Sitting of 29 June 1992

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

    Motorway Lane Rentals
    Mr. Page:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effects lane rental contracts are having on the speed of repairs and extent of disruption to traffic on motorways.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): Repairs carried out under lane rental contracts are completed some 30 per cent. faster than works under conventional contracts. Our widespread use of that system means that maintenance is completed faster on average than anywhere else in the world, and it has saved about £100 million in the cost of delays to road users since its introduction.
    Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a large part of my constituency is covered by the M25, so I am glad to hear of those improvements. What is he doing to promote the use of lane rentals? As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, may I ask him to tighten up on lane rental contracts, especially the extension of time? I am sure that my right hon. Friend realises that to have a lane rental contract and then to extend the time makes that contract worthless.
    Mr. MacGregor: On my hon. Friend's first point, I am glad to say that 50 per cent. of all appropriate contracts for road maintenance are on the basis of lane rentals.. Next year, the figure will rise to two thirds, which is about the maximum. Progress in this matter is ahead of the commitments given in the citizens charter.
    I am aware of the good report from the Public Accounts Committee and we support a large number of its recommendations. We are dealing with the points that it raised as vigorously as possible, including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Pike: Although we all welcome what the Secretary of State has said, does he recognise that there is still a massive problem? Single lanes on both the M1 and the M6 cause great traffic delays and many safety problems. Can something be done to eliminate that problem in 1992?
    Mr. MacGregor: The reason for some of the delays is the need to repair and update motorways that were built some considerable time ago. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the delays would be very much greater if we
    564
    did not carry out the necessary repairs. The important point is to get the repairs done as quickly as possible, and that is what lane rental contracts are doing.
    Mr. Dykes: As the Secretary of State for the control of unnecessary cones, can my right hon. Friend give us an up-to-date report on the current position? Far too many motorways have long lanes of cones even when no work is being carried out, and that is especially true at weekends. Are cones to be the only growth industry, apart from security men? I hope that my hon. Friend can give us that up-to-date report.
    Mr. MacGregor: I share my hon. Friend's view, but it not the only matter with which I have to deal. The amount of maintenance on motorways has risen by 30 per cent., which is why there are more cones about. The lane rental contracts speed up the time it takes to carry out repairs, which should considerably reduce the number of times that we see cones on motorways.
    On my hon. Friend's other point, we insist that all contractors give information to drivers where cones are being used. In particular, they must give information about why cones are being used if it does not appear that any work is being carried out. If anyone sees a 4-mile stretch of cones where it appears that no work is being done and there is no information to tell people what is happening, I hope that they will let me know.

    Red Routes
    Mr. Harry Greenway:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the red route pilot projects have had on the traffic flow in London.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): On the pilot red route overall accidents have reduced by 36 per cent., with accidents for cyclists down by 55 per cent. and for mopeds/motor cyclists by 60 per cent. In addition, bus journey times have reduced by more than 10 per cent. and their reliability has been improved by a third.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on those figures. Will he confirm that my constituents living at the side of the A40, which is shortly to become a red route, will have ingress and egress to and from their properties and that worshippers going to St. John Fisher church in Perivale will be able to continue to do so without let or hindrance?
    As wheel clamps are never used on red routes, why are they used so freely elsewhere?
    Mr. Norris: It has always been the case that the key to red route implementation is flexibility, and that the local community's ability to go about its normal business is uppermost in our minds. I can give my hon. Friend the reassurances that he seeks in respect of his constituents.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the Minister accept that he and his Department are living in a completely different world from those of my constituents who are affected by the red route scheme? Residents with a year's experience of the red route know that it has succeeded only in attracting more traffic to a part of London that is already congested. In addition, it spells disaster for local traders and shopkeepers. Should not the Minister wake up to that reality?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. There is no evidence of extra traffic. Any increase—bar 2 per cent. that is currently unaccounted for—derives from rat-running traffic being taken back on to the main road, where it ought to be. The hon. Gentleman knows that many businesses off the red route in Islington have suffered equally difficult times. There is no evidence to connect lower business activity with the existence of red routes.
    Mr. Horam: Does my hon. Friend accept that although there is a great deal of support for the red route policy, it could be defeated if too much traffic is forced on to the roads because of deteriorating community rail services? Is he aware that there has been a massive downgrading of the service on Kent commuter lines in particular since May? Some believe that one reason is the desire to create slots for channel tunnel rail services. Will my hon. Friend speak to the director of Network SouthEast to ascertain the facts, and to ensure that the admirable red route policy will not be undermined from that quarter?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right in saying that we ought to consider not only improving traffic performance but investment in public transport. Some £3.5 billion is to be spent on London Underground alone in pursuit of that objective. As to Network SouthEast, my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to Network SouthEast.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister remember telling the House that the additional facilities for walkers, cyclists, and parking were a major element in the red route proposals? Does he recall also telling the House:
    "the annual cost of the additional police officers and traffic wardens will be about £25 million."—[Official Report, 18 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 6101.]?
    Why does not the Minister provide cycling, walking and parking facilities elsewhere in London, and examine instead preventing congestion—which would surely represent better value for money than that £25 million?
    Mr. Norris: Red route programme expenditure is devoted entirely to relieving congestion. I thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that. He is right to say that enforcement is the key, which is why his local borough welcomes the powers in part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which will release resources for policing the routes.
    Sir John Wheeler: Is my hon. Friend aware that the red route initiative is very welcome in my constituency, but that if it is to be carried through, it is essential that my hon. Friend reviews the management of bridges across the Thames? All too often, they are closed or have obstructions placed upon them. There is no point in pushing traffic through London if it cannot cross the river.
    Mr. Norris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the red route programme. He has been in contact with my office about the important question of bridges, and I assure him that I will take a personal interest in ensuring that river crossings are managed as effectively as possible.

    Traffic Congestion, Wearside
    Mr. Etherington:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to reduce road traffic congestion on Wearside.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): Apart from the Al9 west of Sunderland, which is not congested, the responsibility for roads on Wearside lies with the local highway authority, Sunderland city council.
    Mr. Etherington: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new post, and wish him every success in it.
    Does the Secretary of State accept that, although billions of pounds have been spent on motorways and bypasses, such measures have only a marginal effect on traffic in urban areas and, indeed, city centres? Does he agree that the way ahead lies in dedicated tramway systems and, possibly, in an extension of the Tyne and Wear metro system from Tyneside to Wearside?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for over-promoting me, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State heard what he said and will be grateful for his good wishes.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know, in July the city council will be able to present its bids for transport supplementary grant, and I shall of course pay careful attention to the bid from his local authority. It is worth pointing out, however, that last year we accepted the Doxford park access road into our scheme, and that it is one of five local schemes that we are now supporting.
    Mr. Butcher: Can I persuade my hon. Friend to increase spending in Wearside by approximately £10 million? That is the amount that he would save by abandoning the unwanted, unneeded bypass improvement schemes in Coventry, South-West. My constituents——
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been most ingenious, but he cannot get that one past me. I think that he has probably asked his question now.
    Mr. Butcher: I am anxious to help my colleague from Wearside, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), on an all-party basis. I assure him that there is £10 million in the kitty, from my constituency to his—
    Madam Speaker: That is excellent, and I am sure that the Minister appreciates it.
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) brought a delegation to my office. I do not expect ever again to receive a delegation in the House and to be asked not to spend money in an hon. Member's constituency.
    Mr. Boyes: In view of the congestion in Wearside and other areas, will the Minister consider conducting an experiment to establish the relationship between a reduction in the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph and injury levels in defined dangerous areas?
    Mr. Carlisle: We are considering whether we can extend the criteria under which local authorities will be able to make up their own minds about the speed limit that is suitable in their areas. I hope to make progress on that in the autumn.

    Aviation
    Mr. Jonathan Evans:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on the future of state aids for the aviation industry.
    Mr. MacGregor: In the light of the important agreement on the single market in aviation reached at the Transport Council on 22 June, the removal of state aids in aviation is now more crucial than ever.
    We believe that state aids that distort, or threaten to distort, competition undermine the effective operation of the market and so harm the interests of air passengers. We will therefore continue to press the Commission to use its powers to control these subsidies strictly, particularly where they are used to shore up inefficient carriers or to finance major expansion plans and acquisitions.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the agreement that he was able to reach in Luxembourg has been widely welcomed? At least Conservative Members recognise it as a significant step forward in the introduction of greater choice and competition. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the great success for which he was responsible is carried forward, thus securing more genuine competition with all European airlines?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The agreement came at the end of 10 years of negotiation in which the British Government took the lead. It represents a major landmark in the development of the European aviation industry, and is far the most significant advance in the opening of European skies to full competition.
    Mr. Prescott: When is it coming in?
    Mr. MacGregor: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary question is that 90 per cent. of the arrangement will come in on 1 January next year. Contrary to some press reports, it is coming in pretty quickly.
    I very much take the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). I assure him that we shall use our presidency to steer the Community towards better-defined guidelines on state aids, which would have to be followed strictly—I emphasise the word "strictly"—by member states wishing to give aid to their airlines.
    Mr. Sproat: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he and his officials achieved in Brussels last week. Will he assure the House that he will use the British presidency to ensure that the great potential benefits that he won for passengers are not diluted, delayed or rendered useless by other EC Governments subsidising their own state airlines—as they are still doing—or by, for example, abuses of airport slot allocations or other anti-competitive or anti-consumer local working practices?
    Mr. MacGregor: The agreement that we reached sets the very significant background to the agreement. As the chairman of British Midland said, it opens up tremendous opportunities. I recognise, however, that there are other steps still to be taken and that there are other significant areas still to be tackled. That in no way undermines the very important advances that we have seen as a result of the agreement. As my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, they are in the areas of state aid which, as I have already said, we shall be taking forward during our presidency. I hope that we shall be able to complete the competition package. I recognise also that slots represent another important aspect in opening up the markets.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State stop reading out his press releases? Does he accept the view of Sir Colin Marshall, the chief executive of British Airways, that
    568
    "The agreement is not as much as we"—
    meaning them—
    "originally hoped for and nowhere near as much as we would have liked"?
    Does he also accept the view of Mr. Ian Wild, airline analyst at BZW, who said that
    "The EC agreement seems to be couched in such restrictive terms and with so many conditions that it will be a practical impossibility for anyone to achieve radical change"?
    Are they talking about the 90 per cent. or the 10 per cent?
    Mr. MacGregor: I disagree with both comments, particularly the last. There has been a failure by whoever said it to understand just how significant the advances are. The safeguards to which he refers are safeguards to protect passengers against predatory air fares. Both Mr. Richard Branson and Sir Michael Bishop warmly welcome this agreement and understand the importance of this advance. Of course, the agreement does not complete everything. There are still important areas to be tackled in what up to now has been a restrictive and protected market. However, I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand just how significant the advances are. I have already said that we shall be tackling those other areas. We believe that 90 per cent. of what British Airways needs in order to compete more widely in the European markets has been achieved. There is a transitional period on one point, and even there we have negotiated down the period of the transition.

    Roads, Dorset
    Mr. Ian Bruce:: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to improve north-south road links in Dorset.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: The national trunk road programme includes two schemes—the A31 to Mannings Heath relief road and the Poole harbour bridge replacement—which, together with trunking an existing section of road, will provide a high-standard trunk road between the A31 and Poole.
    Other north-south roads in Dorset are the responsibility of Dorset county council. We support the council's improvement programme through transport supplementary grant, where justified.
    Mr. Bruce: Surely my hon. Friend knows that the schemes to which he referred amount to approximately a couple of miles, linking in with the east-west routes from the ports, and that they make no difference to the north-south link. My hon. Friend will remember that when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement at the Ministry of Defence he turned down the co-location of Sea Systems Controller in Weymouth, mainly because of the terrible north-south road link between there and Bristol. The roads have not changed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will use the vigour that he showed in the Ministry of Defence to make sure that he shakes up the Department of Transport and puts real north-south trunk roads into Dorset?
    Mr. Carlisle: When I was at the Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend dogged me with his zeal to relocate Ministry of Defence establishments in south Dorset. I can assure him that the fact that his request did not succeed was not because of road links. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be just as passionate about road links to Dorset, as he has no doubt hammered every single Under-Secretary of State on these matters on behalf of his constituents. The

    569
    Government have not done too badly by Dorset. A major link between the A31 and Poole is in the programme. Four other north-south schemes are also in the programme and are supported by us to the tune of about £30 million. It might be worth mentioning, as evidence of our support for Dorset, that in the past 10 years eight bypasses have been built in Dorset, two are now under construction and an additional 15 are in the programme, so Dorset is doing very well by the Department of Transport.

    Roads (Environmental Protection)
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make roads more sympathetic to the landscape through which they pass.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make roads more sympathetic to the landscape through which they pass.
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure that the natural environment is protected when new roads are built and existing roads improved.
    Mr. MacGregor: We always undertake a thorough environmental assessment and give great weight to sensitive design in the development of trunk roads. A great deal of time, care and money are devoted these days to designing schemes to fit into the existing landscape.
    Mr. Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of balancing protection of the environment with the needs of an expanding economy? Does he agree that the increase in the number of cars and commercial vehicles on our roads—for example, on the A69 in my constituency—is a direct reflection of that increasing prosperity?
    Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As most hon. Members know, much of the pressure for improved roads, new road schemes and, perhaps above all, bypasses comes from our constituents. That is why we have a massive road programme. He is right to say that increased prosperity has led to increased traffic. At the same time, it is important to ensure, as we do, that the environmental impact of our future major networks is as beneficial as possible.
    Mr. Townsend: I recognise the Government's national success in this regard, but does not my right hon. Friend think, on consideration, that the east London river crossing would be more sympathetic to an 8,000-year-old wood and a site of special scientific interest if his two predecessors had agreed that it should be a cut-and-cover tunnel, as agreed by the inspector at the inquiry?
    Mr. MacGregor: The crossing was the subject of many inquiries before decisions were taken. I know from having come to the matter afresh that everything has been considered and everything is being done to ensure the minimum environmental effect.
    Mr. Moss: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the go-ahead is given for the east coast motorway a comprehensive environmental impact assessment will be undertaken to measure its impact on the unique drainage of the Fens area of my constituency? On the dualling of the A47, will he confirm, if not today then later, that his
    570
    Department is investigating possible lines of routes both north and south of the River Neve in the vicinity of Wisbech?
    Mr. MacGregor: The Government have no plans for an east coast motorway. As my hon. Friend will know, that plan was put forward by a consortium of local authorities and private contractors. If at any point—I make it clear that I do not envisage anything—such a scheme were proposed, it would be subject to the full environmental impact assessment that we require of all schemes. My hon. Friend will know that we plan to make a dual carriageway of the whole of the A47 from Peterborough to Great Yarmouth. I know how widely welcomed that is by all road users in Norfolk, my county. I am not aware of the scheme to which he referred, but if I may I shall look into it and write to him.
    Mr. David Marshall: What new measures, if any, is the Secretary of State taking to improve safety on our roads?
    Mr. MacGregor: We spend a lot of time and money on measures to improve safety—road signing, road design——
    Mr. Norris: Red routes.
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, on red routes and on matters that I mentioned earlier such as motorway coning. Heavy emphasis is placed on road safety. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, although we want to do better, the number of road accidents now is the same as in 1948, despite the huge increase in traffic in the intervening period. We not only concentrate heavily on safety but the policy is having its effect.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, however many trees are planted, building new roads damages the environment, as is evidenced by the M25 and M3 at Twyford Down? As the current road building programme will not meet the 1989 traffic growth forecasts, would not a greener policy be to ensure a level playing field in the investment policies of all modes of transport and to devise policies that reduce the public's need to travel great distances?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think that that demonstrates the muddle that the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs so often gets into on such matters. He cannot say that we are not building enough roads to meet 1989 growth levels but then complain that we are building too many. However much of a switch there is from road to rail-I am very keen on that and we are pursuing it as much as possible—and however heavily we invest in public transport, as we do, there will still be an increasing demand for traffic by road, as prosperity grows, for individual car passengers and for road haulage. Therefore, we need the road programme and I am very keen on a heavy environmental involvement in it.
    On the M25 link road, one of the options involves a considerable take-up of extra land because of the landscaping which will mean an enormous number of trees and shrubs being planted. We are trying to get the proper balance.
    Mr. Prescott: To judge from the wording of the questions, the Government are more successful at planting questions than planting trees. Does the Secretary of State agree that giving insufficient resources to British Rail while

    571
    at the same time providing millions of pounds for the building of 14-lane motorways and millions of pounds for the planting of trees will merely increase the level of car exhaust gas emissions which not only damage the trees but add to the global warming problem?
    Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, the Government have been very successful at planting trees. The Department of Transport plants more mature broadleaf trees than any other organisation and, as I said earlier, about 300,000 trees and 400,000 shrubs will be planted on the small stretch of the M25 if our preferred option goes ahead. Clearly, there is a heavy emphasis on tree planting.
    On the balance between public transport and roads, the M25 proposal will cost £144 million. We are currently spending £700 million on capital investment in London Underground alone and about £2 billion on a very large British Rail capital investment programme. Therefore, there is a balance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should be cutting the road-building programme—other measures will enable us to reach the carbon dioxide emissions target.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of my constituents for the A6 Market Harborough bypass which was opened last weekend by the Minister for Public Transport? Will he also accept that the building of the bypass has not only improved the environment of Market Harborough by removing cars and noise but has enabled 30,000 or more trees to be planted? Will he please pass on the thanks of my constituents to those involved?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who makes an important point about bypasses. Bypasses now take up about 30 per cent. of our total road programme and have a tremendously beneficial environmental effect on everyone who lives in the towns and villages that are bypassed.

