a pretty firm guarantee that there will be none this year.
    In this decade, Wessex Water is committed to spending over £350 million on improving already high drinking water standards. A total of 98.2 per cent. of Wessex Water's sewerage treatment works meet compliance standards. Six years ago, that figure was 85.7 per cent. Bathing water standards are of great importance in a constituency such as mine. The figure for meeting compliance standards is up from 71 per cent. in 1987 to 92 per cent. last year.
    Mr. Mike Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Wessex intends to spend £70,000 to establish the life of a meter, when Welsh Water has already established that that life will be seven years? Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is a good way of spending money?
    Sir Jim Spicer: Yes. In Wessex we are cautious people. We do not necessarily accept all that has been done in Wales. In fact, we take it with a pinch of salt. We want to do our own investigation. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have already carried out the largest tests in the entire country on the Isle of Wight. So the hon. Gentleman should give some credit to Wessex Water for knowing a little more about metering than any other authority.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is not present, because he raised the point about four or five properties being flooded with sewage. In Bridport, a town served by Wessex Water 24 terraced houses have faced flooding with sewage three or four times a year over the past 50 years. The people in those properties have lived in fear for all that time. I have been horrified and shocked over the years when, time and again, I have gone to the old nationalised company only to find that no work was contemplated.
    Immediately after privatisation, I went to Wessex Water and said, "This will not do." That fear has now been lifted from those people. They have a marvellous scheme.
    818
    Although the cost per household has been astronomical, Wessex Water felt that it was its duty to do what was required for those people.
    I sometimes think that we spend our time in this country saying how dreadful we are. However, 90 per cent. of our rivers reach European Community standards compared, with 45 per cent. in the rest of the Community. We know the situation in that great city of Brussels. It does not even have a decent sewage works. It should get on to that and improve its standards dramatically.
    From 1975 to 1979, I served on the Public Health Environment Committee of the European Parliament. That was in the heady days when we were passing resolution after resolution, regulations were being approved and the Commission was demanding higher air and water standards left, right and centre. At that time those of us in the Community lived in an ivory tower and agreed with all those regulations, because we believed that we should aim for total perfection within the Community. We believed that that was what it was all about.
    However, with compliance figures now of 99.6 per cent. and so on, I wonder whether it is right and proper for us to search for that total perfection when we know what horrors exist outside the European Community. That 0.5 per cent. improvement within the Community would cost billions of pounds, always assuming that everybody did what they said they would do. Yet even a small fraction of that sum could be spent in eastern Europe, Russia or Africa and could produce so much more for our world and for us because we are part of that world.
    My hon. Friend the Minister said that improvements must be paid for. By all means let us have improvements, and let all of us be prepared to pay for them, but let us not go for perfection at whatever cost.
    Costs of £28 billion in this decade have been mentioned. Some people say that, if the flood of directives continues from the Community, with its constant searching for perfection, that figure could double. I beg Ministers carefully to consider what we are being required to do within the Community to see whether it is absolutely necessary. If we could transfer to the third world just 10 per cent. of the money that we shall spend this decade, all the promises that have been made at Rio would come true tomorrow. That applies to water, to air pollution and to every other aspect of our environment about which we are worried.
    I am sick and tired of people who, on a heavy day in London, stick five or six checkpoints down Mile End road and then say "It is disgraceful; we have not got a high enough air quality." They should go to China, Africa or eastern Europe and see for themselves the conditions in which people are not living but dying and, despite all the problems that we must solve, contrast that with the unbelievable world of plenty and purity in which we live today. We do, after all, live in the same world.
    6.21 pm
    Mr. Eric Martlew: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said, especially towards the end of his speech. We are debating the effects of privatisation on our constituents.
    In December 1988, in the Second Reading debate on the Water Act 1989, I said that privatisation would not work and that 80 per cent. of people opposed water privatisation and that it was the one privatisation measure

    819
    that they would not accept at any price. They were right then and are right now. No hon. Member believes that water privatisation was a vote winner for the Conservatives at the last election.
    Mr. Knapman rose—
    Mr. Martlew: I shall give way to the hon. Member, who mentioned me earlier in the debate, despite the fact that I had not spoken.
    Mr. Knapman: I was with the hon. Gentleman on the Committee that considered the Water Bill. What privatisation has he ever supported?
    Mr. Martlew: I make no apologies for the fact that I was not too worried about the privatisation of Cable and Wireless. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether water should be taken back into public ownership, the answer is yes.
    We have heard much today about the amount of investment that has been made in the industry. The same amount could have been invested under public ownership and, by cutting the profit margin, bills could have been reduced by a third. In Committee, it was said that privatisation would send prices sky high. That has happened. It was said that the service will worsen. That has happened. It was said that there would be a massive number of disconnections That has happened. We said—there has been little mention of this by Conservative Members—that there would be water shortages in many parts of the country. That has happened.
    Privatisation has made a national strategy for water impossible. If people in the south-east, who, funnily enough, tend to support the Government, but were more reluctant to do so at the last election, are without water it is not the fault of the Labour party. We would have been quite happy to ensure that water from the north and the north-west—the area that I represent, where there is plenty—was sent to people in the south. That will not happen now because of privatisation.
    I represent Carlisle, and the Minister, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), represents a constituency in the area. Inflation is 4.5 per cent., but our bills increased 9 per cent. this year. No other company in the north-west, except Norweb, has been able to make such increases. There is no competition because the water authorities have a private monopoly. No company offers me an alternative tap in the bathroom. The House created a private monopoly without safeguards—a licence to print money. Any fool can run a company that has a monopoly in a product such as water. North West Water cannot go bankrupt, because without it the people of the north-west cannot survive. We created a money-making machine for the stock exchange and for shareholders.
    The Minister defended the massive increase in the salary of the chairman of North West Water, which seemed reasonable to him. The chairman was not head-hunted; he did the job for about £54,000 before privatisation. He is now being paid £146,000 for doing the same job. That does not seem reasonable. In addition, he was given a share option worth £250,000. I understand why he favours privatisation.
    Mr. Hall: I have a letter from a constituent who lives in Great Sankey, the headquarters of North West Water. He
    820
    tells me that the chief executive has had a monogrammed carpet installed in his office. Is that what the profits of water companies should be used for?
    Mr. Martlew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for exposing what is going on with our money. I am sure that my constituents are not happy about lavish amounts of money being spent on carpets for a new privatised industry that was supposed to improve the service. The service has not improved. Complaints have increased by 130 per cent. I am sure that hon. Members receive more complaints about the privatised water companies than they did about the publicly owned companies. Admittedly, 50 per cent. of the complaints will be about the price of water, which is a major concern to my constituents.
    It is nonsense to suggest that privatisation has helped to clean up our beaches. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is not in his place. While he was in Rio, trying to wreck the world environment conference, a report was issued showing massive pollution in his own backyard on some of the beaches of the Solway. What hope have we of solving world pollution when the Minister cannot clean up beaches in his own area?
    The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned North West Water's plans for beaches in the area, but 23 of the 33 bathing beaches do not meet the EC's standards for bathing water. Seventy per cent. of beaches in the north-west are not up to standard. Privatisation has not helped.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since privatisation North West Water has invested £511.6 million, compared with £188.8 million five years ago? Is not that helping to solve the problems?
    Mr. Martlew: I am well aware of the fact that the hon. Gentleman's party was in power five years ago and kept the water authorities short of resources. It brings nothing but shame on the hon. Gentleman to mention the Government's record. We know where the extra money is coming from—the consumers. Consumers in my area wonder why North West Water has investments in Malaya and Canada. We are worried that the money is being taken out of the area to be invested throughout the world.
    Disconnections do not seem to bother Conservative Members who appear to be happy to continue a two-tier society and to create an underclass. We shall reap the whirlwind sooner or later. The number of disconnections has increased to about 22,000, which is approximately the number of households in my constituency. I wonder whether hon. Members know—and perhaps the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) might remember this fact, which we learned in Committee—that it is a criminal offence to give a cup or bucket of water to anyone who has had his water disconnected. We hope that there are enough compassionate people who will risk the threat of prosecution by ensuring that such people are provided with water.
    I am not in favour of people not paying their bills, but the bills have become too large because the profits of the water companies are too high. There has been talk about water metering being a way to solve the problem, but compulsory water metering would be an appalling mistake. It is a system of rationing by price rather than by need. The rich would still water their gardens, buy

    821
    dishwashers and fill their swimming pools. They would not be affected, but metering would have a drastic effect on the poor.
    The money that we are talking of spending on water meters should be spent on providing a national water grid. That would make a lot of sense for areas such as mine. I hope that Scottish Members will not accuse us of stealing their water as they accused us of stealing their oil, but there is ample water in Scotland. It is ridiculous that we have no system of getting that water from the north and the west of the country to the south-east and to Yorkshire. A perfect example is the Kielder reservoir in Northumberland, which was built to feed the steel industry which has since declined. There are major water shortages in Yorkshire 100 miles to the south, but we could solve the problem if we could transport the water. We must consider the issue in a United Kingdom context, but, by privatising water, the Government have made that almost impossible.
    We said that the Government were wrong about privatisation. We said that the people of this country would pay through the nose and that is what they are doing. The Government deny any knowledge of that—we heard from the Minister who said that it was nothing to do with the Government and that one must consult the regulator. The regulator is a waste of time. Anyone who has read any of its press releases will realise that it has very limited powers and uses them very rarely. The Government and the regulator have a Pontius Pilate attitude—they are washing their hands of a natural resource which is important to everyone.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: First, I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside for the way in which he opened the debate. He set the context in which all our contributions must take place.
    For many years the water industry had been starved of investment. It was the one industry to which the Government could always look for the economies that they needed for more pressing demands. In the end, that had to stop. Whatever else I may say, I fully acknowledge that that process had to stop. It is clear from what the Minister said that massive sums of money are now available to be spent on investment in the water industry, and it is unrealistic to deny that.
    I shall make a more local contribution and provide what might be described as a gloss on what the Minister said. Understandably, the Minister spoke about averages and the average cost of water to people in this country. The difficulty is that I do not represent the country—I am a west countryman born and bred and I represent a west country constituency, so my knowledge of the average is restricted to how it applies to my area and especially to my constituency.
    In Teignbridge the average water charge is about £227 a year, but the west country has a curious feature—it is an area of comparatively low wages but comparatively high rateable values. That produces some interesting distortions. It means that when one goes out on the stump in the streets of Teignbridge, people will say that their water charges are now higher than their community charge. One cannot draw a simple correlation between the two and say
    822
    that if one charge is higher than the other, it tells us something immutable, but the difference surprises many people. People in relatively average accommodation can pay more in water charges than in community charge.
    There is no mystery about how that happens. The west country has more coastline but fewer water charge payers than any other area in the country. To pay for the coastal clean-up in the west country, the K factor combined with the rate of inflation means that the average west country water charge will rise for the next five years—and, realistically, for the indefinite future—by between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. per annum.
    Let me explain what that can mean in practice. As I said, in west country terms the average is a misleading figure, but on average the £227 per annum will amount to about £700 by the year 2000—and that is not very far away. It is a remarkable figure, and I am sure that many hon. Members will be surprised by it.
    Certainly, the privatisation programme has been a success because it has produced £25 billion or £26 billion to spend now which should have been spent a long time ago. It would be unfair, though tempting, to criticise the Government for not being able to envisage the minutiae of policy in advance because that would be asking too much. However, having been shown how things have worked out in practice in a particular region, I do not think that it is too much to ask the Government to consider some fine tuning.
    It is not the fault of the people in the west country that they have to clean up what is essentially a national asset. It is not their fault that people in Brussels are anxious to pass regulations which they know that we shall enforce because the good old Brits always play the game. It is not the fault of my constituents that people in Europe are far keener to impose obligations on other people than to meet those obligations themselves. It is not my constituents' fault, but they must cope with the consequences.
    It would be tempting for the Minister—although it would not be in character—to say, "You have set out the problem, so you produce the solution." I am open to offers, but that is not my job. As a Back Bencher, it is my job—
    Mr. Tyler rose—
    Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
    It is not my job to identify in every particular how one should solve the problem that I have outlined. As a Back Bencher representing my constituency, it is my job to bring to the House my experience of what needs to be remedied and then perhaps—
    Mr. Tyler rose—
    Mr. Nicholls: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman in a moment—and then to suggest ways in which it might be possible to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Tyler: Is the hon. Gentleman now saying that he made a mistake when he brought his experience to the House, to use his own words, and voted for the Water Act 1989? Or is he saying, as I said earlier, that the circumstances have changed since that Act and it should therefore be reviewed and amended?
    Mr. Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would not have needed to ask the question.

    823
    I will repeat briefly what I said, just for the hon. Gentleman. I accept that the policy has been successful. There can be no doubt about that. I am saying that in the light of experience we need to know when that successful policy has to be fine-tuned to take account of local circumstances which can now be seen in operation rather than merely being forecast. To take account of the extraordinary position whereby a tiny number of people are responsible for maintaining the nation's coasts, some sort of extra input is necessary, whether through Whitehall, through Europe or through a combination of the two. The problem needs to be addressed.
    It is not such a unique problem. In the 17th century, Hampden went to court and said that he did not see why he should have to make a contribution towards ship money because he came from an inland area. He said that he was not troubled by pirates or by other such matters and asked why he should have to pay taxes to maintain the Royal Navy. He was told in no uncertain terms that the kingdom in those days was a seamless entity and that he, too, benefited from the security and safety of the coasts. Some things change over 300 years, but that does not.
    We are entitled to say that there is an extra dimension at present which needs to be addressed. It is simply unfair and unrealistic to think that as time goes by a national asset will continue to be maintained on a local basis. We do not maintain the coastguards on a local basis, we do not maintain the Royal Navy on a local basis, and ultimately, we cannot maintain all the west country coast on a local basis.
    Any debate, no matter how serious the subject, should have some light relief, and I pay full tribute to the hon. Member for North Cornwall, (Mr. Tyler) for providing that. It is extraordinary for the Liberal Democrats to come to the House and say, "We can solve it for you. We have worked out how to do it. Here is the macro-solution from the man from North Cornwall. He says that pensioners should not have to pay standing charges." That is a relief, is it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Already one can hear the thundering of feet as millionaires head towards North Cornwall. Doubtless the people in front will be the Dowager Duchess of Westminster and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher. They will all flood down to Cornwall, North now because they know that under Liberal Democrat policy the working poor in North Cornwall and Teignbridge will be responsible for paying their standing charges. That is an extraordinary proposition.
    From time to time, it is rather nice to be a Liberal Democrat because the idea is that one does not have a record. In fact, the Liberal Democrats do have a record. The time when capital investment in the water industry was slashed was between 1974 and 1979, when it was reduced from £1.6 billion to £1.1 billion. Who kept the Government in power? The answer is the hon. Member for North Cornwall and his merry friends.
    Mr. Tyler: After the Adjournment debate the other day, I had to point out that the Minister had his dates wrong. I think that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was not in the House at the time. My party did not support the Government at the time to which the hon. Gentleman refers. During the short period in which we supported the Government, there was an increase in
    824
    capital investment in the industry. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will check with the Minister to see whether he has the correct date.
    Mr. Nicholls: The record of the Liberal party in keeping the Labour Government in office is clear enough. It is a matter of record.
    Mr. Tyler: That is not true.
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman bawls from a sedentary position that it is not true. He was here briefly before and he will be here briefly on this occasion. He may care to check the facts. As time is short, I will not go through all the years in question. I merely point out that in 1974–75, the first year of the Labour Government, investment was £1.634 billion. By 1978–79, investment was down to £1.128 billion. Those are the facts.
    It is puerile populism for the hon. member for North Cornwall to say, "If I cannot get the dowagers to deal with the problem, I have another idea." He talks about the salaries of the water authority chairmen. Yes, the salaries are large. Ridiculously enough—this is a slightly different comment—some of them earn more than the Prime Minister does. Is the hon. Gentleman going to go to the west country at the weekend and say that he can solve the problem for water charge payers by abolishing the salary of the chairman of the South west water authority? That would be literally a drop in the ocean compared with the present £2 billion capital investment programme.
    It would be thoroughly unfair and unrealistic for me to say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that I expect him to come up with a blueprint to deal with the problems that I have set out. He knows, however,—he will have been briefed—that west country Members, of whom I have been in the forefront, have said to Ministers recently, "This is the way it is working out in practice." It would be asking too much of my right hon. Friend to demand that he should come up with a solution tonight.
    The Opposition motion makes no mention of investment; instead it whinges on about perks. On the basis of the motion, there is no doubt which way hon. Members should vote. However, I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate we shall see the start of a process. 1 hope that he will at least acknowledge the effect of the problem on the west country. I hope that he will at least accept from me the feelings of outrage and indignation when people see how a successful policy affects them in a particular area. I do not expect my right hon. Friend to come up with a solution today, but an acknowledgement that there is a problem which must be addressed would be extremely helpful.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Bryan Davies: The speech by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) revealed some special pleading. The hon. Gentleman supported the principle of the organisation of the water authorities, yet when the shoe begins to pinch in terms of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he asks for dispensation. There is a suggestion that the Government might come up with some redress, which is exactly the basis of our case.
    This is my first speech in the House for 13 years, and my first speech as the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton. I am aware that such speeches are often not

    825
    interrupted and that one has the opportunity to make some uncontroversial statements. It is unlikely that I shall be able to avoid making any controversial statements, and I do not mind if hon. Members intervene, if they help to advance my argument.
    I have always thought that we needed a powerful political campaign to destroy three political metaphors. The first, which is constantly used by hon. Members of all parties, is that we need a level playing field. Any sportsman can tell us that a level playing field is not needed for any sport. If the field is tilted, one normally plays against the conditions in one half and with them in the next half. I have never understood why people, especially politicians, think that a level playing field is such an advantage. I say that especially as the parliamentary football team played on a level playing field today and lost 3-0 to the Press Gallery, our old enemies. It did not do us much good.
    The second phrase that I should like to see abolished from the parliamentary lexicon is the "kick start" to the economy, which the Minister used earlier in the debate. The phrase reflects a time when the motor bike industry was British-owned. We persisted with the kick start while the Japanese exported motor bikes with electronic ignition, which wiped out the motor bike industry in Britain. I have never understood why Conservatives suggest that there can be industrial recovery through a kick-start mechanism, as kick starts are an outdated technique.
    The third phrase, which I should especially like to abolish, is used when referring to hon. Members who return to the House for a different constituency after a lapse of time. They are referred to as "parliamentary retreads". I think that the phrase was conjured up by my dear friend Andrew Roth, who is responsible for the pen portraits which appear so often in his books. The phrase gives an image of burnt-out rubber, of someone who is decayed and of limited second-hand value, and of limited service to a constituency. I propose that those of us who are privileged to come back to the House after a lapse of time should henceforth be referred to as "recycled" Members. It makes us sound greener, environmentally friendlier and of greater value to society. That is how I should prefer to be identified.
    I am exceedingly proud of my new constituency. I am proud of the fact that Oldham and the adjoining town of Royton were the cradle of the industrial revolution. The mills that Blake referred to as "dark" and "satanic" were constructed in Oldham, but I pay tribute to the architecture of the past. Much about those mills has stood the test of time. They were well built, many were extremely light, and they provide excellent premises for new industrial enterprises, of which we have a range in Oldham and Royton.
    Industrial and domestic catering machinery is now produced in one of those mills. Ferranti operates from the Cairo mill in my constituency, whose name everyone will recognise, as it had such great significance for the cotton industry. Ferranti carries out the highest level of technology in a building which is more than 150 years old. There is a danger that Ferranti may transfer its processes elsewhere, and I make a plea that the Ferranti board's decision should be in favour of Oldham and of maintaining work there for my constituents.
    826
    Oldham was not only the cradle of the industrial revolution but of parliamentary democracy because the constituency was created to redistribute political power from the south to the north of England—to give working people in the new industrial towns of the north some representation. Although the Reform Act 1832, proved to be a great disappointment to so many working people—especially in Oldham, where the Chartist movement was inspired as a protest that the Bill did not go far enough to enfranchise them—it was a significant redistribution of power from the south to the north. That balance still has to be redressed.
    Oldham succeeded in giving some powerful political voices to this country. The first two Members of Parliament were William Cobbett—he of "Rural Rides", who identified the needs of the poor—and Henry Fielden, who would not have commended himself to the Conservative side of the House. He was in favour of restricting the working day to 10 hours. He was the predecessor of those arguing within the European Community and on the Opposition Benches for some restriction of the working week, which the Conservatives choose to oppose. Those two men portrayed the horrors of laissez-faire and of the free market capitalism of their day. How they would shudder at the impact of Government policies today, especially on the community that they represented.
    Many of my constituents are finding life tough during the second recession in little more than a decade, and the water industry is not making their lives any easier.
    Before I identify the water industry's abuses and its depredations on my constituents, I must pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, James Lamond, who was the Member of Parliament for Oldham, Central and Royton for 22 years. James was essentially a modest man, although he was proud to be in the tradition of Cobbett and Fielden, and of the radical Winston Churchill, who represented Oldham at the beginning of this century. However, James would never have put himself in that category. He took great pride in the fact that he represented his constituency well, and he was greatly respected there and in the House.
    I have no doubt that the people of Oldham and Royton greatly miss their former Member of Parliament, who presented strong views, which were not entirely uncontroversial. I did not entirely share his view of the virtues of the state centralist planning of the Soviet Union, a country which he visited many times. However, he was historically accurate when he argued in the House that a massive vested interest—aggressively represented on the Conservative Benches and in the wider western world, especially the United States—greatly exaggerated the Soviet threat to our position in Europe. He argued that the military industrial complex of western Europe had a vested interest in dramatising the Soviet Union's power, which was much weaker than it was portrayed.
    I do not think that there is any doubt that history has proved that the Soviet Union never possessed the power, even if it may for a short time have had the will, to carry out imperial adventures against western Europe. James Lamond was right to argue that the archaic industrial regime that was the Soviet Union had a limited capacity to cause the sort of damage predicted.
    James was not only a critic of the Government's strategic policy on east-west relations. He was a master of the short, sharp question, which permits less evasion by Ministers and is therefore more effective, although it is

    827
    deployed all too rarely in the House. He was also a master of the sedentary intervention, which is a more difficult art form. With his strong Aberdonian accent, he could be heard all over the House, and successive Speakers and Deputy Chairmen were somewhat tolerant of his caustic wit, which often caused Ministers to reply.
    He also served as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, and I believe that he chaired sittings of the Water Bill, so it is right to mention him in this debate. In his constituency, he was regarded as the most considerable and helpful of Members of Parliament, and during the two years that I have campaigned in my locality, I have been told that I shall do well to match him. I shall certainly try.
    First, I shall try to defend my constituents against the rapacity of private exploitative monopolies, created by this Administration. This is a debate about water, but today the North Western electricity board, has announced that its profits doubled last year. Who can provide an alternative competitive mechanism to contrain that exploitation of ordinary people? Water is an equally grim example.
    How does the party that talks of the virtues of laissez-faire, which has a so-called think tank called the Adam Smith Institute—the party of Sir Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher—justify that private monopoly power? Surely Adam Smith made it clear in the 18th century that consumers would be exploited if private monopolies were created. Surely 19th-century economists—those patron saints of the Tory party—emphasised that too.
    Is it not the case that, in the 20th century, Hayek and Milton Friedman pointed out the dangers of monopoly power? It is true that those economists often railed against the state, but at least its monopoly power is answerable to the people. It is answerable in the House, whereas the Minister is disavowing any responsibility for the strategies pursued by the water authorities.
    The water companies are monopolies with a captive market. They will set out to make excess profits, and it will be difficult to deter them. That is what has been going on. Since privatisation, the excess profits of all the water companies have increased substantially, especially those of North West Water.
    Even in the midst of the bleakness of recession, when all our manufacturing industry is going to the wall, when virtually no one can make a decent profit and all our enterprises are suffering, the public utilities are coining money because of their monopoly position.
    What else did we expect from exploitative monopolies but that the people at the top would be the beneficiaries of their exploitative power? Have not the chairmen and key executives of the companies benefited from water privatisation in a way that no one else could conceive of doing? How can Conservative Members justify it when a man doing a job earns one rate in one year and, three years later, triples that salary? It is claimed that that is somehow related to his performance, but his earnings are related not to performance but solely to the exploitative powers of the water companies.
    How are such increases paid for? Labour Members know the answer, and some Conservative Members are beginning to appreciate it, too. Prices have gone up by more than three times the rate of inflation. Since privatisation, prices have risen by 41 per cent. in the north-west.
    828
    What has been the corollary of the increase in prices? It has been the staggering, shameful growth in disconnections. Should an industry that provides such an essential commodity to our people see the number of disconnections rocket into the thousands this year because people cannot pay for the supply of water that they need? Where will price increases end? North West Water has begun to charge fell runners for the use of land that it controls.
    How will the national grid for water operate? What will Conservative hon. Members ask of North West Water, which is replete with resources, given the average rainfall on Old Trafford and on points to the north and west of it? What will happen when the drought-ridden lands of southern England make a supplication to North West Water for the transfer of water resources? Will North West Water charge the exact market rate? Will it exploit consumers in southern England by charging them through the nose for the water supplies that they desperately need? We cannot have a rational policy for the distribution of water in this country, despite the growing anxieties expressed in constituencies in southern England, while we leave the powers of the northern water companies unfettered.
    It will be necessary in the short term, before we can do anything more dramatic when the Labour party comes to power again, to strengthen the power of Ofwat, the regulatory body. By our scrutiny of its role, we must insist that the water companies are more answerable to our constituents. Labour hon. Members must harry and harass the Government, who have created the exploitative monopolies, so that they answer the case.
    7.2 pm
    Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on his inaugural speech as the Member for that constituency. I know that he was highly regarded when he was in the House before, and I am sure that he will make a great success of representing his constituency.
    I also support the tribute the hon. Gentleman paid to his predecessor, because Jimmy Lamond and I served on Aberdeen town council many years ago. He was known there as an effective debater and as a man of principle. He was highly regarded by members on both sides of the civic chamber. When I joined the House, I was not surprised to find that he was also highly regarded here. In Aberdeen we had a civic toast—the toast of Bon Accord—which went "Happy to meet, sorry to part and happy to meet again." I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton and other hon. Members would be happy to drink that toast to Jimmy Lamond.
    I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that we no longer have a British motor car industry. When he was previously in the House, the Meriden co-operative existed, which was financed by large amounts of public money. There is a lesson to be learnt from that—one cannot pour large sums of public money into a venture and assume that it will be a success.
    It has been an interesting debate and some Labour Members have said that they would renationalise the water industry. Let them remember that that would mean spending £8 billion to buy the shares back and that they would be forgoing hundreds of millions of pounds of

    829
    revenue in corporation tax. Let them remember that that would mean a vast increase in expenditure on investment, which would be paid for by the taxpayer.
    The first contribution from the Opposition Back Benches came from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), which was particularly interesting because Scottish Labour Members always tell us that English Members should not speak on Scottish issues. This debate relates to England and Wales and, therefore, it was surprising that a Scottish Labour Member should seek to trespass on our issue.
    We then heard a typical speech from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who has now disappeared from the Chamber. He spoke of the need for a new method of paying for water, but, as so often happens with the Liberal Democrats, the nature of that new method was not described to the House. No doubt it will be revealed two days after the next general election.
    When I was told that we were to have a debate on water, I thought that it would be a debate of congratulation. I thought that we would congratulate the water industry on doubling its investment since privatisation and on spending more money in investment than it has made in profits. I thought that we were going to congratulate Thames Water, which has invested £1,200 million compared with profits of £700 million. I thought that we would congratulate the water industry on having better standards than those of the European Community, and that we would congratulate it on the level of water charges. The average water charge is 46p for each household per day—less than the price of a loaf of bread.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: God knows where the hon. Gentleman buys his loaf of bread.
    Mr. Marshall: I am afraid that I do not go to Food Giant to buy my bread. It may cost less in Food Giant, but in many shops a loaf costs more than 40p. The cost of water is well below the price of a pint of beer, and I know which gives better value for money. In the area covered by Thames Water, which supplies Hendon, the average price of water is only 40p per household per day.
    When we debated the privatisation of water in 1988, there was general agreement that the standard of our beaches was too low, that our rivers suffered from excessive pollution, that the quality of drinking water in Britain was not as high as we would have liked and that the problem of water shortage needed increased investment. The only difference between the two sides was in trying to find a solution to the problems. Our opponents said that the then structure of the water industry had led to all of the problems, but what did they intend to do? They did not intend to change the structure of the industry. Although they said that the problems had been caused by the structure of the industry, they said that they would solve them by keeping the industry in the public sector.
    Conservative Members recognised that the water industry's failure resulted from a lack of investment. In any public expenditure round, the water industry, if in the public sector, had to compete for resources with hospitals, schools and transport. It never did very well. The water industry had to be privatised so that it could tap the resources of the market.
    830
    Today's debate has revealed the Labour party's paucity of thought. It said that, under public ownership, the water industry had failed the nation, but what does it say now? It says that the industry should be returned to public ownership—no doubt to fail the nation a second time. No wonder that, the other day, The Times said that the Labour party has no new thoughts and that anyone looking at the House from the outside would think that the real Leader of the Opposition was the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I began to fear that the hon. Gentleman would become a cult Establishment figure and lose his traditional role.
    Opposition Members live in a fool's paradise. They think that we can have increased investment without somebody having to pay for it. Individual water companies have an excellent record. Anglian Water's investment in 1989–90 was £190 million. The projection for 1993–93 is £380 million, double the 1989–90 figure. That company should be congratulated on that achievement.
    In 1987–88, investment by Thames Water was £146.2 million. In 1991–92 it is £400 million, more than double the previous sum. Opposition Members should commend Thames on that achievement. Severn Trent Water invested £205 million in 1988–89 and £585 million in 1991–92, an extra £380 million to improve the water services in that area.
    We have heard a certain amount about South West Water. Its investment in 1986 was £55 million. In 1990–91 it is £172 million. Some Labour Members complain about North West Water. That company has increased its investment from £188.8 million five years ago to £511.6 million. Opposition Members should be on their feet commending the water industry for those massive increases and for all the extra jobs that it has created.
    I agree that the present pricing system is unfair, but that is because it is related to rateable values. There was no greater nonsense than the old rating system. In those days, we tried to measure the fair market rent of a property and say that that would be its rateable value. But there could never be a fair market in property, because we had a system of rent controls. Likewise, the rating system tried to measure what did not exist. The rating system is an unfair means of measuring water charges. It bears no relation to ability to pay or to consumption. It is inefficient because there is no incentive to conserve water.
    The only effective way to charge for water is a system of water metering which relates the price paid to the level of consumption. It encourages the more economical use of water, as we saw in the Isle of Wight. Some will say that it creates hardship for large families, but that is no argument against water metering. It is an argument for giving additional help to families hit by it and for a generous system of family credit. It is not an argument for maintaining a system which is riddled with distortions and encourages an excessive demand for water.
    Opposition Members are critical of the price mechanism and we have heard much about rationing by price. Is not virtually every commodity rationed by price? The only commodities of which there will be shortages are those that are not rationed by price. For years, we had a lack of rented accommodation in the private sector because the Labour party said that we should not have private-sector housing rationed by price. Instead, we were told that rents must be low, with the result that there was no private-sector rented housing. The same applies to water. Without a pricing mechanism, there are bound to

    831
    be shortages—[Interruption.] There is a shortage of water now because we have not had rationing by price. We have had an artificial system of water pricing, which is why we should go over to a system of water metering.
    The debate has highlighted the opportunistic humbug of Opposition Members. They have said time and again that we need more investment in the water industry, but they have never said how it is to be financed. They claim that it should not be paid for by the consumer. If it is to be paid for by the taxpayer, they refuse to admit that the taxpayer is, in any event, the consumer in another guise. It is no good saying that the Government will pay, as though that is a panacea, because people must pay the taxes which the Government raise to pay for such investment. We all pay taxes—
    Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: Some people dodge taxes.
    Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, talks about people dodging taxes. I find that rather rum coming from a Scottish Labour Member, when a number of Scottish Labour Members told the people of Scotland in the 1980s not to pay the poll tax—[Interruption.]—and I think I hear the hon. Gentleman saying, "Quite right." Obviously, he thinks that it is right for people to try to dodge that tax. It shows that he is a member of a party which favours tax dodging and fiddling. It shows how responsible the hon. Gentleman is. He is not fit to be a Member because—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. It might be advisable for the hon. Member to return to the subject of the debate, rather than to criticise other hon. Members.
    Mr. Marshall: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was led astray by the sedentary intervention of an Opposition Whip. Whips are supposed to be silent. Had the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) remained silent, I would not have been led down that byway.
    Opposition Members do not say how investment in the water industry should be financed. They have failed to produce a new pricing system that would be fair and would abolish the wasteful use of water. They have no idea how to react to the problems of the water industry. Instead, they censure the industry, despite the remarkable progress it has made since privatisation. They also censure the Government, even though we have been willing to face the problems of the industry with the aim of improving the quality of our water, our rivers and our beaches and to bring British water up to date in a way that would never have been achieved had the industry remained in the public sector.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Richard Burden: Before coming to this place, I spent a large part of the 1980s trying to alert people to Conservative plans for privatisation of the water industry. I had no doubt that there was a secret agenda, for several years prior to its being announced in the 1986 White Paper, to privatise the industry. Following that announcement, I spent much time warning people about the implications of that move.
    I intervened earlier to point out that a Conservative Government first nationalised the water industry. The Minister appeared not to know that. As he seemed
    832
    confused, I will explain. The assets of the water industry were inherited from local authorities and belonged to the people. The last Conservative Government seized those assets in order to acquire the right to sell them. The fact that that Government did not own the industry in the first instance blew off course their first attempt at water privatisation in the mid-1980s. I was pleased that when they finally got away with privatising the industry at the end of the 1980s, more than 80 per cent. of the British public had the good sense to oppose their plans. The fact that the Conservatives ignored that opposition destroys any claim that they wished to listen to the wishes of the people.
    Ministers have echoed the claim of the water industry that privatisation has been a great success. They claim that water quality is at its highest level ever, they point to the fact that more sewerage works are meeting European conditions, and they applaud the standard of sewage being discharged into our rivers. There is no doubt that investment in the industry has been impressive in recent years. There has also been massive investment by those who work in the industry by ensuring that improvements have taken place. Little is said by the Conservatives about that contribution.
    Before we get carried away by the improvements that have been made, however, let us pause to consider where they came from, and why the investment was necessary. Some of the Government's most strident claims are about the way in which privatisation freed the industry from the shackles and the dead hand of Government. The biggest dead hand was put on the industry by the very same Government who then sought to privatise it. Those shackles were part of the pre-privatisation process. To claim credit for removing those shackles is a bit like King Herod trying to claim credit for the expansion of Christianity.
    For example, there is no doubt that investment in the industry has always been too low, but in the early 1980s there was a deliberate Government policy to hold back investment and force water authorities to accelerate the pace of servicing and paying off inherited debts. In the case of Severn Trent, the water authority which covered my constituency, more than £80 million a year, which could have gone into improving the quality of water services, had
    to go towards servicing debts. At that time, many of us appealed to the Government to write off those debts and allow water authorities to spend the money that needed to be spent, but the Government shrugged off those calls.
    It is not surprising that, now that the industry is privatised, all those views have been turned on their heads. The debts, amounting to some £5 billion, which the Government said could not be written off when the industry was in the public sector suddently became easy to write off once the industry had been privatised. Not content with that, the Government then gave the private sector industry a cash hand-out of £1.5 billion. Why could they not have done that for the public sector water industry? How was it suddenly possible to do so for the private sector?
    Not content with that, the Government then gave the private sector water industry tax allowances amounting to some £7.7 billion to ensure that it had an easy ride for the first few years of its existence. Still not content, they sold off assets valued at more than £30 billion for about £5 billion. As though that were not enough, they gave consumers and taxpayers the dubious privilege of

    833
    subsidies to the tune of several more million pounds for the sale of the water industry through a massive advertising campaign.
    Are consumers—or, to use the current jargon, customers—to be grateful to the Government for such a deal? I doubt whether they will be grateful when they consider the massive profits that the water companies are now making and how water charges have gone up. The impact of those charges is real enough for the 22,000 people whose water supply has been disconnected in the last few years.
    Just up the road from my constituency, South Staffordshire Water has the worst disconnection rate in the country. I am pleased that Severn Trent has been more modest than the national average in that respect, but disconnections in its area have still increased. Severn Trent says that it has come up with a novel idea to ensure that fewer families are cut off. It is called a pre-payment water meter. It is an interesting idea, a bit like the coin-operated gas or electricity meter, except that customers use a smart card, which is charged up in advance and provides them with a certain amount of water. Perhaps it measures the volume, but I suspect that the charge is made for a certain period of time.
    Severn Trent says that the cards will help low-income families with their budgeting. To an extent, that will happen because if the budget goes wrong or the family cannot afford to charge up its card, the water will be cut off. I agree that that will help, if that is what is meant by budgeting, but some dangers may arise. When water was privatised, numerous codes of practice said that water could not be disconnected without a court order. Minister after Minister assured the House that court orders would be needed before so-called customers could be disconnected. With pre-payment meters, disconnections will happen because people will be unable to charge up their cards, and they will never get near a court. It seems that in the trial operations which are to take place with the use of pre-payment meters, when families have their supplies cut off there will be no obligation even to inform the local environmental health department.
    To add insult to injury, it appears that a charge of some £26 will be made for those meters. Is that not an interesting idea? Low-income families with budgeting problems will have a meter installed and pay for the privilege. If their debt amounts to some £100, which is fairly standard, they have to pay £26 to have a meter installed. An interest rate of 26 per cent. to help the local water company improve its cash flow is rather steep. I hear today that Severn Trent is prepared to waive the charge but, surprisingly, Ofwat, which is meant to be the consumer's champion with responsibility also to shareholders, insists that the charge should remain. The most ridiculous aspect of pre-payment meters is that when a card runs out—when people have budgeting problems and lose their water—it does not mean that the debt stops. They will still incur water rates for the time when they have no water. That is a crazy idea.
    If the water companies and the Government are worried about the impact on low-income families of massively rising water charges of the kind that we have seen recently, I make a couple of suggestions. If they go ahead with the pre-payment meter trials, I hope that the problems that I have raised will be dealt with first. Two
    834
    more constructive suggestions are, first, that the Government should make regulation work. They should ensure that water bills do not go through the roof and families do not fall into such a trap. Secondly, the Government should reverse the ridiculous social security changes that they pushed through in the 1980s, removing help with the payment of water bills. If they reinstitute that help, it will go some way towards alleviating the problems of low-income families.
    The only long-term solution is to restore to the water industry something that it should never have had taken away in the first place—democratic control.
    7.26 pm
    Mr. Roger Knapman: Some time before the 1987 election, my predecessor, who had been in the House for 32 years, asked me what my specialisation would be in the House. He seemed to be thinking of Attlee's dictum that one should specialise and keep out of the bars. When I told him that I was a chartered surveyor, he frowned and said, "Oh dear, they'll have you talking about drains. I advise you immediately to get an interest in foreign affairs or defence." He was Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and able to get to Cyprus and Hong Kong at short notice. I should have listened to him because, shortly afterwards, I found myself on the Standing Committee discussing the privatisation of the water industry.
    Many of the arguments rehearsed in Committee have been rehearsed again today, and some interesting suggestions have been made. The hon. Member for North Cornwall, (Mr. Tyler), who is in his seat, suggested that pensioners should be exempt from paying standing charges. We should have further details of that policy before long because, although I can see how people living alone could benefit from that exemption, what about those living with families who are not pensioners? How can legislation provide for them?
    In Committee, as one might expect, the Bill was bitterly contested by the Labour party. The arguments went along the line just advocated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). Opposition Members said that God gave us the water and that we had no right to privatise it. We had to point out that He—I say "He" despite recent newspaper reports that God may be female—did not provide the stopcocks, pipes, reservoirs and so on. That was precisely the point in Committee and is still relevant now. Nevertheless, the Labour party still has a manifesto commitment to renationalise the water industry.
    The formula advocated in Committee involved poachers and gamekeepers. The poachers—the water companies—were to be overseen for the first time by gamekeepers, or regulators. One was separated from the other. That is the essential difference between private companies with a regulator and a state-owned authority. With a state-owned authority and a regulator, there are merely two Government Departments, resulting in massive regulation and red tape. That does not allow for advancement.
    The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that she had won some of the arguments in Committee. It seems that time dulls the memory as, to my certain

    835
    knowledge, my right hon. and learned Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment won hands down on all the arguments, as was widely acknowledged.
    Despite the Opposition's experience in Committee, on Second Reading and during the rest of the Bill's passage, they have tabled today's motion. According to the Leader of the Opposition—for a while yet, anyway—and his colleagues, "this House is alarmed". The House may be alarmed, but it does not seem that many Opposition Members are alarmed. One could fire a double-barrel shotgun in the Chamber without hitting many. Today is an Opposition Supply day, and next Thursday the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) will say that it is disgusting that no time has been allowed for various debates.
    However, today is an Opposition day and the Opposition Whips must be saying, "Thank God for the two or three new faces that we see here." New Opposition Members have been busy writing their little speeches to keep the debate going until 10 o'clock—such is the alarm. The only one showing alarm—and not for the first time today—is the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie).
    Mr. David Evans: They are all in the Cafeteria.
    Mr. Knapman: Yes, that is where they are.
    Companies in the water industry are successful. It is no shame to be showing record profits, and no disgrace to have record dividends or salaries. As has been widely reported, customers pay, on average, 46p a day for the delivery to the tap of 200 gallons of water weighing a ton or more, at a time when capital expenditure of about £28 billion is being promised.
    Mr. Evans: The debate is unreal.
    Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield (Mr. Evans) says that it is unreal to suggest that the House is alarmed when the industry has such a record with which to commend itself to the House. That record shows just how much more efficient the private water companies are than their predecessor authorities.
    I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be pleased that companies are showing record profits. It is only if companies show record profits that people pay record tax demands, which allow for record sums to be spent on the national health service and other sectors.[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Pollok laughs, but that is why there is privatisation in Poland, Hungary and the USSR. Before long, there will be privatisation in Albania, but the Opposition Front-Bench team will still be unable to see the advantages and will continue to believe in everything being state owned. The Labour party will soon be the only party, not just in Europe but in the world, with its own peculiar view on that subject. With such thinking, it should be preserved as a museum piece.
    My constituency is partially served by the Severn Trent water authority and partially by the Wessex water authority. I shall use the Severn Trent authority as an example, as have one or two of my hon. Friends. Last year it spent £300 million running the business and at the same time ploughed £585 million into new capital investment projects. It spent more than it received from customers in any one year. That shows the need for the RPI plus K
    836
    formula that was set up. If it is inadequate, it can be altered with the agreement of the regulators—indeed, on their instructions. The company's planned expenditure for the four years from 1990–93 is more than the amount allowed to the water authorities in the previous 10 years. I believe that the same may be true of other companies. Now, a business decision is taken in co-operation with the regulators.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will acknowledge the legal ring fence around the core water businesses. It is important to retain that ring fence, and there should be no cross-subsidisation. However, such companies must be granted the freedom to manage themselves and diversify if they wish. Some have already done so successfully and should be allowed to continue to do so. That is the case in France and other countries, even those with socialist Governments where private companies are encouraged. Standards have not slipped in the Severn Trent water authority, where there is a 99.6 per cent. pass rate on drinking water and a 99.8 per cent. compliance rate with effluent standards. That authority's record is jolly nearly perfect.
    According to the motion, the House is alarmed, but my constituents and those of the Severn Trent district are so "alarmed" that only 15 customers in every 10,000 complained last year. I hope that that statistic puts matters into perspective. It may be that, as people are now clearer about how to complain, more are encouraged to do so. They also know that complaints made to a private company might result in action, whereas it was not much use complaining to a water authority that was essentially a Government Department. That factor may account for some additional complaints, but a rate of 15 out of every 10,000 is not too bad.
    The motion has nothing to do with Labour's concern about public interest, but everything to do with the party's traditional hatred of successful companies and capitalism in general. Its arguments do not change and I suppose that the £28 billion can be found from the public sector. Is that the Opposition's promise? If so, we should start to calculate the total of all their pledges for the next election in four years' time. If the Labour party really is committed to expenditure on such a scale, it should say so clearly. It should not pretend that all the improvements can be carried out and no one will actually have to pay for them.
    It is marvellous that such a level of services can be provided for 46p a day. Demand for water will certainly increase greatly as more people use dishwashers and the number of two and three-car families increases. Instead of a negative motion that does not even appeal to Opposition supporters—I suppose that it will soon be said that I have thinned them out still further—the Opposition should state how they will provide for the increased demand. Reference has already been made in the debate to reducing leakage, using more modern and efficient sewage plants and the need for vast capital expenditure.
    In the 1980s, a considerable number of abstraction licences were granted. I am uneasy about whether treating all the bogs and water collection areas as a sponge that can be squeezed as hard and often as possible is necessarily in the public interest. In chalk regions, in the south and, not least, the south-east, many of the upper reaches of rivers and streams are drying up—the Avon and Darent are well-publicised examples of that. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) were here, he might say that the River Piddle was well named.

    837
    I am not sure that the effect of large-scale underground abstraction is fully understood and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should refer to the latest thinking on that subject in his wind-up speech. It will be interesting to see which farmer will sue first for loss of crops due to the drop in the watertable, as levels continue to drop.
    May we have the latest thinking on the possibility of charging by meter? I do not think that anyone is seriously suggesting pre-payment meters, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). The basic proposition that one pays for what one uses is a sound philosophy and, moreover, can be justified on environmental grounds. Is it correct that the introduction of metering might result in a 10 per cent. decrease in consumption? Simultaneous increases in demand would act to nullify that trend. If it is environmentally sound to use less water, then the presence of meters is a regular reminder in the form of a bill that people should use water sparingly.
    Far more water is lost, however, through leaks. I understand that 25 gallons in every 100 from the reservoirs are lost, and because of increased expenditure that huge loss will be greatly reduced in the next few years. That can be done only with private capital. Of the 25 gallons leakage, about 15 may be lost between the reservoir and the stopcock. I am sure that water companies will deal with that, but it appears that the other 10 gallons are lost between the stopcock and the tap in the domestic property. That problem must be looked into; we must ask whether metering will help to reduce the loss of one gallon in 10.
    Unless people are directly responsible for paying for what they use, they are unlikely to want to go to the expense of repairing their pipes. I hope that the Government will think along those lines. I suspect that the present system, under which all new properties must be metered and anyone else who feels disadvantaged without a meter has a choice, represents the right approach.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made an interesting speech, in which he drew attention to his constituents in Bude. He said that an elderly couple spent more on water than on rates. I wonder whether he pointed out to them their right to a meter if that was to their advantage. He hinted that they did not use much water—
    Mr. Tyler: I did point out that option to them, but as the cost of a meter is £200 and there is an additional cost of £200 before it starts metering a single gallon, that would not be to their advantage.
    Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the couple's method of payment was not changed by the Act. This method of charging has been followed for a great number of years, including during the Lib-Lab pact. The Government are now looking at varioius methods of charging, and have acknowledged that there are anomalies. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman tried to help his constituents, but I am surprised that he did not mention that in his speech.
    Another option is to provide new reservoirs. It is reasonable to argue, whether we have meters or not, that, because of increasing demand and consumption, more reservoirs will be necessary. That could be an argument
    838
    against metering. I asked about the cost of metering the whole Severn Trent area; the answer bears out what the hon. Member for North Cornwall said: it might be as much as £700 million. But the cost of the Carsington reservoir, which was opened by Her Majesty a few weeks ago, was £100 million. Thanks to the benefits of an integrated system—yet another benefit since privatisation—water can flow to almost any area served by Severn Trent. If metering costs £700 million as against a new reservoir costing £100 million, Ministers may believe that constructing more reservoirs is cheaper and more efficient than metering.
    Politics is always a question of priorities. I wonder what the Minister's thoughts are. If we are to reduce demand, we need metering in some areas. We must reduce waste of water; that is already happening in many areas and has been promised by most water companies. Alternatively, we can increase supply by storage in reservoirs. Again, it is a question of priorities, although we must recognise that the whole idea is not to have politicians running the business any longer.
    Today's motion notwithstanding, it was absolutely right to privatise the industry. The companies are strong and profitable, and most importantly of all, they are regionally based. Many of the companies used to be based in London. It is important to the areas concerned that water and electricity companies be regionally based.
    The House should be grateful to the Opposition for raising this issue, because it gives us the chance to congratulate the water companies, which are looking after their staff, their shareholders and—by improving standards—their customers. Those customers are supplied with an average 200 gallons a day for 46p. That being so, the House need not be as alarmed as the Opposition suggest.
    7.44 pm
    Ms. Diane Abbott: I want to talk about the effects of privatisation of the water industry on my constituents. I want to talk about the grotesque pay rise awarded to himself by the chairman of Thames Water; about Thames Water's profiteering; and above all about Thames Water's asset-stripping to enhance its profits at the expense of Hackney's environment.
    Throughout the 1980s, privatisation was sold to the British public in terms of efficiency and service. In fact, it was always about profit, not people, and about big salaries for the few and higher charges for the many. Water privatisation is a perfect example of what was wrong with all the privatisations that the Government pushed through in the 1980s.
    Thames Water, which covers my constituency, has 17.5 million consumers. Since privatisation, they have seen the salaries of the bosses of Thames Water shoot up. For instance, the salary of Roy Watts rose from £34,000 in 1988 to £160,000 in 1991. Conservative Members may wonder why that matters, but if they earned the average salary of one of my constituents and saw one man's salary shoot up without justification, they might be shocked too.
    The highest paid director in Thames Water earns £209,000. Salaries for the top management have shot up, with no justification on grounds of productivity or any other criteria. Charges have risen, too. In 1986, the average domestic consumer in the Thames Water area paid £82.24

    839
    a year. Now, he pays £139 a year. Complaints have risen as well: last year, there were more than 10,000 of them. In the meantime, Thames Water has diversified into property speculation, to the concern of the regulatory authorities.
    Stoke Newington's two reservoirs are a matter of anxiety to Hackney people and to me, because they show the way forward for other water authorities. They show the sort of profiteering and asset-stripping that water authorities throughout the country will go in for under the new regime.
    We have a 93-acre reservoir site in Stoke Newington. The site became redundant because of the new London ring main. It is the size of Regent's park, a sort of secret garden in the middle of Hackney. On it stand four listed buildings, including a remarkable pumping station built to look like a Scottish castle. The site of the two reservoirs has plants, wild flowers and fish and 16 species of bird including smew, Bewick's swans, tufted ducks, gulls and grebes. There are also gerbils. All this is remarkable in one of the poorest and most built-up inner city areas in the country.
    This open space, this nature reserve, serves 26,000 people, including my constituents on the huge Woodberry Down and Lincoln Court estates. Few of them have back gardens. There is much unemployment, there are many elderly people and young children, and there is a terrible shortage of open spaces. We in Hackney want this precious site redeveloped for need, not greed.
    Local people have come up with several suggestions for the site: a nature reserve, a site for sailing, canoeing and sports—important in an area of such high youth unemployment; a leisure centre; an alternative technology centre; a garden centre; a workshop space. A site of this magnitude will not fall vacant in Hackney again; nor will the opportunity to provide such amenities come round again.
    But what is Thames Water thinking of doing? It goes almost without saying that rational planning in the public interest is not on the agenda. Thames Water's plans involve expensive redevelopment, mostly for houses. It will keep one reservoir as it is and might allow some limited sailing, but it will not allow any other leisure activities. At the other reservoir, there is a proposal for a housing development of 70 to 90 units on a two-and-a-half acre site. The remaining 19 acres will be covered in housing.
    Thames Water is not interested in leisure or nature or in the wishes and priorities of local people: it is interested only in maximising its profit. It ought to know the end result of such speculative development, because it has the example of Canary Wharf, a major site that currently has no proper public transport and few facilities. No thought was given to local people when it was being developed, and now it is a huge white elephant. However, Thames Water presses on regardless.
    I and my constituents oppose a massive private housing development on the site, because the houses would be completely out of the reach of the ordinary people of Hackney. The development will not meet their housing needs. It will be a yuppie housing stockade in the middle of one of London's poorest areas. The people of Hackney need play spaces for their children and recreational space for young people and retired people. For a privatised water industry that is completely profit-led, such facilities are apparently out of the question. As I have said, Thames Water is not interested in local people or in nature
    840
    conservancy. The new management have awarded themselves grotesque pay rises and are interested only in the bottom line.
    Future legislation should provide for poor families to be helped with their water bills. Conservative Members could scarcely contain their boredom and derision when Opposition Members opposed the abolition of social security help with water charges. With their MPs' salaries and, is some cases, big consultancy fees, they do not understand what water charges mean to pensioners and people on fixed incomes. The decision to abolish social security help for water bills is a retrograde step.
    I invite the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit Hackney. John Major and Mr. Howard went all the way to Rio to talk about the environment. They should come to Stoke Newington to look at our environment. I invite them to speak to people on Woodberry Down estate, to go to the top floor of Lincoln Court and admire the view over the reservoirs and the wildlife, and see how that would be ruined by Thames Water's redevelopment plans. I urge them to talk to mothers and young people on the estates about the need for play space and recreation areas. If they did that, they would find that the need to protect our environment is every bit as pressing as the need that they found in Rio. They might find it in their hearts to ask Thames Water to reconsider its plans for greedy property speculation.
    Hackney needs open spaces and homes to rent, and the water authorities should not be allowed to award their managers ludicrous pay rises or to engage in profiteering. Above all, they should not be allowed to asset-strip our environment in the search for profit. Thames Water is a major landowner in London, with over £1,000 million-worth of property. If it is allowed to implement its plans for the reservoir site, it and the other water companies will see it as the green light to continue asset-stripping. Before privatisation, water authorities saw themselves as custodians of the environment. The people of Hackney wish that the privatised water companies would take their responsibilities seriously.
    7.54 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is an important debate about the future of an industry with responsibility for the very essence of life. Since privatisation, as many hon. Members have said, investment has been high and will be about £28 billion over the next 10 years. That amounts to £5,000 for every minute of every day. All hon. Members agree that capital projects must be paid for by the consumer or by the taxpayer. Labour's manifesto made it clear that a Labour Government would return water company assets to common ownership. A Labour Government would pay not only for that, but to keep water bills down, and the taxpayer would be faced with a double whammy.
    I am concerned about the delivery of quality water. European directives have increasingly imposed more stringent demands on the water companies. Nitrate limits have been lowered from the World Health Organisation's approved level of 100 parts per million to 50 parts per million and may shortly be further lowered. The companies are also being obliged to meet other stringent demands. The limit for pesticides is down to 0.1 microgrammes per litre. That is such a low level that sophisticated techniques are required to detect it, and such