    Unlicensed Taxis
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the risks to passengers involved in the use of unlicensed cabs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): Following representations about the safety of cab users in London, we set up a working party to investigate the subject. It has just delivered its report, which we are studying with interest. We have had no representations about unlicensed cabs outside London.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the Minister for that reply. When he has had time to study the report, will be bear in mind the fact that the registration and checks kept on licensed black cabs, which have made the service probably one of the best in the world, do not apply to many other private services? As the use of the private sector is becoming so large, should there not be regulations to standardise the type of vehicle used and to ensure that there are the same checks on drivers and safety as apply to the licensed cab service?
    Mr. Freeman: As the hon. Lady knows, in virtually every local authority outside London, private hire vehicles as well as black taxis have to be licensed. In London, vehicles that are not taxis are not licensed. We have set up
    572
    a working party and, as I said, we are studying the recommendations carefully to see whether there is a case for introducing a greater degree of licensing in London.
    Ms. Ruddock: Further to that reply, will the Minister acknowledge that there is a problem with licensed cab services outside London? Does he recall the recent case in which Rotherham magistates court and the Crown court overturned Sheffield city council's rejection of an application for a private hire licence from a man who had been convicted of assault and of drink-driving offences? There are people today driving licensed cabs who, in our view, should not be in charge of either a cab or passengers. When the Minister replied to my letter, he said that it was an "unusual decision" but declined to take further action. Will he reconsider those remarks to me? Will he take account of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust's current campaign on the issue, look at the matter afresh and make appropriate representations to his colleagues in the legal departments?
    Mr. Freeman: I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Both the hon. Lady and I have been to a number of functions sponsored by the trust. I agree that there are regrettable instances of some local authorities proceeding to license drivers when, on the face of it, they are not proceeding on a consistent basis with other local authorities. I undertake to study further the case that the hon. Lady cited, to raise the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and to write to the hon. Lady.

    M25
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the widening of the M25.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Work on the proposals for the M25 announced last September is progressing well.
    Mr. Marshall: I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals. Does he accept that traffic on the M25 is well above design capacity and that congestion on the M25 will be relieved only when son of M25 is built?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend raises a relevant point. I agree that a lot of traffic uses the M25. Indeed, that is one aspect of its success. It is clearly needed in the motorway network. As my hon. Friend knows, we have plans to convert the M25 within its existing boundaries into four lanes within about six years, which will certainly help. Any other improvements—indeed, all improvements—have to go through a clear scrutiny before they are accepted. We pay great attention to the needs of the environment.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the cost of motorway extending and widening extremely high? Why is the Department of Transport prepared to fund extensions with such apparent ease? Is not the real task of the Department to try to encourage people to transfer from road to rail? In that context, why is the Department holding back on a scheme such as Leeds-Bradford electrification and denying authorisation for the money for that scheme, which is in jeopardy because of the Government's railway privatisation proposals?
    Mr. Carlisle: We have a balanced transport policy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that investment in public

    573
    transport is at its highest level for 30 years. We have to put the matter in context. The M25 is crucial for our economic success. It carries much of our traffic—not only local traffic, but traffic going to the main ports. It is one of the busiest roads in the country and is central to our economic performance. Our intention is to make certain that the M25 serves the nation well.
    Mr. Dunn: The Minister will be aware that in the context of widening the M25, new slip roads are to be built in Dartford connecting the A2 with the M25. Will my hon. Friend give me a personal guarantee that every effort will be made to install noise minimisation measures and proper landscaping for the new slip roads in Dartford?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am well aware of that scheme and its importance for my hon. Friend's constituents. I shill supervise the work carefully. I should be delighted to discuss with my hon. Friend later the demands for the road surface and for the landscaping to which we attach such importance in all our projects.
    Ms. Walley: Does not what we have just heard show that the Government have a completely piecemeal approach to transport policy? Given the way in which we have heard about the announcement for the £2.5 billion programme, will the Minister tell us what he is doing about the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment in its report? Why have those recommendations not been taken on board in full in relation to that extension? Will the Minister give me a guarantee that there will be full public consultations in respect of the review of the manual on environmental appraisal which has long been promised and is long overdue?
    Mr. Carlisle: I think that the hon. Lady's sums are a little wrong. It was announced last week that the link roads between junctions 12 and 15 will in fact cost about £140 million. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we are concentrating on environmental matters in the scheme. Some two thirds of the land take will be used for landscaping—planting trees, and so forth. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that the SACTRA report is important. We are examining its conclusions and we expect to come forward with a new environmental manual very shortly.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what funds have been expended in the last two years by the National Audit Office in maintaining links with similar organisations in the European Community.
    Sir Peter Hordern (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office spent about £60,000 in the financial year 1990–91 and £120,000 in 1991–92 on maintaining links with similar organisations in the European Community.
    Mrs. Currie: I am delighted to hear that the National Audit Office is spending money maintaining links with the European Commission. Given that the most difficult problem with public money is keeping tabs on it, finding
    574
    out where it has gone and ensuring that we obtain value for money for it, is it not right and proper that we, with our knowledge and expertise in this country, should be sharing the same with our colleagues in the European Community and ensuring that they do the same?
    Sir Peter Hordern: My hon. Friend is quite right. As she knows, one of the provisions of the Maastricht treaty is to give the European Parliament new powers, which may be turned to examine the Commission as a whole, in respect of examining expenditure in much the same way as our Public Accounts Committee does here. I hope that the budget committee of the European Parliament will be able to carry out its work.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much the National Audit Office spends on publicity for its reports.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office handles its own publicity and one member of staff acts as press officer. Advance copies of reports are provided to the press and other interested parties. In the financial year 1991–92, the cost of those copies amounted to about £6,000.
    Mr. Bottomley: I suspect that that is very good value for money, economical, efficient and effective. Will my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission pass on to the Comptroller and Auditor General my thanks and the thanks of the House as in future those reports are to be made available to hon. Members at 3.30 pm, before they are made available to the press, and not at midnight?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how many non-departmental public bodies are audited by the National Audit Office.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The National Audit Office audits the individual accounts of 92 non-departmental public bodies.
    Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he comment on the written reply that I received from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in January which referred to the principle that the choice between having bodies audited by private accountants or by the NAO is normally related to how quasi-commercial are the activities of that public body? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that no reason will be given to the House relating to lack of resources or staffing in the NAO, for which I believe the hon. Gentleman has a responsibility, as grounds for putting the auditing of grant-maintained schools out to private accountants? A school must be the last public body that one could possibly think of as being quasi-commercial, so the auditing of grant-maintained schools should clearly not be carried out by private accountants.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I understand that some schools are required to appoint an external auditor and to provide the Department of Education with annual audited accounts. The audit arrangements will be covered by a code of practice on which accountancy bodies and the National Audit Office have been consulted. The hon. Gentleman might also like to know that the Comptroller and Auditor General has rights to inspect the accounts and relevant records of individual schools and to carry out value-for-money studies. The National Audit Office is

    575
    currently undertaking a study of the financial control of grant-maintained schools, during which it will exercise those inspection rights. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is no question of the National Audit Office suffering from lack of funds.

  TRANSPORT

    Underground Railways
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what comparisons his Department has done between the London underground and the Paris metro.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): My Department has not carried out any comparisons between the London underground and the Paris metro, but I have taken a close interest in the joint report produced by the London Research Centre and its French opposite number, and it is clear from their work that the two railway systems face very different problems and serve very different markets.
    Mr. Cohen: If the Minister has seen that report from the London Research Centre and the Ile de France regional council, he will have seen that 9 per cent. of French trains and 20 per cent. of London trains are overcrowded; that one in five trains in Paris and one in two in London are more than 22 years old; that fares are three times higher in London than in Paris, and that the city centre rail network in Paris is "overwhelmingly superior" to that in London. Does that not prove that socialist planning in public transport is far superior to capitalist neglect?
    Mr. Norris: No, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily selective in the little gems that he picks from the report because he thinks that they suit his case, and he completely ignores the £3.5 billion which is to be spent on the London underground in the next three years.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Clocking-on
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will now end the system of clocking on and off for workers in and around the House.
    Mr. Beith: I understand that the relevant Departments of the House have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Skinner: It is a scandal that some of the lowest paid people in this building—canteen workers—have to clock on, while Ministers are carted in chauffeur-driven cars in order to come here to vote. Those canteen workers earn £100 a week, and they can lose £7 a time for being a few minutes late. At night when they knock off, if the House finishes straight after a 10 o'clock vote those people, many of them women, are turned out without a chance to go home in a taxi while Ministers are carted from one oak-panelled study to the next. The Government talk about a classless society and we have citizens charters coming out of every Minister's earholes, yet those people are treated like chattels. Get something done!
    Mr. Beith: The time recording system is necessary to establish overtime payments correctly and it is used by every member of the Refreshment Department up to and including the Director of Catering.
    Mr. Skinner: The lowest paid.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman gives a misleading account of the rates of pay provided. He should also take account of the fact that transport is provided for late sittings of the House——
    Mr. Skinner: Not at 10 o'clock.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. Let us hear Mr. Beith.
    Mr. Beith: I know of no representations from unions representing the staff that the system of time recording should be abolished.

    Members and Staff (Working Conditions)
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment the Commission has made of the implications of the recommendation in the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House for working conditions of hon. Members and staff.
    Mr. Beith: The Commission has made no assessment of the possible implications of the report on the sittings of the House because of its responsibility to ensure that appropriate staffing arrangements are made to accommodate whatever hours of sitting the House may determine.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the procedures of the House are streamlined and become more efficient, not only Members but staff will benefit as a result of the great reduction in late-night sittings, many of which are deemed by hon. Members to be unnecessary?
    Mr. Beith: Yes, Madam Speaker. That is my view, but it is for the Commission to provide appropriate staffing arrangements for whatever the House may determine.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman support the provision of nursery facilities for the children of the workers who support us in this House?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is gazumping a later question. If he rephrases his question so that it refers to sittings of the House, I will hear it.
    Mr. Davies: My question relates to whatever hours the House works——
    Madam Speaker: Order. That was not the original question. We must move on now.

    Members' Facilities
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to improve facilities in the House to assist hon. Members in the discharge of their duties.
    Mr. Beith: Responsibility for proposing new facilities for hon. Members rests with the domestic Committees,

    577
    which are expected to meet shortly. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the developing plans for the construction of new office accommodation on the phase 2 site and the introduction of a new computer network for Members and their staff. I shall be happy to pass on to the relevant Committees any other suggestions that the hon. Gentleman may have.
    Mr. Bruce: Has the right hon. Gentleman thought about the possibility of giving hon. Members an option of staff based in the House or more money to provide facilities outside, perhaps in their constituencies? That would take the pressure off existing facilities and allow a much quicker raising of standards for Members and secretaries working together in the House.
    Mr. Beith: Those matters do not fall within the responsibility of the Commission. The House may hear more about the subject shortly, but not from the Commission.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Agencies
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 12 May, Official Report, column 79, what representations he has received calling for early action to make replies from next steps agencies more accessible to hon. Members and the general public.
    Mr. Newton: I have not received any further representations. The House authorities have received our proposals for publishing agency chief executives' replies. We remain hopeful that the House will take an early decision, now that the Administration Committee has been reconstituted.
    Mr. Flynn: Representations from 208 hon. Members are contained in early-day motion 1. Is it not a continuing disgrace that the increasing number of answers from next steps agencies are not readily accessible, except in this marvellous publication produced by my office and the Rowntree trust? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we return to the previous system, whereby traditionally Ministers answered questions for their areas of responsibility, and those then appeared automatically in Hansard. Is not the Government's commitment to sweeping away the cobwebs of secrecy gossamer-thin?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree with the latter part of his remarks. As for his gesture in waving at me his excellent document, "Open Lines", I thought that he was going to complain about our nationalisation proposals in that respect. As he knows, we have proposed to the appropriate Committee that the reply should be published in a way that would be more convenient to the House and the public. I hope that an early decision will be made on that proposal and that it will be the clearest demonstration that there is no thought of trying to conceal useful information from those who should have it.

    Working Conditions
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to report on the question of hours and working conditions in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Newton: I intend to arrange a debate on the report on the Select Committee on Sittings of the House before the House rises for the summer recess.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Government got rid of moonlighting in this gentlemen's club—250 Tory Members in the last Parliament had more than 500 moonlighting jobs between them—we could start talking about changing our hours. Is not the real reason why Parliament does not start until 2.30 pm so that Tory Members can make money in the law courts and board rooms and then turn up later? If the Government want to improve facilities, would it not be a good idea to use the Robing Room as a nursery and change the Royal Gallery into a cafeteria for visitors? If the royal family keeps pushing the self-destruct button, we shall get it.
    Mr. Newton: Once again, the hon. Gentleman has enlivened our proceedings. I shall confine my comments, for the time being, to the more mundane business of looking at the recommendations of the Jopling report.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will the European Community's working time directive apply to the working of the House?
    Mr. Newton: As there is no such thing as a working time directive at present—at least, not an agreed one—I am not in a position to judge.

    Office Costs Allowance
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to announce the results of the review of the office costs allowance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: Before the summer recess.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Lord President aware that a number of unscrupulous newspapers, not least that fascist rag The Sun, have been seeking to pretend that the office costs allowance is merely an extension of our salaries? Is he aware that many of us, particularly those who operate offices in their constituencies, subsidise the office costs allowance from our own pockets? Will he make it clear in the House today that, whatever view the Government take on the final figures, this is an argument about the quality of service that we can provide for our constituents?
    Mr. Newton: Without endorsing the language that the hon. Gentleman used, which came close to being as colourful as that of his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I would certainly endorse the general proposition that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the salaries of Members of Parliament and the amounts that they are paid to acquire the necessary assistance to do the job that the public expect of them.
    Mrs. Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are Members of this House with about 40,000 constituents and Members of this House with more than 80,000 constituents, often scattered across large areas of the countryside while the allowance that we receive to serve our constituents is identical? That means that many

    579
    Conservative Members also have to subsidise the allowances to a substantial degree. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is disgraceful for some of our newspapers to imply that Members who employ members of their families, particularly their wives, as secretaries, should do so for nothing and expect those women to work for nothing at all?
    Mr. Newton: I certainly agree that the distinction to which I referred in response to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and which my hon. Friend has also drawn should be taken into account by those who comment on these matters. As for the earlier part of her question, I acknowledge some of the problems caused to Members on both sides—my hon. Friend may be right to think that the problem applies particularly to Conservative Members—by disparities in the size of their constituencies. It would be a good deal easier to tackle them through the action that we are taking over the boundary commission than to attempt to devise some allowance related to the size of constituencies.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Should we not expect but also set aside the more misleading statements from some of our national newspapers about the allowances paid to Members to employ people the more effectively to represent their constituents? Will not the Leader of the House and his Cabinet colleagues accept that the longer they put off this decision the more likely it is that the groundswell of misleading innuendo and abuse of Members of Parliament will grow? Why does he not take the decision now and get on with it?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question. I assure him that there is no desire unnecessarily to prolong this matter, but, as he will see in due course, this is a complicated and substantial report and it is right to look at it carefully before bringing it to the House.

    Select Committees
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to speed up the nomination of Select Committees.
    Mr. Newton: We are making good progress with the setting up of Select Committees with, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee and the four domestic Committees already reconstituted. I hope that we shall have the remainder of the Committees—that is, the departmental Committees—in place after tomorrow's debate on the motion that I have tabled in that respect.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome that news, but can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nominations for the departmental Select Committees will be placed before the Committee of
    580
    Selection on Wednesday and that the most senior members of those Committees can then convene meetings, so that the Committees can meet at least before the House rises for the summer recess?
    Mr. Newton: My understanding is that the usual way of proceeding after nominations by the Committee of Selection is that the senior members call meetings—but the timing of the recommendations by the Committee of Selection is a matter not for me but for the Committee.

    London Question Time
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to institute a Question Time for London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Newton: I have no specific proposals for a separate Question Time for London, but hon. Members representing London constituencies can, of course, ask questions of relevance to London to any of the Departments of State.
    Mr. Greenway: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's reply, but will he accept that London has a special interest for the nation? London has 84 Members of Parliament. Northern Ireland has 17, Wales has 32 and Scotland has 72. The latter all have their own Question Times, so why should not there be a Question Time for London which takes account of the special problems and opportunities of London?
    Mr. Newton: I do not think that it would be appropriate to move in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests—unless there were a Minister for London, which I understand that my hon. Friend does not support, although I hope that he has not been misrepresented to me in that respect. My hon. Friend shows considerable and commendable ingenuity in putting questions about London in a variety of ways—most recently, as I heard for myself, during today's transport questions. I hope that that is of some comfort to him.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: As an alternative to that, when the Leader of the House has completed his review of a programme for parliamentary business throughout the year, so that we shall have notice of what is to happen, could he formalise the occasional London debate so that, first, it is agreed that there will be an annual London debate and, secondly, we know roughly when it is to take place?
    Mr. Newton: This is turning into something like business questions, but that is fair enough. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to answer his question on the hoof, but I will certainly bear it in mind.