    841
    techniques are expensive. The water companies deserve help from public authorities to meet those standards and British Rail, local authorities and farmers must use pesticides responsibly.
    The water companies will also have to meet the European directive on lead. The demand will be stringent in, for example, Wales and the north of England. Lead levels must be kept at not more than 50 parts per million. Should the taxpayer meet the bill, or should the consumer be obliged to put his water pipes in order?
    Water must be treated as a precious resource. Anglian Water recently estimated that over the next 30 years the demand for water will increase by a staggering 41 per cent. We must look diligently at how that increase in demand can be met. Will we abstract more from our rivers and build more reservoirs? Thames Water is about to face a massive public inquiry over a proposal for a big new reservoir just outside Didcot. There may come a time at which supply cannot meet demand.
    I welcome the initiative by the Secretary of State for the Environment in calling for a careful examination of the use of water resources. I also welcome yesterday's news that the National Rivers Authority is investigating the levels of about 40 key rivers. I hope that it will examine the levels of three key rivers in my constituency, the Churn, the Coln and the Windrush.
    Over the next 10 years or so, there must be a new method of charging. The new council tax will provide an ideal opportunity to look at new methods more closely related to the size and value of properties. It will also provide an opportunity to examine water charges for one-person households. Larger properties do not always contain more occupants, although that is usually the case. The cost of universal metering could not be fully justified. Most water companies now require metering for the major industrial users and large hotels, commercial premises and agricultural users. They also require all new houses to be metered. Partial metering is the best way forward, with changes for other consumers based on the new council tax.
    Given the inexorable rise in demand, there is a need to rectify leakage, which averages 17 to 20 per cent. in most water company pipes. Before privatisation, leakage in Thames Water was 28 per cent. so privatisation has forced the water companies to consider carefully the amount of water that is being lost. Thames Water recently introduced a sophisticated technique to monitor water flow by computer. In the past three months, it has reduced leakage by 3 per cent. That is to be welcomed, and I urge other water companies to consider whether they cannot adopt that technology to their benefit.
    It is not only in water company pipes that leakages occur. About 10 per cent. of all water supplied is lost in consumers' pipes. The average householder uses 28 gallons a day, and a leaky tap could lose almost the same amount.
    The use of hosepipes and water sprinklers should also be carefully reviewed. While the average consumer uses 28 gallons of water a day, a sprinkler can use 200 gallons an hour. Water companies should consider introducing a licensing system for hosepipes and sprinklers. Hosepipe use is a social activity rather than a necessity. If one walks down any street in this country, one can see people
    842
    watering their gardens. The moment someone comes along they want to talk to, they stand still, drop the hosepipe and start chatting.
    Privatisation has been an outstanding success. Despite the fact that the water industry is one of the most regulated of all in the country, it still produces a level of service second to none. Investment, productivity and quality is up. Why else would the canny French want to invest in our industry, and to bottle our own excellent water?
    8.1 pm
    Mr. David Hanson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on his maiden speech. This morning, I had the pleasure of joining him in a game of football between the parliamentary team and members of the Press Gallery, which we lost 3-0. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) also made a sterling effort in that game. In the same way that we lost that match, I am sure that we will lose today's motion in the Division, but, having heard the speeches of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am confident that we have won the argument.
    When water was privatised in 1989, the Government's objective was to ensure that private investors had a say in controlling the new companies. A resource that was once owned by everyone in this Chamber and throughout the United Kingdom was transferred to the ownership of a selected few. The influence that I and my constituents once had on the industry's future direction was lost for ever.
    Presumably the Government believed that water services and standards would be improved by privatisation, but, as every Opposition speaker has said, there has been a noticeable drop in standards—and, thanks to Government policy, some of the poorest of my constituents are denied water services.
    My objections to water privatisation are summed up in the Opposition's motion, which mentions the record levels of disconnections, rising prices, the inflated salaries of management and the increasing sham of investment.
    Water charges in my constituency have increased sharply since privatisation. In 1988–89, Welsh Water charged £147 per annum. By 1990–91, that figure increased to £168; in 1991–92 to £195; and this year, to £212. That is equivalent to annual rises of just over 9, 14, 10 and 8 per cent. respectively—a total of nearly 42 per cent. since privatisation. At the same time, the retail prices index rose by only 19.5 per cent. Welsh Water charges have increased by 23 per cent. over and above every other commodity.
    Conservative Members argue that investment is important, and that it accounts for the initial prices rises, but why should the whole burden fall on consumers—many of whom are poor and face other pressures at this time? The cost of investment could have been met by borrowing, to be repaid over a period of time. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the whole burden of investment costs has fallen on the consumer.
    Many of my constituents ask out loud why Wales, which is blessed with water and is an exporter of water, has to meet price increases of 42 per cent. One of my constituents living in a village near Mold in Clwyd is an 82-year-old widow who has a one-bedroom flat. Just before the election, she wrote to me asking why she has to

    843
    pay £212 a year—the same as an incomed family living in a five-bedroom house down the road. There can he no justification for that.
    The director of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said:
    "Water is a vital service, and action should be taken to ensure that it remains available to vulnerable sections of the community."
    The citizens advice bureaux are handling 55,000 water debt cases a year throughout the United Kingdom. My constituents very often cannot afford to pay their water charges—it is not that they do not want to pay. When a water charge of £212 is coupled with the poll tax and a mortgage or a higher council rent, and given that the Government will not introduce a minimum wage, many of my constituents find themselves under tremendous financial pressure.
    In 1989–90, which was the first year of privatisation, 1,356 consumers had their water services cut off. Last year, the figure rose to 2,951. I ask the Minister to compare Welsh Water's record with the rest of the United Kingdom. For every 10,000 Welsh Water customers, 26 were cut off—but the figure for England was only 10. What is the reason for that discrepancy. Why are Welsh Water's customers served so badly? Why have I, as a Member of Parliament, no say in that performance of that company, which operates a monopoly?
    Cut-offs are occurring because of price increases, and because council tenants are having to meet separate water charges for the first time, and homes are being repossessed.
    Mr. Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that Welsh Water's charges are expensive by comparison with other companies? Is not that the reason for the higher number of cut-offs in Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. However, not everyone in Wales is fortunate enough to suffer disconnection. The chairman of Welsh Water, John Elfed Jones, has seen his salary increase to £143,000, and with shares and other perks worth £200,000 he has enjoyed a 211 per cent. rise in his salary since privatisation.
    This year, Welsh Water will make a pre-tax profit of £143 million, which is 11 per cent. higher than last year. According to weekend newspaper reports, bonuses worth £290,000 are heading Mr. Jones's way. That is insensitive and obscene when the company over which he presides is doubling and trebling the number of disconnections in my constituency.
    Whom am I to turn to? Am I to turn to Ian Byatt, Director General of Water Services? He said:
    "If they consider their executives are worth a lot of money, that is a matter for the shareholders and not for the regulator to challenge."
    How can I explain to my constituent in Mold who must pay water charges of £212, and who may shortly join the list of those who are disconnected, that I have no power through the regulator to challenge the massive salary increases given to the chairman of Welsh Water?
    We are told that higher charges are to pay for investment. In the final three years of the last Labour Government, investment in the Welsh water industry in real terms totalled £129 million, £133 million and £103 million. In the first 10 years of the Tory Government, that investment dropped to the lower end of £60 million, £70 million, and £80 million. Only since privatisation has Welsh Water's capital expenditure returned to the levels at
    844
    which it was when my party left office in 1979. When I asked the Leader of the House about that during Prime Minister's Question Time last week, he failed miserably to answer.
    Our approach to Welsh Water should not be entirely negative, although we are very concerned about price rises, capital expenditure and cut-offs. I favour an element of public control, which would give my constituents and me a line of accountability. Like 70 per cent. of the Welsh people who voted on 9 April, I should like an elected Welsh assembly, and I should like it to control the water service. The Conservatives will disagree with that; let them go to Wales, where 27 Labour Members were elected on 9 April, along with other Opposition Members who took Conservative seats. Welsh Water should be brought into line with other services: it should be placed under the control of an elected assembly, so that it is accountable.
    In Wales and elsewhere, water services are not accountable to hon. Members and the people whom they represent. There is no way in which we can influence the policies of water companies. If the Government vote against the motion—as they will—they will be avoiding their responsibility to stand up for the poorest of my constituents, who face the imposition of cut-offs by an insensitive company. They will be avoiding their duty to put down a marker—to say, "Whatever our political differences, we know that it is insensitive of water company chairmen to accept such large bonuses and salaries while presiding over a rundown in capital expenditure, and allowing services to be disconnected."
    If you go into the Lobby and vote against the motion, you will demonstrate to the people of Delyn, and the people of Wales in general, that you are not concerned about their water services—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member should remember that he is addressing me, and I am not going anywhere.
    Mr. Hanson: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have done that before, and I shall probably do it again.
    If Conservative Members vote against the motion, they will let down the people of Wales. They will he endorsing large price rises and high salaries, and they will show the people of Wales why there was an overwhelming vote for alternative Governments on 9 April.
    8.12 pm
    Dr. Tony Wright: An earlier speaker began by declaring an interest as a director of a water company. I declare an interest as a consumer, and as one who represents 3,500 people in south Staffordshire whose water supply has been disconnected in the past year. That figure is seven times the national average, and more than twice as high as that applying to the next worst company.
    People in my area feel very strongly about what is happening to the water industry, and especially strongly about disconnections. I should add that in the past year the company concerned has achieved an 11 per cent. increase in turnover, and a 42 per cent. increase in profit after tax. It has achieved a dividend increase of 642 per cent. since the time when, at 4p per share, it declared as a statutory water company. Now, having converted to plc status, it declares at 40.2p. We are not dealing with a company that is strapped for cash.

    845
    I declare another interest. People keep mentioning a K factor. That talk of "RPI plus K". When my constituents ask about the scale of water charges, I have to explain how those charges are calculated. As Conservative Members have instructed, I talk of "RPI plus K", telling them that they need K to pay for all the capital spending. My constituents then ask, "May we have some of this K? We have a lot of capital spending to do. Why do only the water companies have K? Is that what pays for all the salaries that we keep hearing about? Where does it come from?" They have heard of Special K and they know that it does good things, but this is ridiculous.
    All that focuses attention on the history of the subject that we are discussing. Hon. Members have mentioned leakage from pipes and water company investment. In the 1980s, Opposition Members argued that infrastructural investment was needed because, as well as improving the service, it would help the economy. The Conservatives, however, said that they did not want that, and they are having to act now only because of European directives about higher standards.
    The tragedy is that with a different policy we could have embarked on all those measures over the past 10 years, and they need not have been financed directly through consumer prices—which, of course, affects poor consumers most. Conservative policy has led to the making of a strategic choice: the Government have been forced to act in this way because they turned off the tap of infrastructural investment for so many years.
    My main point has been touched on by a number of other hon. Members. It relates to the question of accountability—the question of who is now answerable for prices, disconnections, corporate salaries and all the other matters that we discuss in the House. What can the House do about that? What can Members of Parliament do for their constituents? The answer, I am afraid, is nothing.
    What, indeed, can be done by Ofwat and its assorted arms? Again, the answer is nothing. Ofwat can snap at the companies, but the companies can snap back. Unless a licensing system and a code of conduct are introduced which will make the companies work genuinely in the public interest, there will be no reason for them to do so.
    Ministers tell the House, as a Minister has told us today, that they are not responsible for the matters about which hon. Members have spoken, but in a sense Ministers are the public relations arm of the water companies. They are saying, "These are splendid organisations—go out and buy some shares." When we advance criticisms, they say, "The regulators are there, and they are independent."
    There are problems with the regulators and with the regulatory regimes that they operate. The way in which they are appointed is a problem. The idea that regulation solves the accountability problem is all wrong. After all, we are talking about monopoly suppliers of essential services. Hon. Members want to ask the Government about such matters as pricing, but the Government simply say, "Do not blame us—it is not our fault. These splendid companies are doing these things, and the regulators are keeping an eye on them." That is a profoundly unsatisfactory answer. There is a vacuum where accountability should be: one kind of accountability has been removed, and nothing has been put in its place.
    846
    Let me offer a practical suggestion. If the House were less supine in relation to the Executive, it would not tolerate such a position. It would not tolerate the creation of what are essentially private governments, delivering essential services to our constituents on a monopoly basis with no accountability. It would demand to be involved in that process, to appoint the regulator, perhaps on a short-term contract, to have a regular review of the regulatory process and to be centrally involved in that. But I am afraid that it will not have that. It will have the kind of thing that we have seen today, and the upshot of that will be that as the issue becomes one of who speaks for the consumer and the public interest, people will increasingly see that it is Opposition Members who speak for the consumer and the public interest and that it is Conservative Members who have abdicated such responsibilities into other hands—remember again, monopoly suppliers of essential services.
    The Government, softening us up for privatisation, had a water awareness campaign. They had to remind us that there was a thing called water. They thought that people had forgotten that, that they needed to spend several million pounds of our money to tell us that there was a thing called water so that we might go out and buy some shares in companies that would sell it to us—our company that they had taken. It was a nice little idea.
    The end of the story is that the Government are now engaged in a non-awareness campaign, trying to make people not aware of what has happened to the process and to the companies so that people will not be aware of pricing levels, real investment records, corporate salaries, disconnections, or the realities of life when public services are provided in that way. In particular, they will not be aware of the vacuum of accountability around the process. People will look to the Government and to the House to do something about what has been talked about today. The Government will say, as they have said, that they can do nothing about such things and people will therefore increasingly look to Opposition Members to do something.
    Mrs. Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this evening I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and asked him how much he received as a non-executive director of Yorkshire Water. I have now learnt from Hansard that that has been wiped from the record. I should like your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether that can be possible when a Member has asked such a question in the House and what I as a Back Bencher can do to have it put back on the record.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady will appreciate that I was not in the Chair at the time. I shall ensure that inquiries are made. As I am sure the hon. Lady will understand, I cannot take the matter beyond that point now.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) put that question.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I rise to address the House on this subject because investment in pollution control is of great importance to my constituents in

    847
    Blackpool, South. Hon. Members may be aware from adverse publicity that for a number of years Blackpool has had a considerable problem of sea pollution which I am glad to say is now being addressed by urgent measures which are being taken by North West Water.
    It seemed appropriate today to recognise the great achievement of North West Water in tackling the problem, first by a disinfection scheme which is due to start during this bathing season and, secondly, by a construction of a new sewage treatment plant which is expected to be operational by 1995. I stress that it is only the success of North West Water that has enabled it to make investment. The need for such investment requires that it be a successful company, as it is, earning the profits that it does.
    In speeches made by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), there seemed to be an attempt to suggest that profit is a dirty word. It is the dirty water that the profit is combating. It is essential that water companies such as North West Water continue their investment in pollution control because only then will tourism, on which my constituency depends heavily, be able to recover from its current difficulties.
    I hope that Opposition Members, particularly those with connections in the north-west, will bring whatever influence they can to bear on the Labour leader of Lancashire county council who has made a crusade of blackening the reputation of Blackpool, stressing the pollution that has unfortunately occurred due to under-investment in pollution control when the Labour party was in power for many years rather than concentrating on efforts to eradicate that pollution.
    The Opposition need to concentrate much more on constructive measures to control pollution rather than on criticising the problems which, in many cases, can be laid at their door. It is only since the Government came to power and introduced the measures that they have in relation to the water industry, that we have had the investment that was so badly needed to control that pollution.
    It is important to consider the progress that is now being made on the cleanliness of bathing waters around Britain's coastlines and to recall that an independent body such as the Consumers Association has stressed that many continental European countries are far less scrupulous than Britain about testing their bathing waters. Opposition Members and their colleagues outside the House have stressed the problems of European Commission prosecutions of the United Kingdom Government for water pollution. However, they should recall that 11 of the 12 EC countries are currently facing prosecution by the Commission for dirty bathing waiters. The only reason why the 12th, Portugal, has not been prosecuted is that the EC directive concerned, under which such prosecutions are brought, will apply to it only later this year.
    Because Britain's testing methods are more scrupulous and scientifically accurate, we are providing ammunition to the European Commission which is not provided by many other EC countries. Therefore, it is far from the case that we have the dirtiest bathing waters in the community, as I am sure any of my constituents and any other hon. Members' constituents who travel abroad will be only too well aware.
    Standards of United Kingdom waters are improving all the time and when testing is continued later this year
    848
    during the tourist season we shall see the fruits of that. The EC blue flag symbol will be displayed at far more British beaches. It is important for me, as the Member of Parliament for an important tourist resort, to stress that Blackpool's bathing waters are improving all the time. I hope that that will encourage more and more tourists to visit my constituency.
    However, the water industry has other priorities which also involve my constituency. The Minister may be aware that my constituency has an extremely successful manufacturing company involved in the production of water treatment plant. My right hon. Friend, his colleagues and the Director General of Water Services have been in correspondence with me about the importance of ensuring that that company can sell and distribute its products as widely as possible in order to earn important income from exports and continue important business development in Britain. I am extremely grateful for the help that the Minister, his colleagues and the director general have given. I am particularly grateful for help with the problems caused by the variability of water pressures set by local authorities when new housing developments are planned.
    There has been a difficulty with which my hon. Friend the Minister assisted my constituency company. Often, local authorities specify a range of water pressures that are very different from the water pressures that can actually be expected. Wide ranges of pressures have been specified by local authorities and the equipment that my constituency company has been encouraged to develop and produce cannot be ordered because the range of pressures specified is too wide, even though it could be used. I urge my hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues to continue the work that they have done in encouraging local authorities and others to specify the exact water pressure to be expected on different housing developments. That would assist companies such as that in my constituency.
    I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister to continue his discussions on coastal zone protection with our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I hope that when the new environmental protection legislation comes before the House it will incorporate continued firm policies to improve coastal zone protection. That issue is extremely important in my constituency, particularly for hotels near the sea front. We need a programme of sea defences in areas such as mine which suffer the extremes of tide and wind which can cause flooding problems at very high tides. We have been fortunate in recent years not to have had those high tides but businesses in my constituency have suffered from serious flooding in the past. I am aware that the coastal zone protection document produced recently by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was widely welcomed in my constituency. I trust that the Departments involved will continue with those policies.
    I support the continued investment in all aspects relating to water. It is so important in my constituency and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will continue with his successful policies.
    8.32 pm
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: In a newspaper article, John Elfed Jones, the chairman of Welsh Water, said that he was adamant that his company gave "value for money". He insisted that water was

    849
    relatively cheap, and gave figures to suggest that people were getting a fine product for a low price. On the surface, his argument seems perfectly plausible. Water is an essential and it is a wonderful thing which just comes to our taps. For most of us, the price is extremely reasonable. However, it may be that even those of us who are on good salaries will be squealing in a few years as the K factor leads to what will probably be a 50 per cent. increase in the price of water in real terms by the end of the century.
    For low-income families, a sum of £200 or so a year is a serious burden. That point has been made more than once today, but it needs to be made again. It is not good enough to talk constantly about this wonderful commodity that is provided at a reasonable price. The fact that it can be a serious burden is reflected in the increasing level of disconnections.
    The statement by the chairman of Welsh Water is somewhat complacent. The situation that he described conceals serious injustices—the sort of injustices that have been typical of government in Britain since 1979. The people of Wales have had to endure Tory government since 1979, despite the fact that that party has had less than 30 per cent. support in Wales for all that time.
    The injustice is clearly linked to the creation of privatised monopolies. That term has been used several times, but it is true. The injustices is seen in the increased profits of Welsh Water over the past few years. Profits have increased from £95 million to £128 million up to £138 million over the past three years, and hefty dividends have been paid to shareholders.
    The injustice is most clearly seen in the increase in prices over and above that required to cover inflation—the notorious K factor about which we have heard so much today. Welsh Water allowed a K factor of 6.5 per cent. To its credit, this year it has used a K factor of only 5 per cent. The purpose of the K factor, as has been said, is infrastructural and environmental improvements. In Wales, it is also to be used to deal with coastal pollution.
    There is no doubt that investment is needed to deal with coastal pollution, which is a contentious issue in my constituency in west Wales. Recently, a survey of 20 beaches carried out by the district council on the basis of the EC water directive showed that only two of those 20 could be designated as excellent, five were good and 13 were poor. That is unsatisfactory, and it has serious implications for human health and, perhaps more importantly, for marine ecology. There is considerable evidence that viruses emanating from human sewage persist in sea water for long periods and, as a result, there has been evidence of sickness among sea mammals such as dolphins and porpoises in Cardigan bay.
    Sea pollution must also be addressed for the sake of the holiday industry. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction and anxiety in my constituency about the effect of reports of sea pollution on the holiday industry.
    Investment is required to deal with that. There must be investment in adequate treatment such as disinfection. Clearly, long sea outfalls are not the answer. In fact, it has been argued that long sea outfalls are worse for marine ecology, and mammals such as dolphins are probably more seriously affected. Human sewage gathering on the sea bed has serious effects on marine ecology generally.
    850
    It is worth mentioning that, to its credit, Welsh Water has undertaken to provide full treatment in certain circumstances. In the Aberystwyth area, there is to be full treatment with ultra-violet disinfection. Welsh Water withdrew its original scheme for a long sea outfall, which would have met the EC standards for a designated beach at Aberystwyth but would have simply removed the damage elsewhere, either further out to sea or to another beach. The danger of EC designation of certain beaches is that it will simply move the problem elsewhere. As I have said, Welsh Water introduced an excellent scheme, but it did so only in response to intense and well-informed public campaigns and pressure from those who were not prepared to accept the original intention.
    Such plans involve large-scale investment, and a great deal more is needed. It is certainly needed in west Wales. We must ask how it is to be paid for. That brings us back to the K factor. It is to be paid for by the K factor, through consumer pricing. It is not fanciful to describe the K factor as a non-progressive tax. Water bills are made up of a standing charge and a payment based on rateable values, which have only a tenuous relationship with people's ability to pay. Environmental improvements are being effected by charging the badly-off the same as the well-off. That gross injustice is all too typical of the policies from which we have suffered in the past 13 years, which found their apotheosis in the poll tax.
    My party is convinced that environmental improvements should be funded from general taxation. People have suggested borrowing, which is another reasonable suggestion, but environmental improvements that benefit everybody should be funded from general taxation. Even Conservative Members have made that suggestion.
    Welsh Water recognises the force of the argument, as evidenced by its recent application to the west Wales task force for funds for a sewage treatment works at Goodwick and Fishguard. It recognises the need for environmental improvements to be funded not only from itself but from public funds. That is part of the economic renewal programme for west Wales. I hope that it is successful in obtaining the funds, but it recognises the need for funds from general taxation and not simply consumer pricing.
    Plaid Cymru takes the principle of social equity further than that. People entitled to income support and housing benefit should be entitled to water charge benefit. That suggestion has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and recognised as a possibility. Water, like housing, is a basic need. If there is such a thing as housing benefit, why not water charge benefit?
    We advocate a statutory 25 per cent. reduction in water charges for single-person households. That, again, is a reasonable suggestion.
    The sense of grievance about social inequity in Wales is compounded by a national sense of injustice. I use the word "national" advisedly. There is a sense that Welsh water resources have been exploited. Wales is a nation rich in water resources. It has been plundered at great cost to its communities and with a minimum of benefit to its economy. Water is an emotive subject in Wales.
    The injustice continues today. In 1991, Welsh Water's consumers—the majority of consumers in Wales—paid an average of £90 for water supply, compared with £58 in the north-west of England. Welsh Water is selling water to the north-west for two thirds of the price that is paid by its own customers. That must be crazy, and it is profoundly unsatisfactory.

    851
    It is high time that Welsh Water was able to get a fair price for its water. That has been recognised by the chairman of Welsh Water, Mr. John Elfed Jones. If we got a fair price for that water, it would make a significant difference to the burden on Welsh customers.
    If the ambitious plans of the National Rivers Authority to pipe water from Wales to the south-east of England were to come to fruition, and if there were a fair pricing system, it could bring an additional £20 million to Wales, which would make a significant difference to our water prices. I regard that scheme as environmentally highly suspect. It is clear to me that we need to reduce the profligate use of water. If such a scheme to transfer water went ahead, it would be intolerable if we were not able to capitalise on a natural asset by charging a proper price for it.
    I finish on an overtly political point that has already been made by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). If we had had a Parliament in Wales, we would not have privatised water. Social equity would have been fundamental to our system of pricing, and we would have ensured that water resources were developed to provide economic and environmental benefits for Wales and a service to our own people. I am quite confident that a Welsh Parliament will come, but it may take a few years. That is why Plaid Cymru will seek to move a draft Bill in this Session to introduce measures to mitigate the injustice of the existing system. We shall seek support for the Bill from all parties in the House.
    8.46 pm
    Ms. Jean Corston: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate, and I intend to confine my remarks to the issue of drinking water quality. The concern that has been expressed about the quality of drinking water is evidenced by the volume of sales of water filters. Hon. Members should go and see how many water filters are on sale in any high street shop or Boots the chemist. If people were not buying them, they would not be for sale in such numbers or variety. The incresase in sales of mineral water is not just a question of style or the yuppie life but of mistrust of drinking water.
    That was brought to my attention a year ago by somebody in the Bristol, East constituency when I was the Labour parliamentary candidate. A complaint was made about the taste of drinking water in one part of my constituency, Barton Hill. I suggested that the complainant, who was a member of a tenants group, should write to Bristol Water and ask for an analysis of drinking water at her residence, which she was entitled to under statute. She did so and received a long printout, none of which she could understand, but, fortunately, some of us could. It showed that her water was in clear breach of the drinking water directive.
    That led to people in other parts of Bristol, East making similar requests to Wessex Water. Indeed, it was bombarded with requests for analysis, each of which showed that the water supply throughout Bristol, East was in breach of the drinking water directive. Let us remember that the directive was issued in 1976, yet the Minister referred to it as though it were quite new.
    The water in Bristol, East was shown to be in breach for ammonium, lead, nitrites, nitrate and pesticide. I shall read the pesticide printout for a residence in Bristol, East. For a pesticide called CMPP, 40 per cent. of samples
    852
    contravened the directive. For a pesticide called atrazine, 66 per cent. of samples contravened the directive. When I drew that figure to the attention of Bristol Water, the head of water quality management said that atrazine was "not very toxic". I do not consider "not very toxic" reassuring, and nor do my constituents. As for a pesticide called simazine, 16.6 per cent. of samples contravened the directive.
    I then discovered that some of the analysis sheets showed that water in some parts of my constituency contained coliform or harmful bacteria. Under the Water Act 1989, there is a legal presumption against coliform of any shape or form. The analysis sheet from which I am reading shows that water contained 16 per cent. coliform and 4.5 per cent. faecal coliform. That means faecal material in the drinking water of my constituents.
    I drew that to the attention of Bristol Water, which replied that it was probably due to people rinsing nappies under plastic taps. What decade are such people living in? Nowadays people use disposable nappies which they do not rinse under taps. It is nonsense to suggest that one can blame faecal material in drinking water on one or two people who happen to have babies and plastic taps on the basis that they still use terry towelling nappies. That seems a spurious reason.
    People have also rung to say that, when they filled their fish tanks, the fish died. What in the water causes fish to die? This is happening 15 years after the directive was introduced. The Government have had years in which to invest in the water industry, and it does not lie in their mouths to blame Labour, which had only three years to do something, for their decade of neglect since the 1976 directive.
    If that was the case and still is the case—water is still in a bad state in Bristol, East—and if that had been made clear to the public in 1989, who would have bought shares in the water industry? People would have been told to buy shares, but in an industry that was massively under-invested and in which the water was clearly in breach of the directive. They would have been told that the Government had had only 10 years in which to comply and that their time was up and the game was up, so what did they do? They introduced the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.
    Under those regulations, the water companies were told that they would be immune from prosecution if they gave what were called undertakings. They were sometimes given what were called relaxations. I wrote to Wessex Water and, as I practise law, I found out what the regulations meant in my constituency. I have here a list from the Department of the Environment. It states that Bristol Water must install treatment for pesticides by 1997. The date by which steps are to be completed for nitrides was 31 December 1995. How long before ammonia is to be removed from the drinking water in my constituency? The deadline is 31 December 1995. As for aluminium, it had only to investigate the extent of failures to comply with the appropriate standards and identify remedial work, and it has until 31 December 1994 to do so. There is no date for iron—steps are on-going. As for lead, it must identify zones by 31 December 1994.
    Is that a record of success? We are told that coliform must be removed by 31 March 1990, which is an amazing admission, because legislation dated the year before made

    853
    a legal presumption against the presence of coliform in drinking water in any event. That is a weird deception, and also a dereliction of duty by the Government.
    People in my constituency are now paying ever higher prices for a product which many of them will never drink because they are worried about what is in it. It is no good accusing politicians of being scaremongers merely because they read aloud figures provided by the company about which the Government boast. That is not good enough. My constituents are being asked to pay by a Marie Antoinette Government, who say, "Let them drink Perrier."
    8.54 pm
    Sir Anthony Durant: I first apologise to the House for not being here for most of the debate. I was attending meetings, and I apologise for arriving at this late stage. I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you called the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms. Corston), who had waited for so long.
    When debating the water industry, we need to consider its history. We must realise that most of the capital investment in the industry—in sewerage and water purification—took place in the 1800s. Much of the current equipment, especially that for sewerage, dates from that time when the money was first spent. When the Government realised that there was a major problem in trying to put the matter right, they had a choice: they could have introduced enormous levels of taxation and used public money in an attempt to put right an industry which was in a bad state, but they chose the alternative of privatisation, which I support. I believe that it was the right way to proceed.
    When the first Bill on water privatisation was introduced, I was not very happy, because one of my interests in life is inland waterways and rivers. It occurred to me that, with the first Bill, there was a danger that issues such as navigation and the conservation of rivers would be neglected. Therefore, I was delighted when the second Bill appeared, setting up the National Rivers Authority.
    I believe that the NRA has done a remarkable job. Lord Crickhowell, who was the Secretary of State for Wales, has taken on the job with great enthusiasm. He has prosecuted every water authority. He set out to shake them up—some seriously and some not so seriously. He recently announced that he will tighten regulations on extraction from rivers. There is a particular problem in my constituency with the River Pang, from which Thames Water extracts water. It is now in a serious state. It is a beautiful fishing river, and its condition is a cause of great concern to my constituents, especially those in Pangbourne which is based on the River Pang.
    My concern and my criticism of the Government involves the environmental protection agency. I do not wish the NRA to be gobbled up by the agency which the Government proposes to establish. It should keep its role in dealing with water. I do not want the excellent powers being exerted by the NRA to be lost to the agency. Let us keep the National Rivers Authority.
    The Labour party talks about renationalisation of the water authorities. Labour admits that it will take 51 per cent. of the stock, which will cost about £8 billion on present prices. It will then have dumped on it £28 billion,
    854
    which is the current investment programme. All of that will have to come out of the public sector borrowing requirement.
    The Labour party does not have a very good record on the water industry. It cut investment by one third when it was in power. Lord Wilson, when he was Prime Minister, appointed Denis Howell as Minister for water. His only success was that, on the day he was appointed, it started to rain, so he felt that he was a successful Minister. It was the same when he was Minister for snow, and the snow stopped the day he was appointed. He had some magic qualities, and had successes in that regard.
    I well remember when Denis Howell introduced a water rate equalisation scheme, which other hon. Members may not remember. Wales had bad investment in its water industry because it did not have investment coming in from consumers. The scheme was introduced, and we in the Thames Water area had to pay certain sums to Wales so that it could put its water system right. That did not work, either.
    We have the lowest water prices in Europe, which is to the Government's credit, because they have kept prices down. Opposition Members ask why we cannot borrow. If one borrows money, it has to be repaid and one has to pay interest on the amount borrowed, which is another debt to the consumer. The Government are putting money into the water authorities; they put in £2 billion to support the EC directive on clean water, which the hon. Member for Bristol, East mentioned.
    The water industry is a good story, and it is getting its house in order. Water is being serviced better, and we have better quality. The rivers are cleaner. Salmon, for example, are now appearing in the River Thames, where they have not been seen for many hundreds of years. The quality of the River Thames, on which I spend a lot of time, is becoming quite clean and is looking very healthy. The NRA is doing a wonderful job there.
    It is not all doom and gloom, as the Opposition claim; it is a success story. Of course improvements are expensive; water is expensive, which is one of the problems. People have not realised that one has to pay for water. As the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) said, water is an essential commodity. However, it must be paid for.
    All sorts of ideas for helping those on the lowest incomes may be considered, and I am not necessarily against a scheme to assist such people, but we must pay for the water we use. I am in favour of metering, and I want it to be introduced on a much bigger scale.
    One of my constituents ran a campaign to get a meter. He refused to pay his water bills because he lived on his own, he used the wash basin only twice a day and he flushed the loo only twice a day. He held out until his water was cut off. When he came to see me in my surgery he said, "Don't get too near me, because I smell." He was determined to get a water meter, because he felt that metering was the right way in which to tackle the water system. In the end, the water authority gave in and provided him with his own water meter. The result was that his bills fell and he paid only for what he used; so his campaign was successful.
    I am in favour of water metering. I know that experiments are going on at present, and I shall be interested to see how they work out. There are now

    855
    technical ways in which to meter water which do not require great amounts of capital equipment, and I believe that that is the way in which we must go forward.
    I am in favour of the Government's policy on water. I believe that it is the right way in which to more forward. I hope that we shall improve the service, as the water authorities intend to do, and that we shall improve the capital investment and especially the sewerage system, which is where most of the capital has to go.
    When I became a local councillor, we put in a main sewer because the local council was then responsible for sewerage. Many people said, "Isn't this going to cost and awful lot of money?" A very experienced councillor said to me, "You never get any complaints about spending money underground, but if you flush the loo and the sewage does not go away, you have a riot on your hands." We must have investment in our water industry, and the water companies are investing £2 billion. I hope that that will provide both the quality of the water, which the hon. Member for Bristol, East mentioned, and an efficient sewerage system.
    9.3 pm
    Mr. Bill Etherington: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) refer to Denis Howell, who was appointed Minister of drought, as some called the post, in 1976. I bitterly regret that the Labour Government did not do anything then to introduce the proposal for a national water network. It is appropriate that this debate takes place during the week in which the chairman of the National Rivers Authority is threatening to prevent water companies from abstracting water from certain rivers. Last year I spoke to people in Sussex, Dorset and other parts of the south country who were worried about the drought in the south of England. Sixteen years have passed by, but nothing has been done.
    What concerns me—I have said this before, but it needs stating again—is that there are never any benefits from privatising a monopoly. Let us make no mistake about it. Since denationalisation of the water industry there has been no commensurate reduction in prices, and no improvement in services or quality.
    Many people will point out that vast investment is required to bring water standards up to the quality required by European Community regulations. When the industry was nationalised, there was always the possibility that a water network would be built. We are now in the ridiculous situation of facing the threat of standpipes in the south and south-east while there is a glut of water in the north. The Kielder reservoir was built in the north-east at a time when a tremendous increase in industrial use was expected, especially on Teesside. That reservoir provides water to the rivers Tyne, Wear and Tees, from which water can be abstracted, but that is as far as it goes. There has even been talk of exporting water from the north-east to increase revenue for the Northumbrian water authority.
    When one thinks about what will be necessary to improve supply and prevent the threat of drought in the south, it is a worrying scenario. We all know that every private company is required by law to look after the interests of its shareholders first and customers next. Imagine the wrangling that will be involved if a pipeline is to be built to bring water from the north to the south of England—it almost defies imagination.
    856
    As the years go by, the problem will not be resolved because there seem to be irreversible changes in the water tables and in rainfall patterns, and there is a burgeoning population in the south. Eventually the private companies will return to the Government with a begging bowl. I do not think that any private company would be willing to invest money when a service is involved. They will invest money for a return on their capital there is no problem about
    that—but will not invest in such a large-scale project. That was why so many industries were nationalised. It was not because they had been marvellous successes and the Government wanted to take them over for the benefit of the people, but because they were inefficient and were not providing adequate and suitable services.
    I forecast that the Government will have to take action if we have another two or three years of low rainfall and problems with drought and lowering water tables. I do not believe that the private water companies are capable of agreeing among themselves to provide a national water network, which is the only possible long-term solution to the problem.
    I hope that in the years ahead I shall not have the dubious pleasure of looking back on these words and saying that I was right. I should love to be proved wrong, but I do not think that that will happen.
    9.7 pm
    Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and that he caught your eye at this late hour, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The Minister of State made a rather cantankerous and nagging speech. He unwisely quoted an opinion poll, but he spoke well on sewerage. He gave way frequently, but not to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). He made an important statement regarding his intentions on water management. However, work on the London ring main was started before privatisation.
    All of us in the Chamber at the time heard the Minister say that the framework of the water industry is working as intended, which was a strange and provocative statement for Opposition Members.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) denounced the sale of the century. He said bluntly, in his typical style, that the privatisation was a scandal. I shall not follow him and discuss Scottish matters.
    The hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) conceded that prices had risen and that, in some respects, hardship had ensued. He at least, gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. Clearly, he welcomed the debate, which contrasted greatly with the Minister of State's tardy response to it.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a sharp speech. He felt that Conservative Members should have worn sackcloth and ashes when they spoke today. He said that there was no competition in the industry. He referred to the Minister of State as an organ grinder and thought that Her Majesty's Government were selling off the family silver.
    The Conservative Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said that we should not aim for perfection at whatever cost. He linked investment in the industry with the need for investment in the third world, which was a challenging concept.

    857
    My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) argued that there was little support for water privatisation among the electorate, and he is surely right. He argued for a national strategy for the industry. The whole thrust of his speech was that there is no such strategy. He concluded by denouncing the water authorities' licence to print money, which was given to them by the Government.
    We understand why the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made an animated speech, because he predicted that water charges in his region would increase by between 15 and 20 per cent. He described that as an outrage, which had caused a great deal of anger in his constituency. He said that his region at least needed some fine tuning, and he prayed in aid John Hampden and ship money.
    Many of us enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies). It is nice to welcome him back to the House and to hear his first speech as the hon. Member for that constituency. His predecessor was the much-liked James Lamond, who chaired some of the proceedings on the Water Bill. My hon. Friend has brought with him a handsome majority. Until recently, he was the distinguished secretary of the parliamentary Labour party and of the parliamentary committee. In the previous Labour Government, he undertook an important role most successfully and I enjoyed serving alongside him. Today was the first time he had spoken in the House for 13 years. With his typical humour, he said that he was a fit and active hon. Member who did not need a level playing field, a kick start or a retread. All of us who heard him know that he will serve his constituency honourably, conscientiously and successfully.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) made a spirited speech. He was perhaps the only hon. Member who did not overlook the contribution of the employees in this important industry.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) made a strong plea for a much-needed open space in her constituency which supports a wide variety of birds. She argued strongly against what she described as potential asset-stripping.
    The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) anticipated a staggering increase in the demand for more and more water. By implication, he was calling for a strategy from the Government.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) said that we had won the argument, even if his team had lost the soccer match today, by rather a large margin, against the lobby correspondents. My hon. Friend made a strong speech defending the interests of his constituents, who are already getting a good service from him. My hon. Friend, typically, spoke on behalf of poor people and said that price rises in the industry were going through the roof.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) denounced what he rightly saw as the strategic decision of placing the burden on the poorer consumer. My hon. Friend seeks greater accountability in the industry, and I agree with him. He said that Ministers sheltered behind the water companies and the regulator.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) rightly denounced the poll tax.
    858
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms. Corston), like others in the debate, talked about the important subject of water quality. She pointed to the increasing sales of drinking water and said that such purchases were not just a question of style or the fads of yuppies. Her conclusion, with which I agreed, was that it showed the suspicion of many people in her area about the quality of drinking water.
    On the issue of investment in the water industry, the chairman of Welsh Water, John Elfed Jones, is on record as saying that the only reason for his conversion to privatisation was the belief that it would free Welsh Water to invest in the water industry in Wales. In fact, a great deal of money has been used for other investment—for example, for the purchase of a 15 per cent. shareholding in South Wales Electricity and for buying five luxury country house hotels.
    Without doubt, more money is being invested in the industry in Wales. That is welcome, although in some respects it is an indictment of the low level of investment by the Conservatives in the decade from 1979 onwards. The current investment is at massively increased cost to the water consumer. Before privatisation, it was said that investment would be financed partly by central Government and partly by local consumers. Now the whole burden is shouldered by the consumer. That represents another flat rate tax without regard to ability to pay, and it increases the burden on the ordinary family.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, water privatisation focused public concern on the state of drinking water, the quality of which in the United Kingdom has rightly been condemned by the European Commission. In Wales, according to the latest report of the drinking water inspectorate, 27 per cent. of water supply zones do not meet the Government's standards for lead, 19 per cent. for coliforms and 15 per cent. for aluminium. The water industry has had to admit that in 1995, 10 years after the original deadline set by the Commission, water supplies to thousands of households throughout Wales will still breach European standards. It is also calculated that 295 km of Welsh rivers and canals are classified as poor or bad by the National Rivers Authority.
    Ofwat's accountability has also been mentioned. In Wales, people are concerned at the water industry's lack of public accountability directly to the Welsh people. On matters relating to the water industry in Wales, Ofwat should be directly accountable to the Secretary of State for Wales. That is what Labour Members repeatedly called for in Committee. Instead, it is clear that the Welsh committee of Ofwat reports to the director general, who in turn reports to the Secretary of State for the Environment. So once again, accountability for matters of direct concern to the people of Wales has moved to London. Ownership and regulation of Welsh Water now rest in London, and no longer in Wales—as they should.
    Ofwat's powers in respect of water disconnection have been called into question. Last year, the director general of Ofwat expressed concern about the large number of disconnections by Welsh Water. The latest figures, published only two years ago, show that Welsh Water disconnected more customers than any other water company. I am sorry to tell the House that last year alone 2,938 households were disconnected. The fact that Ofwat has—only now—decided to investigate the problem has

    859
    rightly caused concern. Many people in Wales wonder what the director general has been doing for the past 12 months.
    Will the Secretary of State for Wales launch an investigation into those disconnections? In so doing, he will ensure that Welsh water issues are in his hands, which is what we want. We do not want them in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It would also ensure that the social and economic problems faced by many households in Wales are taken fully into account.
    At this stage in the debate, I should like to mention the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. It is rightly concerned about the rate of water disconnections and says in its submission to Ofwat that there is a need for further safeguards against disconnection for certain groups of customers, particularly the elderly, the disabled and the many households with children.
    Water disconnection is a punitive measure which will only increase hardship, and it should not be used where consumer non-payment is a result of poverty. People in Wales know all about poverty. The House may not know that the average household income in Wales is lower than anywhere else in Britain and earnings are among the lowest in the United Kingdom. Nearly 30 per cent. of men working full time earn less than £200 a week, and more than 30 per cent. of women working full time earn less than £150 a week. Those worrying statistics are apposite to the debate. So, too, are the unemployment statistics. In Gwent the unemployment rate is more than 11 per cent., in Gwynedd it is some 13.7 per cent., in Mid Glamorgan some 25,900 people are out of work, in the Rhondda 3,978 people are out of work, and in South Glamorgan more than 15,000 people are out of work in the great city of Cardiff.
    People who are out of work find paying their water charges a major problem. The Government's set formula has been responsible for the huge increase in water prices. Since water privatisation, Welsh Water's charges have increased by 44 per cent. Last year they increased by 16.2 per cent. Welsh Water has made much of the fact that it will raise its prices by only 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation next year, but as the Financial Times asked the other day, will that self-imposed price cap keep the regulators off the company's back or is it just further proof of how generous the Government were when they set Welsh Water's K allowance?
    Taxation is being privatised. Water privatisation is only part of a wider shift in the tax burden, which is affected by water, electricity, gas and telephone charging policies. They have all shifted the burden away from direct taxation towards direct charges which do not reflect ability to pay.
    I have read, as other hon. Members probably have, about water from Wales going to other districts to alleviate water shortages. The chairman of Welsh Water has said that he would expect a good rate of return to Welsh Water from any such plans. I hope that Welsh Water customers, rather than the company, will benefit in reduced charges and better services. The people of Wales want assurances that any such scheme will not lead to further flooding to increase the capacity of reservoirs.
    The Labour party believes that the Welsh Water authority must get its priorities right. We want it to concentrate on its core activities—to improve water quality and customer service, and keep bills down. Instead, the opposite has happened and Welsh Water has followed a policy of diversification into exclusive country house
    860
    hotels and stock market bids for South Wales Electricity. In Committee, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) defended privatisation, as we always knew he would, on the grounds that Welsh Water would concentrate on its core activities, but that did not happen.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) has a dossier on disconnections and increased charges. I have seen four such cases. As my hon. Friend told me:
    "Yet another of my constituents has been put into court for one month's arrears in water charges… This particular case was dismissed but only after my old age pensioner constituent was terrified and upset over the prospect of court action."
    It is appropriate to pose the question: what is the reality of a water supply cut-off for an ordinary family? In March this year, a young mother in great distress, living in the heart of my constituency, stood at her front door and asked me for help.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Labour Members are perturbed at old-age pensioners being taken to court due to delays in payment of water charges, while the chairman of the Welsh Water authority allows his salary to treble. We think that that is disgusting and deplorable, and it is a result of privatisation.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's intervention truly reflects public opinion throughout Wales.
    My constituent told me of her four young children, one of whom had a heart murmur, and of her husband who was on income support. As a family, they were in debt to the Welsh Water authority. She said that their water had been cut off and she was beside herself with worry, anxiety and alarm. She asked me what I could do for her children. At the time, I could not answer her. She was concerned for her children, especially the one with the heart murmur. Of course customers must pay their way, but it is wrong that super-rich water authorities should behave like all-powerful juggernauts. The punishment of an individual often entails penalising the elderly, the disabled and the young.
    The consequences are severe. To help my constituent and the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda get over their distress, perhaps in preparation Welsh Water will let them stay free at one of its fine luxury hotels. I have the details for one such hotel. The tariff at the Cwrt Bleddyn hotel and country club in Usk displays charges which may seem reasonable to some but are certainly not for others. The hotel charges £160 for a full suite or £125 for a period room. The cheapest menu costs £22.50 per person, but the gourmet menu comes in at £32.50 and includes a warm salad of local wood pigeon as a starter. After that, guests can have saddle of venison with a piquant sauce of orange.
    Mr. John Jones, the chairman of the Welsh Water, enjoys a salary of £143,000. It has increased by 211 per cent. since 1989. He has share options which totalled £290,000 by the end of May 1992. Since 1989, bills from Welsh Water have increased by 44 per cent. In the year 1991–92, there were 2,938 domestic disconnections.
    Little wonder that, according to The Guardian, there has been a wave of criticism of Welsh Water. Its report states that the company has faced criticism from South West Electricity:

    861
    "David Jones, the managing director, said: 'Perhaps it would be better if Welsh Water concentrated on its own business. It already has plenty on its plate in dealing with pollution of our coast line and improving its standard of customer service.'"
    It is time for Welsh Water to consider the corporate image that it wants to convey. Can it really defend disconnecting such a necessity of life for the needy while proudly presenting its large and growing profits to the City? Its principle objectives should be a plentiful supply of wholesome water for every household at the lowest possible cost. Four years on, the conflicts between that objective and the interests of shareholders and the constant necessity to make a profit is still evident.
    There is still a long way to go in environmental protection, sewage disposal and drinking water standards. So far the record is not good enough, which is why we ask the House to support our motion.
    9.33 pm
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): There have been 22 speakers in this debate, which has been characterised by some good humour, a wide range of points and, sad to say, a paucity of Members for most of its duration.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) on his recycled speech. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who have just entered the Chamber will see what I mean when they refer to Hansard. The hon. Gentleman asked us to eradicate from the record three well-known phrases, but his request did not have much effect on his hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who repeated all three. I shall not do that. I compliment the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton on a clean speech that was delivered virtually without notes. He paid a warm tribute to James Lamond, who was a distinguished member of the Speaker's Panel and much respected in the House. I was under his chairmanship many times. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make many speeches and I wish him success in the future.
    I suspect that by calling the debate the Opposition were trying to promote some total fiction, pretending that they care about the water industry's customers and that the Government do not. Nothing could be further from the truth. They have tried to argue that, in privatising the industry, we disregarded the interests of customers. A major consideration in our decision to transfer the industry to the private sector was the conviction that customers would benefit from improved efficiency and standards and the provision of services at the lowest possible cost. That conviction is being borne out by events.
    In privatising the water industry, we were conscious of the risk of creating private-sector monopolies with excessive power over the consumer. That topic has featured in many speeches, and I agree that such power would be totally unacceptable. Therefore, privatisation went hand in hand with the creation of powerful regulators. These were the Director General of Water Services, the National Rivers Authority and the drinking water inspectorate. As a result, we now have the most effectively and comprehensively regulated water industry in Europe, perhaps in the world.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) made a characteristically robust speech. I watched his
    862
    prowess in the tug of war with great respect and considerable fear. He gave himself a great deal of rope when he clearly said that all the privatised industries should be taken into public ownership.
    Mr. Bob Cryer: That sounds pretty good.
    Mr. Hunt: There is a rustle among the leaves below the Gangway, but I did not hear much else.
    The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) spoke about records being broken, but she did not mention the record investment in the water industry. We heard much about the state of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), who is not only a non-executive director of a water company but was a Minister in the Department of the Environment, made some salient points about the need for major investment and huge underground renovations. That is especially true in the context of the progress being made in reducing leakage. He stressed that it is vital to renew the nation's assets—and that is precisely what is being done by the record level of investment.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that we must learn lessons from other regulators, and I could not agree more. There is a great deal of contact between the different regulators, who have become an indispensable part of the regulation of key industries. We learn a great deal from the way that regulation operates in other industries, and we shall continue to do so.
    The hon. Member for North Cornwall made an almost preposterous point when he described Liberal Democrat water industry policy, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that we ought to abolish standing charges. He was challenged to say whether the Liberal Democrats would abolish standing charges for millionaires. At that point, a smile came over the hon. Gentleman's face, and he said, "Of course." As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge pointed out, there will be a surge of millionaires to north Cornwall, anxious to get their water charges on the backs of everyone else who pays.
    Mr. Tyler: The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) are arguing for means-tested pensions.
    Mr. Hunt: Not at all. I do not want to delve too deeply into Liberal Democrat policy, because I would hit bottom very quickly.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) made a distinctive contribution. He is proud of Wessex Water's excellent record—and if I may pay tribute to my hon. Friend, he gave a good example of why he is respected as an excellent constituency Member of Parliament.
    My hon. Friend pointed out that, contrary to the rumours put about by Labour, 90 per cent. of our rivers conform to EC standards, whereas the figure for the Community as a whole is only 45 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) also delved into the question of public ownership, and said that he would bring water back into public ownership. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside pointed out in his excellent speech that we were hearing conflicting noises from the Opposition Benches. That may

    863
    be understandable after the election, but it was not justified before the election. No one in the water industry knew what a Labour Government would have done to the industry. The voices of Provan and of Carlisle confuse us even more.
    We then heard an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge, who represents his constituents vigorously. He has done so for some time, and I am sure that he will continue to do so. We realise the strength of feeling among his constituents on these key issues. My hon. Friend has made a number of points to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who I am sure will bear them in mind.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) put the record straight. It is no use the Opposition saying that the necessary investment would be made under public ownership, when that never happened. The Labour Government cut investment in the water industry by 21 per cent.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: I know that the guilty men will refuse to acknowledge that.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Despite the number of times that we have repeated the figures, the Secretary of State has not grasped the basic fact that investment in the water industry under the last Labour Government averaged £1,254 million a year, compared with pre-privatisation investment under the Conservatives of £922 million a year. It was 1987 berfore spending by a Conservative Government reached even the worse year under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Hunt: Having made the longest speech—
    Mr. Alun Michael: Withdraw.
    Mr. Hunt: No, I shall not do that, because what I said was true. Having made the longest speech in the debate, the hon. Member for Dewsbury is now making the longest intervention, and getting nowhere. It is a fact that the Labour Government cut investment in the water industry by 21 per cent.
    Let me now deal with the points that were made by the hon. Member of Alyn and Deeside about Wales. Will he please inform his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that, in the past year, investment in the Welsh water industry has amounted to £189 million. Next year, it will be £200 million. Let us compare that with the level of investment in 1978–79, the last year in which Labour held office. In real terms—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Dewsbury does not want to hear. In real terms, investment is now 80 per cent. higher.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: No, I will not give way.
    Let me tell the hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside, for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) that we have an extremely successful water company in Wales. It is the largest indigenous company that we have, and we all are very proud of it —except some Opposition Members.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Hunt: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer points made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North during the debate, not all of which he attended?
    For every £100 that Welsh consumers pay in water charges, Welsh Water spends £108 on improving services and upgrading water quality. In the coming year, it will spend £117 for every £100 spent by consumers.
    Mr. Wray: What secret plans have the Government for the privatisation of Scottish Water?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman cannot drag me into the Scottish debate. We are dealing with England and Wales; my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made the position relating to Scotland absolutely clear.
    Yes, Welsh Water's profits have risen to £138 million, but only £30 million goes to shareholders in dividends. There are 65,000 shareholders, the majority of whom are Welsh Water customers and employees: 99 per cent. of employees own shares in the company.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Hunt: I have still not responded to many of the points made in the debate.
    The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) asked about prepayment meters. I can tell him that the director general of Ofwat is considering that aspect carefully. As from April 1992, increases in water charges have now been restored to the index used to uprate income-related benefits.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), in a marvellously robust speech, said that, although the Opposition's motion talks of alarm, we could have been fooled, because at the time he spoke very few Opposition Members were present.
    The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) referred to salaries for top executives in the water industry. The hon. Lady is not here at the moment, but, as the water industry faces the challenges of the future, it is vital that it has the best possible people in management positions.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) displayed an extensive knowledge of the water industry. He asked about the new methods of charging, which is another aspect being considered by the director general.
    The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) said that, like the House of Commons, the director general of Ofwat did not have much power. He is wrong, because the director general has extensive powers. If the hon. Gentleman considered them, he would realise their extent.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) put the record straight when he pointed out that, notwithstanding stories to the contrary, Blackpool's bathing water is improving all the time. I shall refer the points that he made on coastal protection to my right hon. Friend.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms. Corston) made many points which I can and will refute, but I do not have the time to do so now. I shall simply say that many of the points that she made justified increased investment in the water industry, the key to which is privatisation which will make that investment possible.