European Council (Lisbon)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about last week's European Council which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The conclusions of the European Council have been placed in the Library. The meeting took place on the eve of our presidency of the Community and dealt with a range of issues which the United Kingdom will now carry forward. These include preparations for enlargement, the future financing of the Community, the issue of subsidiarity and the Uruguay round. We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. We agreed to reappoint the President of the Commission for two years. Thereafter, a new five-year appointment will be made of the whole Commission.
On enlargement, we secured agreement that work should start immediately on the negotiating mandates for the EFTA countries which have applied to join the Community—Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland in the first instance. Much of the ground work has already been done. I hope that we can agree negotiating mandates by the end of our presidency, so that formal negotiations can start at the beginning of next year. The Community has also agreed to step up its dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe in preparation for their membership. We plan to hold a meeting with the Visegrad three at Head of Government level during the presidency.
The Council also discussed the future financing of the Community. There was widespread recognition that the existing ceiling for the Community's budget will be adequate for at least the next two years. The agreed language in the communiqué on help for the poorer countries of the Community reinforces that view. It makes no commitment to the doubling of resources that the Commission had proposed.
All Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to the Maastricht treaty. At Maastricht we won agreement to the principle of subsidiarity and its inclusion in the treaty. At this meeting, we have taken that a stage further. Under our presidency work will go ahead on how to turn that general principle into reality in the working practices of the Community. The steps immediately envisaged include: rigorous scrutiny within the Commission on whether new proposals are necessary—any such proposals must be justified—and examination of existing legislation to see whether it could be modified or even scrapped. The Commission and the Council will report to our European Council in Edinburgh on progress made.
The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to negotiating a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. The remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on agriculture issues is narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has calculated that a GATT settlement would give a boost to world growth worth $195 billion annually in extra world income. Over $90 billion of that would go to developing countries and former communist countries. I hope that those of our partners who are still hesitating about an agreement will reflect on the enormous advantages of success and the price of failure.
We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. I proposed that all member states should
582
make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel for the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift; that, with the help of the Commission, we should start to assemble humanitarian material at a suitable base now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing Serbia to have part in any international organisations, including the CSCE.
With the Security Council about to meet, we agreed not to rule out the use of military means by the United Nations to achieve our humanitarian objectives. However, the United Nations has rightly been cautious about organising humanitarian operations in the absence of an effective ceasefire, and about trying to interpose itself in a civil war.
During the course of the weekend we have had discussions with the United States, the United Nations secretariat and others. The prospects for a ceasefire and for a humanitarian mission look slightly better than they did 48 hours ago, but the Serbian militia and others are numerous and well-armed. It would take only one ground-launched missile to cause serious loss of life. We stand ready to take part in a humanitarian airlift but will want to be sure that it can happen with the minimum risk to British and other lives.
We adopted conclusions on a number of other foreign policy issues. These are attached to the conclusions which are in the Library of the House. I draw the House's attention in particular to the statement on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community has committed itself to increase its help for improving the safety of nuclear power plants. Britain has taken a lead on this issue and will be seeking a co-ordinated initiative at the economic summit next week.
I also draw the House's attention to the statement on Southern Africa, which calls on all the parties to resume negotiations in CODESA. We continue to be in close touch with the South African Government and the ANC on this.
Many of the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council constitute the agenda for the British Presidency, which starts on Wednesday. They are a huge challenge for the Community and a great responsibility for the United Kingdom.
All the issues on which I have reported to the House—subsidiarity, enlargement, future financing, the GATT round—will fall to us to manage and, we hope, to bring to a successful conclusion. Yugoslavia too will be very high on our agenda. Many difficult matters must be resolved in the months ahead.
The plain fact is that the future of Europe is at stake and it needs to be addressed with coolness, commitment, and with careful calculation.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I begin by commending President Mitterand's initiative in going to Sarajevo. I hope that the action taken by the French President and the statement made by the Lisbon Council will have the effect, at the very least, of enabling humanitarian aid to be delivered, and maintained when it is delivered, to the wretched people of the area around Sarajevo.
We support the emphasis placed by the Lisbon summit on ensuring that any action taken in relation to the former Yugoslavia must be on the basis of agreed United Nations Security Council resolutions. Will the Prime Minister ensure that our country plays a full part both in providing

583
humanitarian aid and in efforts to ensure the strongest possible United Nations stance against the continuing bloodshed and misery in what was formerly Yugoslavia?
The Lisbon summit made the beginning of formal negotiations about the enlargement of the European Community conditional upon achievement of agreement on the Delors 2 package. Given that precondition, how does the Prime Minister intend to pursue what he described as his highest priority of enlargement when he is opposed to Delors 2 or anything close to it? Remembering that it is not enough now to satisfy the condition of ratification of Maastricht but that he has also to gain agreement on Delors 2, how does the Prime Minister believe that he can go ahead with promotion of enlargement without the satisfaction of both of those preconditions?
We note with satisfaction that the Heads of Government at Lisbon urged member countries, in the words of the communiqué, to
"pursue efforts in the social field as the necessary complement to the realisation of the Internal Market."
The Prime Minister agreed to that section of the communiqué, but does it faithfully reflect his Government's attitude to the social dimension when they refuse to adopt the social chapter and resist application of the social charter? Is there not an inconsistency between the Prime Minister's words in the communiqué from Lisbon and his actions in opposing the social dimension?
In view of the decision, made at Lisbon, to increase substantially the resources devoted to actions in the context of common external policy, can the Prime Minister tell us what the substantial increase will be and what will be the basis for its calculation and the mechanism for its use?
On the question of subsidiarity, is the Prime Minister aware that no one can sensibly argue against the democratic principle that relevant and accountable powers should be exercised at national, regional and local levels of government? So, as he takes up the presidency of the European Council this week, can the Prime Minister tell us the main components of his concept of subsidiarity and how he would expect it to work in practice? Can he, for instance, tell us what emphasis he would put on achieving safeguards against some member countries' lowering environmental standards, or following unfair industrial or economic policies, or reducing social and employment conditions and encouraging social dumping? I have no particular country in mind at this juncture, but we should be interested to hear the Prime Minister on the subject.
May I express surprise and disappointment that no time appears to have been given at the Lisbon summit to discussion of rising unemployment in the Community? Since Britain, under the present Government, has by far the fastest rising rate of unemployment in the Community, does not the Prime Minister think that he should have taken the lead in promoting such a discussion and in advancing proposals for co-ordinated action to combat the rise in joblessness? Will he give us now an undertaking that he will not allow any future summit to go by without ensuring that unemployment and the means of combating it are included on the agenda?
Finally, since the Lisbon summit has not really provided any further clarification of the political and legal status of the Maastricht treaty, following the Danish referendum result, is the Secretary of State yet in a position
584
to say what form of report he will put to the House before there is any proposal to return to consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some of his earlier comments, and I agree with his remarks about the courage and vision of President Mitterrand's visit to Sarajevo. It was an excellent initiative, and I thoroughly commend it. On that subject, I should say that General MacKenzie, the chief officer of UN forces in Sarajevo, has recommended within the last couple of hours that the United Nations should take control of Sarajevo airport on the basis of assurances he has received from the Serbs. We shall need to see if those assurances are matched by others—notably the Muslims, who were shelling Sarajevo over the weekend while President Mitterrand was there. But the development clearly improves the prospects of the United Nations humanitarian mission, and I thoroughly welcome it.
On the question of enlargement, the condition to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is one that was set at Maastricht some time earlier. We propose to proceed by preparing the Community mandates, which must be prepared prior to the opening of formal negotiations between now and the Edinburgh summit. The target and the expectation are that we shall be able at that summit to reach agreement on future financing. The way would then be open for us to continue negotiations with the EFTA countries on a more formal basis.
With regard to some of the areas of substantially increased expenditure, one of which relates to the increased expenditure that will undoubtedly be necesssary in the Community and beyond to assist countries in eastern Europe to deal with the very difficult problem of their nuclear establishments, the Community has committed a substantial sum—from memory, I think, 150 million ecu thus far. Clearly, there will need to be further commitments, and it is impossible at this stage to know precisely how far we shall need to go. This is largely because we do not yet know what contributions might come from the United States, from Japan, from Canada, and perhaps from other sources. I anticipate that that will be discussed further at the Munich summit in a few days' time.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we agree with the social dimension, but we do not agree with the social charter itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the difference?"] If hon. Members understood the difference, they would understand the point of that. The present treaty allows adequate progress on social issues. Twenty-five of the 38 measures tabled under the social action programme have been agreed—including measures on health and safety, the free movement of labour, training practice, equal opportunities and employee rights. The United Kingdom has not blocked a single proposal under the social action programme.
On the point about subsidiarity, we agreed at the summit to examine in detail how we turn the principle into a working, living practice within the Community, with examples during the period of the British presidency. There are areas in the Community where subsidiarity is not appropriate, and we should recognise that.
If we wish to have a single market with a level playing field, as we have frequently said in the House in recent years, there is a need for some action at a Community level. What we are saying about subsidiarity is that. Where

585
there is unnecessary intrusion, it must cease. We were no longer alone in our pleas for that at the European Council; we were joined by a number of other member states.
On the question of employment, and as a straight matter of fact, the unemployment rate is rising faster in Spain than it is in Britain. Nevertheless, it is rising faster here than we would wish. The point about GATT, is that the growth in trade would especially help with the problem of unemployment, not just in this country but in a number of other countries. Unemployment was mentioned in that context at the summit, but not as a specific subject.
The right hon. Gentleman's final question related to the political and legal status of Maastricht. It is too soon to decide in what form we will report to the House. We will be having the routine six-monthly debate on Europe later this week. That is separate from the debate promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, which will be held at a later stage when we have a clearer indication, most notably from the Danes, of how Denmark proposes to deal with its problem.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. Now that we have had the opening statement and questions, may I seek the co-operation of hon. Members' Many hon. Members wish to put questions to the Prime Minister, but that can be achieved only if each Member puts just one question, and does so briskly—and, please, if the Prime Minister gives a brisk reply.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no renegotiation of the Maastricht treaty is likely to produce more favourable terms for the United Kingdom than those that he has already achieved? However, if we are to protect the principle of subsidiarity, some renegotiation of the Single European Act and the treaty of Rome is needed.
Has my right hon. Friend noted the appalling inconsistency of those who are now advocating a referendum? They did not do so when we joined the Community, they voted against one subsequently, and they certainly did not suggest one when they were forcing the Single European Act through the House.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I agree with what he has said. It has traditionally been the position of the Conservative party that we do not accept referendums. That was our position when my right hon. and noble Friend led the Conservatives into the Lobby in 1975. I recall that she quoted Lord Attlee's view of referendums as a device of demagogues and dictators.
On the question of subsidiarity and the Single European Act, I cannot do better than echo what my right hon. Friend has said.
Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree with the definition of subsidiarity given by the Danish Foreign Minister—that member Governments should decide what goes up to European Community level, not that the European Commission should decide what comes down to Governments?
In view of the near-hysterical remarks of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor on television yesterday, will he
586
make it clear that his definition of subsidiarity includes institutional reforms, more openness, more accountability and more decentralisation—and where better to begin than in Edinburgh?
The Prime Minister: I am intrigued to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and I substantially agree with him. I am not entirely sure that the leader of his party agrees with him, but I put that to one side. We must examine all the opportunites for subsidiarity. There is no doubt that there will be different views on that matter within the Community. There is equally no doubt that we shall need to define subsidiarity very carefully because there are areas that would ensure that the Community did not function in any way unless they were dealt with at the European level. The whole House has seen illustrations of that.
Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Court of Auditors described the recent MacSharry proposals accepted by the Agriculture Ministers as "a recipe for fraud"? In those curcumstances, is it not clear that the mechanics of administering the common agricultural policy are wholly in disarray? Do they not need the application of subsidiarity to bring about better control? Will every effort be made during my right hon. Friend's presidency of the European Community to establish ways in which the CAP can be recast consistent with his ambitions concerning subsidiarity?
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend knows, at Maastricht the Court of Auditors was made a Community institution, so it is now under better control than it was previously. The common agricultural policy has been substantially reformed—a remarkable achievement on the part of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. We will continue to study whether further improvements can be made. No aspect of Community activities will be ruled out of discussion by us while we review subsidiarity.
Mr. Peter Shore: Having returned yesterday from Copenhagen, in that democratic country of Denmark, I assure the Prime Minister that there is not the slightest prospect of the Danish people changing their minds about Maastricht before the end of this year. That being so, what is the point of writing into the opening paragraphs of the communiqué the importance of ratifying the treaty so that it can come into force on 1 January 1993? Is that just hot air, or is it something more sinister—an attempt to override article 236 of the Rome treaty?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not see plots where none exists. He makes his own judgment of what may happen in Denmark. We must wait to see what events actually occur there, and what action the Danish Government take—either saying in concrete terms to the Community, "We cannot and we will not ratify the treaty", in which case the treaty cannot proceed; or explaining to us how they intend to proceed with the ratification of the treaty. Once the Danish Government do that, we will be in a position to proceed with the ratification here.
Mr. Michael Alison: As my right hon. Friend charts the course ahead for Maastricht, will he recall that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members—certainly on this side of the House—endorse his vision of Britain at

587
the heart of Europe? With my right hon. Friend at the heart of Europe, we shall have not a weak heart, a hard heart, or a bleeding heart, but a stout heart—which won my right hon. Friend the last election, and which he shares with his predecessor as Prime Minister. Like him, she won many important improvements to the basis of our membership of the Community.
The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that, while we remain a member of the European Community, there is no alternative to our being at its centre and exercising influence. It may be the ambition of some to leave the Community, in which case they should say so and make their position entirely clear. If that is their position, they should also explain what would happen, if we left the Community, to inward investment, jobs, prosperity, and much else.
If we are to remain in the Community, it is the overwhelming view of the House—and I believe of the country—that we need to be at its centre, exercising our influence and determining by our own efforts the direction in which the Community goes. I for one am not prepared to see this country sit on the sidelines of the European Community while other countries take decisions that determine its direction and the livelihood of every person in this country.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The declaration on South Africa rightly drew attention to the dreadful massacre in Boipatong. Does the Prime Minister accept, however, that simply asking the people to back the Conference for a Democratic South Africa is a weak response? Is it not time for a fundamental reappraisal of policy on South Africa, to compel President de Klerk to negotiate in a genuine fashion?
The Prime Minister: My understanding is that President de Klerk is prepared to negotiate, and we want negotiations to start again. In the context of what is now happening in South Africa, it is not helpful for all kinds of miscellaneous advice to appear suddenly and gratuitously, spreading the blame on one side or the other. What we need is a resumption of the talks as soon as possible.
It is all right for some to hawk their consciences around, but the impact of what happens in South Africa affects the people who are poorest. South Africa has 40 per cent. unemployment. 2 per cent. population growth and 0 per cent. growth in gross domestic product. That will not be corrected until the talks are successful, and those who sit here thinking otherwise had better examine the situation with greater care.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what I think the country wants—a return of powers from Brussels to Britain—with his insistence that we go ahead and legislate for the dead treaty of union? Why does he not suggest that we withdraw the treaty now, and build on his proposals for the return of powers to Britain?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, much in the Maastricht treaty moves in the direction in which he would have the country go. It is perfectly true that both the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act involved institutional changes; but at Maastricht, for the first time, we also secured language establishing the value of intergovernmental co-operation outside the treaty of
588
Rome and outside the concept of the European Court of Justice. That was not in the Single European Act, but it is in the Maastricht treaty.
We also secured the formalisation of subsidiarity, on which we are still seeking to put flesh—a test to be applied to all Community competence issues. Let me repeat that: the test will be applied to all Community competence issues. That, too, was not in the Single European Act. The Act does, however, contain many of the things about which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), and some of my other hon. Friends, now complain.
Mr. Giles Radice: What progress did the Government make at Lisbon in ensuring that the Eurofed would be situated in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: There was a discussion about sites over dinner, but the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that no agreement was reached.
Sir Peter Hordern: One of the good things to come out of the meeting was the failure to accept the European budget proposed by Mr. Delors. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Commission will have plenty to do in cleaning up its own house and keeping an eye on the amount of fraud that is now taking place in the Community? Will not the proposals for a new parliamentary commission of the European Parliament, under the provisions of Maastricht, help in that process, and do not those proposals—and the proposal for subsidiarity—make a very good case for the House to ratify the Maastricht treaty?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. There was strong opposition, not just from the United Kingdom but from a number of European states, to the Commission's over-ambitious proposals to increase own resources to 1.37 per cent. of gross national product by 1997. I am certain that those proposals will be rejected, and equally certain that there will be no increase in the 1.2 per cent. ceiling, at least until 1995.
Other options were discussed, including a longer period for the future own-resources perspective—perhaps seven years instead of five. A range of views was expressed in a lengthy discussion at Lisbon. The matter will need to be determined over the next six month, but we are clear about the fact that there is now plenty of room within the existing ceiling without an increase in own resources.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: If the Prime Minister lost Maastricht in the House, would he consider resigning?
The Prime Minister: We shall not be losing it in the House.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be more than a little perverse for anyone concerned with national sovereignty to promote in one Parliament the Single European Act that made no provision for subsidiarity and in the next Parliament to attack the Maastricht treaty, which does include subsidiarity, as "a treaty too far"?
The Prime Minister: I think I am able to agree with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Derek Enright: In the context of subsidiarity, did the Prime Minister discuss how to counteract the centralised and bumbling bureaucracy that is the British Board of Trade, which has delayed RECHAR for far too long already? Did the Prime Minister go on to say that he would put that down to local government to implement?
The Prime Minister: Stressing more control over British institutions is hardly subsidiarity.
Mr. Michael Colvin: With regard to the level playing field that my right hon. Friend mentioned, does he acknowledge that, both at Maastricht and at Lisbon, he managed to move the goal posts in favour of Britain without upsetting our European partners, to the extent that they now believe that it was they who invented subsidiarity? Must that not bode well for Britain's presidency, when we shall be able to set the agenda for future meetings?
The Prime Minister: It is perfectly clear that the principle of devolving—"subsidiarity" is, we can all agree, an ugly word—means ensuring that we have a less intrusive Community and making sure that as much as is appropriate is done at the national rather than the European level. That means that the test should be that, if it cannot be done at the national level, perhaps it should be done at the European level. If it can be done best at the national level, it should be done at the national level.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the concept of subsidiarity that he is particularly fond of will be applied to the heart of the Maastricht treaty—that is, to economic and monetary union?
The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a decision for this House, and it will be placed before this House. Whether we go into economic and monetary union, a concept well understood in this House, will be determined by this House at an appropriate time.
Mr. George Walden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, every time the word "subsidiarity" is used in this House, we lose 99 per cent. of the audience outside, who are confused and apprehensive about its meaning? As someone who is confused and apprehensive about its meaning, I would encourage my right hon. Friend to fight for a legally binding clarification of the Maastricht treaty so that we can understand what it means.
In order to dispel the confusion and apprehension about the treaty itself, I would also suggest that my right hon. Friend should keep an open mind to a referendum on any entry into a single currency which may come about, as that is a very clear, specific and momentous issue—by far the most important part of the Maastricht treaty. Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for——
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Walden: I am just finishing, Madam Speaker.
Whereas I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is no case for a referendum on the present treaty, should
590
there ever be any question of entry into economic and monetary union, the people must have a say on that very specific and very momentous issue.
The Prime Minister: Subsidiarity is already a legally binding issue under article 3b of the treaty. What we are seeking to do is to set out how in practice that will work, rather than simply waiting for cases to go to the European Court of Justice and for rulings at that stage. The concept of making it legally binding is already there in the Maastricht treaty. I repeat what I said a moment ago about economic and monetary union: I believe that that is a matter for Parliament and for a future Parliament.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the need for a more considered response to the baronial intervention by his predecessor, who called for a referendum on the treaty of Maastricht, does the Prime Minister not realise that he could probably keep most people happy by agreeing to hold a referendum in return for agreeing to implement the suggestion by the Tory chairman of the European Movement: that he should appoint Baroness Thatcher as Governor of the Falkland islands and dispatch her there forthwith?
The Prime Minister: I believe that we already have a governor.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend further accept that now is the time to build on and to consolidate the achievements of Maastricht rather than constantly to carp and criticise, which some people are all too inclined to do? On the question of subsidiarity, may I impress on my right hon. Friend the urgent need to get a position out of the Commission and a decision out of the Council as soon as possible—preferably under his leadership during the British presidency?
The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the latter point. That is precisely the remit that we have obtained. Equally, he is correct on his former point.
Mr. David Winnick: On an issue that is so vital to the sovereignty of our country, why is the Prime Minister so reluctant to allow a free vote on this side of the House? Is the reason because he is fearful of—[Laughter].
The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants a free vote on that side of the House, he had better discuss that matter with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster).
Sir Anthony Grant: On the question of a referendum, does my right hon. Friend recall that his predecessor, in opposing a referendum in 1975, not only prayed in aid the dictum of Lord Attlee but argued strongly that a referendum was contrary to parliamentary sovereignty?
The Prime Minister: I did not have the privilege of being here on that occasion, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing it to my attention.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In considering the potential for the enlargement of the Community—a goal that many of us believe is not only desirable but achievable—will the Prime Minister advise us whether the Council considered that additional protocols pertaining to

591
accession to the European Community will be written into the Maastricht accord, and, if so, will they he based solely on economic criteria or will other factors come into play?
The Prime Minister: No, that point was not discussed in the enlargement discussions. What was discussed was the method of preparing the mandates immediately for the Eftans and the position to be taken in respect of other countries—most notably the Visegrad countries—such as Turkey, Malta and Cyprus that have expressed interest in joining the Community. We are proposing to take all those matters forward in different ways. We must wait and see how that turns out for Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, or perhaps the Czech Lands and Slovakia. I hope that we will have a meeting between the presidency and those countries later in the year. It will clearly be many years before they are ready to become full members.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Did my right hon. Friend remind his fellow Heads of Government in Lisbon of the historic fact that, during the 1939–45 war, the Germans had to keep nine divisions in Yugoslavia, six of which were in Serbia alone, and yet still were able to maintain control of only the main roads? Comforting talk about humanitarian aid, attractive as it seems when one sees the appalling scenes in Sarajevo. should not blind any of us to the grim reality that we can hope to restore order in that part of the world only with a massive military intervention, which would inevitably lead to large-scale casualties.
The Prime Minister: I think that that point was very much in the minds of a number of us in the discussions that we had on Yugoslavia. Although concern predominantly is centering on getting humanitarian aid into Sarajevo airport. unless there is a ceasefire that is likely to be an extremely hazardous and difficult operation. But even if the humanitarian aid arrives in the airport, that is not the end of the matter; it will then have to be taken, presumably by the Red Cross, to areas where it is needed, and military escorts may be needed to safeguard the position of the Red Cross. This is an extremely difficult and hazardous undertaking and it is being discussed by the United Nations—I believe, even as we speak.
Mr. David Alton: Notwithstanding the difficulty of putting large numbers of troops on the ground, does the Prime Minister agree that the establishment of a sky sheild—an area free from bombardment for civilians—would be one way of trying to save lives? Would not he like to see an extension of his idea of safe havens for the Kurds? Will he discuss that with his European colleagues? Did President Mitterrand discuss his visit to Sarajevo with the Prime Minister before he left?
The Prime Minister: I believe that he discussed it with none of the other Heads of Government, as far as I am aware, before he left. I am certainly not aware that he did so.
The idea of air cover is certainly one that has been considered. It is, of course, extremely hazardous. The bombing and mortaring of people in and around Sarajevo is being done from the land, not from the air, so air cover would not necessarily prevent it. However, air cover would be a juicy target for missiles from the ground if anyone were tempted to aim at them. It is an extremely difficult proposition. Of course, we also considered the prospect of
592
an air drop of supplies, but that also has great logistical difficulties, and we were not advised to proceed with that course.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the agreement on European money was a mere holding operation? Will he also confirm that, if there has to be a continuance of a fixed exchange rate moving towards a single currency, it demands convergence, and that convergence in its turn demands the free movement of people—namely, the abolition of all immigration controls within the European Community and a massive increase in regional and social funds?
The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend believes all that, I can understand why he is so opposed to it. I do not believe all that. As for it being a mere holding operation, it was an agreement that there was no agreement to be had. We and others could not agree the proposals put forward at the weekend, and we must now discuss them to see whether agreement can be reached by the time of Edinburgh. That is the way one normally reaches an agreement—through negotiation over time.
Mr. John McAllion: Since the Prime Minister now claims to champion the principle of subsidiarity, will he explain to the House why he does so so enthusiastically for the United Kingdom within the European union while ignoring it completely for Scotland within the British Union?
The Prime Minister: We are a single united kingdom.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it has taken this country about 50 years to be accepted as a leading player in the European Community? Is it not sad that, on the very eve of our taking the presidency, in our best position for years, with the twin themes of subsidiarity and enlargement on our lips as we do so, there are still those among us who wish to hark back to the glorious days of Britain's history which are no longer relevant in the late 1990s?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that there are very few Conservative Members and. I suspect, very few—if any—hon. Members who want to see a centralised European Community and the nightmare prospect proposed by some of a central European state. We do not want it, it will not happen and it is an unreal prospect—the stuff of nightmares for a few people—but if we wish to build the sort of Europe that this House wants, we can do so only if we play a full part in the decision-making process and do not, by our own actions, marginalise ourselves on areas of discussion where decisions need to be taken now.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Prime Minister explain, if he believes in honest negotiation, on what basis he will negotiate with the four applicants, Switzerland, Finland and so on—on the basis of Maastricht being agreed or on the basis of Maastricht not being agreed? If it is the former, why does he not have the courage to put the Bill before the House now, or is he merely playing for time?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening earlier. The preparation of the mandates is on the basis of Maastricht being agreed. That is the working

593
assumption under which all the negotiations will take place. In due course, when Maastricht is agreed, the official negotiations can start. It is quite possible that not only the mandates but unofficial discussions towards accession to the Community can take place before ratification of the treaty, but the formal accession of any new state could not take place until after the Maastricht treaty is ratified.
Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House would wish to thank him and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the whole House—for pointing out the dangers of the situation in Yugoslavia? He has made it clear that command and control in Yugoslavia is vested in the United Nations. During the months of the presidency, will my right hon. Friend ensure that that is made clear to every member of the Community? We are all working in the same army for the same aim, but under one single command and control.
The Prime Minister: I will seek to make that clear. As my hon. Friend said, we may not carry the whole House with us, but perhaps we carry the whole of the thinking part of the House with us.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: While, Muggins-like, Britain goes along with sanctions against Libya, the Italians cheerfully turn a blind eye to their relations with Libya and to any obligations they have given. What consideration is the Prime Minister giving to the letter from Mr. John Lace, the managing director of Babcock and Wilcox, who argues that thousands of jobs may be involved in various propositions from the British engineering industry in Libya? Why should we lose out on them when our partners are not keeping to any agreements that may have been made?
The Prime Minister: Without necessarily accepting the premise on which the hon. Gentleman launched his question, I have seen the letter from Babcock and Wilcox to which he refers. I will take the opportunity to discuss that with the new Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Amato, when I meet him at Munich in a few days' time.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Given that the people of this country have no faith or confidence whatever in the pocket Napoleon who has been running the Commission for the past eight years, is it not insensitive, to say the least, for our European colleagues to force him on us for the next two years? Or is Machiavelli at work—are they trying to ensure that the British people throw out the wretched treaty with the referendum which is becoming increasingly desirable, necessary and relevant?
The Prime Minister: There was only one candidate for the presidency of the Commission. There was no other candidate around who was credible and who would have been likely to have the support of any other nation state at the summit. It would have been perfectly possible. if we had thought it desirable, for us to put forward a different candidate. He—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Or she."]—or she would have had no prospect of success, and he or she would have needed to be an existing member of the Commission. There is no point is getting out of the frying pan and stepping straight into the fire.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will have noticed the Prime Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in relation to unemployment. Will he not accept that it is hardly any solace for those losing their jobs to learn that the rate of unemployment is rising faster in Spain than it is here, or that the only Government proposal to bring down unemployment is the successful conclusion to the GATT round? As the presidency begins on 1 July, will the Prime Minister give the House a categorical assurance that he will make the fall of unemployment a high priority within the exchange rate mechanism?
The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what that last point means. I simply corrected the point of fact made by the Leader of the Opposition, and I also made the point, if I remember accurately, that I did not necessarily suggest that we had unemployment rising at the rate we would like. Clearly we would like to see it fall: I do not deny that for a moment. I was correcting the simple factual point about unemployment. Although it is an important matter, it falls within a wide parameter of policies. It is not necessarily a matter that can be determined by Europewide policies at a European Council meeting.
Mr. Ray Whitney: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his exchanges with his colleagues at Lisbon further demonstrated that there is growing support throughout Europe for the concept of a Community which is effective and united, but which is not unnecessarily centralist?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has defined precisely the sense of the meeting at Lisbon on Friday and Saturday. There is a strong feeling, not just among politicians, people in this country and people in Denmark, but in a number of other countries, against excessive centralisation. That was reflected in our debates in Lisbon.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Prime Minister has told us that he is seeking a definition of subsidiarity. Does he agree that such a definition should be inserted in article 3b? Contrary to popular belief, it is not yet there. Does he agree that, to make it a practical reality and to make it justiciable, as it must be in the end, there must be some suggestion of a separation of powers? However, is not the separation of powers the hallmark of a federal constitution, which the Prime Minister says he wishes to avoid?
The Prime Minister: The definition is there in article 3b, as I said earlier. It is therefore justiciable, and I am happy to confirm that again to the hon. Gentleman. We have the definition. We are seeking to put flesh, in practical working terms, on the definition that already exists and is already justiciable.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the one thing that my constituents are very clear about is that they do not want to see the surrender of any more important powers by the Westminster Parliament to the European Community? If that is what we mean by subsidiarity, is it not time that it was better and more clearly defined, so that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take the British people with him at the end of his successful presidency?
The Prime Minister: As I said a little earlier, I share my hon. and learned Friend's implicit view that "subsidiarity"

595
is not a very attractive term. We need to find a way of expressing it that will make it readily understood by people up and down the country so that they are aware of what it means and how it will operate. I am open to any helpful proposals on that point, but we shall be considering it further.
Mr. Peter Hain: When the Prime Minister bullied the Baroness Thatcher into signing the exchange rate mechanism or the European monetary system, did she insist to him then, as she did yesterday, that the pound was set at far too high a level?
The Prime Minister: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman has not met my noble Friend.
Mr. William Powell: The emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister laid upon the successful conclusion of the GATT round is most welcome. Does he agree that nothing would give the world economy a greater boost or boost confidence as well as economic activity than the successful conclusion of the GATT round? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend urge the French President to show the same generosity in solving the GATT problems as he is showing in trying to solve the difficulties in Sarajevo, by reaching a satisfactory compromise over 300,000 tonnes of grain?
The Prime Minister: That is an extremely fair point, which has not been lost upon the European leaders. The point has been made to those holding up the agreement at present. Quite apart from the growth of world trade that would follow and apart from the helpful effect that that would also have on unemployment, it would be an immense help to the developing countries and the less-developed countries to have a GATT agreement that opens the richer markets of the west to those countries. There is no point in us handing out sums of aid with one hand and effectively taking them away with closed markets with the other.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: With regard to Yugoslavia, is the European Community sure that, although the sanctions against Milosevic are justified and may bring about a change in Serbia, they will lead to peace in Bosnia-Herzegovina'? Do not Presidents Izetbegovic and Tudjman have some responsibility for what is happening in that part of the world? What pressure is the Community placing on them—or is the even-handed approach by the British Government before 19 January being thrown away in order to achieve concessions on Maastricht?
The Prime Minister: There are two points in relation to the important points raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, we are putting pressure on President Tudjman as well. Secondly, we are seeking to persuade the Serbs to assert control over the Serbs in Bosnia. That is the substantive point.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his comments in his opening statement about coolness and commitment are widely shared by a high proportion of his colleagues alongside and behind him? Does he agree that the cacophony of inconsistency from down the Corridor is a sign that very rarely are the best wines made with sour grapes?
The Prime Minister: We need to look very carefully at precisely how we carry the debate forward. It is critical that we get the right conclusions from the debate and that we ratify a treaty which for the first time begins to turn back a centralising trend which was evident in the treaty of Rome and in the Single European Act, and which became more evident as time passed. We are now in a position to begin to turn that tide back. It would be folly if we were to sideline ourselves when we have an opportunity to achieve that.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Prime Minister must have seen weekend reports that, if Maastricht were not ratified by the House, he would resign. I am sure that he agrees that it would be quite wrong to raise the hopes of the British people on the basis of a false premise, but, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's determination to sweep away the cobwebs of government, will he come clean on this matter and tell us whether, if Maastricht is not ratified, he will resign?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises his question on a false premise, which is exactly what he said he would not wish to do—it is going to be ratified. As one of my hon. Friends indicated a moment ago, the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked it, but we had the largest single popular vote in the previous election that any Government have ever received.
Sir Teddy Taylor: While the Prime Minister and our new friend Mr. Jacques Delors may be entirely confident that this matter is going to go through without difficulty and with the free will of members, does he accept that there is an important democratic issue when a Bill is put through without a free vote, without a referendum, and without the people of the country being told what is involved when there is a major surrender or a major passing over of freedom and liberty? If he doubts that, should we not take a message from the sad countries of eastern Europe about the tragedy of forcing people to go into a single centralised state with common citizenship and without frontiers, without being consulted at all? Surely there is a case for at least looking at telling the people and asking their views.
The Prime Minister: No one fights more fiercely for parliamentary control in this country than my hon. Friend. With my great respect for him, I find it inconsistent that such a firm advocate of the parliamentary system should also be an advocate of referendums. I believe that the parliamentary system is right. It is the way in which we took through legislation in the past on constitutuional matters. It is the way in which we took through the treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. This Bill has already been debated, before I went to Maastricht and after I came back, for a longer period than that spent discussing the Single European Act, and that is before we enter the Committee stage.
Mr. Win Griffiths: In the context of subsidiarity, will the Prime Minister confirm that there is no truth in the rumours that environmental policy is to be repatriated to the nation state and that, instead, in his presidency he will give priority to the creation of a