    865
    My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) has extensive experience in the water industry and his points on metering will be borne in mind by the director general. My hon. Friend stressed once again the enormous investment of £28,000 million in the water industry which is mentioned in the Government's amendment.
    The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) took us down memory lane with references to Denis Howell and the drought, reminding us that the problems have not gone away. The important thing now is that we have a regulating body. Yesterday, the National Rivers Authority proved that it has powers to act.
    What have we learnt from the Opposition today? I must tell the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that we have not learnt a lot. I am intrigued as to why a debate on water should have been chosen by the Opposition on such an important day in the parliamentary calendar. I went out of the Chamber for a few moments to the Members' Lobby, where I met a group of Members and some members of the press lobby. When I asked why we were debating water, I was told that it had something to do with the elections for the shadow Cabinet. The Government welcome the debate, because we are proud of our record on water.
    What else have we learnt from the debate? We have learnt that the divisions on the Opposition Benches on public ownership have not disappeared. Those divisions have been evident during the debate. Those who want to see water returned to public ownership have failed the test for the new model Labour party. Their politics is still rooted in the past.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not true that the Minister for the Environment and Countryside said that he did not want this debate and that the Secretary of State was too afraid to come to the Dispatch Box?
    Mr. Hunt: No, my hon. Friend did not say that he did not want this debate. We have been trying to discover why water is so high on the list of the Opposition's priorities. I may have the answer. Into my hands has come a document entitled, "The First Fifty Days". It was obviously produced just before the general election. It says:
    "The new Labour government will not only face a ruined economy but also a deteriorating environment. We will act swiftly while taking the fullest possible expert advice. Our initial period in office will be crucial and will set the tone for the whole administration. In our first 50 days of environmental action we hope to stop the decline and reverse the trend by… Neil Kinnock's attendance at the UNCED conference in Rio."
    So the attendance of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) in Rio was obviously to be the answer.
    There is only one reference to water in that document. It says that a Labour Government would set up
    "a beach quality phone line."
    Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the Secretary of State let us into a little secret? Just between these four walls, will he tell the House what he thinks of a situation in which a few directors sit around a table and give themselves these massive pay increases?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman has not been present during the debate. If he had been here, he would have heard my hon. Friends make point after point about the success of the water industry.
    866
    The problem is that the Opposition do not like success. I know that they are used to failure. What would they be saying now if the privatisation had not produced the success that it has with the highly successful privatised water companies? They would be deploring privatisation as a failure. In fact, privatisation has been a great success and we are proud of it.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that Welsh Water spent the £250 million of taxpayers' money which was injected into the company on privatisation, has invested in country house hotels which are losing money and is involved in street cleaning, together with a French company, from which it has had to withdraw? What will the Secretary of State say about the failure of the diversification movement?
    Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman must ask why every water consumer in Wales receives £108 worth of investment in the water industry—in this coming year it will be £117—for every £100 paid in charges. It is because Welsh Water is a successful company. Every time the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside goes into a Welsh Water hotel and purchases a meal—he described it as venison with orange, an appalling prospect—he knows that the money will be used to improve investment in the water industry.
    Mr. Barry Jones rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
    Mr. Hunt: We have won the argument. I urge the House to throw out the motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 317.

    Division No. 33]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Burden, Richard

    Ainger, Nicholas

    Byers, Stephen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

    Alton, David

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Canavan, Dennis

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cann, James

    Ashton, Joe

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clapham, Michael

    Barnes, Harry

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Battle, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clelland, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Cohen, Harry

    Benton, Joe

    Connarty, Michael

    Berry, Roger

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Betts, Clive

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Blair, Tony

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Blunkett, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Boateng, Paul

    Cox, Tom

    Boyce, Jimmy

    Cryer, Bob

    Boyes, Roland

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bradley, Keith

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

    Dalyell, Tam

    867

    Darling, Alistair

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Davidson, Ian

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'P'l Br'g'n)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Khabra, Piara

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

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Denham, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dewar, Donald

    Leighton, Ron

    Dixon, Don

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Dobson, Frank

    Lewis, Terry

    Donohoe, Brian

    Litherland, Robert

    Dowd, Jim

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Loyden, Eddie

    Enright, Derek

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Etherington, William

    McAllion, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    McCartney, Ian

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    MacDonald, Calum

    Fatchett, Derek

    McFall, John

    Faulds, Andrew

    McKelvey, William

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Fisher, Mark

    McLeish, Henry

    Flynn, Paul

    Maclennan, Robert

    Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Foster, Donald (Bath)

    McWilliam, John

    Fraser, John

    Madden, Max

    Fyfe, Maria

    Mahon, Alice

    Galbraith, Sam

    Mandelson, Peter

    Galloway, George

    Marek, Dr John

    Gapes, Michael

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    George, Bruce

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Martlew, Eric

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Maxton, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    Meale, Alan

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Michael, Alun

    Gordon, Mildred

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Graham, Thomas

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Milburn, Alan

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Gunnell, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hain, Peter

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hall, Mike

    Morley, Elliot

    Hanson, David

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Mudie, George

    Henderson, Doug

    Mullin, Chris

    Heppell, John

    Murphy, Paul

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hinchliffe, David

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hoey, Kate

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Home Robertson, John

    Olner, William

    Hood, Jimmy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hoon, Geoff

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Parry, Robert

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pendry, Tom

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hutton, John

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Illsley, Eric

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ingram, Adam

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jamieson, David

    Radice, Giles

    Janner, Greville

    Randall, Stuart

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Redmond, Martin

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Richardson, Jo

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Roche, Ms Barbara

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Rogers, Allan

    868

    Rooker, Jeff

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rooney, Terry

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dennis

    Ruddock, Joan

    Tyler, Paul

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wallace, James

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Walley, Joan

    Short, Clare

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Simpson, Alan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Skinner, Dennis

    Watson, Mike

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Wilson, Brian

    Snape, Peter

    Winnick, David

    Soley, Clive

    Wise, Audrey

    Spearing, Nigel

    Worthington, Tony

    Spellar, John

    Wray, Jimmy

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Wright, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Stevenson, George

    Stott, Roger

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Strang, Gavin

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy and

    Straw, Jack

    Mr. Ken Eastham.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Cash, William

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Chaplin, Mrs Judith

    Amess, David

    Clappison, James

    Ancram, Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Colvin, Michal

    Ashby, David

    Congdon, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Conway, Derek

    Atkins, Robert

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Couchman, James

    Baldry, Tony

    Cran, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bates, Michael

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Day, Stephen

    Bellingham, Henry

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bendall, Vivian

    Devlin, Tim

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dicks, Terry

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Dover, Den

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Duncan, Alan

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Boswell, Tim

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bowden, Andrew

    Eggar, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Elletson, Harold

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bright, Graham

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Evennett, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Faber, David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

    Burns, Simon

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burt, Alistair

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Butcher, John

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Butler, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Butterfill, John

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Forth, Eric

    869

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

    Freeman, Roger

    Knox, David

    French, Douglas

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Fry, Peter

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Gale, Roger

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Gallie, Phil

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Legg, Barry

    Garnier, Edward

    Leigh, Edward

    Gill, Christopher

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Gillan, Ms Cheryl

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Lidington, David

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Gorst, John

    Lord, Michael

    Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

    Luff, Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Maclean, David

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hague, William

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Madel, David

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Hannam, Sir John

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Malone, Gerald

    Harris, David

    Mans, Keith

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Marland, Paul

    Hawkins, Nicholas

    Marlow, Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Heald, Oliver

    Mates, Michael

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Hendry, Charles

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Hicks, Robert

    Milligan, Stephen

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Mills, Iain

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Horam, John

    Moate, Roger

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

    Moss, Malcolm

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Needham, Richard

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hunter, Andrew

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Jack, Michael

    Norris, Steve

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Jessel, Toby

    Ottaway, Richard

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Page, Richard

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Paice, James

    Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Key, Robert

    Pawsey, James

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Pickles, Eric

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Knapman, Roger

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    870

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Redwood, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Richards, Rod

    Thomason, Roy

    Riddick, Graham

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Robathan, Andrew

    Thurnham, Peter

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Tracey, Richard

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Tredinnick, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Trend, Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Trotter, Neville

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sackville, Tom

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Walden, George

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford)

    Waller, Gary

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Ward, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sims, Roger

    Waterson, Nigel

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Watts, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wells, Bowen

    Soames, Nicholas

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Whitney, Ray

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Whittingdale, John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Wilkinson, John

    Spring, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Wilshire, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Stephen, Michael

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Wood, Timothy

    Stewart, Allan

    Yeo, Tim

    Streeter, Gary

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Sumberg, David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sykes, John

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mr. Sydney Chapman.

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on its highly successful policy of privatising the water industry, which will lead to £28 thousand million investment on water and sewerage infrastructure, maintaining the quality of drinking water, improving rivers, and reducing discharges into the sea, thereby benefiting customers and the environment alike; and welcomes the action of the National Rivers Authority to safeguard the water environment and the role of the Director General of Water Services as the powerful independent regulator to provide effective protection for the interests of all the industry's customers.

  Mr. James McColm
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Would those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so very quickly and quietly so that I may call the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate?
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Brian Donohoe: Thank you for calling me this evening, Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members who are holding meetings please do so outside the Chamber, and let the doors be closed so that the hon. Member who has the Floor can be heard?
  Mr. Donohoe: I am grateful to you for allowing me this Adjournment debate, Madam Speaker. The case before you is that of Mr. James McColm. I am also indebted for the assistance of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
  At 12.30 pm on Sunday, 9 July, 1989, Mr. James McColm who was 69 years old and a war veteran, having been injured in the famous battle for the bridge at Nijmegen in 1944, was walking home from the local masonic club, having enjoyed a pint and a game of dominoes. Being a victim of emphysema, he was not able to walk fast. He was knocked down on a well-lit section of Townhead street in Stevenston by a local taxi. He died in hospital on 11 July 1989 of injuries sustained in that accident. His sons, Edward and John McColm, could not understand how the taxi had failed to avoid their father. The more questions they asked, the less sense was forthcoming.
  According to the police the only witnesses were the driver and a 14-year-old pedestrian, both of whom said that Mr. McColm had crossed the street in the opposite direction to his normal way home. The first question that remains unsolved is why he would cross and then re-cross the same road.
  The sons eventually obtained a copy of the post mortem report from Crosshouse hospital where their father died, after it had cleared with the procurator fiscal that they could receive that copy. After consulting someone in the medical profession, it was determined that the injuries sustained were consistent with their father crossing the road as though he was heading home.
  Unfortunately, the police had completed their investigation and the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock had decided that "no proceedings were necessary". Therefore, the driver was not prosecuted and no order was made for a fatal accident inquiry. During that period, meetings were held with the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock. The first was on 2 August 1989, when John McColm, one of the brothers, and his wife Margaret, had an informal discussion with him. They were shown the witnesses' statements and were informed that the procurator fiscal was preparing to meet the witnesses. My second question is, did he ever meet them?
  Sometime after the first meeting, Edward McColm, the other brother, telephoned the procurator fiscal and asked to be supplied with the post mortem report and the
  872
  witnesses' statements. Both requests were denied to him. The second meeting with the procurator fiscal, held on 19 January 1990, was attended by John and Edward McColm, each with a solicitor.
  The sons had prepared a diagram of the accident and a list of questions, which remain unanswered to this day. Where was their father lying? What was the position of the car? Where was the witness standing? Were there any other witnesses? The brothers were of the opinion that there were at least two other witnesses from the Kilmarnock area and, because of that, they advertised in the local paper, the Kilmarnock Standard. To this day no witnesses apart from the original two have come forward.
  The procurator fiscal said that he could not provide any of the information requested and that he was obliged to give only the names and addresses of the witnesses to the accident. He stated that to give the reasons for his decision or to supply any of the information that he had would be against the public interest. How can that be?
  How do the brothers know that the procurator fiscal and the police have carried out their duties? How do they know that the Lord Advocate has carried out his duties? Edward McColm asked the procurator fiscal those questions to which he replied that "there was a chain of accountability". At that point Edward McColm answered that it was "a closed chain of accountability". It seems wrong that, in the case of James McColm, "no proceedings" is all that need be reported as the decision. No justification is needed by the Crown Office. The brothers have been kept in the dark, the only requirement being that they be given the witnesses' names and addresses.
  A number of questions remain unanswered. Why was there no fatal accident inquiry, what damage would be done by releasing the information that the brothers request, and how could giving such information be against the public interest?
  Mr. Edward McColm wrote to the Lord Advocate citing annual road death figures for Ayrshire—for Cunninghame and Kilmarnock—for 1989 and 1990 and asked for a breakdown to discover in how many cases fatal accident inquiries had been held and in how many cases the file had been marked "no proceedings." He was informed:
  "The statistics required by you are not readily available."
  Eventually, in a letter from the Lord Advocate dated 4 February 1992 to David Lambie, the former Member of Parliament for Cunninghame, South, an answer was given, but the number of road accident fatalities reported to the procurator fiscal over the two-year period was shown as 46 cases involving 52 deaths. The chief constable's report, which I gave to the Minister yesterday, for those two years showed the number of fatalities as 51. Was that one death too many for the Crown Office, or was one death missing from the police inquiries? I am speaking of the police reports issued by Andrew Sloan, the former Chief Constable of Strathclyde.
  In that letter of 4 February 1992, the Lord Advocate said that Mr. Lambie should know that
  "the members of the McColm family have attended at the PF office on three occasions."
  In fact, they met on only two occasions, on 2 August 1989 and on 19 January 1990. Those discrepancies are a worrying factor in a case that the brothers are now convinced had led to some kind of cover-up. How is it

  873
  possible, from the legal point of view, to demonstrate in such a way as to break down the wall of silence that the brothers assume has occurred in this case?
  My understanding of the law is that, if the brothers were so inclined, they could exhume Mr. McColm's body, take it to England and bury it there. They would then be granted a fatal accident inquiry in England and it would be able to examine all the circumstances of the accident in Scotland. Something is basically wrong if that is the true position.
  The relatives of Mr. McColm would then be able, having received satisfaction after three years —it will be the anniversary shortly of the beginning of the case—to re-exhume Mr. McColm's body and return it to Scotland for reburial. They would then have had the satisfaction of establishing the facts of Mr. McColm's death. They would feel that their father could rest in peace, and they, at last, could get on with their lives.
  The procedural irony between the fatal accident laws of England and Scotland should be addressed as a matter of urgency. This is one of many similar cases where a fatal accident inquiry has been denied by the procurator fiscal.
  The Scottish Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers has been campaigning for several years for the bereaved families of road accident victims to have the automatic right to an inquiry. The view of Isobel Brydie of SCALD was echoed by her colleague, Wendy Moss. Isobel Brydie said:
  "Part of the process of getting over a death in a family is finding out the facts. Until they know the facts, the grieving process cannot he completed. There is meant to he a procedure just now for helping next of kin but it simply isn't working."
  It is essential that the McColm family find out all the circumstances of their father's death. The only way in which that can happen is if a fatal accident inquiry is held into the death of their father, James McColm.
  At this time of commitment to open government, with charters of rights for almost everything, it would be satisfying to all those affected if the Government demonstrated tonight a change of attitude and instructed all the organisations most at fault to end the veil of secrecy. Let us hope that the wall of silence can be broken down. I await the Minister's reply with interest.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Robin Cook: The whole House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), who has done a service by providing for his constituents an opportunity for this matter to be ventilated in the House, which has not happened through the legal process.
  Isobel Brydie, to whom my hon. Friend referred, lives in my constituency and in the past six years I have had a long association with the Scottish Campaign Against Irresponsible Drivers. During that time, I have seen two features that appear constantly in such cases and which appear again in this case. The first is the need on the part of the relatives of the deceased for a process which establishes the facts of death. A trial does not necessarily establish those facts and, where there is no trial, there is not even that opportunity.
  My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the sharp distinction between a fatal accident inquiry in
  874
  Scotland and a coroner's inquest in England. We have no automatic right to a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland. Indeed, they are very rare and generally involve only accidents caused by the actions of lorry drivers. We do not have the automatic right to a coroner's inquest that would exist if the accident occurred in England.
  The second factor that occurs in all such cases and is again demonstrated in this case is the hunger of the relatives to know what is happening in the legal process. Tragically, the legal process gives them no recognition. and the fact that they have no information about whether or when a trial will take place or what might happen adds to their distress.
  Tonight we are considering only one case, but every year more than 500 people are killed on the Scottish roads. Were it to happen on one day in one place, we would regard it as a tragedy of the most appalling magnitude. Yet sadly, because individual incidents occur throughout the year, we do not recognise the appalling magnitude of the tragedy. The very least that we can offer those who survive such incidents is that their distress should not be compounded by the insensitivity of the legal process. I hope that the Minister will be able to ease the distress in this case by answering the questions put to him so forcefully by my hon. Friend.
  10.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): First, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Donohoe) on securing this adjournment debate in the ballot and on his good advocacy on behalf of his constituents.
  Before I respond to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), may I express my sympathy to the family of the late Mr. McColm for its tragic loss.
  The matters under discussion are important, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North for having provided me with notice of the points that he wished to raise. I am glad to have this opportunity to address some of the concerns that he has raised on behalf of his constituents, many of which were raised previously by his predecessor, Mr. David Lambie.
  It is clear to me that the McColm family believe that the cause of Mr. McColm's death has never been adequately explained: and that the truth might have been arrived at if a public inquiry had been held. The concerns which have been voiced by the hon. Member stem directly from the decision not to hold a fatal accident inquiry, and from the secret way in which, as the McColm family perceive it, the decision was taken. It may assist the House, therefore, if I give a brief outline of the history of the case as I understand it.
  Mr. James McColm was involved in a road traffic accident on 9 July 1989, when he was in collision with a taxi. He died two days later without having regained consciousness. The circumstances of the accident were investigated by the police. Statements were taken from witnesses, and a report was submitted to the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock. Although the police were able to trace only one eye witness to the accident—a 14-year-old boy—that witness was able to give a detailed account of what had happened, as he had been standing directly opposite Mr. McColm before the collision with a taxi.

  875
  That witness had seen the taxi approach and had seen Mr. McColm before he stepped on to the road in front of the approaching taxi.
  The police examined the taxi to determine whether there were any mechanical defects which might have contributed to the accident. They found none. They also measured the skid marks left by the taxi in order to estimate the speed at which the taxi had been travelling. Estimates of the speed were also provided by the eye witness and two other eye witnesses who were approximately 300 m from the locus but had been passed earlier by the taxi. Those other persons did not witness the actual collision. There was conflicting evidence about the speed of the taxi but, based on that of the eye witness and the evidence from the skid marks, there was nothing to indicate that excessive speed was a contributory factor in this case.
  All that information was passed to the procurator fiscal, who has responsibility for investigating sudden suspicious and accidental deaths. In Scotland, there is no such thing as an inquest, and there are no coroners. As I understand the position in England and Wales, inquests are held to establish the cause of death. In Scotland, the procurator fiscal inquires into the cause of death, and fatal accident inquiries are then held to address issues of public concern.
  Once the death was reported to the procurator fiscal, his first task was to arrange for a post mortem examination. The hon. Gentleman asked why the post mortem report was not made available. My understanding is that the first brother to visit the procurator fiscal was allowed to read the post mortem report. As a general rule, procurators fiscal do not provide copies of reports, but consent to the pathologist making the report available. In this case, the pathologist found injuries to both the left and right sides of the body. I am told that that is not inconsistent with the description of the accident from the eye witness who spoke of Mr. McColm stepping into the path of the taxi, by which time he was almost facing it.
  The words of the eye witness that constitute the critical evidence in a statement to the police were as follows:
  "The car would only have been about 10 metres away from the man (ie the deceased) when he turned round quickly and stepped onto the road. It took him two steps to reach the road and the second one took him into the path of the car. By this time he had turned so that he was almost facing it."
  He was struck on the legs and thrown up in the air before landing on the bonnet of the car and then falling on to the road.
  As is normal practice, the procurator fiscal then conducted his own inquiry into the circumstances of Mr. McColm's death. He interviewed the witnesses and also met one of Mr. McColm's sons, who was told in detail what each witness had said. Mr. McColm's son was given an opportunity to read the post mortem report, and he was provided with a list of the names and addresses of the witnesses to enable him to interview them personally if he wished to do so. The procurator fiscal explained the standard of evidence required to justify a criminal prosecution, and he outlined the circumstances in which Crown counsel might feel justified in instructing that a fatal accident inquiry be held.
  Once the procurator fiscal had completed his inquiries, he submitted a report to Crown counsel, who had to decide on behalf of the Lord Advocate whether the procurator fiscal should be instructed to hold an inquiry.
  876
  In terms of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, there are only two categories of death for which a fatal accident inquiry must be held: a death in custody and a death which has resulted from an accident where the deceased was in the course of his employment. The circumstances of Mr. McColm's death did not fall into either category. In addition to the mandatory inquiries, the Lord Advocate may direct that an inquiry be held where a death was sudden, suspicious or unexplained or has occurred in circumstances such as to give rise to serious public concern.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have much to say, and I should like to answer the questions posed.
  The Lord Advocate will so direct when he is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that an inquiry should be held into the circumstances.
  The discretion of the Lord Advocate in this matter has long been recognised. The Lord Advocate was given this discretion in 1906, and it was continued by the 1976 Act, which consolidated the legislation and modernised the procedures. In the exercise of his discretion, the Lord Advocate acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when deciding whether or not an inquiry should be held.
  At the conclusion of a fatal accident inquiry, the sheriff has to make a determination setting out where and when a death took place, and the cause of the death. These are the formal findings. Of greater significance—and the reason why an inquiry will be held—are the sheriff's findings in relation to any reasonable precautions whereby the death or any accident resulting in the death might have been avoided. In appropriate cases, the sheriff may also determine that there were defects in a system of working which contributed to the death or any accident resulting in the death.
  In the case of road traffic fatalities, a fatal accident inquiry would normally be held only if it was thought that there was a need to inquire into such matters as the layout of the road, the appropriateness of any speed limits at the locus, or the adequacy of street lighting. In other words, do the circumstances of the accident give rise to concerns about road safety? Where it is considered that the driver of a vehicle was at fault to the extent that his driving was thought to have been careless or reckless, the appropriate step is for criminal proceedings to be instituted. Where criminal proceedings are not appropriate and no issues of road safety are raised, a fatal accident inquiry will not usually be held, especially where the investigations by the police and fiscal have already clearly established the circumstances leading up to the accident.
  In Mr. McColm's case, Crown counsel acting on behalf of the Lord Advocate had to decide whether it was necessary in the public interest that an inquiry should be held. Crown counsel concluded that the circumstances were not unexplained and that they did not give rise to any serious public concern. Crown counsel therefore instructed that an inquiry should not be held. It is that decision which has angered the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I should also confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that Crown counsel was satisfied that there was no case for taking criminal proceedings against the driver of the taxi.
  When the decision was intimated to the family, one of Mr. McColm's sons complained that the fiscal had not

  877
  been willing to provide him with a copy of either the police report or the fiscal's report to Crown counsel. A meeting was arranged, and both Mr. McColm's sons attended at the fiscal's office in January 1990. As the hon. Gentleman said, this was the second meeting; and I can confirm that there were only two meetings and not three, as was mistakenly mentioned in the letter to which the hon. Member referred.
  As I have explained, the family had already been given details of the evidence available to the fiscal. In addition, I understand that the solicitors representing the family had themselves obtained statements from the witnesses. Accordingly, Mr. McColm's family were in possession of the same information about the circumstances of the death as was available to the fiscal and Crown counsel. No material information was withheld from the family. They remained dissatisfied, however, because they had not been shown the police report or the fiscal's report. The police report was simply a summary of the evidence, the details of which had already been provided to the family.
  The fiscal's report was accompanied by the statements of the witnesses, but was itself an assessment of that evidence and a recommendation by the fiscal to Crown counsel as to whether a fatal accident inquiry should be held. The fiscal is clearly entitled to make an assessment of the evidence and offer his opinion to Crown counsel on a confidential basis. It was for Crown counsel to decide whether a fatal accident inquiry should be held, and he was not bound to accept the fiscal's recommendation.
  By this stage, the circumstances of this case had been drawn to the attention of the then Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Lord Fraser himself reviewed the available evidence and concluded that the circumstances did not meet the criteria set out in the 1976 Act. Lord Fraser was therefore satisfied that a fatal accident inquiry should not be held.
  The circumstances of Mr. McColm's death had therefore been carefully and thoroughly investigated by both the police and the fiscal; and the results of those inquiries had been given careful consideration by both Crown counsel and the most senior Law Officer in Scotland. Nothing material had been withheld from the family. They were not provided, however, with copies of the reports in which those investigating the circumstances had offered assessments of the evidence and opinions as to the course of action which should be taken.
  As Lord Fraser explained in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, there is a long and unbroken line of judicial authority to the effect that reports by the police to the fiscal and communications between the fiscal and Crown Office are very highly confidential. The Scottish courts will order their
  878
  production to a third party only where it is necessary for the ends of justice in view of some great and overwhelming necessity. Lord Fraser concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, there was no such necessity, especially as the actual reports sought by the family did not contain any factual information which had not been made available to the family.
  Fatal accident inquiries are instructed where the circumstances of the death give rise to serious public concern—as, for example, in cases where there is a continuing danger. The Lord Advocate was satisfied that in this case the circumstances, while tragic, did not give rise to any serious public concern. There are occasions when inquiries are instructed where the death is unexplained and it is thought that a public inquiry might shed some light on the circumstances, but in this case there was no reason to believe that an inquiry could conceivably add anything to the information available to the family as a result of the investigation by the police and fiscal and the investigation by their own solicitors.
  Inquiries are the exception rather than the rule. I shall give some figures. Over a two-year period, in 1989 and 1990, 46 cases in Kilmarnock involving 52 deaths were reported to the fiscal, who inquired into the circumstances. In 19 of those cases, criminal proceedings were taken, and in three a fatal accident inquiry was held.
  It is unusual to have both criminal proceedings and a fatal accident inquiry. If there is to be an inquiry, it is usually held after the criminal proceedings, if any, have concluded. The need for an inquiry would always be reassessed at that time, as it is likely that the circumstances of the death could have been sufficiently established in the course of the criminal proceedings.
  In most cases where no proceedings were taken, either there was an accident which did not involve any other vehicle, or the deceased was at fault. In such cases it would be unusual to hold an inquiry, because either the circumstances will be clearly established by the fiscal's investigation or there is no serious public concern.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the discrepancy between the fiscal's figures and those of the chief constable. I made detailed inquiries and discovered that the difference is accounted for by one case where the deceased suffered a fatal heart attack before losing control of the car. I understand that, as this was a death from natural causes, the police have not recorded it as a road traffic fatality. I shall pursue that matter, and will write to the hon. Gentleman in due course. I assure the House that this tragic matter was thoroughly investigated. I confirmed that material facts were not withheld from his family—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dartmoor Prison
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the practicability of developing HM prison Dartmoor as a community prison, or as a national resource for prisoners with special needs; and if he will make a statement about the future of the prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Dartmoor is too large to become a community prison in the way HM chief inspector of prisons has recommended. However, as the only category B prison in the south-west of England, it fulfils the needs of those prisoners from that part of the country requiring that level of security. The sex offender unit provides a national resource as an integral part of the recent initiative concerned with such prisoners. It incorporates both the assessment and treatment of sex offenders and will continue to develop as part of the national programme.

  Major refurbishment is under way at a cost of £25 million and substantial efforts are being made to develop a positive regime for inmates, an example of which is the new intensive therapy unit.

  It is the Government's intention that Dartmoor will continue to provide secure accommodation for category B prisoners in the region.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the criteria for assessing areas of urban population in calculating police manpower figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We shall be reviewing the allocation formula used for approving increases in police force establishments later this year in order to take account of the 1991 census data. Part of this review will involve a close scrutiny of the definition of urban areas used in the formula.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has to stop the use of animals for testing cosmetics.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government have discussed with industry how best to eliminate the testing of cosmetics on animals without putting the public at risk. There has been some progress made in developing alternatives to skin and eye irritancy tests. The Government have called on the European Community to set 1998 as the target date for the replacement of all skin and eye irritancy tests, subject to there being validated non-animal alternatives.

  The Government will continue to support work carried out by charitable bodies, academic institutions and industry to develop alternatives to animal testing.

  Security Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the report to him by the Security Service Commissioner, pursuant to paragraph 7(3) of schedule 1 to the Security Service Act 1989 relating to retention of records.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No. It would not be in the interests of national security to do so.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether records compiled by the Security Service kept in temporary files for which a permanent file is not subsequently set up are destroyed within three years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 22 to 24 of the Security Service Commissioner's annual report for 1991 where he describes the Security Service's policy in relation to temporary records which are not converted into permanent files. Except where no inquiries have been made since the Security Service Act 1989 came into force, such temporary records are now retained so that they can be investigated, if necessary, by the complaints tribunal. The commissioner agreed that this policy was correct in law.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of civilian fatalities were caused by road traffic accidents involving stolen motor vehicles in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available centrally.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for assistance under section 66 of the Race Relations Act 1976 the Commission for Racial Equality has received during the past 12 months; how many applications it supported by providing legal representation during that period; and from how many applicants for whom it initially provided legal representation it later withdrew legal support or funding before the case went to industrial tribunal or county court.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested for the year 1991 is as follows. The number of applications received for assistance under section 66 of the Race Relations Act 1976 received by the Commission for Racial Equality was 1,655.

  The number of applications for which the commission's complaints committee agreed to provide legal representation was 388.

  The number of applicants for whom the Commission for Racial Equality initially provided legal representation, but from whom on review it later withdrew legal support or funding before the case went to industrial tribunal or county court or was otherwise settled or withdrawn by the complainant was 24.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants who received legal representation provided through the Commission for Racial Equality or its funded solicitors were represented at tribunals or county courts in the last 12 months.
  429
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of applicants represented at tribunals or county courts who received legal representation through the CRE in 1991 was 54.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his response to the Morgan report on safer communities from the standing conference of crime prevention; and what action he proposes to implement any of the recommendations.

  Mr. Jack
  The recommendations in the Morgan report ranged wider than had been expected under the working group's terms of reference.

  The consideration of the report is now being undertaken but it is taking longer than anticipated because of the additional material to be evaluated. I hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences have been committed with stolen shotguns in each police force area in each year from 1985.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Notifiable offences of burglary and theft in which shot guns were stolen (a) from domestic premises

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Avon and Somerset

  9

  21

  16

  18

  5

  15

  Bedfordshire

  8

  8

  6

  2

  4

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  11

  13

  9

  6

  —

  4

  Cheshire

  12

  11

  7

  4

  7

  6

  Cleveland

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  Cumbria

  2

  2

  8

  4

  3

  6

  Derbyshire

  2

  12

  7

  6

  6

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  11

  12

  11

  22

  14

  22

  Dorset

  4

  4

  4

  4

  2

  1

  Durham

  5

  16

  13

  5

  6

  4

  Essex

  19

  23

  31

  11

  20

  16

  Gloucestershire

  6

  3

  3

  2

  2

  3

  Greater Manchester

  2

  1

  6

  2

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  21

  20

  16

  21

  21

  14

  Hertfordshire

  12

  3

  8

  3

  7

  2

  Humberside

  6

  12

  16

  6

  4

  8

  Kent

  35

  35

  49

  43

  30

  38

  Lancashire

  16

  25

  18

  26

  12

  9

  Leicestershire

  9

  8

  6

  7

  9

  6

  Lincolnshire

  7

  10

  9

  9

  8

  4

  London, City of

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  9

  10

  8

  5

  9

  4

  Metropolitan

  44

  32

  33

  21

  25

  14

  Norfolk

  14

  21

  26

  14

  16

  18

  Northamptonshire

  6

  10

  13

  6

  2

  8

  Northumbria

  17

  17

  9

  11

  15

  16

  North Yorkshire

  16

  22

  18

  10

  5

  8

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  2

  5

  6

  2

  3

  South Yorkshire

  15

  7

  9

  13

  8

  9

  Staffordshire

  8

  7

  2

  7

  1

  1

  Suffolk

  15

  8

  8

  14

  3

  8

  Surrey

  11

  16

  12

  16

  6

  14

  Sussex

  9

  10

  9

  18

  9

  8

  Thames Valley

  16

  43

  35

  23

  15

  20

  Warwickshire

  13

  10

  12

  3

  4

  3

  West Mercia

  19

  13

  14

  9

  8

  1

  West Midlands

  23

  21

  9

  8

  5

  8

  West Yorkshire

  14

  15

  13

  5

  11

  9

  Wiltshire

  2

  5

  3

  1

  3

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  12

  8

  6

  3

  2

  2

  Gwent

  2

  5

  5

  2

  5

  3

  North Wales

  6

  11

  10

  7

  6

  3

  South Wales

  6

  3

  —

  2

  1

  1

  430
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) shotguns, (b) firearms and (c) rounds of ammunition have been yielded as a result of each gun amnesty declared since 1962.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is given in the table.

  Year of amnesty

  Shotguns

  Firearms

  Rounds of ammunition

  1965

  2,761

  37,739

  1,694,000

  1968

  9,400

  15,688

  795,000

  1988

  11,254

  31,471

  1,511,000

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many thefts of shotguns there have been in each police force area in each year from 1985(a) from domestic premises and (b) from all premises.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of notifiable offences in which shotguns were reported to have been stolen from(a) domestic premises and (b) all premises, in each police force area in each year from 1985 to 1990 are given in the tables.
  431

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  England and Wales

  475

  537

  503

  406

  324

  338

  (b) from all premises

  England and Wales

  Number of offences

  Police force area

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Avon and Somerset

  14

  30

  26

  25

  10

  22

  Bedfordshire

  8

  11

  10

  3

  6

  14

  Cambridgeshire

  20

  22

  14

  10

  1

  5

  Cheshire

  22

  13

  10

  4

  10

  7

  Cleveland

  —

  1

  2

  1

  4

  3

  Cumbria

  3

  2

  10

  4

  3

  11

  Derbyshire

  9

  17

  10

  8

  10

  3

  Devon and Cornwall

  18

  25

  19

  32

  25

  29

  Dorset

  6

  5

  6

  4

  3

  1

  Durham

  5

  18

  18

  7

  12

  5

  Essex

  27

  34

  39

  22

  28

  26

  Gloucestershire

  9

  8

  10

  8

  5

  4

  Greater Manchester

  6

  4

  9

  7

  2

  2

  Hampshire

  26

  37

  24

  29

  32

  23

  Hertfordshire

  15

  6

  12

  6

  12

  5

  Humberside

  12

  17

  20

  12

  9

  11

  Kent

  53

  50

  61

  59

  40

  47

  Lancashire

  20

  30

  21

  30

  21

  13

  Leicestershire

  15

  14

  13

  12

  12

  10

  Lincolnshire

  13

  13

  16

  15

  11

  7

  London, City of

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  13

  13

  10

  7

  11

  7

  Metropolitan

  67

  48

  45

  27

  36

  19

  Norfolk

  26

  34

  37

  22

  20

  22

  Northamptonshire

  12

  19

  16

  9

  4

  10

  Northumbria

  20

  27

  13

  16

  18

  20

  North Yorkshire

  16

  27

  22

  16

  8

  11

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  8

  8

  10

  2

  7

  South Yorkshire

  22

  12

  13

  15

  10

  14

  Staffordshire

  9

  11

  5

  7

  1

  2

  Suffolk

  23

  16

  15

  15

  7

  12

  Surrey

  14

  21

  20

  23

  17

  18

  Sussex

  12

  19

  16

  26

  l1

  15

  Thames Valley

  32

  56

  43

  27

  26

  22

  Warwickshire

  22

  11

  19

  6

  8

  5

  West Mercia

  28

  23

  23

  11

  10

  7

  West Midlands

  31

  31

  12

  11

  7

  14

  West Yorkshire

  20

  24

  17

  10

  16

  11

  Wiltshire

  3

  7

  5

  4

  3

  1

  Dyfed-Powys

  22

  12

  12

  5

  5

  3

  Gwent

  2

  5

  6

  2

  9

  4

  North Wales

  9

  13

  14

  8

  9

  5

  South Wales

  12

  9

  —

  2

  1

  1

  England and Wales

  722

  804

  722

  578

  495

  478

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider declaring a firearms amnesty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There are no plans at present to declare a firearms amnesty. The last one was held in 1988 in conjunction with the introduction of major new legislation on firearms. We would not wish to encourage people to think that if they hold weapons illegally or use them for criminal purposes, they will be given regular opportunities to dispose of them without the risk of prosecution.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of(a) shotguns and (b) other firearms held in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Estimates of the number of shotguns and firearms held on licence in England and 432
  Wales at the end of 1990 were published in Home Office statistical bulletin 23/91—paragraphs 3 and 7. A copy of this bulletin is in the Library.

  The information for Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the relevant Secretary of State.

  Condoms
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances condoms are issued to prisoners on release from(a) women's and (b) men's prisons;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to offer condoms to all prisoners on their release from prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Procedural guidelines issued to prison governors in November 1991 advised that the period leading up to release is an important time for educational measures and for individual counselling of HIV-infected
  433
  prisoners and others with lifestyles which suggest that they may themselves be at risk or that they may be a risk to other people. The guidelines also recommended that governors consider introducing schemes under which all prisoners released—and perhaps those going on home leave—have discrete access to a small supply of free condoms. Several establishments—including at least one for women—operate such schemes. We are reviewing prisons HIV/AIDS policy generally, including policy on the issue of condoms.

  West Yorkshire Police Force
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been(a) the total funding and (b) the established number of full-time officers of the West Yorkshire police force in each of the past five years; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding to meet the public demands of this service.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Over the last five years expenditure and the police establishment of the West Yorkshire police have been increased as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  Establishment

  1987–88

  129.1

  5,204

  1988–89

  149.4

  5,227

  1989–90

  167.0

  5,259

  1990–91

  1193.7

  5,281

  1991–92

  2218.5

  5,295

  1992–93

  n/a

  5,295

  1 Because of change in capital financing arrangements in 1990, some caution should be used in comparing 1990–91 and 1991–92 with earlier years.

  2 Estimated.

  n/a = Not available.

  The Government are satisfied that the West Yorkshire police authority is able to meet its obligations to provide an efficient police force.

  Police Cells
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted prisoners were held in places other than prisons for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The annual averages for convicted prisoners held in police cells, who, but for the lack of available places should otherwise have been in prison custody, for each year since figures have been available are as follows:

  Annual average

  1981

  0

  1982

  0

  1983

  0

  1984

  0

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  0

  1988

  99

  1989

  7

  1990

  213

  1991

  385

  Iraq (Sanctions)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis into the investigations by the Metropolitan police into potential sanctions breaking trade between British and Danish companies and Iraq before, at the time of, or since the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Metropolitan police has carried out no investigations into potential sanction-breaking trade between British and Danish companies and Iraq.

  The Metropolitan and City police company fraud department was involved in discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, HM Customs and Excise and others. It was decided that allegations of sanction breaking would be referred to HM Customs and Excise for investigation.

  Public Events (Policing)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown by constabulary of the amount of money raised in the last financial year by charging for a police presence at sporting, social and other functions and events.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining his policy on the allocation of funds raised by charging for a police presence at sporting, social and other functions, indicating whether such funds must be allocated to the police budget, or whether they may be used by a local authority for other purposes.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Section 8(1) of the Police Act 1964 requires all receipts of the police authority to be paid into the police fund. It is for the police authority, subject where appropriate to the approval of the county council, to decide how the financial resources available to it should be applied.

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to withdraw passports from British citizens under investigation in connection with the Maxwell pension funds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Withdrawal of passport facilities would be considered in certain circumstances, for example, where a warrant for arrest has been issued in the United Kingdom or where a person was wanted by the police on suspicion of a serious crime.

  The courts also have certain powers to require the surrender of a passport pending trial and in connection with certain civil actions.

  Bail
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure that bail is not available to those previously convicted of rape if they are brought before a court on a subsequent charge of a crime involving violence.
  435
  Mr. Jack
  At present we have no plans to introduce legislation for this purpose. The Bail Act 1976, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, already makes special provision for cases in which a defendant is accused of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or attempted rape. It requires a court which grants bail to such a defendant in the face of prosecution objections to give its reasons for so doing. This provision is intended to ensure that the court addresses the issue fully.

PRIME MINISTER

  Street Children, Brazil
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his meeting with Mr. Paulo Melo, the president of the Brazilian parliamentary commission inquiring into the killing of South American street children; what representations he made to the Brazilian authorities about the killings and sale of Brazilian children into sex slavery; and if he will take diplomatic and economic measures against Brazil until the Brazilian authorities bring the perpetrators to justice.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement on 15 June 1992,Official Report, columns 649-64.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 June.

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

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Argentina (Aircraft Sales)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his representations in Washington about the sale of United States A4s to Argentina.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: We are in close touch with the United States Government on the question of arms sales to Argentina. The United States Government understand our concerns about arms sales which might affect our security interests in the Falk land Islands as do our other allies.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the level of expenditure in each of the last 10 years on the civil list; how the rate of change annually has compared with the annual changes in the retail prices index; and what payments have been made and to whom in each of these years.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: I have been asked to reply.

  The information on expenditure for the period 1983 to 1990 is contained in the report of the royal trustees laid before the House of Commons on 15 October 1990
  436
  (HC629). As the report explains, the pre-1991 system required voted supplements to be paid annually to the standing services on the Consolidated Fund. It was thought more consistent with the dignity of the Crown and better financial practice to replace that system from 1 January 1991 with a payment fixed at £7.9 million a year for 10 years to cover Her Majesty's statutory expenses; the arrangements enable any surplus in the early years to be accumulated to meet any subsequent deficit. During the same period, the increase in the retail price, index averaged 5.8 per cent. a year.

ENVIRONMENT

  Aquatic Environment
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the responsibilities and duties of his Department and any agency which reports to his Department in relation to inshore waters, intertidal areas and maritime land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the Government's memorandum on this subject which was submitted to the Environment Committee of this House in the previous Session. It has now been published by HMSO as part of the Environment Committee's report on coastal zone protection and planning, volume II, minutes of evidence and appendices.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department has given to the environmental implications of the disposal of the ash residue from burning orimulsion at power stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Applications have been made to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to burn orimulsion at four power stations. None of these has been determined. In determining these applications, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will consider the environmental implications of all releases from the process to all three media: air, water and land. Ash produced by burning orimulsion is classed as a release to land.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the total amount of local authority capital receipts set aside which have not as yet been applied to debt redemption.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authority returns indicate that their stock of unapplied capital receipts set aside as provision for credit liabilities at 31 March 1991 was £5.1 billion. It is estimated that at the same date local authorities' outstanding debt stood at around £47 billion.

  Fuel Efficiency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set minimum standards for fuel use efficiency.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is already the Government's policy to press for agreement in the European Community on
  437
  minimum efficiency standards for a wide range of equipment. A directive setting minimum standards of energy efficiency for gas and oil-fired boilers has already been adopted.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set standards for acceptable loss of energy or fuel in distribution, and to ensure that losses above test standard be charged against the profits of the industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. We have created a competitive environment for fuel suppliers and it is in their own interest to reduce losses in transmission.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to set standards of fuel use efficiency for the energy-generating industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. We have created a competitive environment for energy generators such that it is in their own interest to use fuel more efficiently. An indication of this is the electricity industry's plans for new electricity generating stations of considerably higher efficiency.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being undertaken by his Department to promote the co-generation of heat and power.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government fully recognise the environmental and energy efficiency benefits of combined heat and power—co-generation—and seek to ensure that CHP faces no unnecessary legislative or institutional barriers to its implementation. The Energy Efficiency Office—EEO—of the Department, in conjunction with technical staff at energy technology support unit and building research energy conservation support unit, is responsible for promoting the wider use of the technology, in cost-effective locations. It manages this through the best practice programme which provides independent and authoritative advice and information on energy use and efficiency in industry and commerce as well as in the public sector and in housing. In addition to the project profiles and publications produced, there is a continuing programme of CHP seminars and site visits.

  The EEO also works closely with the Combined Heat and Power Association, the representative body of the CHP industry.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what public information campaigns are currently being undertaken by his Department to promote energy conservation among the general public; and how much funding has been allocated to each information campaign.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Department is currently running the "Helping the Earth Begins at Home" campaign, launched last November and expected to operate for a minimum of three years. The campaign, which has a budget of at least £10 million, aims to encourage householders to make their homes more energy efficient and thereby help combat global warming.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific changes will be implemented on energy policy by his Department in the light of the policy to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 13 May at column 136 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on 15 May at column 237.

  Marine Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts are currently undertaken by his Department to deal with the conservation and sustainable management of shared seas.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom plays a very active role in the work of the Oslo and Paris conventions, the London dumping convention, the North sea and Irish sea conferences, the International North Sea task force, the Irish Sea co-ordination group, the International Maritime Organisation, the European Community as it bears on maritime matters such as the common fisheries policy, and the small cetaceans agreement under the Bonn convention on migratory species. Most recently, it has participated actively in the drafting of the oceans chapter of Agenda 21 for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and has, jointly with the Republic of Ireland, appointed a scientific co-ordinator for work to review the state of knowledge of the Irish sea.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to oblige manufacturers to monitor and publish the energy efficiency levels of their processes and the energy costs of their products.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to bring forward proposals to oblige manufacturers, either of imported or home produced goods, to publish the energy efficiency levels of their processes or the energy costs of their products. Although gathering meaningful information for comparative purposes is possible and is done in certain processes, for the majority of finished products the complications and cost of obtaining the data outweigh the benefits.

  However, my Energy Efficiency Office through its best practice programme publishes energy consumption guides, where these are meaningful, on specific processing steps. The best practice programme also promotes energy efficiency at all steps of manufacture.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the contribution of energy efficiency measures over the next seven years in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 14 May to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), column 200.

  Community Environmental Programmes
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to issue low interest loans to urban and rural community organisations, small businesses and individuals involved in community environmental action programmes.

  Mr. Maclean
  The new rural action scheme which we recently announced as part of our action for the countryside package will provide grants in support of a wide range of local environmental initiatives in England at parish level. This is in addition to £4.054 million awarded by the Department for environmental projects through the environmental grant fund and the special grants programme in 1992–1993. We have no plans for low interest loans for environmental programmes.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is currently undertaken by his Department to ensure the environmental impact assessments are conducted as early as possible in a project cycle.

  Mr. Maclean
  Where a project which is the subject of a planning application requires environmental assessment, the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 require the applicant to prepare and submit with the application an environmental statement setting out the applicant's own assessment of the likely environmental effects of the proposed development. This ensures that the environmental information —the applicant's environmental statement and any representations from statutory consultees and the general public—is taken into account in the decision making process.

  DOE circular 15/88 and the Department's booklet "Environmental Assessment—A guide to the procedures" advise developers to discuss with the planning authority the scope of the environmental statement before its preparation is begun and to approach statutory consultees and other bodies concerned with environmental issues at an early stage.

  Public Information
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to allow public access to environmental impact assessments, environmental audit data and monitoring results and to information about the production, use and disposal of hazardous substances.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is my Department's policy to continue to work towards the maximum freedom of public access to environmental information, subject to commercial, personal, confidentiality and national security considerations.

  Flora, Fauna and Habitats Directive
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action his Department is taking to implement the EC flora, fauna and habitats directive.

  Mr. Maclean
  The United Kingdom's current nature protection provisions give this country a firm basis for 440
  implementation of the directive. We are considering what further provisions are necessary to enable the directive to come fully into force within the two years prescribed.

  At the same time the Government's scientific advisers are working on the criteria for site selection as the first step towards compiling the United Kingdom's national list of candidate sites to be considered as sites of Community importance.

  Heathrow Terminal
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received copies of the consultation documents published by BAA plc in respect of its wish to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport; and if he will make it his policy to call in the intended formal planning application and hold a public inquiry.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and learned Friend was given notice of BAA plc's consultation proposals for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. He is aware that a planning application may be made later in the year for the terminal, associated link roads to the M25 and connecting rail access to central London.

  In the absence of any formal application, it would not be right for my right hon. and learned Friend to decide now whether to call in the application for his own decision. He will consider this carefully when any application is made.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what controls or incentives, such as might be incorporated into the grant system, his Department offers to the authorities responsible for places of worship to assist them in undertaking the necessary work to make their premises accessible to disabled people.

  Mr. Baldry
  Part M of the Building Regulations requires reasonable provision to be made for access and facilities for disabled people to and within new and extended places of worship. The provisions are for the benefit of disabled people, including those with impaired sight or hearing. The approved document, which accompanies part M, provides guidance on how the requirements might be satisfied.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether plants and incinerators proposed for London will breach(a) World Health Organisation standards and (b) EC standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. Assessment of the environmental effects of these installations is for the appropriate local planning authority or my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to take into account in their consideration of whether to grant consents and for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to consider before authorising the relevant processes.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will take a strategic look at the location of plants and incinerators in London.

  Mr. Maclean
  No.
  441
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration his Department is giving to the consequences new plants and incinerators in London will have upon rates of respiratory illness in their locality.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. These are for the appropriate local planning authority or my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to take into account in their consideration of whether to grant consent for the proposals.

  Species and Eco-systems
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to establish United Kingdom-wide surveys on species and eco-systems.

  Mr. Maclean
  Such surveys are carried out by the three country conservation agencies and co-ordinated by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for the purposes of the quinquennial review of species and the designation of sites of special scientific interest within Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, the Environment Service of the Department of the Environment (NI) carries out similar surveys for site and species protection.

  Falconers
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences are currently issued to falconers; and what are the terms and conditions of the licences.

  Mr. Maclean
  To date, no licences have been issued to falconers this year. In 1991, 65 licences were issued in England, Scotland and Wales to fly birds of prey at blackbirds, skylarks, song thrushes, meadow pipits and black-headed gulls.

  Licences are subject to conditions restricting them to the period 1 September to 28 February; imposing a limit of 50 on the number of quarry which may be killed; requiring that the bird of prey to which the licence refers is properly ringed and registered; and requiring that a return showing the birds killed be made by 31 March.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the cost of supervision of falconers, including keeper's time, in the New Forest for 1991 and to date for 1992;

  (2) how many animals and birds, and of which species, were taken by falconers in the New Forest in 1991 and to date in 1992.

  Mr. Maclean
  Licences issued to fly birds of prey at quarry do not require falconers to be supervised. No information is available on the costs of any local requirements that may apply in the New Forest.

  Falconers' returns show only the total numbers of each bird species killed under licence; no details are available on the areas from which quarry is taken.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to propose legislation relating to regulation of the conduct of car boot sales; and if he will make a statement.
  442
  Mr. Baldry
  Several existing statutory controls are relevant to the regulation of car boot sales. Thus, although the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988—the GDO—gives a general grant of planning permission for the temporary use of land for markets, including car boot sales, for up to 14 days in total in any calendar year, use for more than 14 days requires specific planning permission. A local planning authority may make a direction under article 4 of the GDO which withdraws this general permission and so requires a specific planning application.

  The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 enables local authorities to require the market operator and the site occupier to give them not less than one month's notice of a forthcoming market. The notice gives the authority time to make any necessary provision to avoid disturbance.

  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires local authorities to ensure that their land is kept clear of litter and refuse. Since 1 July 1991 authorities have been able to extend this duty to the owners of land used for markets, if there is a problem of persistent littering, by designating the land concerned a litter control area.

  I do not consider that further legislation is needed.

  Assured Tenancy Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new lets have been created as a result of the assured tenancy scheme introduced in the Housing Act 1980.

  Mr. Baldry
  By 1 April 1988, a total of 6,700 tenancies had been created by the assured tenancy scheme introduced in the Housing Act 1980. No new tenancies could be created under this scheme after 15 January 1989. After that date, new assured tenancies would be of the type introduced by the Housing Act 1988.

  Smog
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent initiatives have been taken by his Department to alert the public to the dangers of summertime smog.

  Mr. Maclean
  On 22 May, my Department published a leaflet entitled "Summertime smog—how to help prevent it". This gives a practical guide on what individuals can do to limit the emissions of air pollutants which cause summertime smog. It also contains details of how to obtain information on the levels of air pollution in the United Kingdom and associated health advice. This is available to the media, on Ceefax, and, since 6 May, on a free telephone line, 0800 556677.

  Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made by his Department in developing an integrated approach to pollution prevention.

  Mr. Maclean
  Integrated pollution control was introduced by part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and became effective from 1 April 1991. Implementation is being phased in over a five-year period.

  Opencast Mining
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the precise terms of reference of his monitoring exercise in respect of the effectiveness of mineral planning guidance 3 in relation to opencast mining; and if he will give the start date and last date of this consultation exercise.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2 June, at column 377.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent initiatives have been taken by his Department to raise public knowledge of ozone-depleting substances and actions the public can take to mitigate their unintended release to the atmosphere.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), at column 266.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent CFCs are still needed by the refrigeration and air conditioning industries in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Following a proposal by the United Kingdom, the European Community decided earlier this year that it should seek to tighten the controls in the Montreal protocol so that CFC production and consumption had to be phased out by the end of 1995, subject to any exemptions for essential uses. We now need to consider whether an earlier phase-out is possible within the community, and whether production for essential uses is likely to be necessary. To assist in this, the Department has commissioned a study by March Consulting Group on CFC use within the United Kingdom refrigeration and air conditioning industry. The study will consider the pattern of CFC used by the industry and the extent to which substitution by other refrigerants is taking place; how the pattern of use is likely to change between now and the end of the century; and the quantities of CFCs that industry will need in that period and the extent to which this can be met from recycled material.

  Council House Sales
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will allow Stockport to use the capital receipts it has accumulated through sale of council houses to invest in housing.

  Mr. Baldry
  An increase in spending financed from local authorities' capital receipts would be an addition to public expenditure in just the same way as an increase financed by credit approvals to permit additional borrowing. However, by placing constraints on spending from receipts, the Government are able to issue a greater amount of credit approvals to those local authorities where housing needs are greatest and where resources can be put to best use.

  Housing Authorities
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the top 10 performing housing authorities in each of the past two years; and what position in the rank order is held by Stockport.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has made no ranked assessment of the performance of housing authorities. However, in the context of the housing investment programme allocations published last December, the previous Secretary of State issued a list of 51 authorities judged to be well ahead of the field in comparison with others in their DOE region. Stockport was included in the list for north-west region.

  Empty Properties
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Audit Commission benchmark for empty properties; and what is the level of empty properties in Stockport.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest discussion by the Audit Commission of options open to local authorities for the better use of their housing stock is contained in the report "Developing Local Authority Housing Strategies", which was published on 28 May. In the report, the commission refers to benchmarks for void turn-around times for local authorities of six weeks in London and three weeks elsewhere. The commission suggests that if long-term voids were held to 1 per cent. of stock nearly all authorities with void intervals within these benchmarks would achieve a void level of less than 2 per cent.

  The latest available information on Stockport's empty council dwellings relates to 1 April 1991 and was provided by the council in its 1991 housing investment programme return, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Local Authorities (Debts)
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average figure for metropolitan authorities of debt in relation to housing stock; and what is the figure for Stockport.