597
European environmental agency to make sure that important, cross-boundary environmental matters are properly tackled?
The Prime Minister: It is agreed that there should be a European environmental agency, and it has been for some time. What has not been agreed is where the European environmental agency should be sited. That, too, failed to find itself a matter of agreement over the weekend.
Mr. James Paice: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's dedication to the concept of enlargement of the Community, so that, one day, we will get to the stage at which Europe really means Europe? Is it not clear that a Community of 15 or 20 more states can exist only on the basis of individual agreements and pillars—precisely the sort of Europe envisaged at Maastricht?
The Prime Minister: Yes. They have agreed to apply on the basis of the Maastricht treaty being agreed. That opens, of course, the option of intergovernmental agreement, as I said earlier, rather than simply agreement under the treaty of Rome. No doubt, over time as the Community enlarges, there will be further agreements and, no doubt, further institutional change. We must make sure that we are sufficiently influential in the Community to ensure that the institutional change that takes place and the future agreements that may be necessary are agreements and changes of which we approve.
Mr. Jimmy Boyce: Would the Prime Minister be kind enough to tell us whether, when he refers to workers' rights, he means an end to the practice of employers unilaterally de-recognising trade unions, reneging on properly negotiated rates of pay and pay rises, and coercing workers into signing new contracts of employment that mean that they have to work longer hours for basic rates of pay?
The Prime Minister: None of those matters was discussed over the weekend.
Sir Michael Marshall: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the discussions that have taken place about the parliamentary assize, the group of the 12 Parliaments plus the European Parliament, is a process that will be pursued during our presidency? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that should be an added safeguard in the matter of subsidiarity?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we shall certainly process the prospect of a further meeting of that sort. Agreements between Parliaments, rather than just between members of the European Parliament and individual Governments, is an attractive way to proceed. I do not anticipate a meeting of the assize during the next six months, but we shall do the ground work and preparation for one to take place thereafter.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Prime Minister will be aware that his predecessor has called subsidiarity "gobbledegook". Early-day motion 240 gives a more sophisticated analysis of what is wrong with subsidiarity. If subsidiarity is to begin to have a constitutional meaning and legal definition, and is not simply to be determined by the courts in a broad sweep, its definition comes close to the concept of federalism.
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have spent some time in the past hour discussing precisely that point and the necessity of ensuring that a proper definition of subsidiarity is more clear-cut to everyone, including the man and woman in the street, than the definition found in article 3b of the treaty.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

European Council (Lisbon)

  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.
    PETROCHEMICAL PLANTS (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

    HORTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    FOOD PROTECTION
    That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Dioxins) (England) (No. 2) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1274). dated 1st June 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd June be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
    Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill
  New Clause 1—Pensions (consultation)—
  '.—Before exercising the powers under section I in so far as they affect pensions. and relevant Corporation and the Secretary of State shall consult those members of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme Committee of Management who represent the workforce and the Contributors' Committee Members of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme on the appointment of advisers and shall not appoint any such adviser without their consent.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 3—Changes to British Coal Corporation pension schemes—
  '.—Except in the case where the Secretary of State lays before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that such change is for the protection of the interests of the members and beneficiaries, no change shall he made to the Mineworkers Pension Scheme of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme except by statutory instrument; and such instrument shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  New clause 7—Pensions (consultation)—
  '.—Before exercising the powers under section 1 in so far as they affect pensions, any relevant Corporation and the Secretary of State shall consult those members of the British Rail Pension Scheme and the British Rail Superannuation Fund committees of management who represent the workforce on the appointment of advisers and shall not appoint any such adviser without their consent.',
  New clause 8—Changes to British Railways Board pension schemes—
  '.—Except in the case where the Secretary of State lays before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that such change is for the protection of the interests of the members and beneficiaries, no change shall he made to the British Rail Pension Scheme or the British Rail Superannuation Fund except by statutory instrument; and such instrument shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  New clause 9—Colliery welfare organisations—
  '.—Before exercising the powers under section 2 in so far as they affect land on buildings owned by, or held in trust for, any Colliery Welfare organisation, any relevant Corporation and the Secretary of State shall consult both the representatives of such Colliery Welfare organisations and the local authority.'
  4.33 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move, That the new clause be read a Second time.
  All the new clauses are about the pensions of people who used to work or still work for British Coal and British Rail. They seek to protect the rights of pensioners and potential pensioners of those companies. The new clauses are, therefore, important to existing pensioners, widows and children who benefit from the pensions, and the substantial number of people who work for British Coal and British Rail and still pay into those pension schemes. In any sensible society, those people should be entitled to feel that their pensions are secure. But they do not feel that they are secure. The House is under an obligation to offer them the protection that they do not have at present.
  The Government's record on pensions is literally scandalous. Under the Government, we have proceeded
  600
  from one scandal to the next. Each time there is a pension scandal, they wring their hands, express concern, promise action and then do nothing. Even on the odd occasion when they do something, their action is too late. It is usually described as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, although more often these days the horse did not bolt but was stolen from the stable and written off by some pinstriped highwayman from the City of London. Those latter-day Dick Turpins are always one jump ahead of the law enforcement officers and 10 jumps ahead of the law.
  We are obliged to try to ensure that the law offers the protection that it has failed to offer to legions of other pensioners. It is about time Parliament took some action on pensions before, not after, a scandal—it is usually known as a spot of intelligent anticipation.
  The new clauses are designed to protect the interests of pensioners, to protect their pension funds and to give pensioners and people still paying into the funds some confidence that, in these difficult times, they will get the pensions to which they believe they are entitled.
  Pensioners have good reason to be concerned. The British Coal pension funds total more than £12 billion—perhaps 10 times the value that the Government will eventually place on the assets of the company itself. These funds represent different things to different people. To the pensioners and widows they represent their income—the money that pays the bills. To the people working for British Coal or, for that matter, British Rail these pension funds represent their future security.
  Two other groups, however, have their eye on these funds. To the potential purchasers of British Coal that £12 billion represent a kitty. If we and the pensioners—not to mention the people running the pension schemes—are not careful these funds will represent swag for the thieving people in the City who have already stolen so much from Britain's pensioners.
  Hitherto the Government have merely offered a few assurances. I am sure that Robert Maxwell would have given assurances. So would Barlow Clowes have offered assurances that its investments were sound. I am sure that the people at Belling would have told their employees that their pensions were safe and were not being invested in the company by a circuitous route. I am sure that when Hanson bought Imperial Tobacco it told its pensioners that their pensions were safe. Anyone who believes such assurances now is flying in the face of experience. Assurances are no longer enough.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: When Hanson was trying to buy Imperial Tobacco the staff did not believe its assurances and went to court to protect themselves.
  Mr. Dobson: Yes, indeed, but my hon. Friend will agree that they had to go as far as the House of Lords to protect themselves, and that vulnerable groups such as pensioners should not have to do that. It is up to the House of Commons to offer them the protection to which they believe they are entitled and which they deserve.
  Even under present law, pensioners and people paying into these schemes are unhappy about what is happening and they see money being taken away from them. The miners pension scheme has funds of more than £6 billion, out of which it has to pay 160,000 pensioners and more than 100,000 widows—and 260,000 other former miners expect to get what are called deferred pensions when they

  601
  are old enough to be entitled to them. There are fewer than 50,000 working miners paying into the scheme. British Coal decided that the fund was in such surplus that some of it could be disposed of. As the fund was set up to benefit pensioners, one might have thought that the first call on the funds would be to increase pensions now or in the future; but that was not British Coal's top priority. It gave itself a contributions holiday, so that it will make no employers' contributions to the miners pension scheme until the year 2001.
  That holiday is worth more than £423 million to British Coal. However, it is intended to benefit not British Coal but whoever buys it when it is privatised. All that is legal, all above board, but it is all a loss to the pensioners, because the benefit will be passed to the shareholders of the new company or companies that will own British Coal. No wonder workers and pensioners in the industry want some reassurance about what will happen when privatisation is under way. Our new clauses seek to give workers, pensioners and their representatives some say in the appointment of advisers to the Government and the companies during privatisation.
  As we all know, privatisation involves vast numbers of City advisers. If my memory serves me correctly, in one way or another more than 230 companies advised either the Government or the companies on electricity privatisation, and some of them advised both. That advice cost the taxpayer about £230 million. Such investment in advice cannot be justified unless we can be convinced of the propriety, honesty, wit, intelligence and professional competence of those who are getting the money. Who might the pensioners not want looking into their pensions? In view of the recent scandals, pensioners would not want any advice to the Government or the companies from anybody who was involved in any way in the Maxwell pension scandal.
  Mr. Bill Etherington: My hon. Friend speaks about advisers that pensioners might not want. They might not want that outfit masquerading as a trade union, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. That outfit sided with British Coal to ensure a contributions holiday that will last to the turn of the century. I hope that that will never be forgotten.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Unfortunately, a UDM representative voted with the management on the miners' pension scheme committee in favour of a pension holiday. It was a rather curious decision.
  The point to remember about the Maxwell scandal is that Robert Maxwell did not do it all by himself. Money cannot be moved around and in and out of the City and in and out of Liechtenstein or anywhere else without people such as accountants, auditors, banks and merchant banks—and all sorts of people who make their living by movements of money through their institutions—noticing what is going on. They carefully log such movements, because, by and large, they get a percentage of every movement.
  The people who noticed such movements of money fall into two categories—those who took part and those who averted their gaze. I do not think that miners or railway workers would want advice from people in either category.
  602
  Any institutions or persons who did not notice what Maxwell was up to are too stupid and incompetent to advise on the future of miners' pensions or railway staff pensions. Pensions for miners or railway workers should not be left in the hands of those who failed to prevent the pillage of the Maxwell pensioners.
  We offered some help to the Government in their pursuit of the missing Maxwell millions. We suggested that they should demand from anyone whom they were considering appointing as an adviser on this matter a certificate from the Secretary of State for Social Security showing that, as the Secretary of State had requested, the certificate holder had done everything in his power to help the Maxwell pensioners get their money hack. If the licence holder had any of the money, he would need a certificate to say that he had paid it back. That is known in the business as an incentive and it should be passed into law.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Robert Adley: There is not much reference to that in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said, "We offered some help to the Government" for the Maxwell pensioners to get their money back. Will the hon. Gentleman define what he means by "we"? At great cost to itself, the National Westminster bank has decided to return money to the pension funds. Presumably the hon. Gentleman can assure me that the Mr. Maxwell of whom we are speaking was a former Labour Member of Parliament and that the Labour party received money from the Maxwell organisation. When the hon. Gentleman says "we-, does he mean the Labour party and, if so, does Labour propose to return that money, however small the total amount, as a gesture of good faith towards the Maxwell pensioners?
  Mr. Dobson rose——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is dwelling unduly on matters relating to a clause that has not been selected.
  Mr. Dobson: The clause that has not been selected——
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Never mind what she says.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The selection of clauses and amendments is made by Madam Speaker, not by me.
  Mr. Dobson: I have no intention of dwelling on our new clause which was not selected. I was in the process of moving on before the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) intervened. I do not give a damn which political party Robert Maxwell came from. He was a villain and he stole from pensioners. But he must have done that with the connivance of innumerable City individuals and institutions, because he could not have done it by himself.
  Mr. Skinner: The Tories are speaking about Maxwell, but one of their clan, Peter Walker, picked up £450,000 for working for three months for a Maxwell organisation and took a Mercedes car worth about £50,000. That happened last year when Maxwell was fiddling the pension funds. Walker should send the money to those desperate Maxwell pensioners. That is what the Tories should be calling for.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
  The Government recently announced the appointment of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors to investigate, not the Maxwell pension scandal but the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers. Linklaters and Paines, and Clifford Chance, solicitors; Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, the reporting accountants; Salomon Brothers International, the underwriters; the merchant bankers Samuel Montagu; and stockbrokers Smith New Court were all involved in that flotation, and are all being investigated by DTI inspectors.
  The DTI is one of the two sponsoring Ministries behind the Bill. We would expect it to agree with us that none of the companies being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry should be entitled, while under investigation, to be appointed as advisers to the Government, British Coal or British Rail on this matter of privatisation and in particular on the matter of pensions.
  Mr. Martin Redmond: Let him without sin cast the first stone. Many Conservative Members have interests in the City and are involved in all sorts of deals that take money from the pockets of those who invest their pounds and 50ps in the City. Is it not correct that the DTI is also involved, in that it was aware that Maxwell was an unfit person but never acted on that knowledge and allowed the robbery of the pensioners to continue?
  Mr. Dobson: I cannot claim to understand all the detailed ramifications of how deeply the DTI or other Departments were involved in various aspects of the fiddles, but it is fairly unlikely that, in about two decades' time, when the various investigatory machines have finally completed their business, any Department will come out with a clean bill of health. We are pretty sure that it will be a long time before any conclusions are reached.
  The DTI has established its investigation into the floatation of Mirror Group Newspapers. Presumably, it expects that investigation to be taken seriously. Everyone believes that if a DTI inspector makes a serious criticism of a company or individual in its report, the matter should be taken seriously. We believe that the miners and the railway workers wish to make sure that DTI inspections are indeed taken seriously, in view of the wisdom and foresight of the DTI inspectors, who in 1971 said of Mr. Maxwell that, in their view, he was not
  "a person who could be relied upon to exercise proper stewardship of a publicly quoted company."
  How wise they were. We would go beyond that and say that, in order to protect the interests of the miners and the railway workers, and in particular those of pensioners, no company or individual who has been criticised by a formal DTI inspection in its published report should be entitled to advise on the pensions of either the miners or the railway workers.
  Unfortunately, that leads us to what can only be described as the sad and lengthy roll call of the Government's advisers. Coopers and Lybrand, which incidentally was the auditor of Mirror Group Newspapers and its pension fund, and which, during the process of electricity privatisation, had no fewer than 19 advisory contracts, was criticised in a DTI report on the Milford Docks Company.
  Ernst and Young, and its predecessor, were involved in advising the Government and the electricity supply industry—it got four advisory contracts out of electricity privatisation—and has been criticised in no fewer than six
  604
  published DTI reports. It is also the auditor to British Coal and the British Coal pension scheme, which is in direct contravention of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Social Security that it is improper for any organisation to be the auditor of both company accounts and pension scheme accounts.
  Mr. Redmond: So that we are sure on this, will my hon. Friend tell the House which party was in power when those criticisms were made?
  Mr. Dobson: I must confess to my hon. Friend that I do not have the date of all six of the reports into Ernst and Young.
  The distinguished company of James Capel had only one advisory contract during the process of electricity privatisation but was criticised in the case of Consolidated Gold Fields. Kleinwort Benson, which was the Government's principal adviser on electricity privatisation and had four other contracts, was criticised, as everybody who was a Member of Parliament at the time will remember, in the House of Fraser DTI report.
  Peat Marwick McLintock, the accountants, had three electricity advisory contracts and was criticised in the Alexander Howden Holdings case and the Orbit Holdings case. Price Waterhouse, another firm of city accountants, had no fewer than 23 advisory contracts on electricity privatisation, and it has been criticised in the public reports of two DTI inspections, into Norwest Holst and Raymor Investments. Spicer and Oppenheim, its predecessor, which had five advisory contracts on electricity privatisation, was criticised over the Aldermanbury Trust. Smith New Court, of which Lord Walker, who has been mentioned already, is a director, had three advisory contracts on electricity privatisation and was criticised, along with James Capel, over the Consolidated Gold Fields case.
  Lest any Conservative Members suggest that these might be trivial or glancing criticisms, I will quote one or two examples of the criticisms levelled at companies that have been on the Government's list up to now, because I do not think that they are trivial. In the Consolidated Gold Fields case, the inspectors said:
  "We consider that Smith New Court seriously hindered the company's attempt to pursue its right under section 212. with a view to identifying who had been buying a substantial number of its shares."
  It went on to say, and this is probably the most damning aspect:
  "Moreover, we consider that Smith New Court did not understand their responsibilities under the Act and did not make any serious attempt to take proper legal advice."
  No organisation criticised in that way should be supervising any pension scheme or be involved in any way. Similar criticisms were levied at James Capel.
  Mr. Stephen Milligan: The hon. Gentleman lists the shortcomings of these advisory companies, but will he add to the list the name of Mr. Arthur Scargill who, during the miners' strike, shifted money from one account to another with great freedom? Perhaps it would not be a good idea if, as suggested in the new clause, the National Union of Mineworkers had a prime role in giving advice in the future.
  Mr. Dobson: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Arthur Scargill will not be appearing in court, which is something