  Mr. Baldry
  No information is now collected by the Department on debt relating to housing stock. However, figures published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy suggest that outstanding debt relating to housing at 31 March 1991 was £61 million for Stockport, or £210 per head of population, and £6.2 billion for all metropolitan districts, or around £560 per head.

  Council Waiting Lists
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are on the waiting list for council accommodation in Stockport.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information on the number of households on the waiting list relates to 1 April 1991 and was provided by Stockport metropolitan district council in its April 1991 housing investment programme return, a copy of which is in the Library.

  City Grant, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the position of the application by 3D Ltd. for a city grant in connection with the west end scheme in Bradford.

  Mr. Squire
  My Department received a revised application for City Grant from 3D on 15 October 1991, for a first phase of the west end scheme, comprising offices in Aldermanbury, and a European pavilion with a multi-storey car park. The developer had to be asked to supply additional information and the application is now under appraisal.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of licences granted for taking and the numbers of birds so taken from the wild, for each species of avian predator in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Maclean
  Details of licences issued to take birds of prey from the wild are given in the United Kingdom's annual derogation reports to the European Commission under the terms of the EC directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds. Copies of each report for the years 1987 to 1991 have been placed in the Library of the House.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when transitional arrangements for RECHAR funding in 1992–93 will be announced.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The transitional arrangements for 1992–93 for the provision of public expenditure cover for European regional development fund grants to be received, including those under the European Community's RECHAR initiative, will be announced very soon.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, columns 155-56, if he will extend the policy of strict control over development proposals for sites of special scientific interest to one of complete protection unless a question of public safety is at stake.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 24 September 1991 announcing additional safeguards for SSSIs which are now incorporated in DOE circular 1/92.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the consultation draft of the planning policy guidance note on nature conservation.

  I will arrange for these documents to be sent to the hon. Member.

  Traffic, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 154, if he will publish figures on the increase in black smoke concentrations in the Greenwich area in recent years.
  446
  Mr. Maclean
  The annual mean black smoke concentrations measured at the Greenwich site in u.g/m3 were as follows:

  Year

  1985–86

  7

  1986–87

  13

  1987–88

  11

  1988–89

  14

  1989–90

  18

  1990–91

  20

  Waltham Forest HAT
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to agree a corporate plan with the Waltham Forest housing action trust.

  Mr. Baldry
  A corporate plan has not yet been received from the Waltham Forest housing action trust. It will be agreed as soon as possible after receipt.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on how many home owners threatened with repossession by banks and building societies have been assisted in each London borough in 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Baldry
  Figures are not available in the form requested. The Council of Mortgage Lenders estimates that the combined effect of measures taken by the Government and lenders since December 1991 will save some 55,000 repossessions in the United Kingdom this year.

  Mineral Planning
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who appoints members of mineral planning authorities; to whom they report; and what are their terms of reference.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Within the shire counties, London and the metropolitan districts, the members of the mineral planning authorities are not appointed but are elected through the local government elections. In national parks, the Secretary of State appoints one third of the members of the mineral planning authority, the remaining two thirds are appointed by the local authorities involved.

  Members of mineral planning authorities would normally report to the chairperson of any committee on which they sit; in national parks they would normally report to the chairman of the board or committee of the park.

  There are no fixed terms of reference for mineral planning authorities.

  Ferro-Alloys Chimney
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how emission levels from the Ferro-Alloys chimney in Glossop will be monitored by his Department to ensure there is no breaching of the limits laid down by it.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: Emissions from the chimney at Ferro-Alloys, Glossops, will be

  447
  monitored continuously using recording instruments. The records will be scrutinised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Housing, Liverpool
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private and public sector properties are currently vacant in the city of Liverpool; what incentives he will provide to Liverpool city council to introduce homesteading schemes; what penalties he will impose on private and public sector landlords who fail to let properties; what is the estimated annual rent and community charge lost on empty private and public sector properties(a) throughout the United Kingdom and (b) in Liverpool; if he will meet leaders of Liverpool city council to discuss a plan of action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his answer, 3 June 1992, c. 542]: At 1 April 1991, the number of vacant properties in Liverpool was 5,733 local authority, 843 housing association and 7,908 privately owned.

  As far as local authority stock is concerned, the housing subsidy rules penalise those councils that have more than 2 per cent. of their stock empty and reward those who do better. To further encourage best use of housing resources the Department will be introducing a pilot scheme to promote homesteading of local authority stock, linked with the estate action programme. For private homes, we do not believe that property owners should be forced to let accommodation against their will but our policies are geared to creating the conditions to encourage landlords to let their properties.

  The estimated rent loss, for 1991–92, on empty public sector properties was over £136 million for England and £6.4 million for Liverpool. There are no figures available for the private sector.

  There are no personal community charge losses on empty properties although the council can levy a standard community charge on most unoccupied domestic properties. This can act as an incentive for landlords to find tenants.

  My right hon. and learned Friend will be replying shortly to an invitation from Councillor Harry Rimmer, leader of Liverpool city council, to visit the city. The estate action programme and the vacant dwellings initiative and the prospect of a housing action trust are examples of joint initiatives tackling the city's housing problems. In addition, the council's success in round one of city challenge will lead to a major transformation in the city centre with substantial benefits for its residents.

  Cash Limits
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any further changes to announce his Department's cash limits for 1992–93.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his answer, 4 June 1992, c. 608]: In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the DOE/UA non-voted cash limit will be increased by £159,492,000 from £829,603,000 to £989,095,000. This includes £22,992,000 transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry for inner cities task forces' projects.

  It also includes an increase in grant in aid of £49,300,000 to the London Docklands development
  448
  corporation for the eastern extension of the docklands light railway and capital expenditure relating to the railway.

  Also, £81,800,000 is transferred from the Department of Transport to enable the corporation to take over operational responsibilities for the railway.

  A net figure of a further £5,400,000 is required for setting up the Birmingham development corporation, progressing the Bristol spine road, supporting the Manchester Olympic bid committee's preparation of the bid for the 2000 Olympics and transferring inner cities research to the Department's housing vote.

  All these changes are either claims on the reserve or are offset elsewhere and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Law of the Sea
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what efforts are being made by his Department to bring into force the United Nations convention on the law of the sea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are working towards the achievement of a universally acceptable convention. While many of the provisions of this convention are helpful, there are serious objections to part XI, concerning sea-bed mining.

  On 16 and 17 June my officials will be participating in informal consultations chaired by the United Nations Secretary-General in order to seek solutions to the problems in part XI.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what controls or incentives, such as might be incorporated into the grant system, his Department offers to the managers of sub-post offices to assist them in undertaking the necessary work to make their premises and services accessible for disabled people.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no Government scheme for offering grants to sub-postmasters to assist them in making their premises and services available for the disabled. The provision of premises to an acceptable standard for carrying on Post Office Counters business is a matter for the sub-postmaster, usually at his or her own expense, as laid down in the sub-postmasters' standard contract conditions.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since his announcement on 3 June.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since my announcement on 3 June,Official Report, column 570, I am pleased to inform the House of the acceptance of a further six offers: a painting, "Up and Out" by Richard Hamilton in lieu of £7,000; Hambledon cricket club account book in lieu of £39,120; two paintings, "John Frederick Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset" by Sir Joshua Reynolds and "Lady Frances Cranfield" by Sir Anthony Van Dyck in lieu of £404,544; two busts by

  449
  Rysbrack in lieu of £418,920; a painting "Lady Charlotte Bonham-Carter" by Peter Greenham in lieu of £8,500; and land known as Nolands farm in lieu of £57,920.

  The paintings "Up and Out" and "Lady Charlotte Bonham-Carter" have been allocated to the Tate gallery. The two paintings by Reynolds and Van Dyck "John Frederick Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset" and "Lady Frances Cranfield" are to remain at Knole house, and the Rysbrack busts are to remain at Hagley hall. Nolands farm has been allocated to the National Trust. No decision has yet been taken on the allocation of the Hambledon cricket club account book.

  Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received about the situation within and around the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]:I am in close touch with the Arts Council about the situation and shall be seeing the chairman of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society on 16 June.

  I am anxious that the current high artistic standing of the Royal Liverpool philharmonic orchestra under its music director, Libor Pesek, should not be jeopardised.

EDUCATION

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  Mr. Forman
  The programme for market testing activities within the Department and the Teachers' Pensions Agency in 1992–93 and later years has yet to be finalised.

  School Premises
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will now repeal DES regulation 909; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department is currently reviewing the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, SI No. 909, as amended, in conjunction with the Welsh Office. While the review is in progress, the 1981 regulations will remain in force. The results of the review are expected to be available later this year.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his estimate of the consequence of DES regulation 909 so far as the upgrading of school playing fields is concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, SI No. 909, introduced new quality and suitability requirements for playing fields in addition to minimum area standards. In the 1986 survey of school buildings, local education authorities reported that 5 per cent. of primary and 6 per cent. of secondary schools in the sample needed resources to bring their playing fields up to 450
  the 1981 regulation standards. The national estimate of cost, based on the figures reported, is £60 million at November 1985 prices, or £66 million at first quarter 1992 prices.

  The survey did not identify the type of improvements in quality and suitability which may have been required. Some of the deficiencies will have been dealt with since 1986.

  Non-vocational Education
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the funding arrangements for adult education; and what representations he has received about the future of non-vocational education provision.

  Mr. Forman
  There is no need for a review. Funding arrangements in 1993–94 will reflect LEAs' changed duties under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. In calculating the transfer of funds from local authorities to the new further education sector, the Government will leave within local authority standard spending the resources attributable to those courses which fall to LEAs' responsibilities.

  My right hon. Friend has received a small number of representations about LEA expenditure on the further education of adults.

  Further Education Funding Council
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to fund the sixth forms of grant-maintained schools through the Further Education Funding Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Further Education Funding Council will not be responsible for funding sixth-forms of schools.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make his policy to require local education authorities to complete statutory special educational needs assessments within a six-month time period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  On 11 June my noble Friend the Minister of State announced in another place the Government's wide-ranging proposals to legislate on special educational needs. They include regulating the time scales within which assessment procedures must be completed. We shall consult widely on the detail of our proposals.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Environmental Research Programmes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he received a copy of the Advisory Committee on Science and Technology's report on environmental research programmes; and what responses he intends to make to the report.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The report by the Advisory Council on Science and Technology—ACOST—on environmental research programmes was received by the science and technology secretariat of the Cabinet Office in October 1991. The Government response will be sent to ACOST in July, and published in due course.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to make publicly available the background papers supporting the decision to develop the citizens charter; and what requests his Department has received to date for this information.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Citizens Charter policies have been fully set out in Cm 1599 and charters relating to individual services. I have had one request to make available unpublished factual and analytical material on the policy analysis reviews relating to the citizens charter, but the policy analysis review technique has not been used for many years.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 15 June, Official Report, column 399.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Tobacco
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Overseas Development Administration's policy towards the sponsoring of agricultural development schemes aimed at enhancing the growing of tobacco crops.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Tobacco is an important crop and a source of export earnings in some developing countries. There is, however, increasing evidence that the health risks associated with tobacco consumption will affect developing countries severely, especially by placing increasing burdens on their health budgets, which in most cases are inadequate to cope.

  In these circumstances, it has been Her Majesty's Government's policy since early 1991 that the overseas aid programme should not be used for any purpose which identifiably supports the tobacco sector. Accordingly, no new such bilateral commitments have been undertaken since then. We advocate that multilateral agencies to which we contribute should pursue a similar policy. In addition, we shall continue to help developing countries to reduce their tobacco consumption, and maintain our assistance to farmers dependent on tobacco crops to diversify into alternative activities. The same policy applies to our assistance in eastern Europe and the states of the former Soviet Union.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent projects in eastern Europe funded by the know-how fund have to meet environmental criteria; and if he will make a statement.
  452
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund is a technical assistance programme and most of its projects are in sectors where environmental impact is limited or non-existent; for example privatisation, management training, accountancy development and the stimulation of small businesses. For those know-how fund projects with environmental aspects, the criteria used are the same as those operated for the rest of the UK aid programme. There is a tranche of the know-how fund that is available specifically to fund environmental projects.

  Community Environmental Action
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is currently allocated by the Overseas Development Administration to assist community environmental action.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration does not collate data in the format requested. However, some examples of support for community environmental action are the 124 projects at a cost of about £13 million we fund with non-governmental organisations, and the western Ghats forestry project in southern India, to which we are contributing £25 million, which includes programmes for involving local community groups in the planning and management of the forest.

  Aid (Energy Efficiency)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is currently allocated by the Overseas Development Administration to provide more efficient domestic stoves, household lighting and cooling/refrigeration processes in lower-income countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration does not keep records in a form which classifies financial allocations across the aid programme in these categories. Within our allocations for research work £360,000 is committed to examining the more efficient design, production and marketing of domestic stoves.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of capital and technical assistance is granted by his Department to lower-income countries to develop training in designing energy efficient systems for use in homes, offices, agriculture and industry.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration does not keep records in a form which enables spending to be identified by the categories requested.

  Conservation Research
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is allocated by the Overseas Development Administration to promote taxonomic and systematic conservation research.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Taxonomic studies form integral components of a number of natural resources management and conservation projects but disaggregated figures for taxonomy as such as not available. Examples include the central Amazonia flora and vegetation project in Brazil, a forest inventory and management project in
  453
  Ghana, a forest genetics project in Honduras and a plant biodiversity and conservation project in collaboration with the national museums of Kenya.

  Human Development Index
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the improvement of the human development index prepared by the United Nations Development Programme.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom welcomes the human development index and the annual human development report in which it appears as a useful contribution to the development debate. Significant improvements have been made since its introduction in 1990, particularly in the use of more recent source data. We will continue to support the report team in the United Nations Development Programme in further improving the index.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom Government will support the Ethiopian Government's request for aid for their emergency food security reserve.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have told the World Food Programme that it may draw on the 25,000 tonnes we have promised to supply to WFP's regular programme this year in order to meet this request.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken to ensure that United Kingdom and European Community food aid arrives in southern Africa by the end of June; and what aid is provided for port rehabilitation, transport and management.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Food aid for southern Africa needs to flow steadily over the next few months to use all the transport capacity available, and ensure that the supplies do not arrive in the ports all at once. EC and UN food aid is planned with other donors on this basis. A logistics advice centre has recently been set up by the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference and the World Food Programme in Harare to assist in the co-ordination of food deliveries.

  Support for the rehabilitation and development of ports and island transport routes is an important part of United Kingdom development aid to southern Africa, including over £17 million for the development of Maputo port, and £5.47 million for the repair and rehabilitation for Tanga port in Tanzania. Our present assistance for inland transport includes £31.5 million for the rehabilitation of the Limpopo and Nacala railways in Mozambique, £14 million from the northern transport corridor linking southern Malawi with Dar es Salaam, and £1.27 million for the rehabilitation of the Beira corridor railway.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Restrictions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the administrative costs involved in enforcing the days at sea restrictions contained in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill.

  Mr. Curry
  The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum indicates that the cost of administration and enforcement is provisionally estimated at £0.7 million in 1992–93, £2.3 million in 1993–94 and £1.4 million in 1994–95.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will press for other member states to adopt uniform days at sea regulations in line with those he proposes for the British fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  I confirm that we shall be pressing hard for other member states to reduce their fishing effort as part of their 1993–96 multi-annual guidance programme.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward amendments to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill to provide for the effect of bad weather on a fishing vessel's days at sea quota.

  Mr. Curry
  Days at sea will be allocated to fishing vessels on the basis of their 1991 track records and it will be possible for fishermen to appeal if they think that their record has been depressed by exceptionally bad weather in that year. Once initial allocations have been made, they will not be affected by bad weather in subsequent years.

  Fishing Boats (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sum the Government contribute as part of the European Community's fishing vessel decommissioning grant; what percentage this figure represents of the overall grant; and what are the contributions of other member states.

  Mr. Curry
  The decommissioning scheme which my right hon. Friend announced on 27 February is expected to cost £25 million. Council regulation 4028/86, as amended, provides for 50 per cent. of this to be reimbursed by the Community—70 per cent. if vessels are scrapped—but operation of the Community budget means that the greater part of any such reimbursement is funded by the Exchequer.

  Set-aside Systems
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to publish full and final details of the new set-aside systems.

  Mr. Curry
  I hope that draft legal texts implementing the Council agreement will be adopted soon. The Commission must then table implementing regulations. Until these have been discussed and agreed in Brussels, we cannot finalise our own detailed national arrangements but we shall do our utmost to provide authoritative guidance as soon as possible.

  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his EC counterparts on measures to ensure that member states implement the new arrangements for set-aside systems.
  455
  Mr. Curry
  Detailed Commission implementing rules will be discussed by member states once the legal texts implementing the Council's decision have been agreed. EC Agriculture Ministers are also considering proposals for a new, integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes, including set-aside. If, despite these rules, other member states make payments to producers who have not met the appropriate set-aside requirement, their claims for EC reimbursement of the area payments can be disallowed.

  Rabies
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made to safeguard Britain's high health standards on protection from rabies.

  Mr. Gummer
  Agreement was reached in the Agricultural Council on 15 June on the so-called "Balai" directive which lays down trading conditions for species not covered by other Community rules. These include a number of species currently subject to quarantine for rabies on import to the United Kingdom. The measure covers animals that are traded commercially—not pets accompanying travellers.

  The agreement includes strict measures to ensure against the possibility of rabies being introduced into this country. Quarantine remains where the risk of importing the disease exists. The only changes relate to cases where there is no such risk and only involve trade between approved operators after 1 January 1994.

  Our existing rules do not require quarantine for farm livestock, which, although susceptible to rabies, present no real disease risk. After January 1994, similar rules will apply to animals such as rabbits, born and bred in the holding of origin, which can be imported with the same degree of safety.

  We agreed some particularly tough rules to cover cats and dogs within this directive—that is, largely those imported for breeding purposes. If they are born, and have remained, in a single rabies-free premises, have been vaccinated, and the subsequent blood test has proved that vaccination has been effective, they may be exported to the United Kingdom without quarantine. They must also carry microchip identification, full and acceptable veterinary records, and be carried in an approved manner, in a special vehicle, directly from the place of origin to a previously notified destination where further checks may be carried out if necessary. The veterinary advice is clear that this constitutes as effective a safeguard against rabies as the quarantine system.

  Our present arrangements, including quarantine, will continue as far as pet animals are concerned. The arrangements agreed for commercially traded animals provide us with at least the same level of security as the existing system. EC Ministers and the Commission unanimously agreed that they would not contemplate changes in arrangements for pets unless these were at least as effective.

  This agreement is a further example of the success obtainable by Britain being at the heart of the Community. We have safeguarded the principle of the single market without lessening the protection of our nation from rabies. Also of importance, the Council agreed to continue with rabies eradication programmes on the continent. Some progress has been made already and we know that other
  456
  countries are determined to succeed. We all look forward to the day when the Community will be rabies free. The outcome recognises the special situation existing in the British isles and fully safeguards this country against the introduction of rabies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Kilostream
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom where Kilostream facilities are not available to industry and commerce.

  Mr. Leigh
  It is a condition of British Telecom's licence that it provides leased circuits throughout its licensed area to meet all reasonable demands.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. French
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses have borrowed money under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Leigh
  The number of businesses is not available, some businesses having had two or more loans. However, the number of applications under the loan guarantee scheme in each of the last five years has been:

  Number

  1987–88

  1,222

  1988–89

  2,266

  1989–90

  3,204

  1990–91

  3,393

  1991–92

  2,950

  Power Stations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the number of power stations in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) England that burn, or propose to burn, orimulsion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Two power stations in England, at Ince in Cheshire and Richborough in Kent have permission under legislation preceding the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to burn limited amounts of orimulsion. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is considering two applications for authorisations in respect of proposals to burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station in Wales and Padiham power station in Lancashire, England. The electricity supply industry in Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters respectively for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Aerospace
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the number of jobs provided by the British aerospace industry.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The latest official figures from the Business Monitor annual census of production is 174,000 in 1990.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the number of jobs likely to be provided in the United Kingdom if the European fighter aircraft goes into full production.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Industry estimates vary between about 20,000 to 30,000 jobs provided or safeguarded directly, and a similar number indirectly with the supporting suppliers of goods and services.

  LINK
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications have been received for each category of programme under the LINK scheme; how many of these have been approved in each category; and if he will make a statement on the criteria used in accepting or rejecting an application.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There are 30 programmes under the LINK scheme which fit into five broad categories. According to the records maintained by the LINK secretariat, by the end of March 1992 a total of 985 full proposals for projects under LINK programmes had been received, of which 380 had been approved. The table lists the numbers of full proposals and approved projects for each of the categories.

  Programme category

  Full proposals

  Approved projects

  Food and Biosciences

  346

  106

  Engineering

  294

  103

  Sensors and Measurement

  155

  73

  Electronics

  127

  72

  Materials and Chemicals

  66

  29

  It is for each programme management committee to decide on the criteria for accepting or rejecting a project within their programme. However, their criteria will include the scientific quality of the proposal and its industrial relevance, its applicability to the priority areas of the programme and the objectives of the LINK initiative. The programme management committees include a number of industrialists and academics who are experts in the topics covered by a specific programme and advise on the selection of projects.

  ICSTIS Trustees Compensation Fund
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been collected through the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services trustees compensation fund; how this money has been spent; and if he will make a statement on how the contribution levels to the compensation fund were established.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services is a self-regulatory body for the premium rate service industry. The compensation funds for chatlines and live conversation services are the responsibility of independent trustees and questions about the funds should be addressed to them.

  Footwear
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress on the EC regulation seeking to introduce quantitative restrictions on the import of footwear from China.

  Mr. Needham
  Discussions between member states' officials are continuing in Brussels.

  British Nuclear Fuels Limited
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the chairman of BNFL to discuss the removal of civil service pension arrangements from workers being transferred to Urenco.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman of British Nuclear Fuels plc from time to time to discuss a range of issues. It is not legally possible for staff transferred from BNFL to another company to remain in the relevant pension schemes. BNFL has made it clear that the new pension arrangements will be established following consultation with staff and trade union representatives and that the benefits of the new arrangements will be broadly equivalent to the current schemes.

  Prospectus Issues
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the previous investigations his Department has carried out into prospectus issues in respect of(a) listed or quoted companies or companies seeking a listing or quote on the stock exchange for their shares and (b) other companies.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Inquiries by inspectors appointed under sections 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 to investigate and report on the affairs and/or membership of companies are wide ranging. However, in some such cases, part of the investigation may relate to the circumstances surrounding and documentation relating to the issue or acquisition of shares. For example, of those reports under sections 432 and 442 published since 1 January 1987, the following make significant reference to such matters.

  Company Name

  Date of publication

  Aldershot Football Club Ltd.

  2 July 1987

  Milbury plc

  27 October 1988

  Westminster Property Group Limited

  County NatWest Limited

  20 July 1989

  County Natwest Securities Ltd.

  House of Fraser Holdings plc

  7 March 1990

  Aldermanhury Trust plc

  20 March 1991

  Sound Diffusion plc

  1 May 1991

  Rotaprint plc

  24 July 1991

  The Milford Docks Company

  16 January 1992

  BOM Holdings plc

  27 February 1992

  Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".
  459
  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has not yet finalised its market testing programme. A statement will be made in due course.

  Departmental Library
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on obtaining books, reports and video-cassettes for his departmental library at the request of hon. Members.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department purchases the books and other information sources needed to carry out its work. Its library does not provide a service to hon. Members.

  Nuclear Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what involvement Her Majesty's Government expect to have in the forthcoming review conference of the convention on the physical protection of nuclear materials.

  Mr. Eggar
  Given the United Kingdom's degree of expertise on physical protection, which has long been recognised internationally, Her Majesty's Government expect to play an important and constructive role in the forthcoming conference.

  Multi-level Marketing
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints about multi-level marketing companies were received by his Department in the latest 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: Over the last 12 months we have received more than 500 written queries and possibly twice as many telephone queries on aspects of this subject. Most question the legality of schemes. Pyramid selling and similar selling schemes as specified in the Fair Trading Act 1973 are legal provided they comply with the relevant legislation.

  British Footwear Manufacturers Federation
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates his Department replied to the faxes from the British Footwear Manufacturers Federation dated 12 and 29 May.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 12 June 1992:] The fax message sent to my officials on 12 May contained information from the federation and thus called for no immediate reply. As regards the fax message sent to me on 29 May, my officials discussed it with the federation by telephone that day and I replied in writing on 9 June.

  Expo 92
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the country of origin of the bottled water being served in the English pavilion at Expo '92 in Seville; and how many restaurants and bars there are in the pavilion;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons why no English wine is being served in the British pavilion at Expo '92 in Seville;

  (3) what is the country of origin of the wine being served in the English pavilion at Expo '92 in Seville; and what quantity of wine is held by each outlet.
  460
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: A range of English wines is served in the British pavilion at Expo '92. At present the caterers hold a central stock of more than 50 cases as supplies for the three restaurants and one bar in the British pavilion. These stocks are replenished as required. Also, all the bottled water served in the British pavilion is British.

  EC Proposals
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the experts his Department consults on European Community proposals relating to trade and industry matters.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: My department undertakes extensive consultation with a range of expert bodies and individuals in respect of European Community proposals. They are too numerous to list.

  Military Equipment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of total visible exports were accounted for by items falling under those tariffs heading which have been identified as covering purely military equipment in(a) 1990 and (b)

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 June 1992: Military equipment accounted for 2 per cent. of United Kingdom visible exports in 1991. Information for 1990 is not available.

  Note:
  1. Military equipment is defined, in terms of the Standard International Trade Classification (Revision 3), as aircraft and associated equipment (all tariff headings in division 79 other than those identified as "civil"; and excluding spacecraft and launch vehicles); warships (tariff heading 890600 100) and arms and ammunition for (military purposes) (division 98).

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether plutonium originating in United Kingdom reactors has been exported to, or imported from foreign countries in(a) 1990, (b) 1991 and (c) the current year to date; and what plans there are for the export and import of plutonium in the remainder of the current year.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Information about the imports and exports of civil plutonium is included in the plutonium figures published annually. For the 1989–90 and 1990–91 financial years, I refer the hon. Member to the press releases issued by the former Department of Energy and placed in the Library of the House on 18 October 1990 and 17 October 1991 respectively. Similar information will be published later this year in respect of the 1991–92 financial year. Future plans are a commercial matter for the importers and exporters of the plutonium.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with British Nuclear Fuels plc as to when the company intends to commission the thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield.
  461
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: The commissioning process is already under way. Radioactive fuel will be progressively introduced into the various sections of the plant starting in late 1992.

  Pressure Vessel Integrity Committee
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish the names and qualifications of the Pressure Vessel Integrity Committee; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: The Pressure Vessels Consultative Committee acts as a forum for discussion of relevant national and EC legislation, and is one of the bodies consulted by the Department concerning proposed EC directives in its field. Its present membership is:

  PVCC Membership

  Name

  Mr. B. J. Darlaston

  Berkeley Research Laboratories

  Mr. G. Francom

  Associated Offices Technical Committee

  Mr. M. R. Collyer

  Air Products Ltd.

  Mr. R. K. Jones

  British Standards Institution

  Mr. A. Dewar

  National Power Ltd.

  Mr. D. C. Hoskins

  PowerGen plc

  Mr. J. N. Ruggles

  Cornhill Insurance plc

  Dr. K. Walkin

  Health and Safety Executive

  Dr. A. A. Denton

  Noble Denton International Ltd.

  Mr. J. L. Bayley

  —

  Mr. R. Houston

  British Gas plc

  Mr. J. M. G. Clark

  British Standards Institution

  Mr. M. Hayter

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Mr. R. F. R. Towndrow

  ICI

  Mr. J. A. W. McDonald

  Health and Safety Executive

  Mr. E. Crooks

  Health and Safety Executive

  Mr. J. Kimber

  Lloyds Register

  Mr. J. L. Hardy

  Power Generation Contractors Association

  Mr. T. V. Lipscomb

  NEI International Combustion Ltd.

  Mr. R. H. Shipman

  LPGITA

  Dr. R. Wallace

  Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd.

  Dr. J. R. West

  Babcock Energy Ltd.

  Mr. M. J. Willerton

  Beel Industry Boilers

  Mr. A. Morrow

  British Steel plc

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make public details of all communications he receives from the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission on the safety consequences of coal privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  [pursuant to the reply, 22 May 1992, c. 332]: I have today received a letter from Sir John Cullen on the safety implications of the privatisation of the coal industry. Copies of Sir John's letter have been placed in the Library of the House. I welcome the constructive and positive approach the Commission have adopted.

  Coal Industry Safety Inspectors
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many coal industry safety inspectors per 1,000 men were employed in each year from 1985 to 1991.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.
  462
  Available estimates of the number of Health and Safety Executive district mines inspectors per 1,000 employees in coal mining are:

  Number

  1985–86

  0.30

  1986–87

  0.35

  1987–88

  0.40

  1988–89

  0.42

  1989–90

  0.43

  1990–91

  0.41

WALES

  Council Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount of receipts realised by each county council in Wales from the sales of buildings and land and the amount of receipts currently retained; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information available, which includes receipts from the sale of land, buildings, vehicles and other equipment, is given in the table:

  £000

  Receipts from the sale of fixed assets1

  Unredeemed set aside receipts2

  Clwyd

  17,955

  6,586

  Dyfed

  4,851

  296

  Gwent

  15,948

  1,296

  Gwynedd

  1,975

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,759

  545

  Powys

  2,571

  200

  South Glamorgan

  37,895

  1,255

  West Glamorgan

  5,021

  0

  Total counties3

  91,975

  10,180

  1 Capital receipts in the period 1986–87 to 1990–91 inclusive. Information relating to earlier years is not readily available.

  2 Reserved part of capital receipts, set aside but not yet redeemed, at 31 March 1991.

  3 Excluding joint police authorities.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the amount of cash realised from the sale of council houses in each of the district and borough councils in Wales giving the numbers of houses sold in each location and indicating the current amount of receipts retained by each local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information relating to numbers of houses sold is given in the table. Regarding receipts from council house sales, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Monmouth on 4 February 1992. For receipts set aside and not yet redeemed, the latest available information is that included in the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on 22 January 1992.

  Council houses sold 1981–82 to 1990–91 inclusive

  Number

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,484

  Colwyn

  801

  Delyn

  1,355

  463

  Number

  Glyndwr

  1,255

  Rhuddlan

  919

  Wrexham Maelor

  3,547

  Carmarthen

  1,192

  Ceredigion

  1,421

  Dinefwr

  892

  Llanelli

  3,350

  Preseli Pembroke

  2,277

  South Pembrokeshire

  879

  Blaenau Gwent

  2,363

  Islwyn

  3,675

  Monmouth

  1,878

  Newport

  4,050

  Torfaen

  3,723

  Aberconwy

  1,724

  Arfon

  1,382

  Dwyfor

  392

  Meirionnydd

  897

  Ynys Mon

  1,654

  Cynon Valley

  1,503

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2,276

  Ogwr

  4,609

  Rhondda

  751

  Rhymney Valley

  3,712

  Taff Ely

  3,900

  Brecknock

  1,444

  Montgomeryshire

  1,350

  Radnorshire

  573

  Cardiff

  7,663

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2,827

  Port Talbot

  3,486

  Lliw Valley

  1,916

  Neath

  2,427

  Swansea

  4,068

  TOTAL

  83,615

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 119, what information he has on the election of chairmen or women by the training and enterprise councils in Wales; on what dates they were each elected; for what period they were elected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The following information is provided in respect of TEC chairmen in Wales:

  TEC

  Chairman

  In post from

  North West Wales

  Mr. T. Jones

  March 19901

  North East Wales

  Mr. J. Troth

  November 19891

  Powys

  Mr. D. Margetts

  April 19901

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mr. Phillips

  September 19891

  Gwent

  Mr. L. Quinn

  March 19901 to October 1990

  Mr. G. Canning

  October 1990

  South Glamorgan

  Mr. R. Helliwell

  January 19901 to March 1992

  Mr. E. Crawford

  April 1992

  West Wales

  Me. P. Allen

  November 19891 to July 1990

  Mr. R. Hastie

  July 1990

  1 Commencement of TEC development phase.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 119, if he will place in the Library a copy of the eligibility criteria for the chairmen of training and enterprise councils in Wales.
  464
  Mr. David Hunt
  The eligibility criteria for the TEC directors and chairmen are laid out in paras 6.3 and 6.4 of the TEC operating agreement 1992–93, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation concerning the rise in the cost of construction of the proposed Cardiff bay barrage since November 1990; to what extent such an increase is attributable to(a) inflation and (b) design changes; for (b) if he will give details; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have regular discussions with the chairman of Cardiff Bay development corporation about a range of issues, as do my officials and officers of the corporation.

  In November 1990 the development corporation issued and EC prequalification notice which showed the estimated cost of construction of the proposed Cardiff bay barrage as £86 million at November 1988 prices. No recosting exercise was undertaken for the purposes of the prequalification notice since it was intended to be purely indicative for companies with an interest in tendering formally at a later stage. The equivalent figure in the prequalification notice issued this month was £112 million at 1991–92 prices.

  Of the change, £7.9 million is attributable to design changes and the remainder to inflation and roundings in the November 1988 price figure.

  The main details of the design changes were:

  (i) outer harbour dredging;

  (ii) additional fish pass requirements;

  (iii) change to the way in which the barrage meets land at Queen Alexandra dock;

  (iv) change of embankment cross section;

  (v) amendments to the design and size of the then proposed feeding ground at Wentloog lagoon.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend his policy of strict control over development proposals for sites of special scientific interest to one of complete protection unless there is a question of public safety at stake.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The revised arrangements published in Welsh Office circular 1/92 should ensure that nature conservation interests are adequately protected in the consideration of applications for planning permission. I have no proposals to extend them.

  Parc Slip Opencast Site
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish his inspector's report on the public inquiry held last July into the British Coal opencast executive's application to extend the Parc Slip opencast site at Cefn Cribwr towards Kenfig hill.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The inspector's report will be published when my decision letter on the planning appeal is issued. The case is currently receiving consideration and a decision will be issued as soon as possible.

  Minerals Planning Guidance 3
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the review he is undertaking of minerals planning guidance 3.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As part of the monitoring of minerals planning guidance Note 3, views were sought on how well the guidelines were operating and whether they had created any problems. The responses of consultees are currently being evaluated and, in the light of the results of that evaluation, we shall consider whether there is a need for any revision of minerals planning guidance note 3. A decision will be announced as soon as possible.

  National Opera House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a copy of the report he commissioned into the engineering and financial feasibility of the proposed new home in Cardiff bay for the Welsh national opera house.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: I hope to do so shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lignite Resources
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the quality and extent of lignite resources confirmed in the Ballymoney area of Co. Antrim.

  Mr. Atkins
  Consultants have, on behalf of the Department of Economic Development, carried out an initial study which estimated a lignite resource at Ballymoney of almost 350 million tonnes. The licensee has carried out more extensive prospecting work and estimates the total resource to exceed 600 million tonnes. In general terms, lignite has an energy value approximately one third of that of hard coal. Precise details on the quality of the Ballymoney resource are commercially confidential.

  Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pupils are at each of(a) the primary and (b) secondary schools in the constituency of Newry and Armagh in (i) the maintained, (ii) the controlled and (iii) the integrated sectors of education.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:

  Numbers

  Primary schools maintained

  Anamar, Crossmaglen, Newry

  76

  Armagh Christian Bros, Armagh

  463

  Carrickrovaddy, Newry

  34

  Clady (St. Michael's), Armagh

  38

  Clay, Keady, Armagh

  70

  Clonalig, Newry

  181

  Cloughoge, Newry

  379

  Collegeland, Dungannon

  42

  Dromintee, Newry

  133

  Glassdrummond, Armagh

  88

  Jonesborough, Newry

  142

  Killeen, Newry

  111

  Lissummon, Newry

  36

  466

  Numbers

  Loughgall, Loughgall

  45

  Middletown boys', Armagh

  52

  Mount St. Catherine's, Armagh

  467

  Newtownhamilton (St. Michael's), Newtownhamilton

  97

  Our Lady's, Keady

  43

  St. Brigid's, Newry

  139

  St. Brigid's, Belleeks, Newry

  85

  St. Clare's Convent, Armagh

  248

  St. Clare's Convent, Newry

  654

  St. Colman's Abbey, Newry

  721

  St. Colmcille's, Armagh

  29

  St. James', Markethill

  48

  St. James', Tandragee

  68

  St. Jarlath's, Dungannon

  157

  St. Joseph's Convent, Newry

  453

  St. Joseph's, Armagh

  133

  St. Joseph's, Poyntzpass, Newry

  91

  St. Joseph's, Killeavy

  175

  St. Joseph's, Bessbrook, Newry

  406

  St. Lawrence's, Belleeks, Newry

  54

  St. Louis' Convent, Middletown

  51

  St. Malachy's, Armagh

  76

  St. Malachy's, Chapel Lane, Armagh

  210

  St. Malachy's, Camlough, Newry

  283

  St. Malachy's Carnagat, Newry

  454

  St. Mary's Boys', Keady, Armagh

  233

  St. Mary's, Tassagh, Armagh

  69

  St. Mary's, Jerrettspass, Newry

  53

  St. Mary's, Mullaghbawn, Newry

  226

  St. Mochua's, Keady, Armagh

  104

  St. Oliver Plunkett, Newry

  92

  St. Oliver, Plunkett, Armagh

  111

  St. Patrick's Boys', Newry

  382

  St. Patrick's, Crossmaglen, Newry

  323

  St. Patrick's, Armagh

  533

  St. Patrick's, Cullyhanna, Newry

  282

  St. Peter's, Bessbrook

  274

  Tullyheron, Mountnorris

  48

  Tullymore, Armagh

  56

  Tullysaran, Armagh

  77

  Primary schools controlled

  Aghavilly, Armagh

  90

  Ahorey, Portadown

  21

  Annaghmore, Portadown

  79

  Armstrong, Armagh

  400

  Bessbrook, Newry

  118

  Cabra, Tandragee, Portadown

  30

  Clare, Tandragee, Craigavon

  69

  Collone, Armagh

  127

  Cormtamlet, Newry

  39

  Darkley, Armagh

  110

  Derryhale, Portadown

  80

  Drumhillery, Armagh

  68

  Drumsallen, Armagh

  47

  Foley, Armagh

  102

  Hamiltonsbawn, Armagh

  112

  Hardy Memorial, Armagh

  492

  Keady, Armagh

  44

  Killylea, Armagh

  85

  Kingsmills, Armagh

  27

  Kinnego, Dungannon

  23

  Lisdrumchor, Armagh

  27

  Lisnadill, Armagh

  71

  Mountnorris, Armagh

  76

  Mullaghglass, Newry

  69

  Mullavilly, Tandragee

  68

  Newry Model, Newry

  35

  Newtownhamilton, Newry

  119

  Poyntzpass, Newry

  69

  Tandragee, Tandragee

  321

  The Cope, Armagh

  113

  Tullyroan, Dungannon

  40

  Windsor Hill, Newry

  216

  Secondary schools maintained

  St. Brigid's High, Armagh

  278

  467

  Numbers

  St. Catherine's College, Armagh

  843

  St. Joseph's Boys' High, Newry

  451

  St. Joseph's High, Crossmaglen

  568

  St. Mary's Girls' High, Newry

  550

  St. Patrick's High, Keady

  843

  St. Paul's High, Newry

  1,265

  Controlled

  Armagh, Armagh

  579

  Markethill High, Markethill

  445

  Newry High, Newry

  570

  Newtownhamilton High, Newtownhamilton

  97

  Tandragee Junio High, Tandragee

  318

  Grammar schools voluntary

  Abbey, Newry

  710

  Our Lady's Newry

  812

  Sacred Heart, Newry

  807

  St. Colman's College, Newry

  770

  The Royal School, Armagh, College Hill, Armagh

  643

  There are no integrated schools in the area.

  Notes:
  1 Enrolment figures are taken from the annual school census, completed at January each year.
  2 Pupils enrolled in nursery classes in primary schools are included in the enrolment figures.

  Metal-framed Windows
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive into the replacement of metal-framed windows and the fairness of the programme in the various parts of the Province.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by the chairman of the Housing Executive that the executive is carrying out a survey into the extent of the replacement of metal windows over the last three years. The survey will also list the stock which still has metal windows. It is intended to provide a data base which will be kept updated as renovation schemes are completed and dwellings sold or demolished. Although this is an internal executive survey, I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Gentleman with the results when the work is completed in a few weeks.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 109, what was the basis for the decision at his Office to refuse to accept all new preliminary applications after 28 February for housing grants other than applications for special grants and grants dealing with statutory notices; and when it is expected that the new renovation grants scheme will be introduced.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is anticipated that the new renovation grant scheme will come into operation on 1 October 1992.The suspension of the acceptance of new preliminary applications for grant is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but the chairman has advised me that the decision was taken to enable those preliminary applications already in the pipeline to be processed to formal application stage, where possible, before the introduction of the new legislation, since from that date the executive will be statutorily debarred from accepting formal applications under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. Grant applications approved or processed to 468
  the formal stage by that date can be paid under the 1983 order because transitional arrangements for these have been included in the proposed new legislation. The executive was conscious that, had it continued to accept preliminary applications it would have done so in the knowledge that applicants who may have incurred expenditure would not have been able to progress their applications to formal application stage by October 1992.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Relocation
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what future plans he has to relocate civil service posts from the south-east of England to elsewhere in the United Kingdom; what departments and how many staff will be affected; what is their expected relocation; and if he will will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table lists, with likely timings, the plans which Departments and agencies have announced for relocations or locations away from the south-east which have still to be implemented or completed.

  Department and dispersal location

  Number of posts

  Likely timing

  Defence

  Bristol

  3,000

  1995–96

  Brampton or Wyton

  380

  1994–95

  Bath

  250

  1994

  Insworth

  120

  1994–95

  3,750

  Inland Revenue

  Middlesbrough

  185

  1991–92

  Sunderland

  190

  1991–92

  Barnsley

  170

  1992

  Birkenhead

  170

  1992

  Dundee

  160

  1992

  Falkirk

  160

  1992

  Hull

  180

  1992

  Leicester

  160

  1992

  St. Austell

  160

  1992

  Swansea

  165

  1992

  Wrexham

  180

  1992

  Nottingham

  1,800

  1992–95

  Washington

  60

  1992

  3,740

  Social Security

  Leeds

  662

  1992–93

  Belfast

  500

  1993

  Birkenhead

  500

  1993

  Dudley

  500

  1993

  Falkirk

  500

  1993

  Plymouth

  500

  1993

  3,162

  Home Office

  Ruddington

  120

  1992

  Birmingham

  12

  1992–93

  Derby

  1,700

  1993–95

  1,832

  Customs and Excise

  Liverpool

  1,290

  1990–95

  Manchester

  390

  1990–95

  Newry

  94

  1992–93

  1,774

  469

  Department and dispersal location

  Number of posts

  Likely timing

  Employment Group

  Runcorn

  400

  1990–93

  Sheffield

  848

  1990–93

  Aberdeen

  85

  1992–94

  Bootle

  56

  1992–94

  1,389

  Health

  Leeds

  1,200

  1992–93

  MAFF

  York

  1,000

  1994–96

  Land Registry

  Birkenhead

  110

  1992–93

  York

  110

  1992–94

  220

  Treasury

  Norwich

  200

  1992–95

  Crown Prosecution Service

  York

  50

  1993–94

  Total

  18,317

  Premium Bonds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to change the premium bond prize scheme when the national lottery is introduced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no present plans to change the existing premium bond prize scheme.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  Mr. Portillo
  Following the publication of "Competing for Quality", a review of the scope for market testing services in the Treasury has been undertaken and an announcement about the target for market testing in 1992–93 will be made shortly.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of the meeting between Treasury officials and Mr. Jerry Walters from Messrs. Simmonds and Simmonds concerning BCCI on 10 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  A delegation including Mr. Jerry Walters attended a meeting at the Treasury on 10 June to discuss European directives. BCCI was not raised.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's total income, to date, from North sea oil since 1979.
  470
  Mr. Dorrell
  Total revenues to the Exchequer from the North sea since 1979–80 have been £71 billion.

  Lloyd's Underwriters
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total estimated value of the tax changes provided in the Lloyd's Underwriters (Tax) (1989–90) Regulations 1992, SI 1992 No. 511 which came into force on 28 March; what consultations were held with which parties prior to laying the regulations on 6 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The regulations involve no change in underwriters' tax liabilities or retrospective tax concessions. They renew for a further year the improved administrative arrangements, introduced last year, whereby the underwriter's agent is made responsible for accounting for tax due at the basic rate on the underwriter's profits. Before their introduction in 1991, these new arrangements were discussed with Lloyd's.

  Charitable Status
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the loss to tax revenue if the governing bodies of amateur sport were to be granted charitable status.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information requested is not available. Charities enjoy exemption from tax only on income which is applied to charitable purposes, or where it arises as part of the exercise of a primary purpose of the charity or from a trade carried out by the beneficiaries of the charity. Sport is not a charitable activity.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to public funds hitherto of the provisions of the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost of the increase in the stamp duty threshold from £30,000 to £250,000 for eight months from 20 December 1991 will be about £400 million —£110 million in 1991–92 and £290 million in 1992–93.

  Agencies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance the Treasury is providing on the setting of targets for executive agencies.

  Mr. Portillo
  A booklet prepared by HM Treasury entitled "Executive Agencies: A Guide to Setting Targets and Measuring Performance" is today published by HMSO. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  A draft of this guide was printed in the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on the "next steps" initiative, in July 1991 (No. 496).

  The guide describes targets for financial performance, quality, efficiency, and other aspects of performance, and makes suggestions on how to assess the results. Although primarily addressed to advisers in Government Departments, it will be of interest to managers in all the public services, and to all who are concerned with improving the performance of their organisations in accordance with the citizens charter.

  VAT
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list those commodities and services currently rated for VAT(a) at zero and (b) at a level below the maximum and indicate which of those would be enshrined or protected by the terms of the Maastricht treaty;

  (2) if he will list those commodities and services currently rated for VAT (a) at zero and (b) at a level below the maximum and indicate which of those would be enshrined or protected by the terms of the draft European directive on VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Those goods and services which are currently zero-rated for VAT are as follows. There is no reduced rate category in the United Kingdom.
  Food, including animal feeding stuffs (i)
  Sewerage services and water (ii)
  Books, booklets, pamphlets and leaflets, newspapers, journals and periodicals, sheet music, maps, charts and topographical plans.
  Talking books for the blind and handicapped and wireless sets for the blind.
  Fuel and power (ii)
  Construction of buildings (iii)
  Reconstruction of protected buildings
  International services
  Transport (iv)
  Residential caravans and houseboats (v)
  Gold (vi)
  Bank notes.
  Drugs, medicines, aids for the handicapped.
  Certain supplies connected with imports and exports to overseas bodies in connection with international collaboration on defence projects.
  Certain supplies made by or to charities.
  Young children's clothing and footwear.
  Protective boots and helmets.

  Notes

  (i) excludes the supply of food in the course of catering and certain items such as confectionery, crisps and packaged pet food.

  (ii) zero-rating applies to domestic use only.

  (iii) excludes commercial buildings.

  (iv) excludes the supply of ships and aircraft used for recreation or pleasure.

  (v) excludes holiday accommodation.

  (vi) zero-rating applies to transactions between central banks and the London Gold Market.

  The latest text of the EC draft directive on the approximation of VAT rates contains provision for member states which as at 1 January 1991 applied a lower rate, including zero-rates, than the minimum laid down for the reduced rate, in accordance with Community law then in force, to retain those rates.

  VAT rates are not affected by the Maastricht treaty.

HEALTH

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the operation of the Children Act 1989, since its implementation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There has been a positive and enthusiastic response to the Act from those in the statutory and voluntary sector. The Children Act is the most important step forward this century in the protection afforded vulnerable children in our society. The Act is 472
  operating well. At the end of this year I shall be submitting a report to Parliament on the first year of the Act in operation.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance on good practice she gives hospitals and health authorities on the provision of long-term hospital accommodation for the elderly.

  Mr. Sackville
  We made it clear in "Caring for People" that we expect health authorities to purchase continuous residential health care for those highly dependent elderly people who need it. We believe that such care is best provided in small, homely units in the community.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding the proposed White Paper on health promotion.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  About 2,100 responses have now been received in response to the "Health of the Nation" Green Paper. We welcome this evidence of the very wide interest in the Government's initiative to improve health. We intend to publish our White Paper shortly.

  Residential Care
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met representatives of the Social Care Association to discuss residential care.

  Mr. Yeo
  We last met representatives of the Social Care Association in October 1990. Officials are in regular touch with the association.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the resources to be transferred to local authorities for funding residential care.

  Mr. Yeo
  We are committed to providing adequate resources to enable local authorities to meet their new community care responsibilities. Decisions on the transfer and the overall level of resources required will be taken in the context of this year's local government expenditure survey.

  Air Ambulance Service (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support her Department has given to the Cornwall first air ambulance service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The capital and running costs of Cornwall air ambulance service are provided by charitable donations. The paramedical services are provided by the Cornwall Community Healthcare Trust.

  Aids
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the United Kingdom is taking through the World Health Organisation and the European Community to combat the global spread of AIDS.

  Mr. Yeo
  The United Kingdom has been an active supporter of the World Health Organisation's global
  473
  programme on AIDS since its inception and is currently the third largest donor. As a member state of the European Community, we provide support for the various EC AIDS initiatives, namely the "Europe against AIDS" programme, the AIDS task force and the EC biomedical and health research programme, which has a substantial AIDS component. The United Kingdom participates in the development of advice for the Council of Health Ministers through the ad hoc group on AIDS. We provide support for the European Community's AIDS progamme for developing countries through our contribution to the European Development Fund and the Community budget.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals or units expressed an interest in acquiring NHS trust status(a) for April 1991, (b) for April 1992 and (c) for April 1993; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A total of 83 hospitals and units expressed an interest in becoming NHS trusts from 1991, 66 applied and 57 were established. In the following year 130 expressed interest, 110 applied and 103 were established. The current position for the third wave of applications is that 154 hospitals and units have expressed an interest in becoming NHS trusts from April 1993 and 151 have so far applied. This is more than in either of the first two waves. This shows that staff and managers in the NHS increasingly are seeing trusts as the best way to improve services for patients.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications she has received for hospital trust status; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), earlier today.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in Shropshire towards practice budgets for doctors and trust status for hospitals.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are currently five GP fund holders in Shropshire serving 12.7 per cent. of the population. A further four practices have applied for fund-holding status from April 1993, and if successful, 23 per cent. of the population of Shropshire will then be served by GP fund holders.

  We have received two formal applications for trust status from units in Shropshire: one from the Princess Royal hospital in Telford; and one from Shropshire mental health services. These applications are now out for formal public consultation.

  Health Authorities, Cumbria
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to alter the boundaries of the three district health authorities in Cumbria.

  Mr. Sackville
  None at present. Northern regional health authority, together with its district health authorities (DHAs) and family health services authorities are currently considering the best way to develop DHAs' central role in purchasing health care on behalf of their residents; including the possibility of joint working with neighbouring authorities.

  Malpractice and Fraud
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce a code of practice designed to protect the position of those NHS employees who draw attention to malpractice and fraud; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is important that all NHS staff should express professional concerns about health service issues to their managers. Employing authorities need to acknowledge this duty, but they must also retain the right to take action in cases of improper disclosure of confidential material, such as personal patient information. Staff aggrieved by any disciplinary action taken by their employer have recourse to established grievances procedures.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures she has for the number of persons making private health care arrangements in west Cumbria.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Building Projects
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service building projects have been completed in England since 1979; and how many are under way.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  More than 600 capital schemes, each costing more than £1 million, have been completed in the national health service since 1979. A further 400 such schemes are in various stages of planning, design and construction, of which 105 are currently under construction.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many late abortions of pre-born children occurred after 18 weeks gestation during the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 5,061 abortions over 18 weeks notified under the Abortion Act 1967 in England and Wales in the period 1 October 1990 to 31 September 1991, 2.8 per cent. of the total number.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sterilisation and abortion operations have been performed on mentally disabled women in the last 12 months for which figures are available; what criteria were used in arriving at these decisions; and how many girls, under the age of 16 years, have been sterilised in the last 12 months for which figures are available, and on what grounds.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the number of sterilisation operations is not available in the form requested. Details of the medical condition recorded on abortion notification forms—including unspecified mental retardation—are given in table 27 of the 1990 "Abortion Statistics" (Series AB No. 17) published by the Office of
  475
  Population Censuses and Surveys, a copy of which is available in the Library. The criteria for reaching decisions vary from case to case and can involve relatives and carers, and possibly reference to the courts. The national health service "Hospital Episode Statistics" show that only one female sterilisation operation was performed on a patient under the age of 16 in England in 1990–91.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued to health authorities concerning the use of amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling tests; how many tests were made under each procedure in the last year for which figures are available; how many pregnancies ended in spontaneous abortions following testing; how many ended in clinical abortions; how many babies born after being tested by CVS were discovered to have a physical or mental handicap; what evidence she has of links between the CVS test and disability; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidelines to providers of maternity services on the use of tests for fetal abnormalities are contained in the first report of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee: "Maternity Care in Action—Antenatal Care", at paragraph 4.27. Copies are available in the Library. Information on the number of tests carried out under each procedure is not held centrally.

  Information on the number of pregnancies which end in miscarriage following testing is not held centrally. Studies have indicated that amniocentesis is associated with miscarriage in one or two cases in every 200 where the procedure is used. It is more difficult to estimate the level of the association between miscarriage and chorionic villus sampling (CVS), because studies are unable to identify women who would have miscarried among those who request and have termination of pregnancy following a diagnosis of cytogenic abnormality. A recent randomised controlled trial carried out by the Medical Research Council compared CVS with amniocentesis and found that a woman undergoing CVS has a one in 20 less chance of a successful outcome to her pregnancy than a woman undergoing amniocentesis in the second trimester of pregnancy.

  Information on the number of pregnancies which ended in a termination following testing is not held centrally. It is likely that the majority of such terminations would be for chromosomal abnormality in the fetus, and in 1990 this condition was reported in 273 terminations (England and Wales).

  Following reports of a possible association between the use of CVS and the occurrence of limb reduction defects, an investigation was made by the European registration of congenital anomalies and twins (EUROCAT) into seven of its registries, covering 600,000 births. The investigation did not demonstrate a significantly increased risk associated with exposure to CVS in the areas covered by these seven registries.

  We are not aware of any evidence linking CVS with mental handicap.

  Community Care
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next expects to meet representatives of local authorities to discuss the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
  476
  Mr. Yeo
  We have regular and constructive meetings with representatives of the local authority associations at which we discuss many aspects of social services provision including the implementation of our community care policy. We are next due to meet on 1 July.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients are waiting longer than a year for treatment; and what was the comparable number(a) in March 1979 and (b) in March 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provisional figures for 31 March 1992 are given in the table. These show that between March 1979 and March 1992 the total number of in-patients waiting over a year fell by 63 per cent.

  In-patients waiting over 1 year

  Number waiting

  March 1979

  185,195

  March 1991

  170,065

  March 1992

  168,650

  1 Based on provisional figures from regional health authorities.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will arrange to collect centrally statistics on(a) first out-patient waiting lists, (b) in-patient 12 to 24 month waiting lists and (c) in-patient 0 to 12-month waiting lists.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for out-patient waiting times are not collected centrally, but all health authorities are required under the patients charter to publish information on the local standards they have set for waiting times for first out-patient appointments and on performance against these targets. The Department regularly publishes statistical bulletins which include the numbers of people waiting for in-patient and day case hospital treatment in the 0 to 12 and 12 to 24 month categories. The most recent information for the six months to September 1991 was published on 4 June. For provisional figures covering the period up to 30 April 1992, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) on 10 June at columns 219-20.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any proposals to change the current arrangements for the monitoring and inspection of private care or nursing homes.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) earlier today.

  Maternity Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of home confinements as a percentage of all live births in each NHS region since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Home confinements as a percentage of all live births 1987–1991

  Regional Health Authority

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  England and Wales

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  1.0

  1.1

  Northern

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  477

  Regional Health Authority

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Yorkshire

  0.8

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  0.8

  Trent

  0.8

  0.8

  0.9

  0.9

  1.0

  East Anglian

  1.5

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  North West Thames

  0.8

  0.7

  0.9

  1.0

  1.1

  North East Thames

  1.1

  1.1

  1.2

  1.3

  1.5

  South East Thames

  1.2

  1.4

  1.4

  1.7

  1.8

  South West Thames

  0.9

  1.0

  1.1

  1.1

  1.4

  Wessex

  0.9

  0.9

  1.1

  1.1

  1.2

  Oxford

  0.7

  0.8

  1.0

  0.9

  1.1

  South Western

  1.1

  1.4

  1.5

  1.7

  1.8

  West Midlands

  0.9

  0.8

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  Mersey

  0.5

  0.7

  0.7

  0.6

  0.8

  North Western

  0.6

  0.6

  0.8

  0.8

  0.7

  Adoptions
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations were made to the Romanian Committee for adoptions by the United Kingdom Government concerning the conditions on age of prospective adoptive parents incorporated in the agreement signed by the Department of Health on 19 March.

  Mr. Yeo
  The age of prospective adopting parents seeking to adopt a child from Romania was one of more than 40 conditions contained in the draft agreement prepared by the Romanian Committee for Adoptions in January this year. They were the subject of detailed negotiations with the committee before the agreement was signed on 19 March 1992.

  Discussions between the Department of Health, acting on behalf of the United Kingdom health departments, and the Romanian Committee for Adoptions took place between January and March prior to a team of officials from the Department of Health visiting Romania and continuing negotiations direct with the committee.

  The conditions contained in the agreement with the United Kingdom are essentially the same as for the signatories of 11 other countries. Without this agreement in place, prospective adopters are unable to apply to adopt a Romanian child.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of people aged(a) 18 years and below and (b) over 19 years who received out-patient dental treatment from the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale district health authority in each year from 1985, and from Burnley Health Care since its establishment as an NHS trust.

  Patient Transport Services 1988–89—1991–92

  Quality of service for South Yorkshire Ambulance Service

  Table 1

  Activation time

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Total number of emergency calls

  57,580

  58,842

  64,863

  64,073

  Number where activation within three minutes

  50,516

  44,412

  56,041

  55,782

  Percentage of calls where activation within three minutes

  87.7

  75.5

  86.4

  87.1

  478
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. W. Ashworth, chairman, Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale health authority and Mr. J. H. C. Rawson, chairman, Burnley health care NHS trust for details.

  Finance
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been allocated in joint finance money by regional health authorities in England; and what proportion has been spent on projects for people with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  Allocations to regional health authorities in England for joint finance total £134.696 million in 1992–93. Information is not collected centrally on spending by client group.

  Euthanasia
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the guidance she gives to health authorities about the receipt from patients of advance directives commissioning their killing by euthanasia administered by doctors and nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have issued no guidance to health authorities on such directives. Patients are fully entitled to make known in advance their views on possible future medical treatment. Any health professional, however, whilst taking account of the patient's wishes, is bound by the law, and cannot be required to take any action which conflicts with this.

  South Yorkshire Ambulance Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received and what data she has in her possession concerning delays in(a) reception of 999 calls at the headquarters of the South Yorkshire ambulance service, (b) the dispatch of emergency calls from that headquarters and (c) the arrival of ambulance at an emergency incident; and what were the comparative figures for (i) 24 months, (ii) 36 months and (iii) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  No recent representations have been received about the performance of the service.

  Call logging equipment in use at service headquarters during the last 18 months has shown that on average, 999 calls coming into service control take approximately five seconds to be answered.

  The latest activation and response time figures are given in the tables.
  479

  Table 2

  Response times

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  11991–92

  Total number of emergency calls

  57,580

  58,842

  64,863

  64,073

  Number where response within seven minutes

  18,470

  16,764

  20,246

  18,797

  Percentage of calls where response within seven minutes

  32.1

  28.5

  31.2

  29.3

  Number where response within 14 minutes

  44,210

  41,627

  48,877

  48,509

  Percentage of calls where response within 14 minutes

  76.8

  70.7

  75.4

  75.7

  1 Information supplied by South Yorkshire Ambulance Service: not validated centrally.

  War Pensioners
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been since 1990 in the guidance given by her Department on priority treatment for war pensioners; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  There have been no changes. New guidance will be issued in the near future.

  Disability
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people claiming disability working allowance also receive health benefits; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Reflolux meters for monitoring blood count in the treatment of diabetics are available on prescription.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A meter may be provided through the hospital service if the consultant in charge of the patient's care considers it clinically necessary. Meters are not available on prescription.

  Liver Transplants
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost of liver transplantation in the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  In the year ending 31 March 1992 expenditure on liver transplantation and associated follow-up services amounted to £13.7 million.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the provision for liver transplantation in the national health service; and what information she has on the number of patients waiting for, and in the convalescent period after, such transplants and the estimated distances such patients have to travel for treatment.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of liver transplants performed in the United Kingdom rose from 21 in 1982 to 419 in 1991. A total of 64 patients were reported to be awaiting liver transplants at 30 April 1992. There are no figures held centrally on the numbers of people in convalescence following liver transplants.

  Information on the distances patients have to travel for transplant treatment is not collected centrally. There are
  480
  six designated centres where liver transplants are performed. Two of the hospitals are in London; the others are in Cambridge, Birmingham, Leeds and Newcastle. The provision of designated liver transplant centres is kept under constant review.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many answers from her Department to parliamentary questions in(a) the current and (b) the last session of Parliament hon. Members have been advised to contact the chairman of a district health authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Eleven so far in this Session and 33 in the 1991–92 Session.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to collect centrally information on the amount of over or under-spending and the throughput of patients in each of the last five years of major general hospitals in each region.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no current plans to require this information to be collected centrally.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the amount of over and under-spending in each of the last five years and (b) the throughput of patients over each of the last five years in the Warrington health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information about over and under spending is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. D. Hannah, the chairman of Warrington health authority, for details.

  The information requested on throughput of patients is given in the table.

  Throughput of patients (patients treated per available bed):Warrington Health Authority

  Cases treated

  Available beds

  Throughput

  1986

  128,228

  2,434

  12

  1987–88

  130,330

  2,180

  14

  1988–89

  30,334

  2,056

  15

  1989–90

  32,300

  1,797

  18

  1990–91

  234,023

  1,532

  22

  Source: SH3, KH03, KP70.
  1 The figures for 1986/1987–88 have been converted from the old measurement of discharges and deaths into the present measurement of finished consultant episodes. During 1988–89, information on patient cases treated was collected on both bases to facilitate this conversion.
  2 The figures for 1990–91 are provisional.

  Charitable Fund Raising
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will consider introducing guidelines for hospital trust charitable fund-raising organisations to avoid them competing for business with charitable fund raising for hospices.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not for the Government to direct trustees of hospitals in their fund-raising ventures. We believe that the detail of fund-raising events are best decided at local level in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Child Care
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make money available to local authorities so that schools can provide pre-school and after-school care for children of working parents.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is inappropriate to use public funds to help all parents pay for day care services for their children. Public funds should be targeted on children in need.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to resite the Association for Research into Multiple Sclerosis following the proposed closure of the Central Middlesex hospital; and if she will take account of the needs of multiple sclerosis sufferers at present treated there.

  Mr. Sackville
  I am not aware of any proposals to close Central Middlesex hospital.

  The hospital provides accommodation and other assistance to the charity Action Research into Multiple Sclerosis. I understand that the charity's centre at the hospital has run into serious financial problems, putting at risk the therapy and diagnostic services it has been providing for between 400 and 500 patients.

  The Department of Health agreed in May to provide £75,000 to the Central Middlesex hospital to avoid disruption of treatment for patients.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any plans to introduce screening for human T-cell leukaemia in the blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 15 June 1992 at columns 415-16.

TRANSPORT

  M25
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete his consultations and to publish his proposals for improving the M25 motorway between junctions 11 and 16.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Department announced its plans for improving the M25 last September. The next step will be a public exhibition of its proposals for increasing 482
  the capacity of the M25 beyond dual four lanes between junction 12 to 15. Work on widening the motorway to dual four lanes between junctions 15 and 16 is expected to start in the autumn. Consultants have not yet been appointed to investigate options for providing additional capacity between junctions 11 and 12.

  Road Safety Schemes
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what road safety schemes his Department is currently supporting; and how much funding is allocated to these schemes.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A total of £31 million was earmarked for local safety schemes in the 1991–92 local roads capital settlement. A total of £43 million has been provided for this purpose in 1992–93. Information on individual schemes executed by local highway authorities using the funds is not readily available, but the average cost of a local safety scheme is about £10,000.

  The Department of Transport spent £10 million on about 300 safety schemes on its trunk roads in 1991–92. That rate of expenditure is expected to continue in 1992–93.

  Cars
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received on the hazards of electric windows in cars; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I have reports of two cases of electric windows in vehicles causing fatalities to children over the past six years, including the recent tragedy. Both accidents were caused by the children inadvertently actuating switches. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has now asked its members to review their designs and will shortly be meeting to discuss further action. I have asked to be kept informed of the outcome of these discussions. The vehicle inspectorate has also now examined the car involved in the recent tragedy, to determine whether there were any defects in the particular vehicle. It will shortly be reporting its findings to me.

  Goods Vehicle Drivers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many light goods vehicle drivers have been unable to follow their employment as a result of the revocation or suspension of their licences by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency medical branch; and if he will introduce a proper compensation scheme for such drivers for their loss of income during the suspension or revocation period.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No information is available to the Department on the number of LGV drivers who have been unable to follow their employment as a result of revocation of their licences on medical grounds by the DVLA.

  Drivers have a right of appeal through the magistrates courts against a decision to revoke their licence. If compensation is awarded, the Department has a legal obligation to pay. Proven cases of maladministration may justify an ex gratia compensation payment.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many LGV drivers have had their licences
  483
  revoked or suspended in each year since 1988 for (a) heart problems, (b) epilepsy and (c) other medical conditions; how many of these drivers have subsequently had their licences restored; and what is the average time period involved.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Information on the number of LGV drivers who have had their licences revoked on medical grounds is available only from September 1991. Since that date, 541 drivers have had their licences revoked because of heart problems, 97 because of epilepsy and 577 because of other medical conditions.

  Five LGV drivers have had their licences restored following appeal to the courts since April 1991, the cases taking between one and five months to resolve.

  Commuters
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to institute a London travel survey in order to ascertain the main reasons for commuters travelling in and out of London at particular times; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  A major survey of travel in London was conducted during 1991—the London area transport survey. This will provide comprehensive information on journey purposes and times for each mode of travel. For respondents living in the area bounded by the M25 and who usually arrive at work between 8 am and 9.30 am, the survey also asked whether they could change their hours to avoid travelling during the peak period. The results of the survey will be available by summer 1993.

  In addition, as part of the London road pricing research programme, the Department intends to commission a small survey to assess how motorists, including commuters, would adjust their times of travel in response to charges. The survey is likely to take place this summer.

  A10
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest position as regards the consultation study of Travers-Morgan Associates on the A10 Hoddesdon-Cambridge section as outlined in "Roads to Prosperity."

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is currently awaiting the consultant's report and recommendations. We expect them shortly.

  A1
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether tenders have been received for works to the A1 to upgrade to motorway standard between Wetherby and Boroughbridge; and what is the programme of works.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  No. The necessary preparatory works are not yet sufficiently advanced to enable tenders to be invited.

  The proposed upgrading of the A1 to a motorway along the stretch in question is covered by two schemes in the roads programme. The first and more advanced is the Walshford to Dishforth scheme which was taken to public inquiry in March 1992. Subject to the satisfactory
  484
  completion of statutory procedures, and the availability of funds, tenders could be invited next year. The other is the Wetherby to Walshford scheme for which the preferred route was announced in September 1991. The next stage is publication of draft orders under the Highways Act 1980.

  A40
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the A40 through Cheltenham to be detrunked; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The time scale for the detrunking of the A40 in Cheltenham is dependent on the Department's proposals to provide a southerly alternative trunk road route. This consists of Brockworth bypass on the A417, including a new junction with the M5, together with any improvements that may be required to bring the A436 from Shipton Solers to Air Balloon up to a trunk road standard.

  Given a favourable outcome from the recent public inquiry, and subject to the continuing availability of funds, the construction of Brockworth bypass might be completed by the mid-1990s. A feasibility study into the improvements necessary on the A436 route will be undertaken shortly. A decision on detrunking the A40 in Cheltenham will be made in the light of that.

  Severn Crossing
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a second Severn river crossing will be completed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The second Severn crossing is due to be completed in spring 1996.

  Railway Passenger Services
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for railway passenger services franchising as they relate to the Uckfield service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Our proposals are for the private sector progressively to take over the operation of passenger services under franchises, including services on the Uckfield line, while British Rail will retain responsibility for track and signalling. We intend to publish a White Paper shortly which will set out our proposals in more detail.

  York Ring Road
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the outline plans for the dualling of the northern section of the York outer ring road; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I expect outline plans to be published later this year showing proposals for the improvement of the trunk road section of the York northern bypass, between the A19 of Rawcliffe and the A64 at Hopgrove. That will follow the completion of work carried out by the appointed consulting engineer on alternative solutions to the problems on that stretch of road.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report of the interdepartmental committee which is considering the extension of the noise insulation scheme in the vicinity of civilian airports to schools, hospitals and other institutions.

  Mr. Norris
  I still await the report from the working group led by my Department. Further detailed consultation at official level is required, and is taking longer than expected. I hope that the report can be finalised within the next few months.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the terms of reference and the composition of the interdepartmental committee which is considering the extension of the noise insulation scheme in the vicinity of civilian airports to schools, hospitals and other institutions.

  Mr. Norris
  There are no "terms of reference" as such. The Department of Transport agreed to investigate the costs and practicability of a scheme for insulting schools and hospitals and to report back. It was decided that the report should be submitted to the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence for ministerial decision. The group comprises representatives from the highways and civil aviation divisions of the Department of Transport, and from the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and the Treasury.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the cost of obtaining a medical examination was taken into account in raising the fee for a heavy goods vehicle driving licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Large goods and passenger-carrying vehicle licence fees are set to recover the administrative costs of licence issue. No account is taken of the cost of obtaining the medical report required by law at initial application for or subsequent renewal of a licence.

  Hazardous Chemicals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to the European Commission to ensure that the Hazchem system of marking hazardous substances is retained for all transportation of these substances in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on 12 June 1992 at column 299.

  Motorway Construction
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average cost of providing one kilometre of motorway in a rural area, broken down into(a) cost of land purchase and (b) cost of construction.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: Construction costs of roads vary substantially depending on factors such as location and the need for structures. In view of that, the Department does not prepare information on the average cost of road construction per kilometre.
  486
  "Trunk Roads: England into the 1990s" contains full details, including estimated works costs, of all schemes in the trunk road programme.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many EEC member states have adopted stage 1 noise limits under the relevant noise limits directive for motor cycles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Our understanding is that all member states have taken legislative or administrative action to implement the stage I noise limits in EC directive 87/56.

  Al2
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the role of his Department's officials who attended the Suffolk county and Waveney district joint members' and officers' meeting in Lowestoft on 9 June about the A12 proposals within Lowestoft; and what information the officials were to deliver to the meeting about timing.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: The meeting was one of a series of regular exchanges of information and views on transport issues. The Department's officials were able to report that public consultation on alternative routes for the improved Pakefield to Kessingland section of the Al2, the Lowestoft relief road scheme, was planned for later this year.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the timing of consultation, design and building he now expects to take place in fulfilment of commitments in the White Paper "Roads to Prosperity" for the Al2 in Waveney, from Blythburgh to Kessingland, from Kessingland to Bloodmoor road, and from Bloodmoor road to Pleasurewood; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are his plans for keeping the hon. Member for Waveney informed about changes on planning, timing, consultation and construction he is proposing in the dualling of the A12 from Ipswich to Great Yarmouth since the publication of the White Paper, "Roads to Prosperity", and since statements made in the last Parliament by his predecessor.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: Schemes to improve the Al2 are at different stages in their development. The present programme for consultation is:

  Blythburgh to south of Wrentham

  late 1993

  South of Wrentham to Kessingland

  late 1992

  Lowestoft inner relief road

  Kessingland to Bloodmoor road section

  late 1992

  A preferred route was announced for the Bloodmoor road to Pleasurewood section of Lowestoft inner relief road in November 1990.

  The timing of subsequent stages will depend on the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the availability of funds.

  The hon. Member will be informed as a matter of course at the key stages of public consultation, order publication, public inquiry, when the decision is announced following the inquiry and when construction is due to start.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement concerning delays in the introduction of the new disability living allowance and the financial difficulties caused to those people who previously claimed disability benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications for disability living allowance(a) have been referred for a medical examination by the adjudication officer in order to assess the claim and (b) have included a request from the claimant for a medical examination;

  (2) what was the number of applications received by his Department for disability living allowance where the form was completed through the benefits inquiry line completion service; and what was the number and percentage of these resulting in an award of (a) higher-rate care component, (b) middle-rate care component, (c) lower-rate care component, (d) higher-rate mobility component and (e) lower-rate mobility component; and how many were refused.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Widows
  Ms. Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a widow's payment available to women widowed prior to 11 April 1988.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so. The widow's payment of £1,000 replaced the widow's allowance from 11 April 1988. To pay widow's payment to those widows who received widow's allowance prior to April 1988 would be double provision.

  Benefits, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the benefits for which his Department is responsible in the Doncaster area during the current year, giving in each case(a) the total number receiving the benefit and (b) the cost in a full year of that benefit; and if he will give comparative figures for (i) 24 months, (ii) 36 months and (iii) 48 months ago.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  Miss Widdecombe
  Discussions are presently taking place with the efficiency unit at the Cabinet Office regarding proposals put forward by the Department. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy that invalidity benefit should be payable up to the same age for men and women.

  Mr. Scott
  The age limits for invalidity benefit coincide with the age up to which people can earn increments to their retirement pensions. This is 64 for women and 69 for men.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the differential rate of percentage increases of national insurance benefits, including invalidity benefit and retirement pensions and income support; and what assessment he has made of how many pensioners are worse off as a result of these differentials.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Our policy is to maintain the value in line with prices of retirement pension and other contributory benefits for people over state pension age. This April they received an increase in line with the retail prices index. Less well-off pensioners on income support received increases nearly 3 per cent. higher than this. All pensioners therefore benefited from the uprating.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the rule that if claimants are in receipt of the higher rate of income support, because of a previous entitlement to invalidity benefit, and if they lose that right to income support because of a rise in invalidity benefit, their claim is deemed to be interrupted and they lose any entitlement to the higher rate of income support, even though the income support may rise and they may again be entitled to claim it.

  Mr. Burt
  A person who is in receipt of invalidity benefit and makes a claim for income support will be eligible for the disability premium or higher pensioner premium — depending on age—whether or not they have been entitled to income support and eligible for the premium in the past. The hon. Member may wish to write to me if she has an individual case in mind.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will show the social fund budgets for all offices in the Leeds metropolitan district for grants and loans for each year since 1988 both at real prices and at 1992 prices showing the percentage increase or decrease on the 1988 allocation.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the
  489
  Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Claims (Processing)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what investigations he has made of the causes of the length of time taken to process claims for attendance allowance and disability living allowance; and what plans he has to increase the funding of the Benefits Agency in order to reduce the time taken.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Maxwell Group
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he proposes to take to keep the House informed of progress over the state of the Maxwell pension funds; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what target he has set for a timetable for the money removed from the Maxwell pension funds to be restored; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is not yet clear how much of the missing pension fund assets will eventually be recoverable by the trustees. We have established a special unit to work alongside trustees and others seeking to secure the return of assets, and the unit will do all it can to help speed up this process. We shall keep hon. Members fully informed of developments.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of households in Scotland are dependent on housing benefit; and how this has changed since the current system of housing benefit was introduced.

  Mr. Burt
  The most recent estimate, for May 1990, is that 28 per cent. of households in Scotland receive some of their income from housing benefit (rent rebates and allowances). The corresponding figures for 1988 and 1989 are 29 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis his Department decides the languages and areas in which the BBC World Service should be funded to broadcast.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The languages and areas in which the BBC World Service broadcasts are regularly reviewed jointly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World Service in the light of foreign policy objectives. Decisions are based on the political significance of a country or region and the extent of British and wider western interests; the degree of openness in a society and of its people's access to objective news; the range of means 490
  available, besides broadcasting, to project Britain and British views; and in the case of existing language services, the size and profile of their audiences, their impact and influence, and their importance to bilateral relations.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reasons his Department has decided not to fund BBC World Service broadcasts in Japanese.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Following a joint FCO/BBC world service review of broadcasting output in 1990, it was agreed to increase output in Russian, Mandarin and Vietnamese, as well as English programmes to a number of regions, and to end broadcasts in Japanese and Malay for which audiences were small and declining. Both services ceased at the end of March 1991. World Service programmes in English continue to both areas.

  United Nations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current level of funding for the United Nations; by what date the United Kingdom was requested by the United Nations secretariat to pay dues to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations in 1992; on what date those dues were paid; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Member states' contributions to the 1992 United Nations regular budget will total £593,179,000, of which the United Kingdom share will be £28,260,695.

  We estimate that the United Kingdom's assessed contributions to the United Nations for current peacekeeping operations for the United Kingdom financial year 1992–93 will total £70 million. As at today's date we had been asked to pay $81,178,625 towards those costs, and had paid $41,660,134. The discrepancy between the two amounts arises from an assessment in respect of UNTAC—the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia—which we have received but which has not yet fallen due. We aim to make all our payments in accordance with United Nations financial regulation 5.4, which states:
  "contributions shall be considered due and payable within 30 days (of receipt of the Letter of Assessment)".

  Bahrain
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Bahrain Government about human rights violations; and what meetings he has had with representatives of the Bahrain Government to discuss the treatment of political prisoners in Bahrain.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We keep a close watch on human rights issues world-wide and raise the subject with individual Governments when necessary. The Gulf states, including Bahrain, are well aware of the importance that we attach to the observance of international human rights standards throughout the world.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many certificates have been issued under section 27 of the Data Protection Act 1984.
  491
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I am aware of none so far as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is concerned.

  Entertainment Budget
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was his entertainment budget for 1991.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Expenditure by both wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on entertainment in financial year 1991–92 is estimated at £7,102,000.

  That figure includes the grant in aid to the Government hospitality fund, which meets the cost of ministerial entertainment and guest-of-Government visits for all Government Departments, and the cost of other official entertainment by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by diplomatic missions overseas.

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all those functions and areas in his Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have considered a number of proposals for market testing arising from separate studies carried out on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte. A statement setting out areas of activity to be market-tested will be made once these proposals have been finalised.

  Entry Applications
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the current lists of applicants in each of the queues for(a) settlement and (b) visits at (i) Bombay, (ii) Dacca, (iii) New Delhi, (iv) Islemat, (v) Karachi, (vi) Nairobi and (vii) Dar-es-Salaam.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 30 April 1992., the number of applicants in the queues were:

  Settlement

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Total

  Bombay

  0

  305

  393

  219

  917

  Dhaka

  324

  1,490

  205

  315

  2,334

  New Delhi

  0

  310

  260

  115

  685

  Islamabad

  23

  1,326

  236

  647

  2,232

  Karachi

  6

  87

  20

  7

  120

  There are no queues in Nairobi or Dar-Es-Salaam.

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Q1 Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, or special compassionate cases.

  Q2 All spouses, and all children under 18 years.

  Q3 Fiancé(é)s and others applying for the first time for resettlement.

  Q4 Re-applicants.

  Visits

  During periods of seasonally high demand applicants for visit visas in Islamabad requiring a full interview can expect to wait up to five days. Elsewhere they are dealt with on day of application.

  EC Directives
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the title and subject matter of any directives or proposed directives 492
  from the European Community which have an impact on divorce law, abortion law, research on the human embryo, care of the dying, sexual consent, euthanasia, abortifacient drugs or related issues.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only directives that have an impact upon any of these matters are provisions relating to abortifacient drugs, for which, as with other drugs, marketing and control are governed by a range of EC pharmaceutical directives. There are provisions in directive 65/65 EEC allowing member states to prohibit the marketing of abortifacient drugs under their own domestic laws if they wish.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made by the United Nations special commission in Iraq in dismantling the Iraqi nuclear facilities at Ash Sharquat, Tarmiyah and A1-Atheer.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the course of the eleventh and twelfth nuclear inspections, the United Nations special commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency made excellent progress in dismantling Iraqi nuclear facilities.

  Details of the 11th inspection are contained in the Official Report, available in the House of Commons Library.

  The report of the 12th inspection has not yet been published. When received, it will be placed in the Library of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Glass Recycling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many bottles are used per annum in the precincts of the House; and what provision is made for glass recycling.

  Mr. Beith
  Bottle bank facilities, comprising two 1,100 litre capacity containers, are situated between Peers Court and State Officers Court. The containers are emptied daily by a contractor who sends the glass for recycling. Records are not kept of the total number of bottles used or disposed of each year.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what veal, other than that reared in Britain, is used by the House Catering Department.

  Mr. Beith
  The purchase of food and other consumables in the Refreshment Department is the responsibility of the Director of Catering Services, who will be glad to respond to any further inquiries from the hon. Gentleman.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training places have been available in the Easington constituency in the years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91.
  493
  Mr.McLoughlin
  The information regarding the number of training places in Easington is not collected.

  Since 1 October 1990, training in Easington has been the responsibility of County Durham training and enterprise council (TEC). At 29 March 1992, there were an estimated 4,400 people in training on youth training and an estimated 3,400 people in training on employment training in the County Durham TEC area.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in employment or education are not at present on youth training programmes in the Seaham and Peterlee areas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the local careers service, which covers the Seaham and Peterlee areas, that there are currently 165 young people in the area who are registered with it as not in employment or education and who are not in youth training.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information she has on the skills being learned by employment training trainees.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A range of management and evaluation information is collected by the Department about employment training (ET). Employment training is providing unemployed people with the skills necessary for them to get jobs in an increasingly competitive and challenging labour market.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what means she has to assess the quality of ET.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Both nationally and locally the quality of ET is assessed through a number of different measures. These include the achievement of targets for positive outcomes and vocational qualifications; analysis of a range of performance indicators and other management information; and regular and ad hoc surveys and evaluation studies.

  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement about vacant training in engineering places in Stockport because of the inability of the training and enterprise council to fund young people to take them up.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Through youth training, 430 young people in the Stockport TEC area are being funded in engineering training. I am assured by the TEC that no other young people have expressed an interest in engineering training under youth training.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people of state retirement pensionable age are in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in the Seaham and Peterlee area.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The area most closely relating to Seaham and Peterlee for which data are available is the parliamentary constituency of Easington. The latest available figures are from the 1981 census of population. The number of people of state retirement pensionable age in the parliamentary constituency of Easington working full time in April 1981 was 158. Figures for part-time 494
  employment are not available. Figures for both full-time and part-time employees by age from the 1991 census of population are expected to be released by the end of October 1992.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is her estimate of the number of jobs directly and indirectly dependent upon the present size of the coal mining industry.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In March 1992, the latest date for which estimates are available, there were 66,500 employees in employment in the coal extraction and manufacture of solid fuels industries in Great Britain. Jobs indirectly dependent upon the size of the coal mining industry are classified to those industries in which they occur—for example, the production and distribution industries—and are not separately identified.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of male unemployment in 1982 and at the latest available date in Alyn and Deeside.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information on the numbers claiming unemployment-related benefits for local areas such as parliamentary constituencies has only been available since June 1983.

  In June 1983 there were 3,393 claimant unemployed men in the Alyn and Deeside parliamentary constituency. In April 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, the equivalent figure was 2,249.

  These figures are on the unadjusted basis and are therefore affected by both seasonal influences and by changes in the coverage of the count.

  Working Women
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether she will list the members of the working group looking at women's opportunities in the workplace and beyond announced on 20 May.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The first members are as follows:

  Lady Howe

  Chairman, Business in the Community's Women's Economic Development Team;

  Responsible for Opportunity 2000;

  Former Deputy Chairman Equal Opportunities Commission

  Joanna Foster

  Chairman, Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Sue Slipman

  Director, National Council for One Parent Families.

  Baroness Denton

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Trade;

  Industry and Government Co-Chair, Women's National Commission.

  Sue Rorstad

  Chairman and Managing Director, Poppies UK Ltd.

  Peter Davis

  Chief Executive, Reed International plc.

  Sheila Forbes

  Group Personnel Director, Storehouse plc.

  Kay Coleman

  Chief Executive, Harvey and Co. (clothing) Ltd.

  495

  Graham Millar

  Managing Director, Nestlé Rowntree.

  Dr. Susan McRae

  Senior Fellow, Policy Studies Institute.

  Sir Bryan Nicholson

  Chairman, Post Office;

  Chairman, National Council for Vocational Qualifications;

  Former Chairman, Manpower Services Commission.

  Margaret Seymour

  Managing Director, Seymour Swimming Pool Engineers accompaniment

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list all those functions and areas in her Department and associated agencies that have been identified for market testing in the wake of the White Paper "Competing for Quality".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is still considering the proposals put forward by the Department. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when she will publish the Health and Safety Executive's report "Sheep Dip 1990" by Dr. Carole Davidson and Mr. Brian Blatchford.

  Number of complaints initiated in Scotland by HSE inspectorates and local authorities 1982–91

  Factory and Agriculture

  Mines1

  OS

  NII

  Railway

  Local authority

  Total

  1982

  257

  0

  6

  0

  1

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  283

  0

  4

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  1984

  220

  0

  3

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  1985

  300

  0

  9

  0

  1

  57

  367

  1986 January/March

  89

  0

  1

  0

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  1986–872

  273

  1

  2

  0

  0

  53

  329

  1987–88

  225

  2

  1

  1

  3

  36

  267

  1988–89

  248

  3

  4

  0

  0

  206

  461

  1989–90

  360

  2

  2

  0

  0

  86

  450

  1990–91

  3253

  0

  7

  0

  1

  50

  311

  Notes:
  1. NII = Nuclear installations inspectorate.
  2. OS = Offshore.
  1 Includes HSE quarries inspectorate until 1989–90.
  2 Years commencing 1 April from 1986–87 onwards.
  3 Includes HSE quarries inspectorate.

  Earnings
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will show average earnings per week for(a) males, (b) females and (c) in total for (i) manual, (ii) non-manual and (iii) all both (1) with and without overtime and (2) for each region and for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Information for the regions of England and for Wales, Scotland and Great Britain can be found in tables 12, 13 and X5 of the new earnings survey report for 1991. Comparable information for Northern Ireland can be found in table 1 of the new earnings survey (Northern Ireland) report for 1991. Information on the numbers in the sample in each category, to produce combined estimates for the United Kingdom, is in table 24 of the Great Britain report and table 3 of the Northern Ireland report. Copies of both reports are available in the Library.
  496
  Mr. McLaoughlin
  A Summary of the report is available and is in the Library. Further copies are available free of charge from the Health and Safety Executive's office at the National Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh. The report itself is an internal working document and will not be published.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions have been brought under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1976 and associated legislation in Scotland in each year from 1982 to 1991; and how many inspection days it is estimated were saved as a result of all proceedings being conducted by the Crown prosecution service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of complaints brought by the procurator fiscal in the sheriff court in Scotland under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and associated legislation by HSE's inspectorates and by local authorities for the period 1 January 1982 to 31 March 1991 is given in the table. The information required to estimate the figure requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, whether or not an inspector personally conducts proceedings, he or she has to prepare a case and may also appear as a witness.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list, by standard classification, the categories of jobs which are not covered by wage councils and indicate(a) the number of people employed in these jobs both full and part-time and male and female and (b) the average weekly wage before and after overtime for employees in each of their jobs.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I regret that the information requested is not available. The sectors covered by wages councils do not coincide with the categories used in the standard industrial classification (SIC) revised 1980, which is used to compile employment and earnings statistics. It is therefore not possible to identify those employees within SIC categories who are not covered by wages councils. The most recent comprehensive earnings data analysed by SICs are published in the new earnings survey 1991; and
  497
  the latest employment estimates are in the April and May 1991 issues of the Employment Gazette.Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 336, if she will list those chairmen or women of training and enterprise councils who are no longer holding that office; for what length of time chairmen and women are (a) appointed and (b) expected to serve; if any of the ex-chairmen or women are no longer members of the councils' boards; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested on TEC chairmen who no longer hold that office is given in the table. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set down criteria for the appointment of TEC chairmen in the TEC operating agreement.

  The articles of association of each TEC also require them to make provision for the regular retirement and election or re-election of board chairmen. There is no present length of service prescribed for TEC chairmen. This is a matter for each TEC to decide.

  Training and enterprise council

  Chairmen who have left post since the establishment of the TECs

  Continuing as board member(Yes/No)

  AZTEC

  Ed Holloway

  No

  Bedfordshire

  Ian Dixon

  No

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Tony Gartland

  Yes

  CAMBSTEC

  Leszek Jakubowski

  No

  Dorset

  Peter Allsebrook

  No

  Greater Nottingham

  Ian Maclean

  No

  Hampshire

  Martyn Wylie

  No

  HAWTEC

  David Hutchins

  No

  Hertfordshire

  Tony Saint

  Yes

  Leeds

  Sir Gordon Linacre

  No

  Manchester

  Geoffrey Maddrell

  No

  METROTEC (Wigan)

  Paul Sneddon

  No

  North Derbyshire

  Roy Pelham

  Yes

  North Nottinghamshire

  Anthony Darbyshire

  No

  North West London

  Alan Coppin

  Yes

  QUALITEC (St. Helens)

  John Gillespie

  No

  Rotherham

  Ken Knaggs

  No

  Shropshire

  David Houghton

  Yes

  South Derbyshire

  Peter Burden

  Yes

  South Glamorgan

  Roger Helliwell

  Yes

  Stockport and High Peak

  Tom Weatherby

  No

  Teesside

  Peter Kerr

  Yes

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  Tim Evans

  Yes

  Wearside

  Anthony Wood

  Yes

  West Wales

  Peter Allen

  No

  Wovlerhampton

  Roy Carver

  Yes

  Established service display teams

  Display team

  Public performances 1991

  Full cost (FY91/92) £k

  Commercial sponsors

  Royal Navy Historic Flight

  26

  28

  Crane Fruehauf, Leyland DAF, BMW, Martin Dawes Meech & Co.

  Royal Navy Helicopter Display Team (The Sharks)

  42

  139

  Westland Helicopters, Fields Aviation, Smiths Industries, Pussers Rum, Securicor Carlton, Maxon Radios.

  Royal Marines Parachute Display Team

  100

  300

  None.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to compile and release information on likely unemployment rates.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. Macro-economic forecasts are the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it has not been the policy of this or previous Governments to publish forecasts of unemployment.

DEFENCE

  Army Air Corps
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 261, which Army Air Corps regiment will be based at Dishforth, and as part of which divisional and brigade structure; and where the two Army Air Corps regiments to be attached to 24 Airmobile Brigade will be based.

  Mr. Aitken
  Final decisions on these matters have yet to be taken. On present plans, the Dishforth regiment will support the new 3 (UK) Division; and the two regiments attached to 24 Brigade will be deployed along with the rest of the brigade in East Anglia.

  Laid-up Ships
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence where(a) HMS Courageous and (b) HMS Swiftsure are to be defuelled and subsequently laid up.

  Mr. Aitken
  HMS Courageous will be defuelled and stored afloat at Devonport. HMS Swiftsure has already been defuelled at Rosyth and is currently being prepared for storage afloat there.

  Service Display Teams
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those service display teams currently in existence, showing the annual cost to defence funds of each team, the value and source of commercial sponsorship of each such display team, and the number of public engagements in the last full year of their operation.

  Mr. Aitken
  Details of established service display teams are contained in the table. Where costs are not shown, figures are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In addition, individual service units may form their own local display teams, but information on these is also not held centrally. All service personnel associated with military display teams have operational roles. The commercial sponsors listed may provide financial or other assistance, for example, equipment or services. The value of such support is commercially confidential.
  499

  Display team

  Public performances 1991

  Full cost (FY91/92) £k

  Commercial sponsors

  Royal Navy Field Gun Crews (Devonport, Portsmouth and Fleet Air Arm)

  50

  470

  Walls, Hogg Robinson, DML, Legal Protection Group, Taunton Cider.

  Royal Signals Motor Cycle Display Team (The White Helmets)

  87

  —

  Sealink, Ford, Leyland DAF, Dunlop.

  Parachute Regiment Display Team (The Red Devils)

  86

  —

  News International.

  Army Air Corps Historic Flight

  14

  —

  Lynx Removals.

  Army Air Corp Helicopter Display Team (The Eagles)

  36

  —

  None.

  Household Cavalry Musical Ride

  71

  —

  None.

  Kings Troop Royal Horse Artillery Musical Ride

  42

  —

  None.

  Red Arrows

  71

  22,165

  British Aerospace, Breitling, Land Rover, Total Oil, Cellnet, Butget Rent-A-Car.

  Battle of Britain Memorial Flight

  334 (see note 1)

  909

  Rover Cars, Aviation Leathercraft, Rolls Royce British Aerospace, Monarch Airlines, Wickenby Flying Club.

  RAF Falcons Parachute Display Team

  81

  825

  Minolta Cameras, Colab Photographic Processing, Samsonite, Luggage, Sonic Communications, Direct Telecom Services, Air Care.

  RAF Vulcan Display Flight

  33

  292

  Nokia, Henderson Line Rental, Flypast Magazine

  RAF Queen's Colour Squadron

  56

  986

  None.

  RAF Police Dog Demonstration Team

  70

  459

  Spillers.

  Note: Includes solo performances by individual Flight aircraft.

  Croatia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) of 20 May,Official Report, column 185, which nation is providing (a) the helicopter evacuation assets and (b) ground wheeled or tracked transport for the United Kingdom armoured field ambulance in Croatia; and whether he offered to provide appropriate United Kingdom assets for these tasks.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Nations is providing all helicopter evacuation assets. The United Kingdom is providing its own ground wheeled transport for the field ambulance unit. There is no requirement for tracked transport.

  Guards Battalions
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 May,Official Report, column 262, if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans to provide a public duties increment for Guards battalions assigned to public duties, and on the future of the Tower Guard.

  Mr. Aitken
  We aim to ensure that following restructuring the Foot Guards have sufficient manpower to carry out their public duties both at the Tower of London and elsewhere.

  Israel
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received upon the arms embargo against Israel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Nuclear Testing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has received from the United States Department of Energy regarding complaints made at the Department of Energy's public hearing held in Las Vegas on 14 November 1991 on the environmental and radioactive contamination caused by the continued testing of United Kingdom nuclear warheads at the Nevada test site.

  Mr. Aitken
  None.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of all equipment belonging to the United Kingdom armed forces which has been loaned or hired back to the company which produced it for display at military exhibitions or other sales promotion purposes in the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is not held centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each type of aircraft, the numbers sold abroad in each of the last 10 years and to which country or region of the world.

  Mr. Aitken
  A breakdown of the total value of defence exports by geographical region between 1985 and 1990 is given in the "Statement of Defence Estimates 1991", volume 2, table 2.7. The full information which the hon. Member requests could not be released, as details of particular defence sales are frequently subject to confidentiality agreements at the request of the recipient Government.

  Menwith Hill
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the agreements governing the use of Menwith Hill by the National Security Agency of the United States of America.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The use of Menwith Hill by the United States Department of Defence is subject to confidential arrangements between the United Kingdom and United States Government.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations have been held with British Telecom Ltd. regarding the extensions at Menwith Hill near Harrogate; what additional cables have been provided from Hunterstones tower; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no knowledge of any consultation with British Telecom regarding extensions at Menwith Hill nor work to lay additional cables from Hunterstones tower to Menwith Hill.

  RAF Wyton
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size and description of accommodation at RAF Wyton, Cambridgeshire, to which the Support Management Group and logistics units may be relocated under present proposals.

  Mr. Aitken
  RAF Wyton offers 7,700 sq m of accommodation suitable for conversion to offices, together with all the normal support facilities expected of an established RAF station. In addition, Wyton can provide all the married and single accommodation which would be required by the support management group.

  Army Apprentices
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the size and description of accommodation at the Army apprentices college, near Harrogate, that will be unused after the transfer of a junior leaders regiment to the college following the relocation of the Army apprentices.

  Mr. Aitken
  No accommodation at the Army apprentices college Harrogate will be unused following the relocation of the Army apprentices.

  Model Tanks
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what security measures have been taken to protect his Department's model tanks used for target practice exercises by the Royal Air Force; how many such model tanks have been lost or stolen during exercises in Wales in the current year; and what is the cost of purchasing such tanks for his Department.

  Mr. Aitken
  During the current year a total of three inflatable tanks have been lost or stolen during exercises in Wales. The sites for the tanks are carefully chosen, with a view to minimising visibility from public places. It is not feasible individually to guard each tank. The total replacement value of the three items is £26,682.

  Survival Clothing
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the survival time during winter months of aircrew wearing survival clothing and non-aircrew without service issue survival clothing, who, as the result of an accident, end up immersed in the North sea 20 to 50 miles east of the River Tay estuary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The survival of a person in the North sea depends on a number of factors, including the tolerance of the person concerned to the environment and the prevailing weather conditions.

  In providing search and rescue cover, both the Department of Transport and Ministry of Defence assume a maximum survival time of two hours in the North sea. We do not make separate assessments of the effects of wearing specialist survival clothing.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the survival time during winter months of aircrew wearing survival clothing and non-aircrew without service issue survival clothing, who, as the result of an accident, are left stranded during winter months in the Grampian mountains of Tayside, Central or Grampian regions.

  Mr. Aitken
  The survival of a person in mountainous areas depends on a number of factors covering equipment, the tolerance of the person concerned to the environment, and the prevailing weather conditions.

  It is assessed that the rescue of personnel on land needs to be accomplished, where possible, within four hours. No separate assessment is made for the effects of specialist clothing.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the base facility for search and rescue helicopters at RAF Leuchars was designed to accommodate Sea King helicopters; and what was the contribution of NATO to its construction.

  Mr. Aitken
  The base facility at RAF Leuchars is of a standard SAR design capable of supporting a number of helicopter types, including Sea Kings. The original SAR facility was demolished to make way for other NATO dedicated facilities. NATO funded 97 per cent. of the construction costs of the current facility.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the time taken by a search and sea rescue helicopter to reach the position of an accident of incident in the North sea 20 to 50 miles east of the River Tay estuary following receipt of notification of the emergency, for aircraft based at either Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars, Bulmar or Prestwick; and how the flight time is affected by easterly gale force winds of 50 mph, 60 mph or 70 mph.

  Mr. Aitken
  After take-off, the time taken, in minutes, to reach the point 20 miles east of the River Tay estuary is:

  Aircraft Base

  Still Air

  Easterly Wind Speed (mph)1

  50

  60

  70

  Lossiemouth

  47

  74

  83

  95

  Kinloss

  47

  74

  83

  95

  Leuchars

  13

  24

  29

  38

  503

  Aircraft Base

  Still Air

  Easterly Wind Speed (mph)1

  50

  60

  70

  Boulmer

  38

  38

  38

  38

  Prestwick

  55

  86

  97

  111

  1 The highest hourly wind speed at RAF Leuchars since 1970 is 47 knots.

  Time taken, in minutes, to reach the point 50 miles east of the River Tay estuary is:

  Aircraft Base

  Still Air

  Easterly Wind Speed1

  50

  60

  70

  Lossiemouth

  57

  89

  100

  114

  Kinloss

  58

  91

  102

  116

  Leuchars

  29

  56

  68

  87

  Boulmer

  36

  36

  36

  36

  Prestwick

  70

  109

  123

  141

  1 The highest hourly wind speed recorded at RAF Leuchars since 1970 is 47 knots.

  Any easterly wind will, of course, benefit the flight times for aircraft from Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars and Prestwick on their return journey.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the time taken by a search and sea rescue helicopter to reach the ski slopes of Glenshee following receipt of notification of an accident for helicopters based at either Lossiemouth, Kinloss, Leuchars, Boulmer or Prestwick; and how the flight time is affected by easterly gale force winds of 50 mph, 60 mph or 70 mph.

  Mr. Aitken
  Helicopter flight in mountainous regions during high winds is extremely hazardous and would be contemplated only in the most serious of circumstances.

  After take-off, the time taken, in minutes to reach the ski slopes of Glenshee following notification of an incident is:

  Aircraft Base

  Still Air

  Easterly Wind Speed1

  50

  60

  70

  Lossiemouth

  28

  28

  28

  28

  Kinloss

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Leuchars

  20

  16

  16

  15

  Boulmer

  62

  49

  48

  46

  Prestwick

  62

  68

  73

  78

  1 The highest hourly wind speed recorded at RAF Leuchars since 1970 is 47 knots.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he can give details of the number of rescue missions carried out by search and rescue helicopters during winter months in the Grampian mountains of Tayside, Central and Grampian regions during the last 10 years; and from which base the helicopters left to carry out the missions.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has not been possible to separate the Tayside region from the Central and Grampian regions. Information on rescues carried out before 1983 is unavailable.
  504

  Rescues carried out in the Central region from RAF Lossiemouth

  Year

  Total number of call-outs

  Number of rescue operations undertaken

  Number of people rescued

  1983–84

  1

  1

  1

  1984–85

  0

  0

  0

  1985–86

  0

  0

  0

  1986–87

  0

  0

  0

  1987–88

  0

  0

  0

  1988–89

  1

  0

  0

  1989–90

  1

  0

  0

  1990–91

  0

  0

  0

  1991–92

  1

  0

  0

  Rescues carried out in the Central region from RAF Leuchars

  Year

  Total number of call-outs

  Number of rescue operations undertaken

  Number of people rescued

  1983–84

  5

  3

  4

  1984–85

  1

  1

  1

  1985–86

  3

  1

  1

  1986–87

  1

  0

  0

  1987–88

  1

  1

  1

  1988–89

  1

  1

  1

  1989–90

  3

  0

  0

  1990–91

  6

  5

  6

  1991–92

  6

  2

  2

  Rescues carried out in the Central region from Prestwick:

  Year

  Total number of call-outs

  Number of rescue operations undertaken

  Number of people rescued

  1983–84

  3

  3

  3

  1984–85

  1

  0

  0

  1985–86

  0

  0

  0

  1986–87

  5

  3

  4

  1987–88

  2

  1

  1

  1988–89

  2

  1

  2

  1989–90

  7

  2

  3

  1990–91

  4

  1

  1

  1991–92

  4

  0

  0

  No other SAR flights were involved in mountain rescue in the Central region.

  Rescues carried out in the Grampian region from RAF Lossiemouth:

  Year

  Total number of call-outs

  Number of rescue operations undertaken

  Number of people rescued

  1983–84

  21

  6

  14

  1984–85

  11

  6

  9

  1985–86

  8

  7

  8

  1986–87

  13

  8

  10

  1987–88

  14

  2

  4

  1988–89

  13

  6

  12

  1989–90

  14

  9

  11

  1990–91

  22

  9

  12

  1991–92

  13

  8

  12

  505

  Rescues carried out in the Grampian region from RAF Leuchars:

  Year

  Total number of call-outs

  Number of rescue operations undertaken

  Number of people rescued

  1983–84

  17

  7

  17

  1984–85

  8

  4

  5

  1985–86

  6

  5

  5

  1986–87

  6

  5

  6

  1987–88

  3

  0

  0

  1988–89

  6

  4

  12

  1989–90

  7

  1

  2

  1990–91

  9

  5

  5

  1991–92

  8

  5

  6

  In addition, the Royal Navy helicopters based at Prestwick undertook two rescue missions, saving three people in 1983–84.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rescue missions were carried out by search and rescue helicopters during the winter months in the River Tax estuary, and in the North sea up to 100 miles east of the estuary, during the past 10 years; and if he will detail from which base the helicopters left to carry out the missions.

  Mr. Aitken
  The available information, which covers the periods October to March for the years 1983 to 1992, is as follows.

  Year

  Total number of call-outs

  Number of rescue operations undertaken

  Number of people rescued

  1983–84

  5

  4

  5

  1984–85

  8

  7

  19

  1985–86

  3

  0

  0

  1986–87

  2

  1

  1

  1987–88

  5

  1

  5

  1988–89

  5

  2

  3

  1989–90

  6

  2

  2

  1990–91

  4

  1

  1

  1991–92

  5

  2

  5

  Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital.

  Mr. Aitken
  Future requirements for medical support to the armed forces, including the provision of service hospitals, are being reviewed.

SCOTLAND

  Quarrying
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state his policy toward the creation of coastal super-quarries in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  National planning guidelines on the working of aggregates were issued in 1977. These guidelines, which are still extant, acknowledge the economic potential of coastal super-quarry developments and suggest that they could, in principle, be acceptable if damage to the environment is minimised through careful 506
  choice of location and detailed site proposals. These guidelines, along with others, are under review in accordance with a commitment given in the Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200). A draft national planning policy guideline on "Land for Mineral Working" is to be issued for consultation shortly.

  Within the national policy framework it is important that development proposals are considered in the context of up-to-date development plans. These should be prepared by planning authorities in full consultation with the local community and should have regard to the economic needs and environmental considerations of their area. Where the planning authority considers that a development such as a coastal super-quarry is likely to have a significant environmental effect, a formal environmental assessment must be prepared, in accordance with Government guidance issued in 1988.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the hospitals in Scotland which had consultant obstetric or general practitioner maternity beds in 1990–91, and give the number of each type in each hospital.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: The information requested is given in the table:

  NHS hospitals in Scotland: Average available staffed beds in obstetrics by hospital at 31 March 1991.