  605
  that distinguishes him from a large number of people who were involved in the Maxwell scandal, and who, if there were any justice in the world, would be appearing in court.
  The DTI said about Ernst and Young:
  "In our view, the auditors failed to carry out their responsibilities as auditors."
  The company had been appointed as auditors and was criticised for not carrying out its duties. Such auditors should not be allowed anywhere near the miners and railway workers pension schemes. The report of the investigation into Raymor Investments said:
  "Price Waterhouse's conduct as regards the non-executive directors and the incoming auditors is indefensible."
  Should any organisation whose conduct described as indefensible be further employed by the Government, by British Coal or by British Rail? We would not want them supervising our pensions and we should not want them involved, in any way, in looking after someone else's.
  5 pm
  In the case of the House of Fraser and the al-Fayeds, there is probably no more damning statement to be found in any Department of Trade and Industry report than the comment that was made not just about Kleinworts and Herbert Smith, Government advisers, or Lazard's, Government advisers, or Morgan Grenfell, Government advisers, than the words:
  "So far as we know, not one of the advisers appears to have inquired at all critically into the Fayeds' background and bona fides."
  There could be no worse criticism of people appointed to look into things critically and to advise than that they never did their job.
  We believe that none of these organisations should be allowed anywhere near the giving of any advice about the privatisation of either the coal industry or the electricity industry. What is more, we wonder who maintains this list of advisers and what criteria are applied before people's action, or inaction, is so bad that they are removed from the list. What do they have to do? Get involved in shifting money from Hong Kong into Tory party funds and then losing the money, or something like that? That appears to be the only thing that might prompt the Government to think that they were not up to their job.
  Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend wonders how advisers come to be removed from the list. If they stop contributing to the Tory party, they are removed.
  The president of the National Union of Mineworkers has been mentioned. Perhaps he ought to be one of the advisers. Arthur would want to ensure that miners had adequate pensions. Despite the vilification, the president of the National Union of Mineworkers has been completely exonerated of any dirty tricks. The House ought to be aware that he has been completely exonerated of any fiddling of pension funds or NUM money. The so-called pension advisers in the City ought to have a look at Arthur's track record with a view to achieving the standards that he has set for himself.
  Mr. Dobson: I can say only that if advisers were to look into a situation, it is unlikely, on the basis of what I have just read out, that they would notice anything.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have been listening very carefully to the comments of my
  606
  hon. Friend. I am not sure that he quite understands the reasons behind the privatisation, and that concerns me slightly. One of his problems, I think, is that he seriously suspects that advice is taken from private firms in order to facilitate the movement of assets from the state system into private pockets. The point is that there should be an ever more rapid movement of money from the state to the friends of the Conservative party. The view that these people are employed to give independent advice does not correspond with the facts.
  Mr. Dobson: I have to confess that I have always had the old-fashioned view that the public business of the country should be conducted with honesty and in the interests of the people of the country rather than for the benefit exclusively of the Conservative party and its friends. However, I have become more and more disillusioned over the years.
  In view of everything that has appeared in print or has been heard on television and radio. it is clear that any sensible miner or any sensible person working for British Rail must be concerned about what has happened to his pension fund. These people have read about Maxwell, about Imperial Tobacco and about Belling. Today I received a letter from someone who works for British Telecom. That person tells me that it looks as though the company is into contribution holidays and changes in schemes, to the advantage of the shareholders and the disadvantage of the pensioners and people paying in. I have not had time to investigate the ins and outs of the matter, but I am quite prepared to believe that these changes have been made.
  Our new clauses are intended to secure from the Government agreement that no one will be appointed to advise on the pensions of the miners or the railway workers unless the Governments and the companies get the consent of the representatives of the work force—and I mean the entire work force.
  Our amendments would provide that any change in a pension scheme required the consent of Parliament. Conservative Members have been fairly willing to agree to almost anything in recent times. I live in hope that if our proposal is accepted, or if the Government bring forward an amendment of their own, even the present Conservative party will be unwilling, up front, to vote for something that is to the total disadvantage of pensioners.
  I hope that the Government will accept either the amendments or the spirit of the amendments. I come back to a point that I made at the beginning: it will be no good if, in three or four years' time, people come here and bleat about pensioners being robbed, as that could be stopped by action taken today. Bleating afterwards is not good enough any more. Any group of pensioners is entitled to the protection of this House, and that is what should be provided tonight.
  Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having to intervene with a point of order at this stage, but I seek your advice. Today an all-party delegation from the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority met the Minister for Public Transport. the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), to discuss the West Yorkshire electrification scheme. The main problen associated with the scheme arises from the anxiety of financial institutions about the effect of privatisation on the transport authority and about

  607
  whether, if they were to underwrite a leasing agreement for new rolling stock, they would be able to secure repayment of any loans.
  I should like to know whether it would be in order for hon. Members, in the debate on new clause 5, to make brief comments on this matter, in the hope that the Minister for Public Transport would be able to report to the House on the present situation. That new clause refers to rights and liabilities. Or would it be more suitable for brief interventions to be made during the Third Reading debate, which, I understand is to take place later tonight?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We have not yet reached new clause 5. I shall consider the points that the hon. Member has made, but there is no need to give an immediate answer.
  Mr. Redmond: As this is the first opportunity I have had to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to the Chair. I am confident that you will do an excellent job. Indeed, it is widely accepted in the House that you are doing an excellent job.
  It was said during the Second Reading debate and in Committee, and it must be said again, that there ought to be two Bills—one dealing with British Rail and one with British Coal. But we are quite used to the manipulation of Ministers with a view to shoving business through as quickly as possible. The Minister's approach has been that the Government and the Opposition agree in principle with regard to the proposals in the Bill. For a long time, I have not accepted that, when we agree in principle, we can sort out the details later.
  I am confident that the Minister's office thinks that that applies to this privatisation legislation. If that is so, it should have been discussed on Second Reading arid in Committee, and certainly it should be discussed this evening. The problem is that the Minister simply sits back. He has an outline structure—possibly even the details—of the proposed privatisation, yet hon. Members on both sides of the House are fishing in the dark trying to understand what is happening.
  I oppose the holiday that British Coal is taking from the pension scheme. It was agreed to on the casting vote of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. The National Union of Mineworkers was opposed to it and did not participate. I do not understand why the Minsiter is not using his good offices in this matter. He gives assurances that future pension rights will be protected and that there is no need to worry because everything is wonderful, yet he is taking part in a manipulation by British Coal of the pension fund that will rob many of my constituents, who are ex-members of the coal industry, of many pounds. He should step on the toes of British Coal's chairman and bring their cosy relationship to an end.
  I think it appropriate to mention the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. It came about through a venture between the workers and British Coal. Over the years, the workers contributed tuppences and threepences week in, week out to bring facilities to mining villages—not just for the enjoyment of the miners and their family, but for the enjoyment of the whole community. Because of that, many mining villages have excellent facilities.
  We are a little concerned about what will happen to CISWO's assets if British Coal is privatised. It must be remembered that those assets belong not to British Coal, but to the community. I hope that today the Minister will
  608
  give a categoric assurance that CISWO lands and schemes—be they cricket, bowling, football or welfare—will not be sold, but will be transferred free of charge to local authorities. I am sure that the Minister is aware that many local authorities are strapped for cash and are having a heck of a job trying to maintain statutory services. They will not have the money to purchase CISWO's lands and schemes from British Coal.
  The point should be made that it is not just British Coal that has contributed to the schemes—over the years, the lads and lasses have brought those facilities to the communities for the enjoyment of the people. From British Coal's actions so far, it seems that it will want to exploit those schemes for the benefit of the new private owners. British Coal has a large amount of land, but when members of the public want to purchase any of it, British Coal charges property development prices—that is, it' it is prepared to sell at all.
  I am sure that the same thing will happen with coal privatisation as happened when the water industry was privatised. There was a piece of land in Warmsworth village where people had tended allotments for many years. Suddenly, the water board wanted them off that land, because it thought that it could get planning consent for development. The same may happen with British Coal. Instead of benefiting the nation and the lads and lasses who spent many years in the coal industry, the new owners will want to dispose of the land to make fat profits for its board and the shareholders. That has happened in other privatised industries. I hope that the Minister will assure us this afternoon that that will not happen with the coal privatisation.
  5.15 pm
  Concessionary coal is part of the right of the lads and the lasses in the coal industry. Six pits in Yorkshire have protected rights. They include Rossington. which is my patch, and Caeleby—which is closed—in the Don valley constituency. They have protected rights over and above the usual concessionary coal agreement. Will the Minister give an assurance that irrespective of who owns the industry, those rights will he protected? I hope that no one—for example, Fairclough or Monktonhall—will try to take on the industry as a single venture. Unless there are long-term markets, there is no long-term security.
  Those six pits in Yorkshire have a right to the same protection as they had prior to privatisation. I hope that any agreement on privatisation will give the lads and lasses of those pits full protection under the law against exploitation. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the points that I have made.
  Mr. John Heppell: I declare an interest as, at some stage in the future, I may have the opportunity to benefit from a railway pension. I am therefore pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is looking after my interests so well.
  I am disappointed by the Bill. My first reason is on political grounds, as I do not like the idea of privatisation. whatever it might mean for the railways. Nevertheless, I recognise reality. The Tories won the election and they are committed to privatisation. Unfortunately, the Bill is not clear about anything else. What does it tell hon. Members, the management of British Rail, the work force and the passengers? Alas, it is very little.

  609
  My second reason for disappointment is that, in the absence of a White Paper, the Bill is causing confusion and uncertainty throughout the country and especially among the work force and pensioners of British Rail. The Bill is not a blank sheet, it is a blank cheque—but for the benefit of the Government, not the pensioners. That is shown by the catch-all phrase in clause 1 that British Rail be given
  "the power to do anything which in their opinion is appropriate for the purpose of … facilitating the implementation of"
  the Government proposals.
  That means that it can do exactly as it likes. The Bill suggests that private locomotives and wagons could run on BR track, but that already happens. I am therefore confused about the Bill's purpose. If it confuses me, it must confuse even more BR's existing work force and pensioners. The work force will have to make the changes work—once it is known what those changes are. At present, they do not know whether those changes will include restructuring, after 10 years of restructuring, or whether they will conflict with the Government's present proposals. Neither do the work force and many pensioners know whether their present travel concessions will be protected. Employees are uncertain whether their promotion prospects will be damaged. If they are, their pensions will also be harmed. There are many previous instances of that happening.
  The work force and existing pensioners are worried about what will happen to their existing pensions. I do not rely on my pension, because I realised a long time ago, after I entered local government service, that my BR pension would not be sufficient to live on. However, many rely wholly on their BR pension for their future income.
  Experience has shown that privatisation has not helped pensioners. The privatisations of British Rail Engineering Ltd, British Transport Hotels, Sealink and Travellers Fare produced pension schemes that were supposed to offer equal benefits and to mirror BR schemes. In fact, many of the new schemes closed, stagnated or offered only marginal improvements. In any event, they have not kept pace with BR schemes, while offering contribution holidays to employees, who pay nothing, while the pensioners receive less.
  There is in people's minds today the spectre of Robert Maxwell. That case has concentrated the thoughts of those working in the railway and mining industries about the future of their pension funds. We have read much in the newspapers about the losses made by names at Lloyd's and suggestions that they ought to be compensated. I do not believe that they should. I have no more sympathy for names than I do for those who lose money on the stock exchange or by gambling on horses. Damon Runyon said that all those who play the horses die broke. One takes a risk, and enjoys the profits when one wins—so one must accept the losses when one loses. However, pensioners are not like that. They pay money to provide for their future security.
  In the light of the Maxwell fiasco, the Government have an opportunity—which they should not miss—to send out a clear message to those who would con, cheat, rob, and steal from pensioners that such behaviour will not be tolerated. They can also send out to pensioners the message that their pension funds will be protected. The Government can do that today by ensuring that special
  610
  protection is built into the process of privatisation. If they agree to new clause 1. they can make the minium concession that they should to pensioners.
  Mr. McCartney: As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security in the previous Parliament, I spent a great deal of time investigating this issue. As a Member of Parliament, I represent a coal mining community; my grandfather and grandmother both worked in a coal mining community, and my Scottish uncle died of pneumoconiosis at an early age. I therefore have some affinity with the new clause. It is necessary, historically and legally, to protect pensioners in coalfield and railway communities. It will also ensure a Government commitment to achieving equity.
  In 1984. my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) challenged the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Cecil Parkinson, over the Government's commitment to British Telecom's pensioners on the privatisation of that public service. Mr. Parkinson replied that BT employees would have constitutional rights in respect of their pension scheme—yet two years after BT's privatisation, The Times reported on 22 August 1984 that the Opposition's fears about future employees might have been justified.
  The article reported that British Telecom intended to introduce a new pension scheme in 1986 that would deny future employees the right to automatic index-linking of pensions—but that it would apply only to people joining British Telecom after 1 April 1986. In other words, British Telecom changed the rules after privatisation, and tens of thousands of pensioners lost the rights that were promised to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, other hon. Members, and the Union of Communication Workers.
  In the latter part of last year, the Social Security Select Committee took evidence in respect of the Government's intentions in regard to the pension schemes of nationalised and privatised industries. I quote from the Committee's second report. published on 4 March 1992. We took evidence from a former employee of the National Bus Company who had written to the Committee expressing concern about the effect of privatisation on the fund from which his pension was paid. The report states, in paragraphs 268 to 269:
  "The National Audit Office investigated the sale of the National Bus Company, a company which by 1985 accounted for almost half the national bus mileage in England and Wales. The Government in 1984 had proposed the deregulation of the bus industry, and as part of this programme the NBC was to be returned to the private sector in smaller free standing parts. The 1985 Transport Act set the framework for the sale, and required disposal of the company by January 1989.
  The proceeds of the sale amounted to £324.2 million. Net receipts to the Exchequer amounted to £165.4 million, of which £120 million was an estimated net surplus on pension funds. Before tax the surplus was £200 million."
  The National Audit Office found that the Government had on privatisation asset-stripped the National Bus Company's pension fund, and in doing so were able to present a far rosier picture of the company's resources at the time of its sale. Paragraph 270 adds:
  "The Public Accounts Committee in its investigation asked the Department why the pension fund surplus had been claimed as a net receipt from the sale. The Department responded that the figure of £120 million was part of the estimated net receipts following the sale."
  The Department offered no satisfactory explanation as to why the assets were used in that way. Current and future

  611
  pensioners of British Coal and British Rail schemes are well warned about the Government's promises, attitudes and actions.
  I ask the House to consider other cases involving pensioners who lost out through privatisation. BREL pensioners in my constituency were formerly employed by Parkfield Castings and their pensions were lost when that company went bust. They also lost their travel allowances, and were not entitled in law to any recompense.
  A more recent case, again notified to the Select Committee late last year, is that of the British Airways helicopter pilots. During negotiations with British Airways at the time of its privatisation, Robert Maxwell and his companies bought British Airways companies and responsibility for helicopter operations in the North sea and the highlands and islands of the United Kingdom. Shortly after the sale, an agreement was reached between Maxwell's companies and British Airways. Employees were told that, as part of their contract of employment, they had agreed to move out of the British Airways pension scheme and into the new British International Helicopters scheme.
  5.30 pm
  From then on, neither the Occupational Pensions Board nor the City regulators made any effort to take account of what was happening to the pension fund. Now, their pension fund having been looted, the pensioners are bereft of resources, and the Government have only belatedly produced a rescue package that may assist them in the short term. The House did nothing to protect pensioners at the time of the British Airways privatisation.
  At the time of the privatisation of the National Freight Corporation, agreements were reached as a result of which the Government still make a small contribution to the pension fund. In every other case of privatisation, however, the Government have failed lamentably to take account of the consequences. That can be seen clearly when we examine the history of corporate takeovers in the 1980s. Most of the companies targeted by Hanson and others were targeted not because of their performances in regard to exports or investment, but purely because of the tangible assets held by their pension funds and the ease with which corporate raiders could get their hands on those assets. In the 1980s, the self-regulatory system in the City failed again and again to accommodate the rights of pensioners.
  In legal terms, the most important case so far has been that involving Hanson and the tobacco industry. The Select Committee took a good deal of evidence about the consequence of Hanson's attempt to raid the pension funds. I have not raised the subject of Hanson because I see him as a bogeyman in relation to the new clause. It is likely that Hanson and his companies—such as Peabody's Coal Company—will try to purchase parts of the British coal industry, and that they will have a direct influence on, and interest in, the consequences of the break-up of British Coal and the future of the assets of its two major pension funds. Those assets amount to more than £12 billion. Hanson's history is vital in this connection, and the Government should be required to include in the Bill clauses to take account of the court ruling on the subject.
  In both his summing up and his written judgment, the judge in the Hanson case said that he could not understand why the trustees representing the employees had immediately been made redundant when they raised
  612
  objections to the attempt to manipulate pension fund assets. The trustees who replaced them had done the same. and they, too, had been made redundant. The judge suggested that Hanson had used intimidating tactics to ensure that he could place on the board of trustees people who would simply rubber-stamp his intentions. Luckily. the court and, eventually, the House of Lords made arrangements for the funds to be protected, but it took tens of millions of pounds of pension fund assets for that to happen. Moreover, Hanson did not meet the costs of legal advice; the pensioners met the cost from the pension funds. The Government must write into the Bill clear commitments in respect of pensioners' rights.
  The Bill has come at an embarrassing time for the Government. They will probably publish tomorrow their response to the report on occupational pension funds, published—as I said earlier—on 4 March 1992. Until 3.30 pm tomorrow, we shall not know what that response will be, but one thing is certain: no one can doubt the inadequacy of trust law in protecting pensioners, whether it applies to takeovers, privatisations or the general run of investment policies.
  The most important aspect of the new clause is the need to ensure that professional advisers are independent of both the Government and management. Time and again, evidence to the Select Committee has make it plain that the main problem is the failure of warning systems to operate effectively, or at all. In almost every instance of the plundering or potential plundering of pension funds, professional advisers have been tied hand and foot to the companies employing them.
  That does not apply only to Maxwell. Believe it or not, the Select Committee has received abundant evidence of corruption on both a large and small scale, and of unhelpful practices by employers. Some of those practices, although morally indefensible, are entirely legal, such as stock lending—lending to oneself a large proportion of investment funds as though a free banking system were in operation, or taking large pension holidays at the expense of future pensioners, as British Coal is currently doing. I hope that the Government will do something about that.
  Apart from the professional advisers, everyone who has given evidence to the Select Committee—solicitors, barristers, private-sector advisers to the pensions industry, trade unions, pensioners' organisations and deferred pensioners' organisations—has said, "For God's sake, bring in legislation to protect us from advisers who are representing the company on one hand and, on the other hand, are responsible for advising trustees about the investment and the movement in and out of the portfolio of hard cash or assets belonging to pensioners." The Maxwell case is a fine example. A total of £1.8 million was taken out of the Maxwell pension funds in the space of a few months at the end of last year to pay the professional advisers. Maxwell did not pay them; the pensioners had to. That was rubbing salt in the wound—making the pensioners pay advisers who had never advised them.
  An adviser in one firm of solicitors was paid more than £40,000 from the pension fund for writing a single letter on behalf of Maxwell and his fellow directors. The letter was a carefully constructed lie in response to complaints that had been received about the manipulation of funds. That solicitor still practises in the City. He admitted to the Select Committee that for writing a letter he had received more than £40,000—it had taken him more than six weeks