  Average available staffed beds

  Hospital

  Specialist obstetrics

  GP obstetrics

  Calton, Campbeltown

  —

  8

  Dunoon and District General

  —

  8

  Islay, Bowmore

  —

  3

  Mid Argyll, Lochgilphead

  —

  3

  Oban Maternity

  —

  6

  Rankin Memorial, Greenock

  38

  —

  Royal Alexandra, Paisley

  70

  —

  Vale of Leven District General, Alexandria

  33

  —

  Victoria, Rothesay

  —

  3

  Ayrshire Central, Irvine

  140

  —

  Davidson Cottage, Girvan

  —

  2

  Isle of Arran War Memorial

  —

  4

  Thornyflat Maternity, Ayr

  —

  18

  Borders General, Melrose

  35

  —

  Cresswell Maternity, Dumfries

  45

  —

  Dalrymple, Stranraer

  —

  9

  Dunfermline Maternity

  37

  —

  Forth Park Maternity, Kirkcaldy

  86

  —

  West Fife District General

  7

  —

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  53

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  54

  —

  Aberdeen Maternity

  112

  —

  Chalmers, Banff

  —

  10

  Fraserburgh

  —

  8

  Insch and District War Memorial

  —

  4

  Jubilee, Huntly

  —

  7

  Kincardine O'Neil, Torphins

  —

  9

  Leanchoil, Forres

  —

  6

  Maryhill Maternity, Elgin

  —

  13

  Peterhead Cottage

  —

  10

  Seafield, Buckie

  —

  6

  Summerfield Mat, Aberdeen

  30

  —

  507

  Average available staffed beds

  Hospital

  Specialist obstetrics

  GP obstetrics

  Turner Memorial, Keith

  —

  3

  Glasgow Royal Maternity

  92

  —

  Queen Mother's, Yorkhill

  99

  —

  Rutherglen Maternity

  82

  —

  Southern General, Glasgow

  72

  —

  Stobhill General, Glasgow

  46

  —

  Belford, Fort William

  —

  7

  Caithness General, Wick

  15

  —

  Mackinnon Memorial, Skye

  —

  1

  Portree, Skye

  —

  1

  Raigmore, Inverness

  72

  —

  Town and County, Nairn

  7

  —

  Bellshill Maternity

  112

  —

  Wm. Smellie Mat, Lanark

  50

  —

  Eastern General, Edinburgh

  48

  —

  Simpson M. M. P., Edinburgh

  125

  —

  St. John's, Livingston

  50

  —

  Western General, Edinburgh

  37

  —

  Balfour, Kirkwall

  —

  8

  Gilbert Bain, Lerwick

  —

  10

  Arbroath Infirmary

  —

  14

  Blairgowrie Cottage

  —

  2

  Fyfe Jamieson Mat, Forfar

  —

  10

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  —

  8

  Ninewells, Dundee

  98

  —

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  AEF at 1990–91 prices

  AEF per capita

  AEF at 1990–91 prices

  AEF per capita

  AEF at 1990–91 prices

  AEF per capita

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Berwickshire

  1,243,000

  65.86

  1,746,010

  92.38

  1,794,929

  94.12

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2,308,000

  68.29

  3,234,050

  95.32

  3,239,279

  94.52

  Roxburgh

  2,750,000

  78.44

  3,578,449

  102.56

  3,507,579

  100.25

  Tweeddale

  1,017,000

  68.43

  1,428,850

  95.38

  1,434,512

  94.56

  Clackmannan

  4,105,000

  87.02

  5,577,150

  118.24

  5,959,844

  125.55

  Falkirk

  12,063,000

  84.24

  14,958,604

  104.55

  15,881,590

  110.85

  Stirling

  8,865,000

  109.24

  10,428,208

  128.49

  11,100,478

  136.44

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2,246,000

  61.68

  3,056,249

  84.10

  3,076,510

  84.10

  Nithsdale

  3,810,000

  66.39

  5,081,068

  88.27

  5,541,296

  95.84

  Stewartry

  1,304,000

  55.79

  1,957,669

  84.13

  1,932,657

  82.17

  Wigtown

  2,153,000

  71.04

  2,956,476

  97.16

  3,053,258

  100.17

  Dunfermline

  10,103,000

  78.04

  13,129,575

  101.13

  13,974,869

  107.57

  Kirkcaldy

  11,065,000

  75.08

  14,203,738

  96.82

  15,359,299

  104.44

  North East Fife

  5,374,000

  79.18

  7,216,822

  105.73

  7,714,528

  111.93

  Aberdeen City

  23,628,000

  111.88

  28,027,103

  133.02

  28,861,065

  136.73

  Banff and Buchan

  6,545,000

  78.19

  8,171,228

  96.82

  8,523,007

  100.25

  Gordon

  4,999,000

  68.94

  6,945,600

  93.69

  7,295,086

  97.79

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3,495,000

  71.46

  4,398,350

  88.28

  4,668,426

  91.68

  Moray

  6,399,000

  75.22

  8,154,754

  96.56

  9,055,136

  107.19

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  766,000

  70.88

  1,108,785

  101.91

  1,049,949

  93.83

  Caithness

  2,037,000

  75.17

  2,660,160

  100.16

  2,704,467

  100.95

  Inverness

  4,630,000

  74.98

  5,779,947

  92.85

  5,799,759

  91.93

  Lochaber

  1,894,000

  98.75

  2,444,587

  127.92

  2,385,190

  125.34

  Nairn

  749,000

  72.38

  929,193

  90.74

  944,417

  90.64

  Ross and Cromarty

  5,101,000

  105.83

  6,258,336

  129.55

  6,475,875

  132.40

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1,160,000

  101.44

  1,811,497

  156.30

  1,832,491

  155.03

  Sutherland

  1,577,000

  120.86

  1,645,496

  126.97

  1,709,073

  130.96

  East Lothain

  7,095,000

  85.76

  9,648,832

  114.69

  10,310,781

  120.62

  Edinburgh City

  48,336,000

  111.51

  63,089,374

  145.64

  67,194,920

  154.64

  Midlothian

  6,852,000

  84.24

  8,032,777

  99.45

  8,792,201

  108.13

  West Lothian

  10,994,000

  76.54

  14,477,036

  99,98

  16,137,370

  108.82

  Argyll and Bute

  7,386,000

  111.92

  10,838,337

  163.33

  11,424,228

  172.70

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  3,093,000

  76.59

  3,987,536

  97.93

  4,158,655

  101.68

  Clydebank

  6,837,000

  143.15

  7,215,249

  152.93

  7,350,534

  156.66

  Clydesdale

  4,834,000

  82.88

  6,326,764

  108.26

  6,696,776

  114.36

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  4,892,000

  78.29

  5,900,728

  93.92

  6,329,204

  100.30

  508

  Average available staffed beds

  Hospital

  Specialist obstetrics

  GP obstetrics

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  42

  —

  Daliburgh, South Uist

  —

  3

  Lewis, Stornoway

  13

  —

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of aggregate external finance allocated to(a) the general revenue account and (b) the general services capital programme for each district council expressed in (i) real terms and (ii) on a per capita basis for each financial year since 1987–88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: Since 1990–91, local authority current expenditure has been supported by aggregate external finance (AEF) which consists of non-domestic rate income (NDRI), revenue support grant (RSG) and specific grants. The NDRI and RSG components are neither hypothecated to particular services nor to loan charges on these services arising from outstanding capital debt. The general services capital programme is not part of AEF.

  The total AEF, since its introduction, for each district authority, in (i) real and (ii) per capita terms is given in the table.
  509

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  AEF at 1990–91 prices

  AEF per capita

  AEF at 1990–91 prices

  AEF per capita

  AEF at 1990–91 prices

  AEF per capita

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3,770,000

  87.46

  4,679,439

  108.80

  4,916,156

  114.25

  Cunninghame

  13,879,000

  101.24

  16,044,366

  116.97

  17,406,430

  126.56

  Dumbarton

  7,115,000

  88.53

  8,254,136

  103.31

  9,115,950

  114.31

  East Kilbride

  5,392,000

  66.01

  6,708,466

  81.48

  7,219,067

  86.91

  Eastwood

  3,599,000

  61.30

  5,058,516

  83.96

  5,169,253

  84.73

  Glasgow City

  132,331,000

  188.19

  138,058,582

  198.47

  139,244,287

  202.03

  Hamilton

  9,402,000

  87.87

  11,639,279

  108.51

  12,351,652

  115.91

  Inverclyde

  10,065,000

  105.73

  11,704,978

  124.03

  12,413,361

  132.81

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  6,930,000

  85.51

  8,147,664

  100.55

  8,625,855

  106.35

  Kyle and Carrick

  10,004,000

  88.37

  12,045,450

  106.32

  12,833,699

  112.84

  Monklands

  11,038,000

  105.31

  13,815,041

  131.95

  14,998,882

  143.58

  Motherwell

  14,422,000

  98.25

  17,398,097

  118.56

  18,872,244

  128.59

  Renfrew

  19,221,000

  95.91

  23,980,193

  119.56

  25,310,558

  125.90

  Strathkelvin

  8,015,000

  89.86

  9,669,953

  108.14

  9,706,211

  108.26

  Angus

  6,977,000

  73.58

  9,156,916

  96.31

  9,579,216

  100.44

  Dundee City

  19,571,000

  112.31

  24,749,550

  143.44

  26,241,560

  151.81

  Perth and Kinross

  10,694,000

  85.78

  13,258,095

  106.17

  13,563,475

  107.84

  Note:

  1. 1990–91 prices calculated using the GDP deflator.

  2. AEF per capita calculated using the Registrar General for Scotland's mid-year estimates of total population.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing(a)the number of non-tolerable houses and (b) the proportion that this represents of the total housing stock in terms of (i) council stock, (ii) Scottish Homes stock, (iii) housing association stock, (iv) private-rented stock and (v) owner-occupied stock in (1) Scotland, (2) Strathclyde region, (3) Renfrew district, (4) Paisley, (5) Johnstone and (6) Elderslie; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing his most recent estimate of (a) the amount and (b) the percentage of housing stock below tolerable standard in (i) Renfrew district, (ii) Strathclyde region and (iii) Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The latest available estimates supplied by housing authorities of the number of dwellings below tolerable standard are given in the table. Information is held centrally only for Scotland as a whole, regions and districts.

  Estimates for March 1991 and March 1992, based on a revised and improved annual return for housing authorities, will be published in the autumn.

  Estimated number of dwellings below the tolerable standard—March 1990

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  Renfrew

  Total

  80,993

  48,518

  1,110

  Public authorities

  22,561

  21,922

  171

  Private sector and housing associations

  46,547

  17,359

  939

  of which:

  Housing associations

  504

  469

  88

  Private sector1

  46,043

  16,890

  851

  Ownership not known

  11,885

  9,237

  0

  510

  BTS dwellings as a percentage of all dwellings by ownership2

  Scotland

  Strathclyde

  Renfrew

  All dwellings

  3.9

  5.2

  1.4

  Public authorities3

  2.4

  4.4

  0.4

  Private sector and housing associations3

  4.0

  4.0

  2.4

  1 Many authorities could not separately identify owner occupied from privately rented.

  2 Percentages based on number of domestic subjects on valuation roll at 31 March 1989.

  3 Percentages by ownership exclude those dwellings where ownership is unknown.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish a table showing the(a) gross and (b) net capital allocation in outturn figures for local authority housing in each Scottish district council, expressed as a cost per dwelling unit; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) if he will publish a table showing the (a) gross and (b) net housing revenue allocation in outturn figures for local authority housing in each district council, expressed as a cost per dwelling unit; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The gross and net forecast capital expenditure outturn figures for 1991–92 on the HRA block for each district council in Scotland, expressed as a cost per council house are set out in the table. The figures include, where appropriate, expenditure in the four urban partnerships and also on the homelessness and energy efficiency projects for which we made available additional resources last year. Final outturn figures for 1991–92 are not available until later in the year.

  Forecast housing capital outturn per local authority dwelling 1991–92

  Authority

  Forecast gross outturn

  Forecast net outturn

  £

  £

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  413

  36

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  497

  215

  Roxburgh

  708

  410

  Tweeddale

  408

  109

  511

  Authority

  Forecast gross outturn

  Forecast net outturn

  £

  £

  Central

  Clackmannan

  553

  225

  Falkirk

  668

  233

  Stirling

  784

  313

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  823

  455

  Nithsdale

  743

  417

  Stewartry

  859

  408

  Wigtown

  841

  496

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  603

  211

  Kirkcaldy

  494

  127

  North East Fife

  634

  34

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  465

  166

  Banff and Buchan

  510

  100

  Gordon

  1,300

  775

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1,202

  771

  Moray

  603

  161

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  1,388

  860

  Caithness

  721

  566

  Inverness

  896

  491

  Lochaber

  1,231

  727

  Nairn

  1,070

  656

  Ross and Cromarty

  1,049

  611

  Skye and Lochalsh

  2,268

  1,731

  Sutherland

  1,200

  777

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  669

  109

  Edinburgh

  851

  346

  Midlothian

  575

  123

  West Lothian

  455

  96

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  711

  179

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  843

  152

  Clydebank

  762

  261

  Clydesdale

  500

  231

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  473

  85

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  325

  113

  Cunninghame

  530

  208

  Dumbarton

  778

  488

  Constant prices—£ million

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  ESF1 2

  4—

  4—

  4—

  15.2

  16.1

  17.6

  19.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.4

  11.0

  12.0

  13.9

  3—

  ERDF1

  93.0

  95.0

  68.0

  84.0

  116.5

  73.5

  68.1

  —

  —

  33.8

  46.4

  49.0

  53.7

  50.0

  44.5

  3—

  RENAVAL Strathclyde

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  66.8

  2.2

  6.0

  —

  RENAVAL Fife

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  60.2

  1.2

  0.9

  —

  RECHAR West

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  61.5

  1.3

  0.5

  RECHAR East

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  63.2

  4.3

  3.2

  —

  LEADER

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  74.7

  7—

  7—

  —

  PERIFRA

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  70.9

  7—

  7—

  —

  EAGGF

  19.5

  18.2

  15.9

  18.5

  821.9

  822.0

  819.8

  —

  1 Scottish objective 2 and 5b programmes.

  2 Figures for objectives 3 and 4 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  3 Of which SIDO—Strathclyde Integrated Development Operation.

  4 Not available—ESF figures not held on a regional basis before 1990.

  5 Not applicable.

  6 1990 and 1991 combined.
  512

  Authority

  Forecast gross outturn

  Forecast net outturn £

  £

  £

  East Kilbride

  943

  357

  Eastwood

  694

  436

  Glasgow

  689

  395

  Hamilton

  530

  145

  Inverclyde

  480

  271

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  514

  220

  Kyle and Carrick

  514

  130

  Monklands

  551

  207

  Motherwell

  567

  269

  Renfrew

  570

  210

  Strathkelvin

  656

  210

  Tayside

  Angus

  464

  123

  Dundee

  610

  215

  Perth and Kinross

  548

  75

  Islands areas

  Orkney

  514

  -1,176

  Shetland

  2,052

  1,790

  Western Isles

  1,562

  1,230

  EC Funds
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing in cash and constant terms the amount of moneys allocated by the European Community to projects within Scotland from(a) the social fund, (b) the regional development fund, (c) RENAVAL, (d) RECHAR and (e) other EC funds in each year since 1987; if he will relate any moneys allocated to the Strathclyde integrated development operation to these figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The European Commission allocates moneys in ecu on a programme basis. Local partnership committees decide on the allocations of funds to projects within each programme. Each calendar year the Commission applies indexation or inflation rates to awards which are made at constant prices. The available information is set out in the table. There are other EC funds which are of benefit to Scotland but figures for these are not held centrally.
  513
  7 Moneys allocated over the calendar years 1991–93 with no yearly split.

  8 Estimate by fiscal year.

  Note: Figures provided are in constant terms; receipts will take account of the deflator, and exchange rate at the appropriate time.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on how the Scottish Office's interpretation and application of the additionality principle in relation to European funding has varied since 1987.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: There was no change in the Scottish Office policy towards additionality from 1987 until 17 February this year, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that in future published expenditure plans would show forecast receipts separately for each expenditure progamme.

  Water Rates
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing average water rates in Scotland in each year since 1979 in cash and constant prices.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: Due to revisions in rateable values and in the method of water charging, water rates in Scotland cannot be compared over the period in question. However, the average household water bills and metered water charges are estimated as follows:

  Year

  Average household water bill

  Average metered water charge

  Cash prices (£ per year)

  1992 prices (£ per year)

  Cash prices (pence per cubic metre)

  1992 prices (pence per cubic metre)

  1979–80

  15.4

  37.9

  8.3

  20.5

  1980–81

  19.4

  40.5

  10.0

  20.9

  1981–82

  25.6

  47.7

  11.9

  22.1

  1982–83

  29.5

  50.6

  13.8

  23.6

  1983–84

  27.8

  45.6

  13.8

  22.6

  1984–85

  29.8

  46.7

  14.7

  23.0

  1985–86

  32.8

  48.3

  15.3

  22.5

  1986–87

  31.8

  45.3

  16.3

  23.2

  1987–88

  36.6

  50.0

  17.2

  23.5

  1988–89

  36.6

  47.6

  18.2

  23.6

  1989–90

  38.2

  46.1

  28.4

  34.4

  1990–91

  41.5

  45.8

  30.9

  34.1

  1991–92

  50.9

  53.1

  35.0

  36.5

  1992–93

  58.4

  58.4

  37.3

  37.3

  Until 1989, metered consumers also contributed through the public water rate.

  Inverclyde Enterprise Zone
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Inverclyde enterprise zone will cease to exist; what is the current estimate of jobs likely to be created before the expiry date of the zone; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The 10-year lifespan of the Inverclyde enterprise zone will end on 2 March 1999. At designation, we estimated 3,200 new jobs for the area and this has not changed.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the companies which established themselves within the Inverclyde enterprise zone since its inception; and if he will make a statement.
  514
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The following companies are presently on the Inverclyde enterprise zone:

  Cigna

  Norma Scotland

  Checkpoint Clothing

  Riskend Readymix

  Drummond Packaging

  Anaplast

  Ian's Grill and Takeaway

  A1 Installations

  Fairway Leisure

  Tryrare Ltd.

  The Sign Factory

  Rae and Partners

  Britannia Life

  Massily Logan

  C. R. Smith

  Gravel Dry Dock Company

  Mineba

  East End Bakeries

  Lost Wax Casting

  S. and A. Seafoods

  Auto Tec Lucas Ignition Centre

  Puffer Holdings

  Accurate Armour

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the total number of jobs created in the Inverclyde enterprise zone since its inception; if he will break these down by way of managerial, clerical, supervisory, skilled manual, semi-skilled manual, unskilled manual and male and female employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The total number of jobs in the Inverclyde enterprise zone is now 1,000. Information on the breakdown of these jobs into the categories requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only by approaching the individual firms in the zone.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions he has taken action against companies located in the Inverclyde enterprise zone because of serious reductions in employment; if this action involved the triggering of clawback arrangement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  It has not been necessary to take action against any company in the Inverclyde enterprise zone because they have suffered serious reductions in employment.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of those on employment training in Scotland are on placement with(a) private employers, (b) local authorites or other public bodies and (c) voluntary organisations.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  In Scotland responsibility for monitoring the delivery of employment training rests with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these two bodies to write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested.

  Inverpolly Estate, Wester Ross
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to maintain the national nature reserve status of Inverpolly estate, Wester Ross; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 22 May 1992]: I understand that Scottish Natural Heritage is in discussion with the estate with a view to the re-establishment of a national nature reserve agreement for that part of the reserve within the estate's ownership. The original agreement expired in 1986 although a five-year extension was arranged. The area owned by the estate is also protected as a site of special scientific interest.

  Scottish Co-operative Development Company
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Co-operative Development Company; what matters he expects to discuss; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: I plan to meet representatives of the Scottish Co-operatives Development Company Ltd. in the near future.

  I discussed the company's general aims and objectives together with current projects including the co-operative proposed by the workers formerly employed by Armitage Shanks in Barrhead.

  Under-fives Education
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development of pre-five education in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: It is for local authorities to decide on the extent and nature of the pre-school education they provide having regard to available resources, local circumstances and competing priorities. The number of children attending local authority nursery schools in Scotland has risen from 31,700 in 1979 to 45,238 in 1991, an increase of 42 per cent. Over the same period local authority net current expenditure on nursery education increased from £12 million to £45 million.

  Provision of pre-five education also extends to day care, which can be provided in a number of ways—at day nurseries, with child-minders or at play-groups. Day care provision has been growing steadily in recent years and, in recognition of this, in March this year the Government provided £0.5 million of special support for an initiative designed to improve the quality and educational content of day care services.

  Scotland Europa
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the establishment of Scotland Europa; what is its annual budget; how many staff it is envisaged that it will employ(a) in Scotland, (b) in Strasbourg, (c) in Luxembourg, (d) in Brussels, (e) in London and (f) elsewhere in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; what aims and objectives he has set it; what measurement techniques and criteria he will use to assess its performance; how he will hold it accountable in the public interest; and what plans he has to develop the concept further.
  516
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: My right hon. Friend was delighted to be able to be present at the launch of Scotland Europa in Brussels on 26 May. Scotland Europa has been set up as a subsidiary of Scottish Enterprise to provide a representative centre for Scottish organisations in Brussels. Clients who use Scotland Europa's services will be able to obtain early and accurate information about developments in Community policies and to develop better access to the Commission and contacts within other member states. The benefits for Scotland will include a strengthening of Scottish involvement in Community programmes, and the raising of Scotland's profile as a region within Europe.

  My right hon. Friend and I have been most impressed by the enthusiasm with which Scottish organisations both public and private have welcomed the initiative. This enthusiasm augurs well for Scotland Europa's future success.

  Budgetary, staffing, monitoring and other administrative arrangements are matters for Scottish Enterprise, and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Arts and Broadcasting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Office's relationship with the Department of National Heritage as regards the arts and broadcasting in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The Secretary of State's responsibilities in the arts and broadcasting fields are not affected by the creation of the Department of National Heritage. He continues to be responsible for support of the cultural heritage of Scotland through his funding of the national institutions—the national galleries, library and museums of Scotland—the Scottish Museums Council, the Scottish Film Council and a number of Gaelic and other bodies. He is not responsible for support of the live and performing arts in Scotland; this function rests with the Secretary of State for the National Heritage. As regards broadcasting, the Secretary of State for Scotland's main responsibility is for the funding of Gaelic television. The Scottish Office will liaise with the Department of National Heritage in the same way as it did with the Departments previously responsible for the transferred functions.

  Councillors' Allowances
  Mr. McMasters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the standard allowance payable to local authority members in each(a) district and (b) regional authority in Scotland and the amount of special responsibility allowance allocated to each authority.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The Scottish Office environment department does not hold details of the allowances paid to individual local authority members. Each authority decides on its own arrangements within the requirements of the Local Authorities Etc. (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (as amended).

  Steel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the contacts between the Scottish Development Agency and the NUCOR Corporation relating to steel production in Scotland.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: Scottish Enterprise, replaced the Scottish development agency on 1 April 1991. My Department, in co-operation with Scottish Enterprise, remains in contact with NUCOR regarding its possible interest in locating in Scotland. The decision is one for NUCOR to take, but naturally we would welcome any proposals which would lead to the continuation of steelmaking in Scotland.

  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the individual property assets held by East Kilbride development corporation in the value range £250,000 to £4 million.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 8 June 1992]: It would be inappropriate to disclose the information requested as it is commercially confidential.

  Advertising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, columns 598-600, if he will give the total 1992–93 budget for the Scottish Office for spending on advertising and other promotional material.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The allocation for expenditure on information publicity and other promotional material in 1992–93 is £3.7 million.

  Youth Training
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many youth training places are available to unemployed youths in Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis. However, a special exercise conducted by Enterprise Ayrshire on 14 May 1992 identified 545 youth training vacancies in Ayrshire.

  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 16 and 17-year-olds are unemployed in Kilmarnock and Loudoun; and how many of them have been offered a youth training place.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 12 June 1992]: In the area covered by the Strathclyde education authority careers office in Kilmarnock, which corresponds with the Kilmarnock and Loudoun district, there were 208 young people aged under 18 years registered as unemployed as at 9 April 1992, the latest date for which figures are available. Information about how many of these young people have either sought or been offered a youth training place is not available centrally. However, Enterprise Ayrshire has confirmed that the youth training guarantee is being met in its area.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who is the Minister responsible for considering the environmental implications of all of his Department's policies; when that person was appointed; what actions his Department has taken since the appointment of a responsible Minister; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Island Patients
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate his Department has made of the annual cost of introducing financial support for patients on non-doctored islands travelling to primary health care practitioners for treatment.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 15 June 1992]: The costs of introducing a scheme to cover the cost of travelling for treatment to primary health care practitioners would vary according to its range and coverage, £400,000 and £1,200,000 per annum. As my right hon. and learned Friend Lord Fraser of Carmylie stated in his letter of 6 May to the hon. Member, there is however no immediate prospect of introducing a financial support scheme of this sort.

  Shellfish Fanning
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum of money has been made available by his Department to meet the costs of hygiene testing at or near shellfish farming sites in pursuance of EC directive 492.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The testing and analysis of shellfish flesh to meet the classification requirements of EC directive 91/492 is being carried out by my Department's marine laboratory in Aberdeen. Additional resources have been provided to the laboratory for what constitutes the major part of the classification exercise. The collection and transmission of the necessary shellfish samples, which are being provided by the growers, is being carried out be environmental health authorities.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to make appointments to or dismissals from the board of Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 June 1992]: The current term of appointment for five of the nine appointed Scottish Homes Board members expires on 31 March 1993. A sixth appointment will expire on 30 September 1993. Re-appointments or new appointments will be considered by my right hon. Friend in terms of the most effective mix of expertise required in the future by Scottish Homes.

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

Psychiatric Patients: Care in the Community
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will fulfil the requirement for the Secretary of State for Health to be satisfied that suitable accommodation and daytime occupation is available in time to provide for the thousands of psychiatric patients currently in the 43 hospitals which are expected to close during the next five years.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said on 8th June, our primary aim is not the closure of mental hospitals but the provision of better care for people with mental health problems. Ministers will not approve the closure of any mental hospital unless it can be demonstrated that adequate alternatives have been developed in the community; hence the care programme approach.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. But is she aware that in the 1980s the numbers of day centre places for the mentally ill increased from 5,000 to 7,000, an increase of 2,000? Is she further aware that in that same period some 25,000 beds were shut down in hospitals? Does she agree that, bearing in mind the great discrepancy, if 43 hospitals are closed in the next five years, it is extremely unlikely that the aims she mentioned in her Answer will be achieved?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the figures quoted by my noble friend tell only part of the story. They relate only to long-stay beds. Approximately 40 per cent. of long-stay patients do not move out of National Health Service care. Total day care provision rose by 116 per cent. to 15,100 places in 1991.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House the procedure by which the Department of Health will decide whether the accommodation in the community is adequate? Bearing in mind the Statement made by her fellow Minister yesterday that local authorities will not know what funds are available until November, and bearing in mind also the great reluctance of private sector providers of accommodation to take the severely mentally ill, how will the department determine whether a hospital should be closed and whether it is satisfied with the accommodation that is provisionally made available by the local authorities?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe I gave the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's question when I said that nobody will leave. Hospitals will not close until we are sure that adequate care is provided for those who come into the community. As well as retaining in-patient facilities in district general hospitals, small hospitals or psychiatric units as part of the care programme approach, there will be systematic arrangements for assessing the health care needs of patients who could potentially be treated in the community.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the Government's intention underlying the full introduction next April of the new community care system is widely accepted. However, is my noble friend aware that there is considerable doubt whether the preparations and arrangements that are necessary will be completed in time in all the local authority areas?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we do what we can to help. It is up to local authorities to do some of the work themselves.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there will always be some mentally ill patients who will require long-stay hospital accommodation? Is she in a position to tell the House how many long-stay beds for the mentally ill will be retained and where they will be?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot answer the last part of the question because it depends on my original Answer concerning when the community day care or other care is provided. But the Government recognise that there will always be some mentally ill people who require long-term in-patient care and supervision. Facilities for them, usually in the form of small hostels or psychiatric units, will continue to be available as part of the range of mental health services in districts.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if the placements in the community break down some of those patients may end up in prison. What facilities are there for them in prison?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if, for instance, police constables find someone who is mentally ill on the streets, under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 they have the power to remove that person to a place of safety. If they find a person in a public place who appears to be suffering from mental disorder and in immediate need of care and control, in his own interests and for the protection of others they would call in medical help.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain government policy for those severely ill mental patients whom we know will need constant hospital care? We would have more satisfaction if the Government would declare their policy for those people who will have difficulty with the care in the community proposal.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I have just answered that question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the great majority of those who have long or medium term in-patient treatment become rapidly institutionalised and cannot be released successfully into any accommodation in the community without rehabilitation for the everyday mechanics of living in society? Are the Government prepared to give assistance to voluntary bodies providing such training?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we already support, for instance, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. A long time ago I had an opportunity to meet members of that body and appreciate the work that it does. The Government give it £91,000 per annum. I am well aware of the number of projects undertaken by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Other organisations also receive support from the Government.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many patients can be supported for a year on £91,000?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot do so without a pocket calculator.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have consistently refused to implement Section 1 and other sections of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986? Section 1 gives the mentally ill patient the right to authorise a representative or an advocate when he is discharged from hospital. Mentally ill patients having been given such a right, does the Minister agree that its implementation would do a great deal to resolve the problem?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the question goes a little away from the original Question on the Order Paper. However, with a little luck I have managed to find an answer for the noble Lord. Local authorities can ensure that there is access to advocacy schemes. The Government encourage them to do so and have issued guidelines.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does not the Minister believe that before a decision is taken on the number of hospitals to be closed, a careful estimate should be made of the number of seriously mentally ill people requiring long-term treatment?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, although the number of long-term mental illness beds is falling steadily at an average rate of 2,500 per year, that reduction is offset by a substantial increase in community services. I can say no more except that hospitals will not close unless there is adequate community care for patients.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend stated that a grant of £91,000 is given by the Government to the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Is it not a fact that a great deal more money is given to MIND every year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is indeed a fact.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, has any mental hospital not been closed as a result of evidence that there are insufficient facilities in the community?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no. However, if the noble Lord knows of any such case perhaps he will let me know and the department will be delighted to consider it.

Overseas Aid: Size of Programme
2.48 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Governmant:
Whether, in view of the link between poverty and environmental degradation in the developing world, highlighted by the Rio summit, they will increase the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme as a matter of urgency.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we already have a substantial aid programme which is planned to grow in real terms to £1,975 million by 1994–95. Our aid will increasingly address key issues for sustainable development.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. It is good to have her back to answer questions on overseas development. Effective action to protect the environment and to promote and sustain economic development will require greater financial commitment from the richer industrialised nations. Our aid programme has fallen in real terms in the past 10 years. Will the Minister indicate when Her Majesty's Government will take definite steps towards achieving the UN target of 0.7 per cent.? Alternatively, will they give some indication of steps that could be taken on the way? Could we reach a higher percentage by a certain year? We should then have some factors on which to judge what the Government are doing.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the aid programme has grown 8 per cent. in real terms since 1987–88. We are now receiving from it better value for money than we ever have before. We are averaging 0.3 per cent. over the past five years. As I announced in Rio, the figure for 1991, which is shortly to be published by DAC, is about 0.32 per cent. or perhaps more. We have to make sure that with an aid programme that grows in real terms—though it may not be growing as fast as the noble Baroness would like—we receive the very best value from it. With other partners, that is exactly what we are concentrating on. One cannot solve those problems simply by spending more money. The receiving government must also have the ability to utilise that money properly so that none is wasted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the most useful direction in which that aid can be pointed is towards enabling the third world to check the growth in population?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. For that reason I have during the past two years increased by 50 per cent. the grant to the United Nations FPA for population planning.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, while accepting that the quality of the aid programme is good, the Question asked when the Government intend to reach the accepted target of 0.7 per cent. Can the Minister answer that Question? Is it not right that the developing countries, which look to Britain for a lead, should know when the Government will reach a figure that is half that promised by a previous British Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the part that he played in Rio in leading the non-governmental organisations as part of the British delegation. I am most grateful to him. We have not and shall not set the timetable as other nations have, simply because it is not realistic to do so. We cannot see beyond the next three years as regards public expenditure planning, as the noble Lord knows only too well. Members of your Lordships' House and everyone involved in the field have my assurance that we shall work in the right direction. That is why the language, which we negotiated in partnership with many other nations and on which we achieved a consensus on Saturday in Rio, is working towards the target but without set dates.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the important subjects discussed at Rio was biodiversity? Can she tell the House what proposals the Government have in that respect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right and we are spending some £10.9 million on 42 different biodiversity projects. That is the way in which the money has gone towards what we term the Agenda 21 items. It is an important part of the shift away from major infrastructure to people- and locally-orientated projects.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government have committed themselves to Agenda 21? The target of 0.7 per cent. GNP is not separate but it is the bill for Agenda 21. Surely if we will the ends we must will the means. Will the Minister assure the House that, when Britain takes on the presidency of the EC, it will lead a move in Europe to ensure that the bill is met for the programme to which we are now committed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, knows full well that Agenda 21, which is an 800-page document of immense complexity, is literally an agenda for the 21st century. The issue of resources for Agenda 21 items was long discussed. The wording in the final communique stated that we as nations agreed to augment our aid programmes in order to reach the target as soon as possible and to ensure a prompt and effective implementation of Agenda 21. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another
114
place yesterday, and as my noble friend the Leader of the House repeated in this House, Britain will play its full part in the implementation of Agenda 21 items and in the European context too. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that I shall be leading the charge in the coming six months.
Lord Prentice: My Lords, my noble friend has spoken against timetabling the target and has reminded us that we cannot sensibly look more than three years ahead. However, in the context of the three-year spending programme which she will be discussing with colleagues during the next three months, will she point out to her Treasury colleagues that this year as a result of Rio and the developments in Africa, including the severe drought, the provision for her programme will receive much more public attention than usual and is of particular sensitivity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, no one could be more aware than I of the sensitivity of my programme's future spending. The £100 million additional money which when at Rio the Prime Minister announced we shall be spending towards the global environment facility replenishment and the other commitments that we have made. In particular, to lead the thinking and initiatives which are necessary to implement Agenda 21 will help people to understand the critical importance of the outcome of Rio not only for the next two or three generations but for ever.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is any of the additional money being earmarked for the improved education of women in developing countries? I know that the Minister agrees that that is a proven method of achieving voluntary control over excess population.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We must ensure that the resources in Agenda 21 are targeted in particular to that area. I spent a great deal of yesterday in New York with UNICEF discussing how women can be enabled to play a greater part in their development and in planning to have their children when they want them. We have also made progress on that matter in other areas and I shall be telling the noble Baroness about that à deux.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I was in Brazil during the Rio conference and was somewhat depressed by the attitudes adopted there. Does the Minister accept that in making more generous aid available her task would be easier if that generosity were recognised and not regarded as the discharge of some debt from the industrialised world to the developing world?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. However, during the whole of the Rio conference I was interested to note the gratitude expressed to me for the targeting and the better value for money of the British aid programme in particular. We do not throw money at countries to spend on their needs. We work with them in partnership to try to improve their abilities; in other words, to help them to

115
help themselves. I am sure that that is the right way to go and I know that some of those countries are most grateful.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us admire greatly her efforts in this field and wish her luck in her struggle with her more conservative colleagues in the Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind comment. I merely tell him that I am perfectly able to fight my corner, as I believe he already knows.

Armed Forces: Awards
2.57 p.m.
Lord Carver Lord Carver asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the system of awards to members of the armed forces for gallantry and for distinguished service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence keeps under review the system of awards to members of the armed forces for gallantry and for distinguished service. That position remains the same.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informative Answer. Can he assure the House that a review body will do its best to recommend a method of removing the anomalies in the present system as regards differences between the three armed services, the different ranks, the sexes, the awards which can be made posthumously and those which cannot, and those which are gained for gallantry and those for distinguished service?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for giving the House the opportunity to air this important Question. As noble Lords will be aware, we now live in a classless society. I was not aware that that piece of news had not until now been appreciated by your Lordships. It is timely that the noble and gallant Lord should give the House an opportunity to comment. I assure him that his remarks will be closely noted in the Ministry of Defence, a Ministry of which he was such a distinguished ornament in the past. Any review that takes place will certainly take those matters into consideration.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, since the noble Viscount referred to the routine review by the Ministry of Defence, are we to understand that the Prime Minister's statement that he intends to review all honours does not apply to the military? With reference to the noble Viscount's reply to the noble and gallant Lord, do we understand by his reference to the "classless society" that the Prime Minister is now contemplating ending the distinction between barons on the one hand and viscounts, earls and so on on the other?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in my very junior capacity as a member of the Government, I am never as privy to those important matters as I should like to be. However, I assure noble Lords and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in particular, that any review which takes place at a more general level will include the matters raised by the noble and gallant Lord.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Viscount please give an indication of the Government's thinking, apart from saying that we live in a classless society?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is fair to say that that phrase has become more current under the present Conservative regime than perhaps it was under the previous Labour regime.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the position put forward by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has considerable support within the armed forces? While there may be a reason for differences between men and women in the services and perhaps a reason for differences between awards for gallantry and distinguished service, there are no longer seen to be any reasonable grounds for distinction between ranks in the services as regards awards for gallantry and distinguished service? Will the Ministry bear that in mind when it continues its review?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the greatest pleasure, I give the assurance which the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on his ability to get a laugh. I assure him that it is not the way he tells them; it is what he says.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.

Durham Coal Mines: Future
3.4 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to British Coal about the possible closure of the remaining coal mines in County Durham.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, decisions on closures affecting individual collieries are, as the noble Lord knows, a matter for British Coal. The Government do not seek to intervene.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is not only a very disappointing Answer; it is also an extremely complacent Answer? Is she aware that Seaham Vane Tempest and Easington collieries are facing imminent closure with a loss of 2,800 jobs, which will be added to the 2,000 which have been lost in the same area because of the recent closure of two other pits?

117
Is she aware further that both those pits had been meeting the objectives laid down by British Coal, even though the targets had been changed frequently—a classic case of moving the goalposts? Why is it that the German coal industry can receive a subsidy of £38 per tonne while the industry in this country is refused any subsidy at all? Such subsidies could be crucial in ensuring the survival of the Durham pits?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Answer was not meant to be complacent. It was factual. The Government cannot be accused of not helping the coal industry when at present they continue to invest about £1 million per working day to make it competitive. There is no complacency as regards the Durham area where already British Coal enterprise has committed well over £7 million towards financing small and medium sized businesses. As a result, some 2,440 people are currently employed in businesses assisted by British Coal.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the Durham and South Yorkshire coalfields have been waiting over 18 months for the RECHAR moneys allocated to them from the European Regional Development Fund but blocked by the DTI and the Treasury? Four weeks ago the Minister informed this House that the RECHAR moneys would be paid soon; indeed, she stressed that they would be paid very soon. The mining communities are waiting for that cash. Where is it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we were pleased that after considerable dispute and delay, the European Commission approved the 11 RECHAR programmes which are worth £124 million. It is a complex subject. Discussions on the transitional period continue: the matter will be resolved just as soon as possible. From lst April 1993, local authorities will receive supplementary credit approvals to match in full the RDF funded part of their expenditure.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dormand mentioned subsidies for imported coal. Is the Minister aware that last year 14 million tonnes of coal were imported into this country, the equivalent, for the mining industry, of 14,000 jobs? Is it not grossly unfair that this country should have to subsidise, through the EC, German coal so that German miners instead of British miners may be employed? Will the Minister take up that matter as soon as possible with her Cabinet colleagues and put an end to the privileged position of the German miners at the expense of the miners in this country?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we are aware of the issue of the subsidised coal industry in Germany. I assure the noble Lord that only 1 per cent. of imported coal comes from Germany. However, during our presidency we shall be concerned with that matter. I should point out that if British industry had to pay over the odds for electricity supplies arising from high cost coal, it would be less competitive and a greater number of jobs would be at risk.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the forthcoming privatisation of British Coal will not only improve the competitive edge of the British coal industry, but will also mean lower imports of foreign coal, cheaper prices and, therefore, a better deal for the consumer?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly and confirm that it will mean also a better deal for industry and the economy.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government accept or reject the advice of their own merchant bankers, Rothschild, who advised the Secretary of State to intervene directly in the negotiations between British Coal and the generators to ensure that British Coal obtains high take, long-term contracts which will enable it to invest in clean coal technologies?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government listen to advice but they make their own decisions. They will bear in mind the advice they receive.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Caithness will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the National Economic Development Council and Office.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
This afternoon we are debating the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill, which I introduced into this House on 4th June. The Bill makes new arrangements in respect of judicial pensions and amends the law relating to the date on which certain judicial office holders are required to retire.
It may be helpful if I say something about the history of the Bill and the context of some of its main provisions. I start with pensions. It is nearly two-and-a-half years since I announced to this House a review of the judicial pensions schemes. Some of your Lordships may remember the occasion: it was on 5th February 1990 during the Committee stage of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. I explained to the House then that the judicial pension schemes were extremely complicated and carried a good number of difficulties for those who have to try to make out their rights under them. I said that the situation called for a radical examination of pension arrangements and promised to conduct such an examination. What I wished to do, if I may put it in a nutshell, was to

119
rationalise the current, somewhat haphazard arrangements for judicial pensions and bring those arrangements more into line with the standards which now apply to all other pension schemes in the public and private sectors, if they are to be allowed privileged status under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. In devising the new scheme, I proceeded on the assumption that in general any new arrangements should not prejudice the pension position of those already holding judicial office.
Before turning to the details let me say that I am aware that the pension on offer is an important part of the remuneration package which a prospective judge will wish to consider when deciding whether or not to take up a judicial appointment. It is in the interests of all of us in a free society that our judges should be men and women of the highest calibre, able and willing to carry out the heavy public duties which we expect of them. It is right, therefore, that the pension Parliament provides to our judges should be sufficiently substantial to attract, or at least not deter, those candidates best fitted to serve. At the same time, as a member of the Government, I am mindful that judicial pensions are paid from the public purse. The proposals which we published for consultation in December 1990, and the provisions of the Bill before your Lordships today, are the result of careful consideration as to how best to balance those potentially conflicting demands.
Why, therefore, did I say a few moments ago that "radical examination" of the current arrangements was necessary? I said it because I did not think that anything less would suffice to correct the anomalies and inflexibilities of the current schemes. That those anomalies and inflexibilities exist is hardly surprising. The judicial pension schemes have grown up piecemeal and emanate from a time when pension arrangements were less sophisticated than they are today.
Let me mention, in broad terms, just some of the anomalies and inflexibilities. First, the rules on aggregation. As many of your Lordships will know, under the current rules a holder of a judicial office who subsequently takes a different judicial office may aggregate his service in both offices for pension purposes but, in certain cases, only on the salary and pension terms of the lower paid office. For example, a circuit judge promoted to the High Court Bench may opt, at the time of the compulsory retirement age of 75 of that office, or if he retires earlier, to take either a pension based solely on his service as a High Court judge—in which case he can do it by reference to the High Court judge's salary—or one based on the current (that is, at the time of retirement) pension of a circuit judge, but in that case with aggregation of the time of service in both offices. In effect, a person who takes the pension of the second office loses the benefit of the years of service in the first office. That cannot be right. It is most unfair to those who, having served conspicuously well in their first judicial post, move to a more senior appointment; and it could act as a disincentive to promotion in that situation.
Another anomaly which currently gives rise to
120
anxiety relates to the different accrual periods which apply without any rational basis to the different pension schemes now in existence. For instance, with regard to England and Wales, High Court judges, circuit judges and chairmen of industrial tribunals have 15-year accrual periods. Stipendiary magistrates, district judges and members of the Lands Tribunal, on the other hand, have a 20-year accrual period. The clock ticks even more slowly for immigration adjudicators where the accrual period is 40 years. When one looks north of the Border and across the Irish Sea, the disparities are perhaps even more marked. Scottish sheriffs have a 20-year span compared with the 15-year span enjoyed by their English counterparts, the circuit judges—an anomaly which I am aware has caused considerable resentment north of the Border and which is not easy to explain. District judges and Supreme Court Masters in Northern Ireland have a 30-year span compared with the 20-year span of their English counterparts. To my mind those differences simply cannot be justified.
A further anomaly exists by reason of the fact that certain judicial officers in schemes with a 20-year accrual span have to serve for two years before qualifying for a pension on grounds of ill-health. No minimum period of service is, however, required of office-holders in 15-year schemes.
The Bill corrects those anomalies. It creates a single, unified pension scheme for all the judicial officers in the United Kingdom listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Scotland are given power in Clause 1(6) to add offices to that list. The new scheme will apply to new entrants to the judiciary, and to those in one of the existing schemes who elect to join the new scheme or who are promoted to another judicial office, which is covered by a different scheme, after the new arrangements come into force.
The scheme will provide for their existing pension rights to be credited to the new pension arrangements: that is, Clause 12. Judicial officers under the new scheme will have their pensions calculated according to their actual service, in years and days. That provision is in Clause 3(3) (c). That will alleviate the problems arising from the current aggregation rules which I mentioned a moment ago. It removes also the current unfairness which can arise as a result of some of the schemes calculating pension by reference to the "completed year of service". As matters stand now, if a judge is obliged to retire on his birthday which happens unfortunately to fall a few days short of a completed year of office, that part of his service does not enhance the rate of pension which he will enjoy. Under the provisions of the Bill he will be entitled to count all the time he has served.
The Bill provides in Clause 3 for a single accrual rate of 20 years. That, I know, has been the subject of a certain amount of adverse comment. That period is not, however, an arbitrary one. It is the limit fixed by the Finance Act 1987 as the minimum accrual period for a tax approved pension scheme to provide maximum pension benefits; and, as I said a few moments ago, it is the Government's intention that

121
the new judicial scheme should, for tax purposes, be brought more into line with the pension arrangements applicable to other members of society.
While on the subject of tax, let me say a few words in regard to capping. The Finance Act 1989 requires the salary on which benefits from tax approved schemes are calculated to be capped at a specific level. That level increases annually in line with price inflation. The current level for the 1992–93 tax year is £75,000. All private sector schemes were automatically capped by the 1989 Finance Act for new entrants from the time that Act came into force—for most people that was on or after 1st June 1989. The same result was achieved for members of public sector schemes by amending regulations. By July 1989, the only group of pension scheme members who were excluded from the cap were the judiciary. The judicial pension schemes can be changed only by primary legislation, which is what we are doing in this Bill. The result of that is this: those members of the judiciary appointed between July 1989 and the date the Bill comes into force have an advantage over other new members of pension schemes because their potential pension benefits have not been subject to the cap. They will continue to benefit from that position, as will those in a judicial pension scheme before 1st June 1989, unless and until the new arrangements apply to them on one of the routes that I described earlier.
It is because the salaries of some members of the judiciary exceed the cap that the Government have decided that judges' salaries above the cap will be pensionable under a top-up scheme. That will come into effect automatically. The benefits from the scheme will be modelled, on the main scheme but the top-up scheme will not àttract tax relief. As against that, and unlike the position under the main scheme, judges will not have to pay contributions for spouses' and children's benefits in respect of that part of their salary in the top-up scheme. Uniquely also for a scheme as beneficial as this one, as happens at present, benefits from previous pension arrangements will not affect those payable under the judicial pension scheme —that includes pensions payable under private self-employed schemes.
I would suggest that the new scheme is appropriate for the judges. The full pension, payable after 20 years' service, will be half the salary paid to the judge in whichever period of 12 months during the previous three years gives the best result. For service of less than 20 years, the pension will be one-fortieth of the salary paid to the judge (in whichever period of 12 months during the previous three years gives the best result) multiplied by the length of the judge's service in years and, of course, allowing for part years, as I explained. In addition, judges will be entitled to a lump sum of two-and-a-quarter times the annual rate of their pension. At present the lump sum is twice the rate of the pension. As now, there will be provision for widow's and children's pensions. There will be provision also for the payment of a death gratuity of one-and-a-half times the amount of the judge's pensionable pay. Any judge who has served for five years will be entitled to an immediate pension at the age of 65. Judges between the ages of 60 and 65 will be
122
able to take early retirement with an immediate pension which is actuarially reduced. These limits do not apply to ill-health retirement, the payment of a death gratuity or the payment of spouses' and children's pensions. All these matters are covered in Part I of the Bill. A judge's right to take a preserved pension payable at 65 after only two years' service is unaffected by the Bill.
Before I leave the pension provisions of the Bill, I should just mention Clause 29(3) and (4). There the Bill gives the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as appropriate, power to make regulations or orders. The Bill also gives the Minister power to make transitional, consequential, supplementary or incidental provisions or savings in relation to those regulations or orders. This power includes, where necessary, power to modify the operation of this Bill or any other enactment. But—and I must stress this—this power is a very limited one; it can be used only in connection with transitional, consequential, supplementary or incidental provisions. Given the complexity, diversity and existence of anomalies in the existing schemes, the House will appreciate the need for this type of provision as the matters are worked out.
Let me turn now to retirement which is the other subject dealt within the Bill. This is covered in Clauses 25 to 27. As with pensions, part of my aim here is to introduce consistency. At the moment, judges and judicial officers have a variety of retirement dates. Some of these are already below 70—such dates will not be affected by this Bill—others are at or above 70. Some relate to the attainment of a particular age, others to the completion of the year of service following a particular birthday. The retirement age for circuit judges in England and Wales, sheriffs in Scotland and county court judges in Northern Ireland, for instance, is the end of the year of service in which they reach 72 whereas that for High Court, court of session and other senior judges is 75; and for some appointments, particularly in tribunals, there is currently no statutory retirement age at all.
I have discussed these matters with some of my senior colleagues and we consider that a retirement age of 70 would be more appropriate to modern conditions. I therefore consulted earlier this year on a new and general retirement age of 70. I am pleased to say that the consultations indicated that there was general support for this. Clauses 25 to 27 and their accompanying schedules accordingly provide for a general retirement date at the age of 70. I thought that it was appropriate to deal with any proposal to change the retirement age in conjunction with the proposals about pensions so that the full effect could be seen at once. Those clauses also provide that persons holding judicial office when the new retirement provisions come into force, will be able to keep this retirement age. This will also apply when someone subsequently moves from one full-time office to another. For example, if a circuit judge is subsequently appointed to the High Court Bench, he will retain his present retirement age of the end of the year of service in which he reaches 72.

123
At present there are powers to extend service in some, but not all, judicial offices beyond the retirement date otherwise applicable. The application of these powers, where they exist, has been helpful in providing flexibility to meet the needs of the courts and in ensuring that the ability and expertise of experienced judges need not be lost prematurely if that is in the public interest. I consider it appropriate to retain such flexibility and, with the introduction of a new retirement age of 70, to provide for the possibility, consistently for all offices, of enabling service to be continued in the public interest. The Bill accordingly provides that service may be continued after the age of 70, but only if the Lord Chancellor or Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, considers that desirable in the public interest, and then only for periods of no more than a year at a time up to, but not beyond, the judge's 75th birthday. I must emphasise that I believe that this power would be used sparingly and applied only where it was clearly in the public interest to do so, taking careful account of all the relevant considerations including in particular such things as the health of the judicial office holder in question.
Under current provisions, Lords of Appeal and other judges who have retired from full-time service, may be invited from time to time to serve in retirement on a part-time basis. I am very grateful for the help which has been provided in this way by Members of this House and the other judges concerned. They have made an important contribution to the administration of justice. But I believe that it is no longer fair to expect them to be available indefinitely in this way and so the Bill provides for the overriding limit of 75 to apply in these circumstances also.
Any retirement age is of course a matter for judgment. Conflicting considerations have to be balanced to achieve what the person seeking to make the judgment believes to be right, both in the interests of the judges and in the interests of the public. On the one hand, the increasing burdens of judicial office must be acknowledged. On the other hand, although the current retirement ages for our judiciary are higher than those for most other professional people, we also have to recognise that judges are appointed relatively late in life. They are usually drawn from those who have already established themselves in a successful career in the law, and their years of experience are part of the necessary qualifications for the position. Accordingly, they bring with them a maturity of judgement which I believe is essential for judicial office.
The point has been made by some members of the judiciary that a retirement age of 70, however desirable in itself, would result in difficulties in relation to appointments. Well, I understand the point but I do not share the anxiety. We all know from recent experience of opinion polls that what people say they are going to do and what they actually do may not always absolutely coincide. Three score years and ten seems to me to be an appropriate general age for retirement and that is the age on which I believe we should settle. I commend this Bill to the House.
124
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be grateful, as always, to the noble and learned Lord for a lucid exposition of this Bill which deals with a somewhat esoteric subject. Before I try to deal most unsuccessfully with that esoteric subject, I join with him in saying how much from these Benches, as I know from all Benches, we are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice whom we are delighted to have in our ranks.
I believe that it has been said wisely that a nation is judged by the standard and excellence of its judges. I hope that the same does not apply to a judgment of this nation as regards Treasury Ministers and their officials, honourable men though undoubtedly they are. I say unashamedly that if I see a conflict between the Treasury and the judges, and I believe that it is going to conflict with the aim which I know your Lordships and the nation will have of having in its judiciary the most excellent recruits that it can, I am on the side of the judges.
Perhaps I may deal with the situation of special provision. The noble and learned Lord very fairly said that, where there were anachronisms, conflicts and illogicalities which could be ironed out in legislation, they should be removed in a statute. That is absolutely right.
However, I did not bend towards the noble and learned Lord with the utmost alacrity when he seemed to suggest that judicial pensions ought to be of the same kind and meet the same terms and conditions as pensions for other folk. For many, many years the principle has been recognised that there has to be special provision in regard to the pensions of judges for the very obvious reason that they come to their appointments in mid-career. They do not have 40 years of continuous service as other people might have in other occupations. Therefore, the question of conformity worries me, and it will worry me considerably if I and your Lordships find that it will deter certain people whom we would love to see as judges from accepting recruitment when that honour is offered to them.
I should say at once that I have no quarrel at all with the reduction of the retirement age to mandatory retirement at 70. I believe that the Bar Council has expressed the view that it would like the mandatory retirement age to be reduced to 65 eventually. There is merit in the idea of reducing the retirement age both from the public point of view and from the point of view of experience. There is a time when that heavy load should be laid down.
However, I am not saying that I necessarily bow to the worship of youth for the sake of youth. I am looking—as I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would always look—at the suitability of making appointments at too young an age. If one starts thinking in terms of the age of 45 and says to somebody of 45, "Please give up your career just as it is about to reach its zenith and look forward to

125
working for only 15 years before you can retire on full pension", one can understand the attraction. However, to say, "I am afraid that you will have to stay on until 65 before you can retire in that way", does not seem to me to be a sensible way of achieving fairly early retirements or of offering inducements to those of that age in that position.
I have said that youth for the sake of youth does not seem a very sound maxim to follow. Those of us who have been in the law and who have loved it for many years can no doubt think of examples of brilliant advocates who made awfully bad judges and of brilliant lawyers who made stuttering and stammering judges and who extended cases over an absolutely unconscionable period of time. There must be a certain temperament that makes for suitable judges. There must be experience. Perhaps those about to be appointed could take an acting judgeship for a time—a temporary position—while their abilities and temperaments could be weighed up by those who have the grave responsibility of appointing them as judges.
I dare say—even in your Lordships' midst—that some people may have been appointed even to the highest tribunal in the land, which is part of your Lordships' House, who have seemed to have a quite unsuitable temperament, being aggressive, impatient or irascible. I am certainly not speaking of the present Members of your Lordships' House who sit in a judicial capacity. I get very angry when judges are irascible towards young counsel. There was a case not so very long ago—I am told that it is not apocryphal—when a Law Lord peppered a leading counsel to such an extent that the man was literally reduced to a state of almost collapse. Having done that, the Law Lord looked at the junior counsel and said, "Now, have you any further observations to make?", to which the junior counsel very courageously replied, "Not without a helmet, my Lord". I tell that story not so much as a joke—although it is nice to see your Lordships smile occasionally in the midst of a serious debate like this—but because the question of a tried temperament and of experience must be taken into account. They are most important matters.
Does that make the increase in service from 15 to 20 years sensible? If we really want experience, should we not be thinking in terms of the average appointment being made to somebody in his or her early 50s? How does that fit in with having to have 20 years' service before the full pension can be earned? With respect, perhaps I may say that that is the Bill's first mistake. Indeed, I believe that I am in good company in thinking that it is a mistake because I believe that the Top Salaries Review Body would love to have the opportunity of expressing a second view. It has already expressed a first view on this topic.
Perhaps I may mention one other matter by way of a question that I should like to direct to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am not sure of my ground here. I know that there was an anomaly about which retired circuit judges were very worried. Although I have not had a lot of time, I have been reading the Bill to see whether the point has been covered. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I make a bad point but that he will
126
answer it if it happens to be a good point. Obviously circuit judges should be paid the pro rata rate for a circuit judge in the same way as a retired High Court judge is paid. I do not know whether the provision has been altered by the Bill, but I have been told that circuit judges are paid at the lesser rate—namely, at that of an assistant recorder, while a recorder is properly paid at the rate of a circuit judge. When submissions were made on behalf of the second rung of the judicial ladder, I am told that the Lord Chancellor's Department said that it recognised that that was an anomaly and that it should be corrected. However, here comes the Treasury again, because I am told that until recently—or until now—the Treasury has said that it will not agree to the anomaly being put right.
I am sure that many of the Bill's provisions are sensible and good in regard to its tidying-up process —a legislative duty which your Lordships will regard as very proper. However, when it comes to seeing whether everything is in order in this Bill, I know that your Lordships will want to look—as I have looked humbly—at one aim and that one aim alone. We have a high reputation in regard to our judges. We must keep it that way. We must ensure that recruitment is made easy and not difficult for the best men that we have in the profession.

The National Economic Development Council
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement. The National Economic Development Council and the National Economic Development Office were established in 1962. In the 1960s and 1970s they provided a helpful forum in which the overall economy and the performance of individual sectors could be discussed and debated. Much useful work was done and successive governments valued the role that NEDC played.
"But the era of corporatism is long passed. In the past decade, governments, not just in Britain but across the world, have pursued more market-oriented policies, the promotion of competition and the smooth functioning of market mechanisms. There have been radical changes to the structure of business and industry. The number of small firms and the self-employed has grown rapidly. Large parts of the former public sector have been privatised, and international markets are increasingly integrated.
"The British workforce has become more skilled and more specialised, with more flexible working practices and more varied career patterns. Trade

127
union membership has declined, and in the private sector decentralised wage bargaining has become the norm rather than the exception.
"Against this background, it is clear that the NEDC no longer reflects the needs and realities of the British economy in the 1990s. Since its inception, the council has been dominated by producer interests. But its membership and structure cannot hope to represent fully the interests and views of the whole range of industry or the workforce. And, paradoxically, the continued existence of the NEDC in these changed circumstances may actually have inhibited, rather than encouraged, the development of direct contact on specific issues between the Government and trade unions and other employee associations.
"Accordingly, and after careful consideration, the Government have decided that the National Economic Development Council should now be abolished.
"The sector groups and working parties of the council will also be wound up. Over the years, they have made a valuable contribution, and some of the issues addressed by the council and these sub-groups will of course remain on the agenda. Those most closely concerned in the present range of NEDO's consultative activities may decide that they wish to continue to liaise with each other, but it will be for them to decide what is done, and how.
"The National Economic Development Office has served the council and the sector groups and working parties well. But with the end of the council, and the change in the way the Government intend to approach more detailed issues, the office itself will no longer have a role. Accordingly, its work will be wound down in an orderly fashion over the next six months. The office will close on 31st December 1992.
"It is the intention of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to offer employment to a small number of NEDO staff in his department. There may also be opportunities in other government departments. Those who do not secure employment in the Civil Service will be eligible for redundancy compensation by analogy with the usual Civil Service rules. There will be full consultation with staff and their representatives on the handling of redundancies and the applicable terms of existing redundancy procedure agreements will be fully honoured.
"I should like to make it clear that today's announcement is no reflection on the work done by the staff of the office or the sector groups and working parties. And I should like to add a particular note of thanks to Dr. Walter Eltis for his work as director general.
"The Government continue to attach particular importance to improving the effectiveness of our dialogue with industry. Indeed, in recent years we have consulted more frequently and with a wider range of interests than in the past on complex technical subjects. This is true both in the formulation of domestic policy and in the
128
development of the UK's response to the increasing range of draft EC directives as the single market approaches. This partnership has served Britain well and it will continue. The Government will be alert to the interests of industry in developing policies across the range of its activities.
"My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has already announced his intention to reshape some of his department on a more sectoral basis. He will be announcing details before the Summer Recess.
"The Government remain fully committed to maintaining a close dialogue with industry and with all other relevant interests. But I believe that this decision to bring the National Economic Development Council to an end is the right one. A close relationship between government and industry remains as essential as ever if we are to develop our policies to create in Britain a strong, dynamic and competitive economy. But the age of corporatism must be put firmly behind us."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I respond to the Statement with some sadness and considerable concern. Noble Lords, particularly those on the Government side of the House, will be aware that the NEDC was introduced by their former colleague the first Earl of Stockton, who, as Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, represented, I suppose, the kind of concerned Toryism that seems to have died out in more recent times.
In responding to today's Statement I am also rather surprised because all my preparation was in anticipation of a Statement saying that the Government intended to strengthen the NEDC. Indeed I half thought that it would be moved from the Treasury to the new President of the Board of Trade. I am very much taken aback by the Statement, which apart from anything else seems to represent a defeat for the new President of the Board of Trade who is on record as saying over many years precisely the opposite of what is in the Statement, not least during the course of the general election that has just been fought. I was also under the impression that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister was moving us away from what I might call the ethos of a Statement of this kind into something again representing or corresponding to what I understood the modern Tory Party believed in. Clearly, I was mistaken.
The Statement refers to the era of corporatism passing and seems to imply that there is a contradiction between the view that the market mechanism should be made to work as efficiently as it can and the view that there is a role for government in meeting all sides of industry. I should like to hear from the Government how they have come to the conclusion that there is some kind of contradiction. This has nothing to do with politics. Although we may disagree on where to draw the line between the private

129
sector and the public sector, most of us believe that the market mechanism cannot function on its own, that it requires an appropriate infrastructure and requires an appropriate atmosphere set by the Government. Therefore I should like some more and better particulars from the Government on that matter.
The Government are right in saying that governments across the world have pursued more market oriented policies. However, does the noble Earl agree that they have not abandoned the kind of tripartite set-ups that NEDC represents? They have done precisely the opposite in Germany, Japan and France. There is no conflict between the two approaches. If one needs any more conclusive evidence that the market does not work on its own and needs help, one simply has to look at the housing market, Canary Wharf or any of those matters. The market will not recover on its own. It requires government and it is helpful when all sides of industry meet in order to encourage that.
I accept what is said in the Statement about the council being dominated by producer interests. But I ask myself, "Whose fault is that?" Who appoints to the NEDC? It has always had—I accept that it was the case when we were in power—one symbolic representative of the Consumers' Association or the Consumer Council, but that did not necessarily have to be the case. If the NEDC is as useful a body as I think it is, one could have strengthened that side of it.
The Statement says that,
"the continued existence of the NEDC … may actually have inhibited, rather than encouraged, the development of direct contact on specific issues between the Government and trade unions and other employee associations".
Can the noble Earl give any examples of this inhibition of direct contact, given that it was only a matter of the Government picking up the telephone and saying, "Come and see us, and we'll spend a few shillings on beer and sandwiches", and there could have been such direct contact? What is it that inhibited the Government that they now say that they must abolish this body?
On the specific working parties, I thought that almost everyone who had any experience both of being on the working parties and of using them thought that they had made an extremely valuable contribution. The noble Earl has said nothing about how that kind of detailed work, producing, for example, particularly important reports on training, will be replaced. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us more. We are told that the Government intend to approach such detailed issues in a new way. Again, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can tell us anything more about what they have in mind.
The noble Earl voiced a particular vote of thanks to Dr. Walter Eltis, the director general. He is an old friend of mine. I should certainly like to associate myself with that vote of thanks. Of course, Dr. Eltis is an outstanding economist who is actually devoted to the kind of economics that appeal to the Government side of your Lordships' House rather than to this side. That does not make him any the poorer an economist. But I hope that the Government will have the sense to ensure that he is retained in the government machine
130
once he gets the sack at the end of the year—although, if he goes back to academic life, that will at least be enormously beneficial to that world.
The Statement says that the Government have consulted more frequently in recent years and with a wider range of interests. Again, I have to tell the noble Earl that that is complete news to me. I should like to be given some examples of that increased consultation. Everyone in industry thinks that the Government have consulted less and less.
More generally, I have to say that it seems to me that the Statement is sending out the wrong signal to industry. Here we are in the midst of a very long recession and we have what most of us as economists predicted was impossible; namely, a major balance of payments deficit at the bottom of a deep recession. I certainly thought that that was impossible, but then this Government specialise in showing how bad I am at economics. However, as I said, we have this considerable deficit which the latest figures show to be larger than we thought. Therefore, is this the time to send out such a signal to industry? The greatest concern of businessmen to whom I have spoken about the Department of Trade and Industry over the past few years was that the then Secretary of State constantly replied to what they had to say by essentially telling them that they were on their own and that government had nothing to offer them, except good wishes.
Following the election, and especially with the new Secretary of State and the Prime Minister now being established, I had thought that the department would be sending out a quite different message to industry. I am afraid that the message is not one that British industry on all sides will find particularly satisfactory.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. We agree that the age of corporatism is over, and rightly so. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was prepared to admit, it has been dominated by producer interests in both parties—that is, in the Government party and in the Labour Party. Although we recognise that there has been a sea change in some sections of the Conservative Party, both have been representative of producer interests. The determination that that should not continue is something that we very much welcome.
Having said that, there are a number of issues about which we should like to have more information. The Statement says that,
"some of the issues addressed by the council and these sub-groups will of course remain on the agenda".
On whose agenda? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, inquired whether it would be the Treasury's agenda or that of the DTI. After all, we have a DTI and it presumably has policies to do with industry. If not, what is it there for? We ask that, in the development of its policies to do with industry, it listens to industry. The department may not have, or need, a Neddy, but it needs to be in constant contact with, and to receive advice and information from, industry to deal with the rather vaguely referred to items on the agenda in the Statement. Surely it is crystal clear that the department should be listening to

131
both sides of industry. That is not corporatism; it is sensible consultation with the people who know about industry, who have a special interest in it and a special knowledge about it and without whom no sensible industrial policies can possibly be developed.
If the department does not do that, who will invent the industrial policies? Will it be the Civil Service? That will not get us very far. Alternatively, will it be the politicians? I also doubt that that would get us very far. We are dependent upon something to take the place of the Neddies, given a government who claim to be a listening government. We should very much like to know what those mechanisms will be —without corporatism, yes.
Industry needs help from the Department of Trade and Industry about what is going to happen in the future. It needs information and research of the kind that only the DTI can undertake. The right research must be carried out. But will the department find out from industry and from the trade unions what are the urgent problems into which we need to have research? How will that information be drawn from industry? How will the work of the DTI be done and how will it be referred back to industry while it is taking place?
The Statement is extremely vague about future policies. It is a change from the old policies; some of that, as I said, we welcome. However, it tells us all too little about the really creative and responding Department of Trade and Industry that is needed in the future.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with great care to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I was especially interested in what the noble Baroness said in conclusion. She said that she welcomed some of the changes in the Statement. However, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, welcomed anything in the Statement. I am afraid that, while many of us have moved on, the noble Lord has not moved on quite as fast as the rest of us. Perhaps he would like to try to catch up.
I believe that what the noble Lord was saying generally was that NEDO and the NEDC have formed a very successful organisation that has worked extremely well. Nothing that we have done since will work in any way comparable to it. As the Statement I repeated says, much of the structure of British industry has changed enormously. Working patterns have changed, with management and the workforce now much closer together. And there are training and enterprise councils. There is also much contact that was never envisaged—it did not even happen—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up NEDO in 1962. Therefore, the world has changed.
When we looked at the matter, the question was whether NEDO was the right organisation for the future. We believed that it was not. We believe that there is much more comprehensive contact within industry, the workforce and management, than there was previously. That has taken the place of much of the work of NEDO. As your Lordships will know, my
132
right honourable friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, made various alterations to the way that NEDO worked in 1987.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, wanted to know more about what the Department of Trade and Industry is doing. I should point out to the noble Baroness that I made reference to a Statement that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will be making, it is to be hoped, before the Summer Recess. I do not in any way wish to pre-empt what my right honourable friend will say. However, I shall draw to his attention the noble Baroness's remarks.
When the noble Baroness says that the DTI must listen to industry, I should stress that there are many more fora in which government can listen to all sides of industry than was the case when NEDO was established; for example, there are the trade associations and the innovation units. Indeed, there is a huge range of contacts which I am sure already account for more than NEDO has been doing.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as one who was a Treasury Minister in 1962, I listened to the Statement with, I must admit, some surprise. First, can my noble friend indicate whether the decision resulted from, or was affected by, any representations made to Her Majesty's Government? For example, what has been the attitude of the CBI which I understood was always very interested in the work of NEDO and NEDC? Alternatively, has industry generally made any such representations? Secondly, he referred to items on the agenda which will still continue. Would the Minister perhaps identify these and indicate by whom they will be handled?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's introductory remarks, perhaps I can understand some of his sadness, he having been a Treasury Minister when this was introduced. It is always sad when one is a Minister to see something that one has looked after change, alter and even be disbanded, as in this case.
With regard to my noble friend's first question, the decision was for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and both the TUC and the CBI have been informed. With regard to the second point that my noble friend raised, it will be up to industry to decide what are the subjects to be discussed, and not only that, but which will be the best fora in which they can be discussed and pursued.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, unlike my noble friend on the Front Bench, as soon as I saw that we were to have a Statement about Neddy I knew perfectly well that the Government were going to abolish it. I merely read the open book; I did not gaze into the crystal ball. Everything they have done about Neddy over the past 13 years indicated that they were about to abolish it. First of all, perhaps the noble Earl would answer the question posed by his noble friend. Did he have any representation from industry, particularly the CBI and other representative

133
organisations, that this body should be abolished? I believe the House is entitled to a straight answer to what was a straight question.
Secondly, the Statement says that the council has been dominated by producer interest and that is the main reason given for abolishing Neddy. If that were so, would it not have been more sensible to widen Neddy to take account of consumer interests? Would that not have been the sensible way forward rather than to abolish a body which gives the Government the opportunity to discuss, together with both sides of industry, economic difficulties and policies of the day?
Is the noble Earl aware that this will have a devastating effect on the trade unions, which have been criticised, insulted and vilified over the past 13 years? Is it not a signal to them that the only way forward for them now—for them and their members, if they are to have a voice—is to become more militant? They have lost the body on which they could get together with employers and government to discuss things in a reasonable manner. They are now pushed even further away—further at arm's length so that they will have no voice at all. Bearing that in mind, will the noble Earl—I know that he is not responsible for it—convey to the Government the view certainly of people on this side of the House that we simply cannot understand why the Government wish to abolish an organisation which they could have developed not to the advantage of this side of the House but to their own advantage and the advantage of the whole of the country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it was solely due to the producer interests on the NEDC that the Government have decided to abolish it. That of course is not correct. It has been dominated by producer interests. But the question is whether it is the right forum in which to get the best out of negotiations and discussions that have quite naturally to take place. We believe that it no longer is. Rather than expanding it, we believe that British industry can now be served very much better by discussing it, as has been the trend, on a much more local and specific basis. The reason for that is quite clearly that the nature of industry has changed quite substantially since 1962. Industries are now far more international. If one looks at our big industries, one finds that they have bases all round the world; they are working on a global policy rather than on a national policy. Because of international competition and the international nature of industry the days have gone when one could put things into nice little boxes.
The noble Lord talked about the unions. I had quite a lot of experience before coming into politics and I can say that the whole climate is a great deal better than it was before. There is much more discussion and healthier discussion between unions and management. Rather than the stand-off approach which I remember as a teenager in those terrible dark days the whole approach between management and the workforce is considerably better and very much more constructive than it was.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be relieved to know that I at any rate
134
welcome the decision. Perhaps he can confirm that Neddy was created originally with the three power blocs—government and the then two very definite sides of industry which happily have since become blurred. That inhibited greatly the flexibility that it needed. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say that with the abolition of Neddy the Government hope to achieve a greater degree of flexibility to assist industry in its way forward, particularly in Europe.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. He has considerably more experience than I have. He confirmed the change in working practices and that the two very definite sides of industry have become a great deal more blurred —to use my noble friend's words. Of course we believe, and it is our intention, that the proposals that my right honourable friends will be bringing forward should afford a great deal more flexibility in our discussions with industry.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I have a personal interest in this in that I was one of the founder members of the National Economic Development Council. Indeed, I became a member of it the second time round when I was Secretary of State for Trade in 1982. May I say, with all due respect to my noble friend Lord Caithness, that this had nothing whatever to do with corporatism. I know that it is fashionable to invent history to comply with one's own view as to present policy, but it is not really a very desirable way of approaching these matters. On this occasion I do not propose to go into the reasons and what lay behind the establishment of Neddy in 1962, although I was in fact directly involved in it with Mr. Harold Macmillan, as he then was. The real function of Neddy was twofold. It was first of all to produce forecasts of the national economy, properly broken down for the years ahead, thereby replacing what had been the old economic survey which had been produced under the inspiration of the late Lord Keynes during the 1945–50 period. Secondly, it was intended to act as what I might essentially describe as a think-tank for industry. I realise that so far as the first function is concerned the Government themselves now produce forecasts for the economy for the periods ahead. Whether they are any better or indeed as good as those that we used to produce in the 1960s may well be a matter for debate. But that is a different issue.
So far as the second point is concerned—and this is the issue I want to ask my noble friend about—I know there are innumerable think-tanks now existing, but the enormous merit of Neddy was that it brought together a wide range of people, not only on what are commonly described as both sides of industry and the Government, but there were also independent members of Neddy. Therefore it was a wide spectrum of views. The trouble with most think-tanks is that they are very much oriented in particular directions, either politically or on the basis of particular economic theories. So often they are promoting a point of view rather than trying to do what Neddy tried to do, which was to find solutions to accepted problems. I think that the disappearance of Neddy will leave a real gap

135
here. Do the Government propose to do anything to fill that gap, or will the vacuum be left to be filled by other people with a less balanced view of many of the issues involved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the changing nature of industry within this country and throughout the world, the detail and complexity of the problems about which my noble friend was talking have changed significantly since 1962. There will, of course —my noble friend was right about this—be issues that will need to be discussed. As I said in the Statement that I repeated, I am sure that it is best for industry to work out the best way to look at the particular problem with those who might be involved in trying to address it. That is one of the ways in which my noble friend's anxiety will be met. Another relevant point —and it was mentioned in the Statement—is the Statement that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade hopes to make before the Summer Recess.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, perhaps I may be the third Member of your Lordships' House, in addition to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to ask whether the CBI, or any other body representative of employers, recommended the abolition of the NEDC to the Government. Having been given two opportunities to answer that question, will the Minister take this third opportunity and answer the question yes or no?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise for my oversight in not replying to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, which has now been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. We have not received representations.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I warmly welcome the abolition of an old friend of many Members of the House. Does my noble friend agree that 30 years is long enough for most institutions to exist? It is good that they are scrapped. There are far too many institutions—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I said "most" deliberately. There may well be other institutions which could, with advantage, go into honourable retirement. I suspect that it is only the NEDC's abolition that will be noticed. It has not been noticed for a long time by most people.
Does my noble friend agree that many of the changes of the past 30 years, and especially the past 10 years, have produced institutions which will fulfil several of the NEDC's functions in a more modern way? I am thinking in particular of the Citizen's Charter, the regulatory mechanism for the now privatised monopolies, the TECs which have already been referred to, and the more proactive role that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will undoubtedly fulfil.
Does my noble friend agree that there is a gap which the resources released by the abolition of the
136
NEDC might be used to fill? I refer to the need for much better scrutiny by industry and government of proposals which emerge from the European Commission. They need to be questioned under the principle of proportionality. That is, their benefits should be measured against the costs which will fall upon those who are asked to implement them. Will he consider discussing with his right honourable friends the setting up of some new institution—30 years may be enough for it to do its work—to enable industry and government to consider European proposals which may have a heavy impact on industry, often without corresponding benefit?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as regards the first part of what my noble friend said, he put the matter in a more succinct form than I have been able to do in response to questions. With regard to the second point that he made, I shall of course draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. My noble friend raised a valid point when he said that there was a need to look at draft EC directives as the single market approaches. Considerable work has been done on that aspect of the matter. The cost of complying with those directives might deserve special attention in the future.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, like many Members of your Lordships' House it was with considerable sadness that I heard the Statement, because, like some Members of your Lordships House, I cut my economic teeth on the NEDO, and so I feel that this is a sad moment. What is coming through is the suggestion that the NEDO has not changed. That is not true. It has evolved over the past 30 years. It has not remained static. In the early days of working with the NEDO there was confrontation, but that was defused by the work done by the little NEDOs. People went on from little NEDOs to working parties. The working parties did some valuable work which included looking at EC directives to see how they would affect industry. Recently, some of the working parties have managed to include representatives from Continental Europe. The NEDOs have not been stuck in concrete since 1962. One of the most valuable things that the NEDC has done is to build up trust and understanding among industry, the Government, the unions and/or the professions. It is important that it is not on a one-to-one basis. It is important that the discussions should take place in a room with three people. One can always have discussions with someone on a one-to-one basis and then go and have discussions with someone else on a one-to-one basis. The value of the NEDC was that all sides of the argument were brought together, and forward we went. I fear that that advantage will be lost if the NEDO is abandoned. There must be a reason for the abolition: it may be the duplication of resources. There are obviously some areas of the DTI which are doing the work that the NEDC was doing. Will the Government look closely at the possibility of continuing to have tripartite or four-party discussions: the Government, the unions, industry, and/or the professions on a regular formal

137
basis under the auspices of the DTI? That might fill the gap which is bound to arise as a result of the demise of the NEDO.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Baroness said. She covered the point well. There has been increasing duplication. I hope that in due course the loss that she feels will be suffered by not having the NEDO will not be as great as she fears.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I was not the slightest bit surprised by this afternoon's announcement that the NEDC was to be abolished. I am looking at the clock and I am looking at the Minister. In the light of his noble friend's proposed 30-year limit, upon which I do not propose to trespass, I hope that he will not use the passage of time to prevent the House from hearing my views on this subject. I do so agree, and not for the first time, with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield: originally the whole purpose of the NEDC was to formalise, albeit sometimes on an informal basis, relations between the Government and what are euphemistically termed "both sides of industry", with the objective of trying to arrive at some degree of consensus as to how our national economy should be developed and how the various sectors within it should, within a broad, general outline, be continued and enlarged. Those were its purposes. I am not in the slightest bit surprised that the Government find it embarrassing to be confronted month by month—
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, 20 minutes have elapsed and I think that we should continue the Business of the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I entirely agree. The Government's attitude has been pathetic, and it is as well that they terminate the process.

Judicial Pensions and Retirement Bill [H.L.]
Second Reading debate resumed.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, we now revert to the even more interesting topic of judicial pensions and retirement. The Companion to the Standing Orders makes it clear that only the speaker immediately following a maiden speech should refer to the maiden speaker. That directive is almost universally ignored on occasions such as this and I also propose to ignore it. Perhaps I may say both personally to an old and trusted friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, and on behalf of these Benches that we congratulate him on his appointment. We wish him well in the arduous office which he has undertaken.
No doubt noble Lords in all parts of the House will remember the noble and learned Lord's illustrious predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane.
138
We hope that in his well-earned retirement he will find time to come here and help us occasionally in our deliberations.
The observations that I have to make on the Bill are not in any way of a party political nature. They arise out of my limited experience as a member of the Bar for many years, who sat judicially part-time for many years and who has been for a long time the trustee of a substantial pension fund in the private sector. (I hasten to say that it is not the pension fund in everyone's mind at this moment). Therefore I propose to make only general comments at this stage. Detailed matters can wait until the Committee stage.
I wish to comment first on the pensions aspect of the Bill because it appears to me that logically it must be considered before we examine the retirement aspect. It is of little use to consider whether there should be an age of retirement and, if so, what it should be, unless we have at least established what should be the accrual period before a judge would be entitled to take his retirement on full pension.
It is clear that the Bill is not intended to be an act of generosity towards the judiciary. Indeed, it states that:
"the [financial] effect on public expenditure is expected to be broadly neutral".
With those gloomy words it is clear that, added to what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, the object of the Bill is to iron out inconsistencies and anomalies; the object is not to indulge in generosity, if that can be avoided.
There seem to me to be three issues to be considered in the Bill at this stage, apart from the detailed issues: first, should the accrual period be 20 years or, as for most of the higher judiciary at present, 15 years? Secondly, should the pension be a half rate, 50 per cent. pension on retirement or, as the Bar Council and one or two other optimists have suggested, should it be increased to a two-thirds rate pension? Thirdly, should there be a retirement age? If so, should it be 70 or, as the Bar Council and others have suggested, the somewhat earlier age of 65?
On the accrual period of 20 years which is now written into the Bill, I understand that the Government's attitude is that, bearing in mind the Finance Act 1987, it is a logical period which would be consistent with what takes place in the private sector. The fact that it is logical and consistent with the private sector does not prevent my wondering whether it is sensible.
In passing, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, upon his elevation to silk. For the reasons which he indicated, there is no comparison between the situation in the private sector where, for the whole of a person's working life, even though he may move from one company to another, his pension accrues steadily, and the situation where someone who is practising on his own account, probably until his early or mid-fifties, may then take employment on the Bench.
There is one other reason why I believe that the 20-year accrual period should be approached with hesitation. Again the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, touched upon it. It seems to me that the essence of a

139
good judge is that he approach every case with a degree of freshness and enthusiasm, in the sure knowledge that it is the most important case that he has ever tried. Of course, it always is for the litigants. The essence of a good judge is that in those circumstances he will exercise total patience, total tolerance and peacefully endure the long-winded irrelevancies of some witnesses and perhaps also of members of the Bar.
As the years go by it is almost inevitable that a degree of routineness enters a judge's consideration of the cases which he is trying. The temptations on occasions to cut someone short or to show a lack of enthusiasm for the matter which he is trying are bound to increase as the years go by. Twenty years of trying cases one after another, day after day, is a strain upon a judge. I believe that it may be asking too much of those few judges who are not superhuman to expect them to be able to endure it for the period that is necessary, according to the Bill, before a full pension can be earned.
I turn to the second matter, the half pension against the two-thirds pension. I am aware that it is easy to get carried away by the consideration that in the private sector two-thirds pensions can be earned after 20 years and will be earned almost as a matter of routine by anyone after they have been employed for 40 years in any good company scheme.
The distinctions between this scheme and a private scheme should be borne in mind when we weigh up whether the 50 per cent. pension rate proposed in the Bill and which exists at the moment, is adequate. It must be borne in mind, first, that for this scheme pensions are not contributory, whereas with most private schemes they are. Secondly, for this scheme there is a tax-free lump sum payable on retirement at the moment of two-and-a-quarter times the amount of the pension and that is in addition to the full pension. However, under most private schemes, although a tax-free cash option is available, it can only be obtained by commuting part of the pension and the pension being reduced, as a result, if one wishes to take the cash option.
Thirdly, as with all Civil Service schemes, this scheme is fully index-linked. That is unusual, though not unknown in the private sector. Fourthly, there is one other consideration which affects not only the balance between a half rate and a two-thirds rate but also the length, whether it is a 15 or a 20-year accrual period. When many members of the Bar join the Bench they are in receipt of substantial incomes. It has been calculated that in the past three years the appointees to the High Court Bench, while at the Bar, have earned over £200,000 a year. That means that before going on the Bench many people have been in a position to make some contribution towards their own and their families' future. I believe that that factor ought to be borne in mind, should anyone suggest that the half rate proposed at present is in any way niggardly compared with the more generous provision in the private sector.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will assist me on a matter which may become relevant if we
140
consider the detail of this issue in due course. In the private sector a person who is self-employed and makes pension arrangements for himself and then becomes employed in the private sector and earns a pension from his company finds that there is an immeasurably complicated relationship between the two pensions. I should be grateful to know exactly what the position is in relation to judicial pensions if a member of the Bar has provided himself with a private pension which might conceivably be greater than the judicial pension. Are the two to be added together or does he receive no judicial pension, or does he receive a judicial pension calculated on some basis such as sixtieths, which I believe is the practice in the private sector?
If the pension which he has provided for himself is less than that which he obtains under this Bill will he receive the two cumulatively, or will his judicial pension only be paid to him after deducting the amount that he has earned by his own efforts at the Bar? That again can happen in the private sector. I should be grateful for that information, but it seems to me that on balance at the moment the 15-year accrual period is a more sensible proposal than the 20-year one, and that the 50 per cent. rate that is proposed in the Bill is perhaps the right approach rather than the two-thirds rate that has been suggested in various quarters.
Finally, I turn to the proposal for retirement at the age of 70. I welcome that proposal. I welcome it not only because it is the current trend in all the professions and much of industry to have earlier retirement, but also because it seems to me that the strains that are put upon the judiciary are not always fully appreciated. A judge has to listen for four or five hours a day to every single word that is being spoken. One must not miss the odd sentence while one is wondering vaguely how the England team is faring at Lords in the Test Match, or whatever event it may be. A judge has to listen and simultaneously work out the relevance of the words in the case and the evidence as a whole. He has to consider whether issues of law are raised that will have to be commented on in due course.
In a criminal trial particularly, a judge not only has to listen but he also has to anticipate what may be said in the immediate future, because it may well be that firm action is required as a matter of law at that stage, in anticipation, before the trial turns itself into some form of mistrial. The physical and mental stresses of being a judge and doing that task day after day cannot be exaggerated. However physically and mentally fit people may be, in the ordinary sense of those words, after the age of 70, it is unfair and unreal to try to place those burdens on them on a daily basis once they have reached that age.
I also welcome the fact that under Clause 25 of the Bill judges will only occasionally have their retirement age extended beyond the age of 70. I myself see nothing in the clause, although I may well have misread it, that gives the noble and learned Lord power not only to extend a judge's term of office after the latter has reached the age of 70, but also to bring a judge back after he has retired provided that he has

141
not reached the age of 75. I hope that practice will not continue as I believe it is unfair on the litigants and it does not do the cause of justice good that there should be people who are known to have retired and who are being brought back after their retirement to try cases.
If we establish a retirement age of 70 for judges and an accrual period of 20 years, that will mean that we shall be seeking High Court judges by the time they have reached the age of 50. In all probability those people will have taken silk fairly recently. If one puts both parts of the Bill together and looks not only at the accrual period but also at the retirement rate, one can see that perhaps the shorter accrual period that is being suggested has a great deal to be said for it in the public interest. I am thinking entirely of the public interest and not the interest of the judiciary in this matter.
Looking at the Bill as a whole I believe that it has a great deal to commend it. The one principal issue which I have indicated concerns the accrual period on which I shall listen with great interest to the observations of those who have far more experience than I.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, I wish first to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the two other noble Lords who have spoken before me for the kind personal remarks of welcome they made to me. Apart from the trepidation natural to a maiden speaker addressing this illustrious House I have today two additional embarrassments. First, as I have only recently taken office, it may seem premature and indeed perhaps defeatist for me to be speaking of retirement. Other noble and learned Lords will be addressing your Lordships in this debate. They are not only more experienced in the ways of this House than I, but, if it is not indelicate to say so, they are also closer to retirement.
It is written, not in the Book of Judges, but in the Book of Kings:
"Let not him that putteth on his armour boast himself against him that putteth it off".
But, without boasting myself against noble and learned Lords who are more seasoned speakers, I feel it my duty as Lord Chief Justice to speak on this Bill.
It is that duty which raises my second embarrassment. The custom of the House is that a maiden speech be short and uncontroversial. To be short I shall therefore confine myself to the main policy of the Bill and hope that, if on one or two proposals I sail close to controversy, your Lordships will extend your customary indulgence and courtesy. This is an important Bill with far-reaching effects not only for the judiciary but also for the public which it serves. The Bill has been brought in swiftly and I believe the House would not wish its timing to prevent my expressing my true views on it.
The two main thrusts of the Bill are to lower the age of judges' retirement and to increase the period they must serve to qualify for a full pension. Your Lordships may well think, and it is my concern, that those two thrusts are in opposite directions. As to retirement I strongly welcome the proposal in Clause
142
25 to reduce the normal compulsory date for future appointees to the age of 70. Indeed the judiciary has over the last couple of years taken the initiative in urging a reduced retirement age.
I also welcome the proposal to make that retirement age uniform, whereas it has been 75 for High Court judges and 72 for Circuit judges. Although reasoning powers may well be undiminished after 70, I believe there is a real risk that thereafter a judge may be less responsive to new laws and to changing mores. Also with the rest of the community moving towards earlier retirement the retention of the existing retirement ages for judges is, I think, unacceptable and rightly criticised by the public.
In principle I also support the proposal of an absolute bar on sitting after the age of 75. It would be anomalous to reduce the normal retiring age to 70 but to permit a judge, however spry and sprightly, to continue after 75. I must, however, point out that to introduce an absolute bar at 75 forthwith will substantially increase the problems we already have at present due to shortage of judges.
I hope that legislation can be introduced very soon to increase the number of High Court judges and Lords Justices but at present it is necessary, especially in the Court of Appeal, to rely upon retired judges to assist. If a Lord Justice falls sick temporarily or is diverted for months to head an Inquiry, the only recourse is to invite a retired Lord Justice to return.
The one point of principle in the retirement provisions of the Bill which does concern me, is the proposed machinery for extending the tenure of judges between 70 and 75. Clause 25(5) proposes that a judge may be authorised to continue in office after 70 for a year and from year to year up to 75. That authorisation is to be given solely by the appropriate Minister, should he consider it desirable in the public interest.
I have no doubt that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will exercise that power fairly and wisely. I expect him also, from the cordial consultations to which I have already been party, to consult with the Heads of Division as a matter of practice. Nevertheless, constitutionally your Lordships may consider it preferable that such consultation be made a formal requirement in the Bill. Senior judges not infrequently have to hear applications for judicial review of ministerial decisions. On occasion, they may concern the Lord Chancellor himself. It would be unfortunate if extension of a judge's tenure were under consideration by the appropriate Minister at or about the very time the judge was deciding such a case.
One possibility might be to adopt the procedure laid down for Scotland by Section 22 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985, which allows the Lord President:
"as a temporary measure … to facilitate the disposal of business",
to extend a judge's tenure up to 75 with the consent of the Secretary of State. In English terms that would mean myself or one of the Heads of Division with the consent of the Lord Chancellor.

143
Finally, on the question of retirement, I welcome the assurance from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that the power to extend a judge's tenure from 70 to 75 will be used sparingly and not as a substitute for appointing new and younger judges. Otherwise, the new retirement age of 70 may be regarded as mere window dressing and the true retirement age will continue to be 75.
I turn to the pension provisions in the Bill. I fear that I shall not command the eloquence of the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord, Lord Wigoder, but I should like to adopt their criticism of one provision; namely, the main provision, which requires 20 years' service to earn a full pension. I hope that that may be reconsidered. The present term of 15 years has stood for a very long time—in fact, I am told, since before 1800. It has done so because, uniquely, judges begin their term of public service in middle age as a second career after practice as barristers or solicitors.
The normal age for appointment has in practice been between 50 and 55 and some judges are appointed even later. A pension accrual period of 15 years is appropriate to that age of appointment; but an accrual span of 20 years, coupled with the new retirement age of 70, will require either much earlier appointments or forced acceptance by appointees that they will not be able to earn a full pension.
At the present time many judges appointed at about 50 retire on a full pension after 15 years' service. That is especially so among circuit judges, who form the majority of our judiciary. Sitting as they do mostly in the same place, trying the same limited range of cases week in and week out, leads many of them to feel after 15 years that they lack the zest and freshness to continue.
I fear that the effect of the proposed change will be that appointees at 50 will feel they have to soldier on to 70 to earn their full pension. There will therefore be an increase, not a decrease, in the average age, certainly of the circuit Bench, whereas the Bill rightly aims at earlier retirement. Worse than that, judges who feel bound to do their 20 years, may in their last few years be functioning below their best, which cannot be in the public interest.
It can be said that judges will not be obliged to do 20 years. They can leave earlier with a due proportion of the full pension. It is also true that during their time at the Bar or as solicitors they will have had the right to make some provision for private retirement benefits.
I make three points in reply. First, the pension provisions of a public service appointment should, as a matter of principle, be on terms which do not require topping up from elsewhere and the accrual span should be that which is expected to be served.
Secondly, while the most successful Queen's Counsel may well be able to provide themselves with sizeable retirement benefits before going on the Bench, that does not apply to all judicial candidates. Successful advocates earning high fees are not the only or indeed necessarily the best candidates for the Bench. Lawyers who have heavy family and mortgage commitments, have children in education, and who
144
are not high earners may have little to put aside. In particular, women lawyers who have had breaks in their practice in order to bear and bring up children may not have achieved earnings sufficient to make provision for retirement. They will often be worthy candidates for the Bench but the 20-year accrual span will be a strong disincentive.
Thirdly, if it is proposed to facilitate the 20-year accrual span by appointing judges earlier, then there is a real danger that the practising profession will be prematurely deprived of its experienced members, upon whom the Bench relies in the heavier cases. That, too, cannot be in the public interest.
Accordingly, while I welcome on behalf of the judiciary many of the proposals in the Bill, I am concerned about the pension provision to which I referred. It is said that the proposed 20-year span is to bring the judiciary into line with others in regard to pension schemes and to eliminate an anomaly. Bringing into line is not necessarily and in all cases desirable. An exception is not always an anomaly. For the reasons I ventured to give, the judiciary is a unique category of public service.
The 15-year period has been maintained up to now for good reason. I am concerned that if it is extended to 20 years, not only will the policy of having a younger judiciary, at which parts of the Bill are aimed and which I applaud, be undermined; there will be serious problems of recruitment, judicial staleness and injustice. I therefore invite the Government to reconsider that provision of the Bill.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I originally put down my name to speak in this important debate because I felt—I still do—that, having served 12 years in a post which necessarily involved me in advising either the Crown direct or the Prime Minister in the Prime Minister's function toward the Crown in the appointment of judges, I might look at matters from a slightly different point of view than some others of your Lordships.
I came to the House this day intending to take my name off the list of speakers. I saw however that the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken was to make his maiden speech and that my name came immediately after his. I could not resist the temptation to keep my name on the list. I say with a full heart that it is a matter of great pleasure to me, I believe on behalf of all your Lordships, to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the speech that he has just delivered. He need have no reservations about his decision—to which he rightly came—to err, if at all, on the side of the controversial. From his unique position, he is the person most suited to say what needed to be said from the point of view of the judiciary. Therefore, although many regard it as a requirement of a maiden speech that it should be maidenly in content, I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord on this occasion deliberately set out to express his own views and, I believe, those of many people who have experience of this matter.
I revert to the situation as I view it having been Lord Chancellor over two separate terms of office for

145
a period of about 12 years. The overriding consideration that everyone, not only Lord Chancellors, ought to have in mind in such legislation or in the discharge of their day-to-day functions is an adequate supply of properly qualified judges to fulfil the demands made upon them by the work of the courts. The quality and availability in suitable numbers of the Bench are an overriding consideration; it is not argument from first principles. Judges do not grow under gooseberry bushes if they are to be in sufficient quantity and of adequate quality. On the contrary, they are in an almost unique position, not only in the professions but in the world, as the noble and learned Lord has just reminded us.
I cannot help noticing that at the time I was called to the Bar, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, was just two years old. He was called to the Bar when he was about 24. If he had been born a Frenchman, or another member of the Continental system, he would never have been called to the Bar. After passing his law examinations in the university, he would have become a judge. It is a separate profession from the practising profession of advocate or adviser. He begins as a petit juge d'instruction and if he is lucky enough to reach the eminence of the noble and learned Lord he becomes the président de la cour de cassation, or the equivalent in other countries.
In other words, the Anglo-Saxon countries have the unique system of appointing judges, and that system involves appointing them from among the company of available experienced and successful practitioners. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is not every successful practitioner who would necessarily make a good judge. On the contrary, there is what Lord Chancellors have come to discuss as the temperamental hazard which inevitably afflicts us in making our recommendations. To some extent that has been overcome by the large number of part-time judges in the early stages whom we appoint without giving them pensionable appointments.
However, it means that the criteria by which we must judge the Bill do not depend upon its terms or the desirability—which I would say in the abstract is unquestionable—of removing anomalies or dealing with issues from the point of view of first principles. The real test is this: will we attain an adequate number of judges to appoint in the coming years, not at some future date?
For that, we must reflect on some disquieting facts. First, there are the increased demands of the courts. I am not good at quoting figures but I do not believe that they are out of scale. Since the war indictable crimes coming before the courts have increased at about the rate of 10 per cent. compound interest. The same has been true of family law work dependent upon the breakdown of marriage. The same has very largely been true of the construction industry and the official referees' work. The number of personal injury cases depends upon the number of vehicles on the road; that has been increasing in proportion also. It also depends upon the use of machinery in factories. There is hardly a field of work which has not increased disproportionately.
146
Secondly, we have created a vast number of tribunals, often with legal chairmen, to discuss questions relating to unfair dismissal—they would previously have come before the ordinary courts, if at all—fair rents, and so on. The pool from which one draws those chairmen is very restricted. If one limits oneself to successful practitioners, whether one relies on solicitors and barristers, or barristers alone, one is confined to the pool of persons called to the Bar or admitted as solicitors 20 years ago. It is no good saying, "Let us have more women" unless one considers how many women were called to the Bar 20 years ago and have continued to practise. The same argument is true of the ethnic minorities. When I state that good judges do not grow under gooseberry bushes, I am pointing to one of the fundamental difficulties with which any Lord Chancellor is bound to be faced.
I do not recommend the terms of the Bill as bedtime reading. If anyone has tried to read it he or she will be greatly puzzled. However, the speeches which have already been made make clear that there are two not separate but inter-related problems that we have to face: the age of retirement; and the accrual period for full pension. It is no good regarding those as separate questions because they are related.
Thirdly, the Lord Chancellor of the day has to compete with, first, the enormous fees earned within the practising professions. He has often to compete with the attractions of going into full-time employment with Shell or one of the major banks. There are even those suitable for high judicial appointment who prefer to become heads of colleges and live in comfort and love ever afterwards although they may not have quite the income that they earned at the Bar. That reduces the pool still further.
We have to ask ourselves whether it is very clever or well timed to bring in a Bill which reduces the retiring age in future—whether or not that is intrinsically desirable—and at the same time increases the period of accrual of pension. I must offer an unqualified apology to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. He was gracious and good enough to invite me to a quiet discussion with him which I greatly welcomed and accepted. Unfortunately having passed what would now be the retiring age, I omitted to observe that the only date available for the conference would have been the date of the Garter service, which was yesterday. I had to send the noble and learned Lord a hasty telephone message. I should like it to be known that it is not fair of me to criticise him without apologising sincerely for my oversight. I came to the only possible conclusion: that the Garter service was a must.
I have said enough. Everyone is in favour of the removal of anomalies. No one wants judges to go on after they may have become past their best. However, if one is to recruit adequate judges on a sufficient scale to meet the vastly increasing demands of the courts and tribunals and is limited to a pool that was created 20 years ago, one has to be a little careful before one starts messing about with the retirement age, the

147
employment of retired judges, and the accrual of pension. That is the note of caution that I wish to utter.
5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I echo the remarks made by noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham in welcoming the new Lord Chief Justice to this House and in welcoming his maiden speech. I say with real sincerity that I hope he will appear in this House on many occasions. I say that for a particular reason; this House is well supplied with in-house legal talent but it lacks a number of Members with a daily experience of the problems, the trials and tribulations, of the judicial workface. The Lord Chief Justice of the day is able to supply that experience. It is needed by a legislature which is involved with passing Acts that affect the courts or which must be interpreted by them.
Perhaps I may now turn to the Bill. I am not sure whether under the rules of the House I must declare a financial interest.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, res ipsa loquitur.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am obliged. I have only a small financial interest because Part I of the Bill relating to the pensions provisions has no application for me, unless I were to elect to apply it. I have not the slightest intention of doing so. My only financial interest relates to Clause 25 which, if it stood part of the Bill, would deny me the possibility, and no more, of receiving a modest supplement to my pension —that is based on the assumption that I am still around on my 75th birthday in October 1995. I hasten to add that I have far better reasons for criticizing that clause.
The Bill is welcome because it eliminates a number of injustices which at present arise when a judge is promoted to another office which is subject to a different pension regime, as my noble friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out. That apart, the Bill's principal features are the reduction of the normal retirement age for judges to 70, subject to possible annual extensions up to 75; a requirement that judges shall hold one or other judicial office for a period of 20 years before qualifying for a full pension; and a total bar on performing any judicial function after reaching the age of 75. I misread that clause because I read it too quickly. I thought at first that Parliament was saying that we could not do anything after the age of 75, but on rereading the clause I realise that it meant in a judicial capacity.
I wish to comment on each of those aspects. In doing so I shall inevitably cover ground that has been or will be covered by other speakers. However, I should like to make my voice heard for what it may be worth. I can see great merit in reducing the age of retirement from full-time judicial office from 75 to 70. The extent to which mental and physical powers, and above all energy, decline with advancing years varies enormously from individual to individual. There is no magic about the age of 70. If one drew a graph recording the probability—and I am talking in terms
148
of probability—of a significant decline in powers, be they mental or physical, and in energy between particular ages, the line would not be straight; it would show a significant upturn between the ages of 70 and 75 and an even greater upturn beyond that age.
As regards judges, I believe that if the graph were extended backwards to cover the age groups 60 to 65 and 65 to 70 I do not believe that one would find it other than a straight line. In those age groups illness strikes, as it does at any age and in almost any occupation. However, as regards judges I do not believe that any decline in powers in those age groups could be said to be age-related. That being so, I believe that the choice of 70 is right and I wholly support it.
I turn to the proposal that a judge's tenure of whole-time office should be capable of being extended year by year from 70 to 75 at the invitation of the appropriate Minister; in the case of England and Wales that is the Lord Chancellor. That provision appears in Clause 25(3). That proposal is superficially attractive because we all know of judges who have carried out their best work during their seventies or later. A similar provision exists at present and applies to circuit judges under Section 17(2) of the Courts Act 1971. Whether or not that is a good idea in relation to circuit judges, I believe that it is objectionable constitutionally and as a matter of principle in the context of High Court judges, Lords Justice of Appeal, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and, perhaps above all, in the case of the four designated judges who have special responsibilities under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, of which I happen to be one.
The crucial difference between those judges and circuit judges is twofold. First, unlike circuit judges those judges are responsible for resolving disputes involving the Executive as a party, in particular in the field of judicial review. The four designated judges have placed upon them the additional duty of concurring or refusing to concur in constitutionally important decisions taken by the Lord Chancellor of the day. Secondly, unlike circuit judges those judges are not dismissible by the Lord Chancellor under Section 17(4) of the Courts Act 1971. They are removable only by a joint address of both Houses of Parliament. By a parity of reasoning any extension in their terms of office should be subject to special provisions.
Accepting as I do that the Lord Chancellor of the day and the judges concerned would not allow themselves to be influenced by any conflict of interest, I cannot believe that there would be the appearance of justice if a judge were hearing a case involving the Executive, which might include the judicial review of a decision of the Lord Chancellor, at a time when it was known that the question of extending that judge's term of office was under consideration.
I wish—I hope as always—to be constructive. No one would wish to lay off highly experienced judges who wish to continue to serve the public and who are capable of a few more years of good work, certainly not on the basis of some arbitrary cut-off date. There are two possible solutions. The first would be to require all High Court judges and above to retire at 70, but to use the power in Section 9(1) of the Supreme

149
Court Act 1981 to enable some of them to continue to sit as retired judges on a part-time basis. The alternative and possibly better solution would be to allow the four designated judges to extend a judge's period of service from year to year up to the age of 75, subject to the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor.
The crucial distinction is that the initiative would lie with the whole-time, non-political judiciary. It would be left to the Lord Chancellor to concur, or refuse to concur as would be his right, in the context of the provision of resources. Special provision would have to be made in the case of any proposed extension to the tenure of office of the four designated judges themselves. Someone could work that out without much difficulty.
I agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice that extensions should not be the rule. Like him, I am glad to hear that it is not intended that they should be. Where I venture to disagree with him is in his suggestion that a statutory requirement of consultation with the designated judges or any of them would remedy that defect in the Bill, leaving the Lord Chancellor to be the decider. Again, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not take it amiss if I say, as a general proposition, that we all know that consultation is an extremely broad term which has many connotations. It can start and sometimes end with telling the person consulted what it is that you intend to do. Therefore, I should prefer something different from that.
I turn now to the proposal that judges must serve for 20 years if a full pension is to be secured. Although that can be presented as merely constituting the removal of an anomaly, in truth it is nothing of the kind. What is anomalous, as has been pointed out in particular by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, is not the accrual period but the fact that judicial appointments in this country involve embarking upon a second professional career in late middle age.
The existing 15-year term would not be as long-standing as it is if it were merely an anomaly. In fact, it reflects the curious character of the judicial profession in this country. I hope that nobody on the Government Benches will think that I am carping about this, although the Treasury will understand the point, but I should also point out that a non-contributory pension is in reality deferred pay. Therefore, the proposed change represents a concealed reduction in the salaries of the judges to whom the new scheme would apply, to the extent of 25 per cent. of that deferred pay each year.
The major vice of this Bill is the combination of a reduction in the retiring age to 70 and the increase in the full term of office to 20 years. The message must be that if you accept judicial office, you are expected to serve for 20 years. That is far too long if the judge is not promoted or given different work. In my case I would have left the Bench had I been expected to serve any longer in the Queen's Bench Division, because I was fed up with the work. One needs a change. It would mean that appointments over the age of 50 would be exceptional. That will denude the Bar of its best members. Alternatively, they will soldier on,
150
accepting that their judicial career will be shorter and then they may find that the financial inducements in terms of pension are really unsatisfactory. Either way, the Bench and the legal profession will be the losers.
Finally, as regards the one point which affects me, the proposal that no one shall perform a judicial function after he reaches his 75th birthday seems to me to be both unnecessary and unwise. I say that it is unnecessary because no judge can act as such after he has retired unless he is invited to do so, nominally by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and in practice by the heads of divisions. He will not be so invited if he is not fully capable of discharging the duties of the office. He will not be so invited if there is a policy decision not to employ anybody over the age of 75.
It is extremely unwise to box yourself in with an absolute bar in this way because situations will inevitably arise when the only suitably qualified retired judge has passed his 75th birthday, perhaps by not very long, and if he cannot sit, urgent cases will simply not be dealt with.
I very much hope that that will be borne in mind because in the case of the Court of Appeal, which is my particular responsibility, I find that sickness strikes unpredictably. Equally unpredictable but constantly recurring are the sudden requests by Government for a Lord Justice to preside over an inquiry or to undertake an extra-judicial duty. Unless and until the Treasury agrees to there being spare Lords Justice to fill those gaps, which it certainly never will, we need to be able to look to retired Lords Justice to fill the gaps. One of my major problems at present is that there are too few retired Lords Justice who are able and willing to fill those gaps, although I am extremely grateful to those who do so.
I hope that this Bill, which is in many respects admirable, will not only be subject to a Second Reading but also to second thoughts.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is with diffidence that I rise to follow the Master of the Rolls, a former Lord Chancellor who was in that office longer than anyone else in living memory and a recently appointed Lord Chief Justice. As nearly everything that I intended to say has already been said and magnificently said by those who are better qualified than I am, I shall be brief. However I cannot refrain from adding to the praise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth. I sat at his feet when he was Chairman of the Bar when he was about 40 and I was over 70. That is a few years ago now. Like everyone else, I was delighted by his elevation and most interested in his speech.
I say to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that there has been remarkable unanimity so far in this debate on the important issues raised by the Bill. I must endorse the view expressed first by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it is a fallacy to assume that judicial pensions should be treated in the same way as other pensions because, in the case of nearly all other pensions mentioned in this Bill—not all but a great majority of them—the person

151
concerned has been earning his pension since his early twenties, whereas we know that judges are likely to start to do so mostly after the age of 50.
The other point on which there has been remarkable unanimity is the criticism of the accrual period being extended for 15 to 20 years. I wish to add one further argument against that which, as far as I am aware, has not yet been mentioned. Under the present system of retirement and accrual, which has worked fairly well, judges retire voluntarily well before they are 70 in some cases and certainly before they are 75, having earned the full retirement pension, having served for 15 years. Of course, if the accrual period is to be extended to 20 years, there are not likely to be many voluntary retirements. As I understand it, that would go against the aims of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
I must confess—and I may be alone in this—that I have some doubts about reducing the retirement age from 75 to 70. Surely it is a great mistake to generalise about the maturity of human intellect. Some people are burned out at the age of 60. Others—and perhaps I may venture to say that there are some among your Lordships who have spoken in this debate—have allowed their minds to continue to mature judicially after the age of 75. Such people have gone on to make formidable additions to the evolution of our statute law.
If we are not careful we shall deprive the nation of the services of the experienced members of the judiciary who fall into that category. There are some famous ones. Lord Reid continued at his best until he was over 80. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is still alive over the age of 90. I believe he retired when he was 83. Certainly up to the age of 80 he was making major contributions to the development of our law. We should therefore consider persuading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it would not be right to have a final retirement age of 75 but that he should retain the power to keep judges on in rare circumstances until after that age.
Perhaps I may say to my noble and learned friend that it would clear the air for future discussion on the Bill if, when he replies to the debate, he takes note of the eminent unanimity so far displayed in the debate on the question of the accrual period and of the equally important question of not insisting that judicial pensions should be treated like most others.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, there appear to be some defects in the Bill as drafted. I am told that there is already difficulty in recruiting sufficient judges of the right quality. If that is so, those defects will have to be removed, otherwise the position will be exacerbated.
The first point that troubles me is on page iii of the Bill where under Financial effects of the Bill it states:
"The difference in cost between the existing arrangements and the new arrangements will take some years to emerge, but the effect on public expenditure is expected to be broadly neutral".
I do not understand that statement. It seems to run counter to the immutable laws of arithmetic. In any
152
pension scheme if one reduces the retiring age it increases the cost to an extravagant degree, depending on the number of people involved. The statement can therefore be true only if the benefits paid to the new entrants under the new scheme have been correspondingly pared off to make up the difference. It is a puzzling point. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will explain and comment upon it at the appropriate time.
Any scheme of salary, wages or pensions must be judged by two criteria. The first is whether the payments are comparable to those paid in other walks of life to people who carry similar responsibilities; secondly, whether the scheme will inhibit or encourage recruitment. Unless both questions can be answered affirmatively and positively one of two things will happen: either recruitment will stop altogether or only the second-raters will be recruited. We have no information on those points and therefore Parliament and the public are at a disadvantage in considering those two vital matters.
When the consultation document was circulated by the Government it went to a number of people and was sent to the Top Salaries Review Body. In February 1991 the review body commented:
"the Review Body has three main points of concern and a number of more detailed comments. These matters should be addressed, ideally with the assistance of an independent consulting actuary, before steps are taken to amend primary legislation on judicial pensions. The Review Body is also concerned about the need for a clearer exposition of what is proposed, particularly for the benefit of existing members of the judiciary who need to be able to compare their existing schemes with the proposed new arrangements".
That is a disadvantage from which we all suffer. We do not have such a report before us to help us in judging the effects of the Bill. It would be helpful for such an independent and impartial report to be prepared before the Committee stage to enable us to decide what the effect is upon the judges as compared with what happens in other walks of life.
The main thrust of the Bill appears to be that the retirement age should be voluntary at 65 and compulsory at 70. The figure of 65 is already on the high side. In practically all other walks of life the retiring age is 60 and in most cases it is compulsory at that age. Therefore 65 is already too high.
The other main thrust is to reduce the accrual period at the same time from 20 to 15 years. The result is that if a judge wants to earn his full pension at the retiring age of 65 he will have to be appointed at the age of 45. In the normal run of things that will he before he has attained the experience and maturity necessary for the job. But there is an even more undesirable feature; that is, that one is taking a man out of the bracket when he is moving into his highest earning area and giving him a much lower salary. One therefore prevents him during his high earning period from building up resources of his own or a sensible money purchase scheme. The result will he that the able people will refuse appointment if it is offered to them. The quality of the judiciary will therefore diminish.
The principle of paying pensions to the judiciary is not unique to this country. Other countries experience exactly the same problems. I am not familiar with the