  613
  to construct the letter—from the very pensioners who had asked him to investigate corrupt practices. That is entirely unacceptable.
  During that critical 12-month period when the auditors were licensed by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation to regulate their own investments, they literally closed their eyes and their books and walked away. As they did so, hundreds of millions of pounds were taken out of the fund and are now to be found in various parts of the world. That is what might happen to British Rail's pension fund and to the mineworkers pension funds. These pension funds will be at greatest risk after privatisation. The City cannot wait to get its hands on them.
  It is essential, therefore, that the Government should put on to the face of the Bill clear and precise arrangements that take account of the Select Committee's inquiry into pension fraud. The Government must also take into account what the industry, the managers' associations, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and the National Union of Mineworkers have said to them. If the Government are not prepared to do so, history will be repeated. The asset-rich pension funds of British Coal and British Rail will be part and parcel of the sell-off. They will be the only reason for the sell-off. One only has to consider what happened after electricity privatisation. Under the contract arrangements, British Coal has been run into the ground. British Coal's only tangible asset is coal in the ground and its pension fund.
  The Government must give commitments if they are to end the sincere worry of those employed in the industry and of the hundreds of thousands of pensioners and future pensioners. Unless the Government give those commitments, we shall have to divide the House and, by campaigning, make people aware of the fact that, despite Maxwell and the Select Committee's report, the Government are still prepared to gamble with the assets of public-sector pensioners.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I echo what has already been said by my hon. Friends, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I worked in the coal mining industry and was the mineworkers' trade union representative until I was made redundant. Active and retired mine workers, and also their wives and widows, are extremely worried. I make no apologies for repeating that fact. We are talking about ordinary people and many honest individuals who have given their lives and their health to the industry. Some of them lie awake at night wondering what is going to happen. I appeal again to the Government, as I appealed to them in Committee, to look at what is going to happen to the fund.
  It is difficult not to repeat what others have said, but I shall try my best to consider this matter from another angle. ON, a highly respected organisation, runs the pension fund. It is even respected in the City. Its investments on behalf of miners, their widows and others, are second to none. It makes investments throughout the world. I represented the trade union side on the fund for four years. The people who administer the pension fund are tough. I want to know what the Government intend to do about the fund.
  If the industry is privatised, miners will not necessarily find that their pension fund investments are made by that organisation. I am asking for continuity. If doubt is cast
  614
  on its future, the headhunters in the City of London and elsewhere will take away its top people. In addition, between 290 and 300 people administer the fund in Sheffield and elsewhere. They earn their livelihood by looking after the pensioners' interests. I want to know what is going to happen to these people. They have done a good job. This is a good organisation. It would be a crime if it were to be split up after privatisation.
  5.45 pm
  Some pension fund money has been put into works of art. That may be a great way of increasing the amount of cash, but it is not working for anyone. The works of art are either in museums or vaults. The money that is in this fund is working for people and has been invested in this country. I took a great deal of pleasure from the fact that money was lent to people who were starting up on green field sites or were pursuing other activities.
  It is internationally accepted that this country is at the top of the league when it comes to new ideas. The silicon chip and many other inventions were the result of work done in learned institutions and technical colleges in this country, but they were developed and manufactured by other countries. The conservative attitude in the City of London and in our finance houses leads them to look for a return on their money yesterday. Six months is too long; a year is impossible. However, our Japanese competitors talk about getting a return in 10 or 12 years and of having a monopoly over any invention.
  This organisation, however, waits for a return for anything up to six years. It does not have rose-tinted glasses; it does not give money to non-starters. It has been so successful that British Rail has asked it to take on its investments. That encourages intitiative and provides jobs for people in mining areas and elsewhere. It leads to investment in the know-how and initiative of the British people, which is second to none. That fact alone should lead to the Government allowing this fund to stay alive and the investment experts together. Risk capital is one of the particular strengths of this organisation.
  We cannot, however, just sit back and say that everything is all right with this fund. One has to bear in mind the Maxwell nightmare. The fund must be well organised. Its assets must not be handed over to anybody else.
  I ask the Minister to take on board my arguments on behalf of the mining communities who have invested their wealth and health in this country. The miners were never seen to be wanting when it came to campaigning against fascism. They fought for this country in two world wars. I do not want a Maxwell scandal to come out of this. There should not even be the hint of a Maxwell scandal here. I want a guarantee from the Minister that the cash that has been built up for their pensions by people who have created wealth for this country will be preserved.
  I am not talking about City or stock exchange manipulations, or about somebody walking away with millions of pounds. I am talking about hard work to create wealth, generating power and energy for industry, commerce and domestic use. Without the coal industry, we would be in a poor position. Many countries envy our energy assets, but I am worried that they will be stripped before privatisation.
  I want a moratorium on some of British Coal's activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) mentioned land being sold off. Two

  615
  anthracite mines are being sold in south Wales. I want to know about the other deals that are going on. We cannot stop them dead in their tracks, but I want the Minister to ensure that, before the Bill takes effect, he analyses any asset pertaining to the sale. Asset stripping may occur before privatisation. I do not trust some of the people who are running British Coal—and one person in particular, who hon. Members know all about.
  The Government might get up to some of their old tricks by selling off assets to their friends or someone else before privatisation. Those assets belong to the industry and to the people of this country. I do not want any funny deals to be done before privatisation. That goes for pit closures as well. Premature pit closure can be detrimental asset stripping. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
  I shall close there—I know that we shall debate other amendments later—but that does not mean that I am not interested in safety, concessionary coal or the other organisations that have been mentioned. However, it is important that we concentrate on pension funds.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I want briefly to support the new clause and to ask the Minister to take on board the fact that this is not just a ritual debate on privatisation. I have served on several privatisation and enabling Bills, in which, properly, there have always been debates on pensions.
  The Minister must accept that what has happened in the past year has brought into sharp focus the concerns of thousands of people who are affected by the proposed privatisations. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to British International Helicopters, whose operational headquarters are in my constituency. At the time of the proposed privatisation of British Airways, the work force of British Airways Helicopters, as it then was, were assured that their pension funds would be safe and that they would continue to be full members of the British Airways pension fund. Even when it became apparent that British Airways' management, having said that it had no intention of selling the company, was in negotiations to do so, the work force were told that they would be safeguarded as continuing members of the pension fund.
  The Minister will understand, therefore, how sick and cynical those people now feel. They are victims of the Maxwell fraud and, as I understand it, they do not know whether they will benefit from the Secretary of State's rescue fund. As of a few days ago, two employees who had reached pensionable age since the winding-up of the Maxwell pension fund had not received any payment from the Mirror Group, which does not accept responsibility, or from the Secretary of State's rescue fund.
  That sad example shows the dangers of fragmenting pension funds at the point of privatisation. In his detailed proposals to privatise rail and coal, will the Minister consider whether pension funds continue to exist as single entities rather than their being frozen and new pension funds being set up for each new company that is privatised? For example, if British Rail's employees were to transfer to one of the franchised companies, or if the coal industry were sold on a regional group basis or pit by pit, whereby employees were transferred to, for example, Yorkshire Collieries Ltd., would the Minister ensure that they did not cease to be members of their previous pension
  616
  funds and were not moved into a smaller and, by definition, more vulnerable pension fund that did not have the benefit of accumulated assets?
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a powerful point about contribution holidays. It would be ironic if such employees found that their new employer did not offer the benefit of the accumulated successfully managed fund and had to start from scratch without receiving a contribution that would bring the fund up to the same competitive level from which they had benefited up to that point and which they might have hoped to continue until full retirement age.
  The anxieties of pension fund contributors are bound to have been sharpened by what has happened in the past year. The lack of clarity in the Government's plans on how British Rail and the railways will be operated under their new proposals and how the coal industry will be privatised add to that uncertainty. It would be helpful if the Minister said that existing pension funds will not be frozen or broken up and that some mechanism will be found to ensure that payments continue.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security is reviewing pension law. If the law has not been amended to take on board the concerns that have been expressed in the debate, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the legislation for the privatisation of the coal and rail industries will enhance the guarantees and protections that are being sought for those pension fund holders and to give serious consideration to ensuring that pension funds are not broken up?
  Mr. McCartney: It might be helpful if the Minister were prepared to introduce an arrangement similar to that for electricity privatisation. The Department of Social Security proposed regulations to ensure that when the regional companies took over on vesting day the pension funds were protected. The machinery was complicated, but the Government introduced it because of the pressure that was put on them.
  Mr. Bruce: The Minister will have heard that pertinent observation. To some extent, we do not seem to have learnt fully; we continue to reinvent the wheel and each new privatisation creates its own problems.
  The Minister will have heard many powerful and specific speeches, articulating concerns and asking him particular questions. I hope that he will recognise that this is not just a token gesture for which a token assurance will be acceptable and that he must show that the Government take on board the seriousness of people's concerns. He must assure hon. Members that the Government will address those concerns under general pension legislation—and, I suggest, under the privatisation Bills that will be introduced—and that existing funds will continue and will be safeguarded.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I support what my hon. Friend for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said in moving the new clause. A number of important issues have been raised in the debate. I want to concentrate my comments on the mining industry and its pension schemes. At present, four pension schemes operate. The first is the mineworkers contractors pension scheme, which provides the same benefits to sub-contract workers as is provided under the mineworkers pension scheme for industrial workers. The second

  617
  pension scheme is that of the British Association of Colliery Management; the third is for supervisory workers and the fourth is the mineworkers' pension scheme.
  The accumulated funds of the four schemes are well in excess of £12 billion, which is a great attraction to an asset stripper. Therefore, it is essential that we are able to ring-fence the schemes. The Minister has already made promises about what he is prepared to do, but we must go beyond promises. We need copper-bottomed guarantees in the form of legislation, perhaps part of the Bill, to ensure that the mining communities have the necessary protection.
  Miners are already beginning to suffer anguish. For example, on Saturday two constituents came to my surgery to ask whether their pensions would be guaranteed, and I am sure that the same has happened to many of my hon. Friends.
  6 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred to the pensions holiday which has been in existence since 1987. The Minister will be aware that British Coal took £300 million out of the first surplus. The second sum taken from the surplus was £435 million, making a total of £735 million taken from the mineworkers' pension scheme to provide a contributions holiday. That has been an enormous help for British Coal, but it has been detrimental to the pensioners.
  British Coal will not now make a contribution to the scheme until the year 2001. That is ironic at a time when we are talking about selling the industry. Companies that we could call sharks are circling the industry, ready to move in, and will be able to take advantage of the contributions holiday which, as I said, will last to the year 2001.
  In giving copper-bottomed guarantees, I hope that the Minister will be able to examine how the pension scheme will operate in the future. Perhaps he will be prepared to consider a national pension scheme for all the industry's workers, irrespective of the shape that the future privatised industry may take, so that a man working for subcontractors who are further subcontracted will not have a worse pension than any other payroll worker. We need a uniformity of pension provision throughout the industry, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will take that suggestion on board.
  At the same time, we must consider how employees can be guaranteed rights when they transfer from one employer to another within a national pension scheme. If they are part of national pension scheme, it must be guaranteed that their pension will remain in that scheme without the same transferred values as there would otherwise be, especially if the industry has perhaps seven or eight different employers.
  New clause 3 is essential because it will provide the protection which the mining communities require. New clause 7 requires consultation with those representing mineworkers, such as those on management committees of pension funds. I hope that the Minister will guarantee open consultation and that new clause 7 will be accepted.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said about new clause 9 and land. New clause 9 also refers to colliery welfare organisations. The Minister will be aware that the Coal
  618
  Industry Social Welfare Organisation, which has been in existence since 1947, has done a great deal of cultural work in mining communities but has also assisted mineworkers' families whose breadwinner has been injured.
  For example, in my area of South Yorkshire, we have a paraplegic centre run by the social welfare organisation, which miners who have been crippled in the collieries can attend. At the same time, social workers do an enormous amount to support families who have reduced incomes since their breadwinners suffered an injury in the industry. Will the Minister consider a formula whereby the coal industry social welfare organisation may continue?
  British Rail has vast amounts of land, much of which is farmed by tenant farmers, as is the case in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will be cautious and will ensure that land sales do not take place over the heads of the farmers or without any consultation. It is essential that such farmers are consulted and, if possible, given the opportunity to buy the land. Some of them—or their families—have farmed the land since 1947, and they should be given the opportunity to buy it rather than becoming tenant farmers of a landowner about whom they know little. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
  The new clauses covering pensions are essential. I hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to accept them to give pensioners in the mining communities the protection that they require.
  Mr. Skinner: Last week the parliamentary miners' group went to visit the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I think that he is called "President", but one of our group decided to ask him how he wanted to be addressed. To be honest, he seemed a bit embarrassed, but they settled for "Hezza". I am not sure that he liked it, but he had to lump it. Ten of us met him in the new Department of Trade and Industry building, which is called Ashdown house. I do not know whether there is any political significance in that, but I should not want to be stuck in a building named after Paddy Backdown.
  It was interesting that we were only a few hundred yards from another building, 25 Victoria street, which the President of the Board of Trade used in the back end of 1990 to campaign to get rid of Thatcher. There were television cameras outside when the campaign was launched. I took a special interest in it and wondered what had happened to the building. It is blighted. Grilles have been put up, as happens when a property has gone down and been left empty for a long time.
  I seriously believe that there is a big property scam. The DTI building at the bottom of Victoria street is being closed and is now part of the blight. I reckon that a property company will buy the lot and make a big fat killing. Where will the money come from? It will probably come from the miners' or the railway workers' pension funds. That is how such companies get the finance. They get it out of pension fund money; it is not their own money.
  The Minister should come clean and give us a guarantee that nothing connected with the Department of Trade and Industry or with No. 25 Victoria street will go to line the pockets of any Tory Member who votes on the Bill. That could happen. Hon. Members are meant to declare a conflict of interest. As sure as night follows day, some Tory Members will go into the Lobby in the knowledge that the