153
details and cannot speak with authority on the matter, but according to my information the accrual period in other countries is less. In Canada and Australia it is 10 years, in New Zealand it is 16 years and in the United States nothing at all. If those periods of accrual in other countries are comparable with the judicial arrangements in this country, it means that the scheme now proposed is of a pinchpenny or cheeseparing character and that will reap its own reward.
There is another aspect on the same theme. The lump sum provisions in the scheme provide for two-and-a-quarter times the retiring pension. It is presently two times, which means that there is already an uplift of one-quarter. However, that is not the criterion by which to judge it. The two-and-a-quarter must be judged by what is payable in other walks of life of comparable responsibility. According to my information, when the pension is fixed on the basis of half the retiring salary, the lump sum payment should be three times the retiring salary.
In that context I notice that the Top Salaries Review Body said in paragraph 4, after examining the subject in some detail, that in its view the lump sum under the proposed scheme for the judiciary should be improved from 2.25 to three times the annual pension. If the review body is right, again we have the situation where it seems that the proposals for our judges are of a pinchpenny character.
The consultation document which the Government circulated was sent to a large number of people and organisations directly affected by these proposals. I believe that all of them replied. But we do not know what any of them said because their replies have not been published. In trying to assess a proposal it is very important to know what the people whom it is likely to affect think about the scheme because we have to satisfy their needs and requirements. I believe that those responses should be published so we can see what is the effect on the people who will be directly affected.
I have difficulty with Clause 25 as well, but it is of rather a different character perhaps to that which has been mentioned so far. If a compulsory retirement age is fixed I suggest that it should be adhered to and not varied. The reason for that is that whenever people are endeavouring to come back from retirement, whether they are stage stars, athletes or professional people, they usually make a mess of it. I speak with particular knowledge of professional people because I have been through the mill myself. I have discussed the matter with a great many colleagues on many occasions.
The fact is that once a compulsory retirement age has been fixed the attitude of mind changes. One becomes out of date extremely quickly. Apart from that there are physical difficulties: there is an absence of storage space for the books, records and notes which one has built up through the years which one wants to refer to; one has no settled place to work from; one does not have a secretary or any kind of back-up service in order to help one; the day-to-day professional comments and dicta which are always circulated and not received; and there is not the benefit
154
of discussion with colleagues whom one meets day after day. For all those reasons I suggest that once a retirement age has been fixed it should be adhered to.
If the reason for Clause 25 is that there are insufficient judges the solution is obvious: to take steps at once (why have they not been taken before?) to appoint enough judges. Clause 25 says that the measure is in the public interest, but I do not believe that people will find that it is. I do not believe that the public will have confidence in finding that the judicial system has to be bolstered by a miscellaneous body of persons who have passed their peak.
Taking the Bill as a whole, I cannot help feeling that there are some rather cheeseparing approaches and pinchpenny attitudes which will be extremely damaging. That will reap its own reward. It means that the persons appointed to the judiciary will be second-raters. That is particularly damaging because in many cases once a judge is appointed he cannot be got rid of earlier. It is very difficult to get rid of him even when you can do so. We have had one or two examples recently. Therefore, I suggest that what is necessary is to revise those clauses in the Bill which I have spoken about—I am sorry to say in repetition because everybody has virtually said the same thing —in order to prevent that situation arising.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I add my congratulations to those already offered to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, not only on the quality of his address to your Lordships but on his wisdom in ensuring that, even though the subject is potentially controversial, the House had the benefit of his view on a subject which affects the quality of the administration of justice.
Perhaps I may start my submissions, as I always try to do, on a note of harmony. I take positive pleasure in agreeing with the proposal of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that 70 years should be the compulsory retirement age. Indeed, I shall invite him to go further. It is an invitation which I hope he will find irresistible because it is based on applying the wisdom enshrined in a Scottish Act which is only seven years old.
I speak on the retirement age not with the fervour of a recent convert. Nearly 35 years ago I was responsible for the Bar Council, when there was no retirement age, compulsory or otherwise, recommending to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, that the retirement age should be 70. At that stage he was anxious to put up the judges' stipend from £5,000 to £8,000 a year. He knew that he had no chance of achieving that without offering a compulsory retirement age. I was responsible for what the Bar Council put forward.
The respect in which I shall be inviting my noble and learned friend to go beyond what is proposed can be stated quite shortly. South of the Border we currently destroy the underlying purpose of the retirement age by inviting judges who have retired having reached the compulsory retiring age, to continue to sit. Last year over 500 judge-days were sat by judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal

155
who had passed the age of 75. Indeed, in the Court of Appeal no less than 100 days were sat by judges who had passed the age of 80. I make it abundantly clear that this is no criticism of my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington, the Master of the Rolls, who has consistently sought to increase the establishment of judges in the Court of Appeal.
In his review of the last legal year he said:
"retired Lord Justices provide the biggest source of reinforcement and without their help the work of the Civil Division would be in dire straits".
He listed the eight retired Lord Justices who had sat during that year and five of them were over 80 years of age.
In Section 22 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 provision is made for the re-employment of retired judges if the Lord President considers it expedient—I quote the words missing from this Bill—as,
"a temporary measure … to facilitate the disposal of business".
But that is not after they have reached their compulsory retirement age, currently 75 years. That was based on the proposition that if Parliament believes that 75 years is the appropriate age at which a judge should retire, that is an end of the matter. There is no provision in that Bill for the grant by a Minister of the Crown of any extension beyond the compulsory retirement age either "in the public interest", whatever that imprecise formula may encompass, or at all.
I believe that there are at least two very sound reasons for the Scottish legislation. They are essentially a constitutional one and a practical one. It is of the very foundation of the judicial independence that judges have security of tenure. I need hardly point out to the House that this independence enables them to act as checks on the Executive and as critics of the legislature. A vital part of their role is to stand between the state and the citizen and to maintain certain fundamental and historic principles such as the liberty of the subject, access to the courts, etc. In an entirely different context my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would have seen those very words only last week in a learned article written nearly 10 years ago by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce.
What is proposed under Clause 25(4) is that a judge who has reached compulsory retirement age should be given by and in the sole discretion of the appropriate Minister, without the obligation of his first obtaining the agreement of or even consulting the Lord Chief Justice or any judge, so to speak, a job at a time or an extension for a year at a time until he reaches 75 years of age. It cannot be controverted that, theoretically, his "contract"—for want of a better word —might not be renewed if he were to make decisions of which the Executive disapproved. I would ask those who say, "Oh, but this is merely theoretical", to contemplate the recent situation in which the High Court judge in the case of the haemophiliacs who contracted AIDS as a result of blood transfusions administered in National Health Service hospitals virtually shamed the Government into acting with proper compassion.
156
Could one be sure that the same courage would have been shown by a judge "on contract"? And if, as I hope, the answer is "yes", what would happen when his "contract" came up for renewal?
The practical ground is also a very simple one. The ability to use—it is so enshrined at present in the Bill —on a regular and consistent basis, not as a temporary measure, judges who have passed their retirement age is open to abuse. I would ask those who might again respond, "All this is theory", to refer to Hansard of 15th July 1991, where at column 8 the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked Her Majesty's Government this question:
"What is their response to the statement of the Lord Chief Justice concerning the inadequate number of High Court judges and the immediate threat that this poses to the administration of justice."
My noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton put this question at column 9:
"My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain to the House how the regular and consistent use of deputy judges under what I believe are the terms of Section 9(4) of the Supreme Court Act is reconcilable with the terms of that section which prescribe such action only as a temporary measure?"
The answer by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is most revealing. He said:
"My Lords, I have a degree of difficulty with that question. However, it is a temporary measure. As my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver knows better than I—he has been closely associated with the High Court of Justice for much longer —this practice has continued for a long time."—[Official Report, 15/7/91; cols. 8 and 9.]
The contradiction in that answer will not have escaped your Lordships. This answer caused sufficient concern in another place for the point to be raised a week later as to what the position would be if a disgruntled litigant challenged the judgment of a deputy judge on the grounds that the judge had not been properly appointed under the statute—that is, that there had been an abuse of power. The reference is column 945 of Commons Hansard of 22nd July.
If judges are to retire at 70, there is likely to be a very large pool of judges available to continue to sit in a judicial capacity, many of whom, with a 20- instead of a 15-year accrual period, would not have yet earned their full but inadequate pension. In the five years to 1st January 1992, 36 High Court judges were appointed, of whom 28—that is, 78 per cent.—were 50 years of age or over when appointed. Over the same period, 186 circuit judges were appointed, of whom 94 —that is, 51 per cent.—were 50 years of age or over.
It may not be known that it is much cheaper to make use of retired judges. Not only do pensions have to be funded for the permanent judge, but he must be provided with a proper room, with a clerk, a library and other such back-up facilities. No such facilities are provided for the retired judge. I remember hearing my noble and learned friend Lord Denning being interviewed quite recently about the proposed new retirement age. He said, "Oh, I think that that is quite all right nowadays" but added, "It will cost the Treasury a pretty penny." But it will not, as one can see from the Financial effects of the Bill, to which my noble friend Lord Benson referred. It states:
"the effect on public expenditure is expected to be broadly neutral."

157
How will that come about? Quite simply, by employing judges on contract—but perhaps I am characterising them unfairly. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon and I have met that situation in countries in warmer climes where it has been found to he almost disastrous.
I submit with the deepest of respect that we must put an end to this hoodwinking of the public. Again I submit with respect that there is an element of wholly unacceptable hypocrisy in proposing what appears at first sight to be radical and sensible legislation and then, by a species of back-door mechanism, undermining its very purpose.
I turn now to pensions, which I shall deal with only briefly because of the time constraints. My first point is virtually a constitutional point. The Top Salaries Review Body was set up in order that Parliament might have the advantage of a body of independent experts—I stress those words—to advise on the proper remuneration of senior members of the armed forces, the Civil Service and the judiciary, insulated from the pressures of the Treasury. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor conceded in his address to your Lordships, pensions are a vital part of a salary structure. Indeed, in report No. 29, dated February 1990, the board said that there is difficulty in finding sufficient numbers of suitable candidates for the circuit Bench. It said that one reason for that is the judicial pension, which, it suggested,
"might be made more attractive in a manner consistent with normal practice elsewhere in the public services."
I understand that Parliament, when it desired to have a proper pension scheme for its own Members, referred the matter to the board, which produced a scheme that Parliament adopted. I submit that this is precisely what the Government should have done in regard to judicial pensions. The matter should have been referred for a report to the Top Salaries Review Body. The board would have sought the advice of at least one independent consultant actuary—an expert, to whom I fear that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his department never resorted. In case I have got that wrong, perhaps my noble and learned friend will be kind enough when he responds to the debate to tell us whether the advice of an independent consultant actuary was sought and, if so, what that advice was. What is the result of not referring to an independent body? So far from improving the pension facilities, they have been seriously downgraded.
I must reserve my detailed comments for the Committee stages of this Bill, when, relying largely on the TSRB's written responses to the consultative paper of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I shall seek to identify the petty meannesses of a scheme which, as it now stands, is grossly out of date, particularly in its treatment of surviving spouses, orphans, illness and death in service. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Benson, the scheme is mathematically flawed in terms of the lump sum.
I end by referring in two or three sentences to certain provisions in comparable jurisdictions overseas. In the United States a judge who retires at 70
158
needs only 10 years' service for his full salary to continue to be paid. In Canada the mandatory retirement age is 75 years, the pension is two-thirds of salary, and at 75 years this only requires 10 years' service. In Australia the federal judge must retire at 70. He is entitled to 60 per cent. of his judicial salary, payable from time to time, upon attaining the age of 60 and having served only 10 years. In New Zealand, as a strange form of compromise, the current retirement age of the Court of Appeal and the High Court judge is 68 and requires 16 years of service for the full pension, which is two-thirds of salary at retirement and is tax free.
Ultimately this Bill, if enacted in its present form, will diminish the quality of the judiciary and seriously debilitate the independence of the judges. It should therefore carry a government health warning, expressed in another place in these terms:
"Penny pinching in the servicing of the judiciary today, builds a disaster into our judicial system for tomorrow".
5.51 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it is usual in this circumstance, and very true, to say that everything has been said. As the first Scot, or perhaps more correctly the second Scot, to speak in the debate, I find it unusual to have Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Acts coming from left, right and centre. However, it is encouraging to know that they are actually read.
Perhaps I may start by dealing with the difficulty of reading the Bill, a point to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, referred. I direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 19(1) (b). The phrase in question also appears in Clause 19(2) (b). I spent a long time trying to work out what it means. I think that I have done so: it is confirmed by the Notes on Clauses. The provision states:
"the amount which constitutes the judicial officer's pensionable pay is less than it would have been, had the permitted maximum mentioned in section 3(3) (b) above been an infinitely large sum".
That is a complicated way of saying something. My dim recollection of mathematics—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will quickly put me right if I am wrong —is that any finite sum must be less than an infinitely large sum. Surely the proposition could have been put more simply.
Pension provision for dependants is completely inadequate. Let us consider someone who is offered a job by a large company and at the same time a judicial position. He asks, "What happens if I die of a heart attack in the first year?" If I understand the Bill correctly, the response of the noble and learned Lord's department will be, "Your widow will get a pension of one-eightieth of salary." Is that competitive with what would be given by Marks and Spencer or any another company taking on someone from self-employment into a big job? The treatment of relatives and dependants seems very mean indeed.
The 20-year period would undoubtedly have the effect that judicial appointments would tend to come at 50 and go on to 70. The 15-year period was introduced in 1959. Since then every Scottish judge appointed to the Court of Session has been under 60

159
with one exception—a judge who was at that time Lord Advocate and had to wait until a public inquiry report was published. There has been no Court of Session judge who has not done his 15 years' service before retirement; and that, I am sure, would be the position in regard to a 20-year period.
The effect on the Bar and on the conduct of cases in court would be very serious. Courts in the adversarial system depend on having very able counsel arguing on each side. They depend on certain rules, one being that every case, whether against you or for you, is argued. Those positions do not apply on the Continent where a separate judicial career can be adopted. Do the Government really expect that a Dean of Faculty of Advocates or a law officer—because most law officers tend to become judges at some point in their lives—will never be over 50? We would have lost several years of service of some law officers over the recent past if that had been true. It seems that the 20-year period would have a very deleterious effect in various ways, quite apart from the effect on judges.
I turn now to Clause 25 of the Bill. I fully agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and with the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that there is no point in having a retirement age if one does not stick to it. I do not see the point of saying that the retirement age is 70 but that the Minister can increase it.
I agree with everything said by the noble and learned Lords the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice. In Scotland the constitutional position is worse because, according to the clause, it is not the head of the judiciary who makes the appointments; it is the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is one of the major litigants before the Scottish courts. He is responsible for the prison department, for roads, for all planning decisions and so on and as such he is subject to judicial review. How will the public regard someone making such a decision and then the Secretary of State considering whether he continues in office? The wording of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1985 is the appropriate one. The Act refers to the Lord President "after consultation with the Secretary of State." But there is no real reason for having any continuation when one can have, if I have read the Bill correctly, a retired judge continuing to sit in the period between 70 and 75. That would seem to cover all the possibilities and avoid the constitutional difficulties.
One of the problems that arises is the lack of judges, a point dealt with very ably by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls. We are using far too many temporary judges. That is just as true in Scotland as it is in England. Six years ago, temporary sheriffs were only used so that their time was the equivalent of two-and-a-half full-time sheriffs. However, last year, their time equivalent was 24 sheriffs. That represents one-quarter of the whole work. One just cannot run any efficient organisation, and certainly not any court system, where one-quarter of the judges are temporary; that is, one where they are here one day, gone the next or here one week and not available the next. That is an impossible situation.
160
It seems to me that the use of temporaries in judicial office, and also in the Crown Office as advocate deputes, has reached the stage where the quantity of use is reducing the efficiency of the courts.
6 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, as one would expect, the ground in this debate has by now been very well covered. My sole reason for speaking today is that I should like to say a few words from the perspective of someone who was, until very recently, at the practising Bar. I entirely agree that there should be a retiring age for judges and that that age should be 70. I could not attempt to improve on the reasons for that, given so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in his maiden speech.
However, I should just like to put down a marker for the future. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that perhaps, ultimately, the retirement age should be 65. The Bar Council has also made that suggestion. In the course of 25 years of practice at the Bar, I have appeared before some great judges, many good judges and only a very few who were less than good. But those who were less than good were so by reasons of ability or temperament. They were less than good before they reached the age of 65 and they became no better, but no worse, between the ages of 65 and 70. Equally, I never found that a good judge before the age of 65 became less impressive to appear before between the ages of 65 and 70. Therefore, I warmly applaud the decision of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor not to go below the age of 70.
Having said that, perhaps I may express my own concern, and one that has been expressed by a number of judges who have spoken, about the provision in Clause 25 which permits judges to be reappointed after the age of 70 on a temporary basis. My first point is a simple and constitutional one: if the reasons for retirement at the age of 70 are right constitutionally, then I think that they are probably right for all judges. I understand the pragmatic difficulties that lead to the need sometimes for the Master of the Rolls —and, indeed, the other Heads of Divisions—gratefully to draw on those who have retired. But I think that that is undesirable in principle.
If there are to be such arrangements, I understand that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would seek to formalise them. However, I believe that the very nature of the formality involved shows the weakness in the system. I say that because, from the perception of the Bar, we well know that many cases involve judges sitting where the state is a party. This is true of all criminal cases, many civil cases and, notably, cases of judicial review of the kind that have been cited by earlier speakers in the debate. It is possible that in some of those cases the Government will succeed and the claimant, or the defendant in the criminal case, will lose.
Disappointed litigants are not always rational. Their perception is important. I believe that we should seek to avoid a perception where it can be said in any quarter that there is even a risk that a judge's summing-up or a judge's decision would be affected by

161
the potential that he or she would wish to seek to serve on the Bench. Therefore, I would go either for an absolute embargo or for a provision of the kind mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice where any appointment over the age of 70 was made by the Head of Division, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. I believe that that would enshrine continuing judicial independence.
I turn now to what seems to me to be the compression factor in the Bill. Most of us are agreed that there should be a retirement age of 70. But, if that is right, what impact does the 20-year provision have? I believe that it is a cause of considerable concern. For many years stipendiary magistrates and, I believe I am right in saying, Masters of the Supreme Court have had to serve 20 years before retirement. In practice, that has meant that they sought to be appointed before they reached the age of 50. In some cases, when appearing before them in their latter years, one had the distinct impression that it was just conceivable that they might be soldiering on in order to earn their pension.
It is immensely important—and I was very glad to hear my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor state this—that many who go to the Bench should be mature and experienced. I add to that statement that it is also important that the Bar should not be denuded of talent too young. In recent years, the average age of judicial appointment has been 50 or slightly over. The parameters for appointment are, generally speaking, between perhaps 45 and 55 for the most part, although I appreciate that there are exceptions. If the average age is 50, that means that many will be appointed over the age of 50 and that none of those will have the opportunity of earning a full judicial pension. Quite simply, I believe that that is unfair to our judiciary. Either we push the age limit down so that judges are almost invariably appointed at under 50, which I believe to be undesirable, or we deprive them under the Bill of the opportunity of earning a full pension. I ask my noble and learned friend to reconsider very carefully whether that choice is a desirable one.
I do not wish to speak of the quantum of the pension. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has given signals, perhaps, of battles yet to come in Committee. I very much hope that, on an issue as important to the public as the pensions of the judiciary and their terms of service, any battles which can properly be avoided will be avoided. I respectfully echo the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that it would be highly desirable if this Chamber in Committee had the benefit of the comments on the Bill of the Top Salaries Review Body and of an independent actuary. That would ensure that there is fairness to the public purse and it would also ensure that there is fairness to the judiciary.
I make no apology at this time for speaking about fairness to the judiciary. From practising at the Bar, I know what an onerous and difficult task it is to be a judge. There have been many criticisms of the judiciary over recent years in connection with cases of miscarriages of justice which have caused public disquiet. Most criticisms of the judiciary have, in my
162
view, been misguided. The judiciary is not responsible for the quality of police evidence; it is not responsible for the verdict of the jury; and it is not responsible for the statutory system within which appeals are conducted.
I state this because I believe that this is a time when it is particularly important that we should hold the position of the judiciary in respect and hold its rights in balance. In order to do so, I believe that it would be fair to all involved if the proposal for an independent inquiry was to be considered, rather than there being a debate in Committee, conducted, no doubt, with the usual amity that prevails in such exchanges, which might have the effect of suggesting that there was real and continuing disquiet about whether the Government were providing properly for the judiciary. Therefore, I urge my noble and learned friend to consider putting before the Chamber in Committee some objective assessment of that kind so that all our considerations may be better informed.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: My Lords, I hesitated as to whether to speak in this debate, but I am delighted that I decided to do so if only because of the privilege it gives me of expressing the pleasure I had in listening to the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. His appointment to that great office was universally welcomed by the legal profession in the knowledge of the outstanding talents he would bring to it. I have no doubt that your Lordships' House will cordially endorse that welcome in the knowledge of the outstanding contribution that he will make to debates in the House.
Having said that, I have to say that I am not entirely in step with him on all the points he made, or indeed with what appears to be the view of the majority of your Lordships. We live in an ageing society where the number of unproductive persons living on pensions becomes greater in proportion to those productive workers who have to support them. We live in an increasingly litigious society, where the number of judges required to perform judicial functions is constantly increasing. When I was first called to the Bar I think there were nine Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal; now there are 27 or 28. The pressure, as my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls has said, is continually growing.
In these circumstances can we not stop for a moment to question the wisdom of limiting the overall pool of those from whom persons to perform the judicial function must be drawn by reference exclusively to the date on their birth certificates without reference at all to their competence to perform the office? I question here too—I think in agreement with most of your Lordships—the possible combined effects of a retiring age of 70 and a minimum period of 20 years in order to earn a full pension on the availability of suitable candidates willing to accept appointment to the judiciary.
If we are to have a normal retiring age of 70 for all the judiciary, including the higher judiciary, then I, in contrast with some of the rest of your Lordships, welcome the power in the Bill to extend that tenure of

163
office from year to year until the age of 75, although I share the doubts expressed by my noble and learned friend the Master of the Rolls as to whether that power to extend should be exercised solely by the Lord Chancellor rather than, as my noble and learned friend suggested, by the designated judges in consultation with the Lord Chancellor.
I do not share the constitutional doubts raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner. But then I very rarely share his perennial suspicion that any measure introduced by this Government conceals some sinister bureaucratic plot to undermine the independence of the judiciary. The answer surely to any constitutional objection to a power to extend a judge's service beyond the retiring age of 70 is that given by my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson —that if done by the regular members of the judiciary, before designated judges in consultation with the Lord Chancellor, the constitutional objection disappears.
That brings me to the final point, of which I speak with the utmost diffidence for obvious reasons—the absolute disqualification of those over 75. As your Lordships will appreciate, I think I am the one speaker who will be immediately affected by it when it becomes law. While I appreciate that this reflects a public perception which has been much promulgated by the media—it may well provoke another broadside—I shall risk that in order to make three points on the subject. The first point has already been made but in a different sense from the sense in which I make it. Since the retiring age of 75 was introduced in 1959, both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have frequently called on the services of retired judges, retired Law Lords and retired Lords Justices often well beyond the age of 75 to fill the gaps that inevitably occur. The volume of appellate work in the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords fluctuates and from time to time it is necessary to call on somebody for a week here or there to fill a gap. Does it really make economic or any other sort of sense to insist that there shall always be a sufficient full-time judiciary in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords to avoid any such gaps ever arising? In my submission, it does not.
The second point I make is that of course no one should be qualified to sit after 75, even on an occasional basis, unless he is invited to do so, and the power to issue the invitation should rest with whatever authority has the power to extend a judge's service from 70 to 75.
Thirdly, and finally, I cannot resist making this point. Throughout the 19th century and most of this century some of the most outstanding judges who have sat in the Court of Appeal and as Law Lords in your Lordships' House have made some of their finest and most mature contributions to English jurisprudence after they passed the age of 75. If that has been so in the past why should it not continue to be so in the present?
6.16 p.m.
Lord McCloskey: My Lords, some of your Lordships may recall the television sketch in which John Cleese, clad in his wig and gown, stands up before the court and says to the judge:
"My Lord, my learned friend appears for the plaintiff and I appear for the money".
Tonight I must declare an interest in the Bill because I am or am likely to be a person holding qualified judicial office on the appointed day, whenever the appointed day may be. But I am not in the least concerned about the money. I, like all existing judges, signed up for the existing provisions. We must have found them satisfactory when we signed and we cannot cavil at them now. The new provisions are certainly for us no less satisfactory. Indeed, in so far as we are given an option, they are beneficial to us and we ought to acknowledge that.
I should like to join with most of your Lordships who have spoken in drawing attention to the interaction of Clause 3, which prescribes a 20-year qualifying period for the full pension, and Clause 25, which introduces the compulsory retiring age of 70. Inevitably the optimum age to become a judge is on one's 50th birthday. I think that that is obviously so because if one goes on the Bench later one will get a smaller pension; if one goes on earlier one is likely to suffer the loss of earnings at the Bar which are likely to be at their greatest at that particular time. Also some people are reluctant to go on the Bench for the reason that I was reluctant to go on the Bench in my 40s, when I felt that I would be putting one foot in the grave, so to speak. I thought that that was a drastic step to take at such a young age. My guess however is that the average age will settle down at something in the mid to late 40s.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has drawn attention to the age of some of us. I went on the Bench at the age of 55, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who sits with us tonight went on the Bench, I think, at the age of 57. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was 58 and the last but one Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, went on the Bench also at the age of 58. So when one thinks of judges having to retire at the age of 70, all these judges would qualify for substantially less than the full pension, which by contrast with other countries is not very great.
There is also a notable sub-effect and that applies to the Law Officers, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. Most of the Law Officers who have ascended to the Bench in Scotland have been well over 50. Are we then to envisage that all Law Officers will in effect retire from that particular post by about or indeed before the age of 50?
There has been some talk in the debate of judges becoming impatient, bad tempered, remote or out of touch with contemporary mores simply by reason of advancing age. That may be a possible effect of advancing age, but in my experience a much more potent cause of remoteness, arrogance and ill temper among the judiciary is the length of time that the

165
person has served on the Bench. The longer one is there the more remote one becomes from the struggle in which one was previously engaged. The overall effect of Clauses 3 and 25 is to encourage judges to stay on the Bench for 20 years. I deplore them for that reason.
If we have to work in round figures, I suggest that the best balance is to make the accrual period 15 years, as it is at present, and the compulsory retiring age 70. There is no need to go for round figures. We have had the example of New Zealand. I am sure that we can find others elsewhere. We could pick the best period—somewhere between 15 and 20 years is a possibility—and the ideal age, regardless of whether it is a round figure.
An entirely separate reason for questioning the wisdom of the whole thrust of the Bill is that it moves us stealthily towards the creation of a kind of career judiciary. That runs counter to our tradition. There may be good reasons—I do not know of them—for moving towards a career judiciary, but I am opposed to such a move as a mere by-product of a Bill which is intended to remove anomalies and anachronisms from existing pension provisions. Like others, I am interested to know what Clause 25 means. I do not like to see Ministers having the power to select judges. I want to endorse the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna that the Secretary of State for Scotland is an important litigant in Scotland. He is a litigant before me next week in the Appeal Court. He frequently litigates in our courts. It is not right that he should have the power, equivalent to the power exercised by the Lord Chancellor for England and Wales. I hope that that point will be looked at. I endorse the recommendation of my noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna in that regard.
There are two points about which I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of which I have given him notice. The first is that under Clause 1 the Minister may prescribe the period of time during which a currently serving judge may elect between the existing and the new provisions. How long a period do Her Majesty's Government have in mind to allow such an election, and why does any period need to be laid down? Why should not the existing judiciary merely be given the right to elect in the light of their personal, financial and family circumstances at any time while they continue to serve?
Finally, Clause 31(2) contains the commencement provisions. I wonder when the provisions which affect the aggregation of pension entitlement for those who have moved from one judicial office to another are likely to be brought into force. Those are matters of detail, but I hope that the Government will think again about the main thrust of the two clauses to which I have referred and the overall effect of the Bill.
6.23 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to say how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and to congratulate him upon it. Like others who have, spoken, I am delighted that he thought it right to
166
express his view. I am pleased that his view on the matters about which he spoke should have been available in this way to your Lordships. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity to have some discussions with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham before he spoke. I should have liked to have learnt why the anomalies of the present system have continued for so long. No doubt there is an answer to that question which will be forthcoming in due course.
Many of your Lordships have spoken about the 15-year accrual period. It is obvious that, taken by itself, moving from 15 years to 20 years is not helpful. One does not need to be especially perspicacious to discern that fact. But I have to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his reference to what I said. I said that the judges' pension system will have to take account of the general tax position. The general tax position is that the scheme should require an accrual system which is not more rapid than 20 years to benefit from the present pension scheme regime. It is extremely difficult to suggest that the judiciary as a whole should be in a special position relative to that. Of course the judicial pension scheme is intended to apply especially to the judiciary and to cater for its needs in the way in which, in my submission, it has; but one has to think about it against a background of the tax structure.
I have sought to ensure that the judicial pension scheme has features which make it proper and possible for it to enjoy the tax-free treatment which is available within the general law. That, as I sought to explain in my opening, is why we have two schemes; including a top-up scheme when one comes above the cap. My noble and learned friend Lord Morton of Shuna has referred to the elegant language of Clause 19 in which the draftsman has sought to refer to the cap. The idea is clear enough. If one is above the cap, there will be a separate scheme in respect of that part of the salary which is above the cap. If my noble and learned friend will allow me, I shall invite the draftsman to comment upon his comments to see whether an improved formulation can be put forward. That is the crucial reason why the 20-year accrual period has been arrived at.
I want to point out an important factor about which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me: the retained benefits. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice of course understood the position about them and commented as to why they would not be of particular advantage in every possible circumstance. The question is: what does one do about it? One cannot have all sorts of specialties, and this is a special provision for this scheme. It allows retained benefits. The effect of that is that a person who contributes for a pension under the self-employed arrangement will have that pension in addition to the pension provided under the judicial scheme. The 15-year accrual period has been in existence for High Court judges for a long time, as has been pointed out. But the background against which it exists now is different from that against which it was originally set up. We have to take account of the general taxation system.

167
So far as I am aware, there is no pension scheme allowed for tax purposes which accrues at anything like the rate which is proposed in the Bill for the judicial scheme which allows the retained benefits to be added to the judicial pension. That is how the judicial scheme that I propose fits in with our desire to have mature people on the Bench. If we have mature people at the top of their practice at the Bar, they will be able fully to subscribe to a personal pension plan which will more than compensate in respect of any loss of years in the judicial system. If that is a good idea, it will mean that people will increasingly be able, without any detriment to their financial position, to continue in practice and then take not the fully accrued judicial pension but the proportion of it appropriate to their time in office.
Your Lordships have stressed that 15 years is better than 20 for an accrual rate. I understand that. However, noble Lords have not yet directed their attention to whether there is a good case for differentiating the tax treatment of judges from that of all other people, in particular whether the provision in the Bill for special tax treatment for judges on the lines I have described is the most suitable that can be devised.
We shall obviously have discussions in Committee about the detail of the Bill and I shall see what I can do to produce helpful assessments of these matters. The information I have about other schemes is detailed and is more appropriate for Committee than for me to deal with it here.
However, I am at least as devoted as my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey to the system that we have for appointing the judiciary. There is no intention on my part to create the conditions for a career judiciary in the sense in which he described them. But it is most important to have a reasonably just arrangement for passing, for example, from the circuit Bench to the High Court Bench. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for their observations on this in the debate, but they did not deal specifically with the relationship between the judicial pension system for the High Court and the circuit Bench on the one hand and for lower judicial officers on the other. These matters are important because the more distinction there is at different levels the more difficult it is to have a degree of flexibility between them. I hope that your Lordships will consider it perfectly reasonable to encourage good district judges to become circuit judges and so on without in any way committing oneself to a completely career judiciary in -Which people do not start in the ordinary practice of the legal profession.
My noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey asked me two questions which I shall try to answer. The first is on the time of the election. The Top Salaries Review Body in its comments on the consultation paper suggested that flexibility should be introduced. I propose that the regulations should allow the existing judiciary to decide at the time when the benefits are in issue—that is, at retirement. I
168
believe that that is the longest possible time envisaged. That was announced in the Government's response to the consultation paper in paragraph 19.
The second question was when aggregation should be allowed to start. The answer is as soon as the provisions of the Bill become law and can reasonably be commenced. I should like some time for the detailed regulations to be made, but subject to consideration of the circumstances I should wish to see the Bill come into force as soon as possible.
Before leaving this part of my observations, perhaps I may also answer a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the remuneration of retired circuit judges. It has nothing directly to do with the Bill but nevertheless is an important question. Circuit judges who retire are sometimes invited and are entitled to sit as deputies. They used to be in the class C fee structure which is based on the salary of a district judge. In the course of discussion with the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges, we have agreed that the fees should be increased appropriately, based on the salary of a circuit judge. Many of these part-time fees must be looked at and I have tried to set up a reasonably consistent system. It may take a little time for the arrangements to be put in place, but in principle we agree to the point made by the circuit judges.
I turn from the pension aspect to retirement, on which there is a variety of views. I shall not try to summarise them. First, there is general agreement that a retirement age of 70 is appropriate. Some ask, "Well, if that is so, should it not be absolute?". I can see the force of that argument. In other words, there should be no exceptions. Circuit judges are required to retire at 72 or at the end of the year of service in which they attain the age of 72, subject to a power vested in the Lord Chancellor for them to continue in office. I have exercised that power from time to time, after consultation with the presiding judges. It has worked reasonably well. I have had no complaints about the power being exercised in any way other than properly. It occurred to me therefore that when moving the age from 75 to 70, the period between 70 and 75 might be covered with a similar power. That is the origin of the proposal.
I have carefully considered exactly what the arrangements should be before putting forward the proposals in the Bill. Judges in the higher court and above, including the House of Lords, may be removed during their term of office only by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I felt that the proper constitutional arrangement was that the responsibility for exercising the power, if it were to exist, should be in someone answerable to Parliament for its exercise.
Of course it would be the practice of the Lord Chancellor and, I am sure, also of the Secretary of State to consult the relevant judges. It is not quite so easy to see, for example, who the appropriate judges would be to consult in the case of the possibility of extending the term of office of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. There are difficulties about that and I am open to consider the matter further.
However, it is important that if the power is to exist it should be used by someone who is accountable to

169
Parliament for its exercise. An improper exercise of any such power would in any event be amenable to judicial review. These are matters to be considered in Committee. Unanimity has not characterised this aspect of the speeches.
As to whether judges should sit beyond the age of 75, I appreciate the views expressed that many great judgments have been given by those who were more than 75. A balance has to be struck on whether one should forgo that possibility in the future against the relative certainty of the age of 75. I agree that it is not absolutely necessary to have such a power. The policy could be used to reach the same result. I feel that in a matter as important as this it is right that the policy should be exposed to Parliament. Parliament should ultimately decide it.
The contributions which have been made show that we shall have lively discussions in Committee. It is reasonably clear that, as has been pointed out to me, there are two distinct thrusts in the Bill. One is to reduce the retirement age; the other has the effect of increasing the period of minimum accrual for pensions. I thought it was right that the two should be considered together because it would be most unfortunate to have a separate consideration of them. The system must be considered as a whole. The pension arrangements are part of the overall remuneration arrangements for judges. I am strongly persuaded that the motivation of those who accept appointments to the High Court in this country is not a desire for financial improvement. Obviously the terms are important to them but many of those who are appointed to the High Court forgo considerable earnings in private practice. In my experience those who are appointed to the High Court consider that an honour to be sought after.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, with his great experience, pointed out that this is a matter which needs to be considered. This Bill certainly has been considered. I have consulted on both the pension and the retirement aspects. Your Lordships will have an opportunity of considering all these matters in due course in Committee, as I am persuaded that your Lordships are willing that this Bill should have a Second Reading, the Motion for which I now renew.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I hope he will be kind enough to answer the question I specifically raised. Were the views of an independent consultant actuary obtained on the scheme as now put forward by the House, and if so may we know what those views are?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have already sought to answer that in my observations. I am not persuaded that I am in a position to put particularly useful views of an independent actuary before your Lordships. However, I shall certainly consider that matter carefully before the Committee Stage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Intestacy: Law Commission Report
6.41 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they intend to take in the light of the recommendations in the Law Commission report on intestacy (House of Commons Paper 60, Session 1989–90).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I trust that your Lordships will consider that this Unstarred Question relating to a report of the Law Commission laid before Parliament by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and published sonic two and a half years ago deals with a matter of common interest and public importance. It is all about our laws of intestacy and about who benefits from the estate of a person who dies without having made a valid will and what principles should apply in this day and age, having regard to today's social conditions and mores, to the distribution of an intestate's estate.
The last such review was carried out by the Morton Committee in 1951 and there has been much social change over the intervening 40 years. Most usefully, the commission published a working paper in July 1988 and consulted widely on it, and even more sensibly—if I may say so in a matter of this kind—the commission saw there was a survey of public opinion. That was undertaken in December 1988.
Rather than dealing with all the contingencies that can occur with surviving members of what can loosely be called the family, I propose to deal solely with the present law of intestacy where there is a surviving spouse and especially where there are also surviving children of the intestate. That is often the most worrying situation as the law now stands. I remind your Lordships that the current law states that in that event the surviving spouse will receive what is called a statutory legacy of £75,000, the deceased's personal chattels—that broadly means furniture and effects in the home, items of jewellery and items of that kind —and a life interest in half the remainder of the estate. The other half of that residue is shared among the issue. I use the word "issue" because grandchildren take the share of a child who had predeceased the intestate.
Where there are no issue but there are parents or siblings of the whole blood (or their issue) who survive, the spouse will receive a statutory legacy of £125,000, the personal chattels to which I have previously referred and one half of the remainder absolutely, the other half going to the parents of the deceased, or if no parents survive, to the siblings of the whole blood or their issue. If there are no issue, parents or siblings of the whole blood (or their issue), the spouse takes all.
The statutory legacy going to the widow or widower is updated from time to time by statutory instrument and the revised figures apply to deaths taking place after the statutory instrument comes into force. These statutory legacies have been uprated in 1972, 1977, 1981 and 1987. Possibly the first thing your Lordships will have noticed is that in all this

171
there is no provision whatsoever for the matrimonial home as such to go to the surviving spouse even when minor children are involved.
The statutory legacy to the widow of £75,000 may be quite insufficient of itself to acquire the matrimonial home, quite apart from there being no sum left over to maintain it and the family. If the property happens to be held on a joint tenancy, which means that the survivor automatically inherits the property, or on a tenancy in common, where the surviving spouse has an interest in equity, the position of the surviving spouse is of course much more advantageous, but people who are old today may not have realised all this when the matrimonial home was purchased possibly very many years ago and when the custom was to have the home in the sole name of the husband. So we start off with one unfairness, but in these days, even with the current depreciation of property values, the value of a home is incalculably greater than when these rules were first thought of in the early 1920s. Also, one can of course have vastly different values of exactly the same type of house in different areas of the same county, let alone different areas of the same country.
All this has meant that with such reasoning, and furthermore after reflecting upon the unsatisfactory procedure of having to deal with increases spasmodically made by statutory instrument as well as having to take the value of the house not at the date of that instrument but at the date of actual appropriation of the house, which is another unsatisfactory ingredient, the commission has arrived at a recommendation that, in all instances where there is a surviving spouse, and irrespective of whether or not there is issue, the whole estate of the intestate should go to the surviving spouse.
I do not propose in the time at my disposal, if I limit it to civilised standards, to go into the recommendations that the hotchpotch of statutory rules affecting issue and affecting issue and spouses upon partial intestacy should be repealed, except to say that in my humble opinion those recommendations are correct. I am, however, unhappy, as are many members of the legal profession and those familiar with family problems, about the commission's unqualified recommendation that a surviving spouse gets all even where there are children of the intestate surviving. I appreciate to the full the desire of the commission that intestacy rules should be certain, clear and simple both to understand and to operate. But if that is liable to produce too many hard cases, it makes bad law. As a practising solicitor, I do not accept the suggestion which the report contains to the effect that there is a ready remedy where children are dependants of the deceased, in that they can, either themselves or someone can do so on their behalf, make an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, under which a dependant may apply to the court for an award out of an estate.
Of course such an application can be made but that presupposes the ability and willingness to litigate and does not take into account the detriment to family
172
relationships which can so often result from any such application to the court. I am particularly worried about the effect of those recommendations of the commission—the difficulties are frankly recognised in the report—where there are second or subsequent marriages, the previous ones having been determined by death or, much more likely these days, by divorce, and there are children of the deceased by a prior marriage. Indeed, we learn from the report that the majority of the respondents in the public opinion survey took the view that in such cases the spouses should be treated differently. However, the commission felt that the intestacy rules should not give issue of former marriages any rights upon intestacy other than those which might be established by an application to the court under the 1975 Act, to which I referred.
I repeat that I am very unhappy about this matter and so, among others, is the appropriate committee of the Law Society and the Bar's Law Reform Committee. In its view and, if I may say so, in my own, better justice would be done by recommending that, where the deceased left a spouse but no children, the surviving spouse should get the whole estate; but where there are children, different considerations should apply. For example, the well-known organisation Justice has made a recommendation which certainly deserves close consideration. It is that the surviving spouse should, where there are also surviving issue, be entitled for his or her life to the intestate's interest in the matrimonial home, the income from any proceeds of sale, a statutory index-linked legacy and one half of the residue. The other half of the residue should go to all surviving children of the intestate in equal shares, wherever there has been a previous marriage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, may well say—perhaps I may so prophecy—the Bar's Law Reform Committee goes further than that in its recommendation. It suggests that if the estate is large enough, the rights of the children of the intestate to benefit should not depend on some of the children being children of a previous marriage. Furthermore, that committee supports Justice's proposal that a surviving spouse should have the right at any stage to apply, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, for payment to him or her of capital out of the proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home.
The need to provide for children of past marriages may not have been much of a problem in 1922 among the sections of our society which are perhaps particularly vulnerable on an intestacy. The number of divorces in all sections of society some 70 years on makes a very different situation. The same considerations of social change, whether we like it or not, pertain to cohabitants, people who have lived together as husband and wife without entering into the formal marriage state. What of them upon intestacy?
At present the intestacy rules only provide for Current spouses and blood relations. Cohabitants can only make a claim against an intestate's estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, where they can satisfy the court that they were dependent on the deceased. That

173
often produces great hardship in that a cohabitant could have made a very meaningful contribution to family life but has not in fact been a dependant. In such a case there is no provision for that survivor either under the intestacy rules or the 1975 Act. I do not have to tell your Lordships of the very significant number of such households which now exist in our society.
For its part the Law Commission recommends that cohabitants should be provided for outside the intestacy rules and under the 1975 Act. They should be able to apply under that Act for reasonable provision without having to show dependence. The definition of "cohabitant" obviously poses some problems when contained in a statute; but we managed in Parliament to draw up a definition, in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, which is as good as we are likely to get. The commission recommends that that definition should be adopted in the suggested extension of the provisions of the 1975 Act.
I note that the Wills and Equity Committee of the Law Society agreed with those proposals, provided that they only applied on an intestacy, but it still expressed concern that the interests of the deceased's children should be protected. The Family Law Committee of the society is, however, reviewing the entire legal position of cohabitants with a view to producing recommendations for law reform in that context. I am sure that when they are made, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as he always does, will give them his very careful consideration.
Finally, I deal with what happens under the present law when there is no surviving spouse, no issue and no eligible relatives. In those circumstances the intestate's estate is dignified by the term "bona vacantia" and goes to the Crown. The public opinion survey produced a majority view that it should instead go to charity. Indeed, 60 per cent. were in favour of charity receiving the property and only 17 per cent. supported the existing position. However, the commission, together with many of those whom they consulted, found difficulties in so altering the law, because of the problem of choosing the charity or charities to benefit, and because the Crown is able to make ex gratia payments in deserving cases whereas a charity would not be equipped to do that or indeed to administer the estate or satisfactorily meet a situation in which a relative entitled to benefit was eventually found.
Those problems might have applied and indeed did apply when the commission prepared its report. But that was before the Millennium Fund and the national lottery arose upon our national horizon. I ask for due consideration to be given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues in the Government to the idea that bona vacantia in future should vest in those who will administer the national funds for charity and the arts pursuant to the Conservative manifesto placed before the electorate at the general election. I suggest that the same procedures and discretion, and the ability to create a reserve fund, could be dealt with in the same way as it is at present by the Treasury Solicitor. National good
174
causes could be the ultimate beneficiary of bona vacantia, to the delight, I am sure, of a certain new and ebullient Secretary of State.
7 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for bringing this question to the attention of the House. I look forward to learning the Government's response to the Law Commission's Report which is now two-and-a-half years old. I look forward to learning whether the Government disagree with any or all of the recommendations of the report and whether any future changes can be expected.
The Law Commission identified areas for reform. Those were most helpfully summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. In particular it identified the unsatisfactory features of the present law. It analysed the need for reform and produced a variety of possible solutions. For the most part, the reasoning of the report is compelling. It gives first consideration to the need for intestacy rules to be clear and simple, both to understand and to operate. The report also recognised that any fixed intestacy rules are likely to be described as arbitrary, applying as they must to a multitude of different situations.
The fact is that just as people make wills for many reasons, a large number of others fail to make wills for many reasons including ignorance, indolence, superstition and an optimism that they will live forever. Bentham called the power of making a will,
"an instrument placed in the hands of individuals for the prevention of private calamity".
It must be said that good intestacy rules will mitigate private calamities. Those are described in paragraph 5 of the report as,
"a safety-net for those who have, or think they have, little to leave, or who have not thought about it, or who die prematurely".
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, observed, the safety net is not there for the reluctant testator who does not get round to it. It is a safety net for those he leaves behind.
On balance I welcome the main change proposed by the report, away from the complexity of life interests and statutory trusts and in favour of surviving spouses. My observation in practice is that the present rules can unduly restrict the widowed mother of young children who generally can be expected to act reasonably and responsibly in the interests of her children. If she wishes to adjust the position produced by a will or by intestacy to give her more flexibility under the present law, she has to resort to litigation. Legal costs inevitably reduce the size of the estate, and the children have to be separately represented in a potentially adversarial situation as against their own mother.
My only misgiving—it was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—is that there is no mechanism to protect for the children any part of the estate leaving the control of an irresponsible or vulnerable mother. I say "mother"; it could just as well be "father". The report offers no solution to that.

175
Solutions are not easy to find although I am pleased to hear that the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council suggested some solution, as did Justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, touched on another problem with which I have become familiar in practice, in particular under Inheritance Act claims. It is the difficult balance that has to be struck between the elderly widow after a second marriage who may well have given up her home and a pension to marry relatively late in life against the reasonable expectations of the adult children of the deceased's former marriage who can also expect to receive something from the estate which will probably have been built up in the lifetime of their parents. It is a difficult balance to strike. Whereas in those situations the Inheritance Act can come into play to correct the situation, the Inheritance Act does not come into play to correct the position where there are young children, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. If the surviving parent recovers everything, who will protect the interests of the young children and advance their claim under the Inheritance Act—a claim that has to be made prima facie within six months of death? It is a difficult situation. I wonder whether the Law Commission may have gone too far in that respect.
The report recognises that surviving spouses may always be said to deserve rather more or less depending on the length and happiness of the marriage. Paragraph 39 of the report deals with the estranged husband or wife who might receive an undeserved windfall. It states:
"If separated spouses have chosen to leave their marriages intact then the intestacy rules should treat their marriages in a similar fashion to any other marriage".
It states that the answer is either to make a will or to obtain a decree of judicial separation. That rather begs the question of whether in this situation the intestacy rules provide an appropriate safety net.
Lawyers are well used to picking up the pieces. But it can be extremely irritating to be told, in support of some complicated re-arrangement of an estate, "It is what he would have wanted", or, "It is not what he would have wanted". One is always tempted to respond, "Why on earth, and while on earth, did he not arrange what he wanted when he could?" I suppose that if people were so sensible we would be out of a job.
It is important to consider in the context of the report whether our present intestacy rules provide an appropriate modern safety net. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, observed, there is the further safety net of the 1975 Act.
That takes me finally to the second main recommendation: the addition of cohabitants to the list of claimants under that Act. That is welcome. The present Section 1(1) (e) of the 1975 Act can include the undeserving and exclude the deserving; that is, people who have been left behind who made considerable sacrifices without falling within the somewhat convoluted provisions of Section 1(1) (e). The litigation thrown up by that section has not been very satisfactory. It involves a complicated analysis of evidence based on one side of the story.
It is pleasing that in that respect the Law
176
Commission has developed its thinking since the 1975 Act. During its consideration as a Bill amendments were put forward in another place along the lines of the proposals by the Law Commission. Those amendments were rejected by the government of the day as outside the Long Title of the Bill. One of the leading textbooks described that process as follows:
"The survival of the Law Commission's draft Section 1(1) (e) into enacted statute is due to excessive subservience paid by the Bill's promoters in Parliament to the Law Commission".
I hope that the Government will bring some of those changes before Parliament before too long and that we shall not be excessively subservient, although respectful as always, to anything produced by the Law Commission.
I wish to raise one final point. If legislation is to be brought before Parliament within the foreseeable future, is it expected that it will cover Scotland as well as England and Wales? I am unable to find out how the Scottish Law Commission's consideration has progressed although I know that it has been considering the same topics.
7.9 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, very warmly for the opportunity to discuss this Question.
I believe prima facie that when the Law Commission has considered an issue with the great care that it has brought to this issue, unless there is some good reason against it, the policy which it recommends—since it is in an area for which I have responsibility—should prevail.
In other departmental areas there are other possible policies which the Law Commission might not have had in mind. However, in this case there is no overriding policy that would not be apparent to the Law Commission. Therefore, I approach the matter with the feeling that, first, the Law Commission has identified a problem. Most people are agreed that the law of intestacy has not kept up with the demands being made upon it as a result of the changes in social conditions and so forth, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the Law Commission.
That would be my normal approach to the matter. However, there are some problems with the Law Commission's proposals, particularly in relation to issue of the intestate by an earlier marriage or by a marriage still subsisting at his death. It is not easy to see how to provide for such issue without some machinery such as a continuing trust in respect of, in particular, the matrimonial home. The other difficulty is to be fair as between the different types of arrangement.
I am grateful for your Lordships' views because as yet I have not been able to reach a concluded view as to the wisest course to pursue. The courses suggested by Justice and brought a little further by the Law Reform Committee of the Bar would require the preparation of a fairly detailed scheme to be put into legislation. I am not sure whether I should try to embark on such a course in the department without help.

177
I am also well aware of the fact that the Law Commission considered such difficulties. It thought, "You can't legislate for everything—that is impossible. The best thing to do is to give the whole estate to the widow. That will be clear and everyone will know that if they do nothing and die without making a will that is what will happen. Therefore, perhaps there will be a spur on them—assuming that they have notice of their mortality—to do something about the situation if they wish." That is an attractive line to take: I wonder where the balance lies.
I wish to mention the subsidiary matters referred to by the Law Commission. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do not believe that it is necessary to comment upon them, except that which relates to those who cohabit. The other matters are technical and whatever the legislation was the rules could be included without difficulty. As regards the cohabitants, the proposals do not appear to be controversial to any substantial extent. Although some people might regard them as controversial I do not believe that any substantial amount has yet been generated. The main proposal lies in a different category.
There is also a statutory power to raise the legacy; the Lord Chancellor has the power to do that. In a sense one goes a certain distance towards the Law Commission's approach by raising the statutory legacy fairly substantially so that it will affect many people in such a way as to carry all the estate. However, I have been reluctant to do so until I can reach a firm conclusion about what is a wise course to take in relation to the Law Commission. I take the sense of what your Lordships have said as being against legislating the Law Commission's scheme and in favour of a more elaborate proposal. If that is so we shall have to leave the matter over. A wise course might be to take an interim measure raising the statutory legacy.
I wish to take further time to consider your Lordships' views. I had hoped that we might have generated interest in the subject from the distinguished legal talent which was present at an earlier stage this afternoon. In my mind the two subjects appeared to be closely allied but apparently that was not so in the minds of everyone. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for tabling the Question. I am left with
178
a certain amount of indecision. I shall read carefully what has been said to see whether your Lordships' comments prompt some of those who have been consulted to come forward more definitely than they have hitherto with a view on the whole matter—
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down I wish, first, to thank him for dealing in detail with the discussion. Secondly, I wish to ask whether he has any preliminary views on my suggestion about bona vacantia?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have considered speaking about the matter briefly in relation to the recent television programme which appeared to suggest that a special law of intestacy applied in the Duchy of Lancaster. That would have surprised most people who thought that they understood the existing law of intestacy. The truth is that bona vacantia in the Duchy of Lancaster goes to the Duchy rather than to the Crown. Apart from some minor matters of procedure I do not believe that the differences between the two are of general interest.
The only exception as regards the County Palatine is that the property of those who die intestate goes to the Duchy but the matter is handled in a similar way. Any balance in England and Wales is paid directly into the Exchequer. In the County Palatine any such balance goes towards certain administrative costs incurred by the Duchy of Lancaster in the County Palatine, to the upkeep of certain historic monuments and to a benevolent fund whose income is distributed to causes primarily within the county.
The noble Lord's suggestion may be a good subject for further consideration. Such a proposal overcomes the difficulty of identifying a particular charity to which bona vacantia could go. I should not he surprised if there were difficulties of administration but I am sure that the noble Lord's suggestion—like all his suggestions—is worthy of further consideration. Perhaps I am unduly committing myself in respect of the outcome of that consideration.

Durham Markets Company Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING: BNF PLC AND SOUTH KOREA
  NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING: BNF PLC AND SOUTH KOREA
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE FHSA AND THE CLOTHIER REGULATIONS
  GLOUCESTERSHIRE FHSA AND THE CLOTHIER REGULATIONS
  HEREFORD AND WORCESTER FHSA: GENERAL MANAGER'S LECTURE
  HEREFORD AND WORCESTER FHSA: GENERAL MANAGER'S LECTURE
  HIGHWAY CODE REVISION
  HIGHWAY CODE REVISION
  EC BUDGET: MEMBER STATES' CONTRIBUTIONS AND RECEIPTS
  EC BUDGET: MEMBER STATES' CONTRIBUTIONS AND RECEIPTS