  619
  pension fund money belonging to men and women who have slogged their guts out all their lives will be used to fill their pockets and to help them to make a killing.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold rose——
  Mr. Skinner: I have caught one.
  Mr. Arnold: I am somewhat confused by the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Was not Robert Maxwell a Labour Member?
  Mr. Skinner: As the hon. Gentleman has introduced the subject, I will tell him what Robert Maxwell was. Mr. Deputy Speaker has heard the question, so I must answer it. Robert Maxwell was a mate of Peter Walker's. Peter Walker was a Minister in the Tory Government from beginning to end. He served Thatcher loyally for 13 years. When he packed up, just before he finished as a Member of Parliament, he was one of the 19 ex-Cabinet Ministers who had 59 moonlighting jobs between them. His last moonlighting job before he finished as a Member of Parliament was to join Robert Maxwell and to launder money. He got £450,000 out of Maxwell—I am sorry, out of pensioners.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I trust that the word "pensioners" came in. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House. May we get back to the new clause, please?
  Mr. Skinner: I brought in the word "pensioners" because it is relevant to the debate. What happened in the Maxwell pension fiddle in relation to Peter Walker, who took £450,000 out of the pockets of Mirror Group Newspapers pensioners and got a Mercedes car worth £50,000, is relevant to the debate. Peter Walker should pay back the money. Every Tory Member should demand that the ex-Tory Cabinet Minister pays the money back into the pensioners' pockets.
  I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have constituents who were part of the mighty lobby a few weeks ago when the Maxwell pensioners pleaded for justice. I am sure that you agree that Peter Walker should put his hand in his back pocket and send the money back—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is unanimous.
  This debate is about considering whether such a pension fiddle could happen again. Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned that it is quite possible. The debate is about ensuring, if we can—we cannot be sure about Tories—that all Labour Members are fully aware of what can happen with pension money.
  It is not long since the miners had a meeting with British Coal about their pensions. British Coal said, "If we have a pensions holiday, we can get £435 million and British Coal will not have to pay any money until 2001." Our people in the National Union of Mineworkers said, "You are not going to do that. If you have any spare money, it should go to pay miners who have retired, and those who have been made redundant and thrown on the scrap heap. It should go to the widows of those miners who died choking with pneumoconiosis. Give it to them." That would have meant an extra 16 per cent., which would not have broken the bank. Some pensioners get only £10 a week. My mother, before she went, used to get £10 a week after my dad died.
  What has British Coal done? It has pocketed £435 million. How did it achieve that? It achieved it by its
  620
  people voting for it, together with Prendergast, the representative of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers—the scab union. I use that phrase especially for those who might have doubts about the UDM.
  The other Sunday, I read in the business section of The Sunday Times—before it ran the Di story, because there is nothing in the second section other than that now—that Mr. Hanson, a well-known fan of Mrs. Thatcher and the Tory party who has now changed his allegiance to the present Prime Minister because it suits his pocket, has said that he will take Canary Wharf off the Government's hands and that he will take over the mining industry if he can use the £435 million from the pension fund. He could then buy the industry with the miners' own money—their deferred wages. That is clever. I want the Minister to tell us that that will not happen and that neither Hanson nor anybody else will use pension fund money to buy the remains of the coal mining industry.
  6.15 pm
  Let us imagine what would happen if the UDM decided to cash in. The UDM does not have enough money to buy the coal industry. Let us suppose that having voted to have the pension holiday, it is then able to use some of the money to get a stake in the privatised coal industry. That is a conflict of interests. The Minister has a duty to tell us that that will not happen in the industry. If it does, all the talk about Maxwell and the rest is meaningless.
  We met the President of the Board of Trade. Like Cecil Parkinson, whom we met once, he was badly briefed. Two or three years ago, we asked Cecil Parkinson how he would privatise British Coal; he did not know. He told the Tory party conference that the Government would privatise British Coal. What did that mean?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is out of order in relation to the new clauses. Will the hon. Gentleman please get back to the pensioners?
  Mr. Skinner: I do not want to teach grandmothers how to suck eggs, but I will tell you this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Privatisation of the coal mining industry is wrapped up in all the amendments and new clauses. If you want me to find some labyrinthine way to get back to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will take the time necessary to do so, but I do not think that you want me to waste time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not mind how the hon. Gentleman gets back to the new clause; I would like him to get back to it.
  Mr. Skinner: The new clauses and the pension scheme are closely connected with the privatisation of the coal mining industry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is what the paving Bill is about. There are some clever people in the City, who are close to the Tory party and who are financing the Tory campaign, who have said, "We will help you to privatise the coal mining industry and we will use the pensioners' money to do it—we will pinch it out of the pockets of the widows and retired miners." Have you got it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Are we on the ball? I think that we are. I ask the Minister for some clear answers to the questions put by me and by my hon. Friends.
  The sell-off will be a sleazy affair because it is possible for the Minister to make statements here today, but then if the Bill becomes law to say, "The industry is privatised—it is none of my business." A private entrepreneur may get hold of the pension funds. The Minister can then say,

  621
  "We were clean and pure until the industry was privatised; now we have no contact with it—it is the owners' business."
  I want an assurance from the Minister that even after privatisation the Government will ensure that coal, pensions and all other entitlements are kept secure, as they were after nationalisation in 1947. It is no good saying that we are going to change things now. Let us suppose that the industry is sold off twice, first to one body and then to another. That is quite conceivable. The Minister might say that the Government managed to safeguard the pension entitlements when they passed the industry over to the first purchaser, but if it is passed on again, those entitlements may be lost.
  Mr. Redmond rose——
  Mr. Skinner: I can see my hon. Friend straining at the leash, so I will give way to him.
  Mr. Redmond: The House should be aware of the problems that have occurred following privatisation of other nationalised industries. Far from the El Dorado that we were promised after privatisation, there have been enormous problems and the public have had to pick up the bill. They are paying a terrible price for mistakes which have occurred in legislation. The privatisation of British Coal is a complicated business. Unless we get it spot on, people will make a killing from it and some people will die as a result of being ripped off by the City and as a result of mistakes made in this House.
  Mr. Skinner: I was trying to point that out, but you were not too keen on me travelling down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend is correct. The privatisation of British Coal is unlike any other privatisation. It is impossible to secure markets in an industry where one is battling against mother nature. That is why we subsidise farmers in Britain. They cannot produce food as cheaply as it can be produced in Mediterranean areas, in parts of the Common Market or elsewhere in countries with better climates.
  There must be a change of philosophy to secure the mining industry. Privatisation could mean the death knell of the British coal industry. Some Tory Members do not care about that, but many Opposition Members do.
  Reference was made to finding the Maxwell money. En passant, I believe that if the Government want to find that money, they should do what they did in respect of the miners' money in 1984. They followed the miners' money to Luxembourg, Ireland and everywhere else. The Government found it in a few months. If they want to get the Maxwell pensioners' money back, they should act in that way. They should deal with the banks so that the Maxwell pensioners who do not have two halfpennies to rub together can get their money back.
  The Minister's job today is to give us a guarantee that if the industry is handed over, all the pension entitlements will be secure—not for 12 months, or two years, but way beyond the year 2000 so that everyone who receives a pension will continue to receive it.
  The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): Whatever hon. Members thought about what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) had to say, they must agree 'that it was good entertainment.
  Mr Peter Snape: Your speech will not be.
  Mr. Eggar: My speech will certainly not be as riveting as that of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  No matter what differences there may be between the Government and the Opposition in the House or the differences between us in Standing Committee, there was total agreement about the importance of the pension fund. It is critical to those who receive pensions. As the hon. Member for Bolsover said, many of those pensioners receive very small amounts. The pension fund is also important for the hundreds of thousands of people who will receive a pension in the future. It is also important for those who are still employed in the industry.
  The Government and the trustees of the present pension fund must decide how, given that the Government have decided to privatise the industry, those pension funds are to be allocated and how the Government's determination to safeguard the pensions and the pension funds can be implemented.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) raised an interesting point. He wanted to know whether it is appropriate, given that privatisation is going to happen, to section off parts of the pension fund relating to those people with entitlements who are still in the industry. I assume that he believes that, if that was the route to be followed, any sectioned-off amount would automatically reflect the proportion of any surplus or overall assets in the main fund. The hon. Member for Gordon wanted to know how those assets would be protected. The hon. Member for Bolsover made the same point in more colourful language. He wanted to know how those vital assets could be protected for the rights of the individuals who had paid at least a proportion of the total assets in the fund if the industry was sold on in future.
  Those are very complex issues. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) recognised that the factors involve the ratio between the number of present contributors and apparent and future beneficiaries. Those factors are unique to the British Coal pension fund. Indeed, the fund is not simply unique in terms of the size of its assets. Those complex questions must be addressed very carefully.
  In response to the hon. Members for Midlothian, for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—who made a particularly interesting speech with his expertise from the Select Committee on Social Services—I must state that we are determined to achieve a solution that is just and fair for all the different participants in the pension fund. We have said that we are going to safeguard pensioners' rights under the pension scheme, and will certainly stick by that undertaking.
  I state quite specifically that there has never been and there will never be, so long as I stand at the Dispatch Box and am responsible for policy in the area, any rip-off by any potential purchaser of the coal industry of the accumulated assets under the pension funds. That would be totally inexcusable, and no member of the Government would put up with it.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: The Minister seemed to say that he was relying on the trustees of the miners' pension scheme to safeguard the interests of miners' pensions. Is the Minister aware that 50 per cent. of the trustees represent British Coal management, who are

  623
  scheming at present for a management buy-out? There is evidence from the holiday that is costing £435 million of pensioners' money that the management are intent on using the money. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that he is relying on the good will of the trustees of the miners' pension scheme. I hope that the Government will provide the safeguards in black and white in legislation to safeguard miners' pensions.
  Mr. Eggar: I have given an assurance to the House on behalf of the Government. Clearly, the trustees of the pension fund at the moment have a duty to the pensioners and to act in an appropriate way. The hon. Member for Midlothian is well aware of how that operates. I agree with the hon. Member for Midlothian that the pension fund has been well managed. It consistently performs at the top end of pension fund performance, and I have every hope that that will continue to be the case. However, it is unfair to the trustees of the pension fund to imply that any of them in any way at any time believes that giving the holiday to British Coal was a way of assisting them in a management or employee buy-out of the industry. That kind of rumour and slur simply do not help a very important and serious debate.
  We have heard much about the holiday for British Coal. No Opposition Member has mentioned that, on the previous valuation, there was a surplus of more than £1,400 million in the mineworkers' pension scheme, and £1,000 million of that went back to the beneficiaries in one form or another. It was not distributed solely for the purpose of giving a holiday to British Coal, and the House of Commons should recognise that.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Dobson: How can the Minister expect miners to accept his assurances about the future of the pension scheme when they know of the assurances that Mr. Peter Walker gave when he was the Secretary of State for Energy before he went off to the other place? He assured the miners that there would be no change in the law governing the number of hours that may be worked underground, and no repeal of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908 without their agreement. However, the Government repealed that law without the miners' agreement. How can the Minister expect miners to accept an assurance on pensions when the Government have gone back on their previous assurances on safety?
  Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman's speeches in the House and at Barnsley were an absolute disgrace. He was deliberately and consciously, I suspect for reasons more to do with the shadow Cabinet elections than anything else, seeking to stir up concern and worry about pensions in the coalfield communities. We can do many things in the House and we can have many debates about the right way to privatise the industry and about the right way to protect pensioners, but the depths to which the hon. Gentleman is prepared to sink really disturb me.
  We are talking about individuals—people who go to hon. Members' surgeries because they are worried about their pensions. The least we should offer them—we should be able to reassure them—is a sensible analysis of the options. The scaremongering and low-level tactics pursued by the hon. Gentleman are most disturbing and surprising from a member of the Opposition Front Bench, in particular.
  Mr. Dobson: The House of Commons is a place where laws are made. The least we can do to assure miners, railway workers and pensioners is to pass some laws to protect them, and not rely on feeble ministerial assurances from a Government who have already gone back on previous assurances affecting the self-same industry.
  Mr. Eggar: I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I am simply not prepared to play political football with people's pensions for political gain. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that this is a paving Bill. He knows perfectly well that it is structured to enable British Coal and British Rail to get the necessary advice to enable them to prepare themselves for privatisation. He knows as well as other hon. Members that the time for detailed and legal consideration of matters relating to pensions and other matters relating to privatisation is when the House considers the main Bill, yet he goes around the country and repeats again today, and he will do it again—[Interruption.] He is deliberately worrying individuals out there in the country. He is not even prepared to do so in anything resembling a balanced way. He knows perfectly well that he will have a chance to debate those matters when the Bill comes before the House. I simply do not understand how he can act so irresponsibly.
  Mr. Madden: Opposition Members are concerned about the pension funds of two great industries and the people who serve those industries. Will the Minister answer a very simple question? When privatisation is proposed, will the pension funds be protected and safeguarded by legislation, bearing in mind that Ministers come and go, that their assurances are not worth the paper they are written on, and that one Government cannot commit another Government? Will the Minister give a clear and simple answer to the question put a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)? Will the pension funds be safeguarded by legislation?
  Mr. Eggar: I have said categorically, and I say again, that individuals' pension rights will be safeguarded. The mechanism that is used to achieve that end has not yet been decided upon. The hon. Member for Makerfield drew attention to the method that had been used for the electricity industry privatisation. That is one option; there are a number of others. I say quite categorically that we are committed to safeguarding pensions, we will safeguard pensions, and we will use the most appropriate method to do just that.
  Mr. Redmond: Obviously, the protection of pensions is a crucial point. When people such as Lord Hanson are whipping around the country ripping off, selling or disposing of assets, we can understand people's fear. British Coal and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers combined to vote for the free holiday period. If the Minister is suggesting—I hope he is not—that the present structure is to be maintained, I urge him to rethink. It would make pensioners extremely happy if there were a regulatory body purely and simply to look after pensioners' rights which could not utilise their funds in any way, shape or form. It is very important that the present structure—the UDM and the National Union of Mineworkers—will not be satisfactory if privatization

  625
  takes place. There has to be something else that takes the control of pensions from the industry but gives the lads and lasses protection.
  Mr. Eggar: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points. It is just those factors that we need to consider and decide, taking into account the points that have been made by other hon. Gentlemen, so that we provide essential safeguarding in the most appropriate way. There are many factors that we have to take into account. Of course, whatever structure is finally decided, the pension funds will be covered by the normal legislation with regard to the safeguarding on monetary amounts, and that has always been the case.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: I shall give way one last time.
  Mr. Clarke: When we privatise the industry, we may nationalise the funds. It worries me that the Treasury might have its eye on the assets of the funds. The Minister will guarantee to the people, "Yes, we will look after you; yes, you will get your pension at this rate." The Minister said that there are other methods. Other methods can be other methods. I am very suspicious of that. I want an assurance that the benefits of the funds, investment and know-how go into the Treasury and not into people's pockets. They will be frozen and the benefits of the know-how and future surpluses created by that fund will go to the Treasury. That is not the road down which I want to go. I want a guarantee from the Government but I do not want people to pay a high price for it. One of the problems is that the Minister can give a guarantee from the Despatch Box but people will pay for it.
  Mr. Eggar: I see the hon. Gentleman's point but, clearly, the method used must be considered. We must ensure that pensioners' rights are safeguarded in the most appropriate way.
  Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: No.
  Mr. Snape
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can sec that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When it is clear that the Minister is not giving way, I should be grateful if hon. Members would take their seats.
  Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I persist in this matter because the Minister has mentioned me twice—I accept that he has not attacked me yet—and it would have been common courtesy to give way to me just for a moment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is abusing the point of order system.
  Mr. Snape: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Makerfield and promise that, in due course, I shall attack him if that will do any good.
  Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your persistence has paid off.
  I suggest that the Minister reads a textbook entitled "Essential Guide to Pensions", page 188 of which says that the Government have a standard policy for pension funds in the event of privatisation. First, they close down the current fund so that new entrants have completely different benefits. They then remove the right to indexation and other benefits. That is not my view but was written by Sue Ward, who has just been appointed by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the committee to review pensions law and whether pensioners need better protection. So the Government's advisers say that the Government have a set pattern, which means that, in the long run, pensioners lose out through privatisation. Is the Minister prepared to read that book and learn from it?
  Mr. Eggar: I have not read the book to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, in his speech he elegantly drew attention to the fact that, in practice, the Government had adopted a number of different approaches to the pension funds in various privatisations. So the assertion that there is only one methodology does not stand up, even on the analysis in his speech.
  Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that his allegations about my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) scaremongering and his refusal to answer detailed questions on this complex matter are not helpful to the House? Does he recollect the exchanges in Standing Committee A on 18 June, when my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) pointed out the case of a British Rail employee who moved from the publicly owned railways to the privately owned British Rail Engineering Ltd., then back to the publicly owned railway and saw his pension years reduced because of that move? The move was perfectly understandable and part of the promotion chain within that industry, but his pension years were reduced from 11 to three and a half purely because he had made that transfer. Given the fact that the Government want a multiplicity of railway operators, what guarantee can the Minister give now, not at some time in the future, that that will not happen after this wretched Bill has been enacted?
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Eggar: I am sure that the hon. Member for Makerfield will bear out the fact that the whole question of transfer rights—concerning a transfer from an existing pension fund to another pension fund and back again—affects the ultimate value of a pension. That effect operates whatever kind of pension fund it is. One of my hon. Friends has been trying to improve that problem in recent legislation. However, we shall consider those factors when we look at the structure relating to pension funds in the future.
  Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Eggar: No, I have been more than generous.
  The hon. Members for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked about social welfare arrangements. I shall give that matter

  627
  careful consideration. It is a complicated subject and there are many different entitlements with many different historical antecedents. As several hon. Members have said, significant assests are associated with them.
  If the hon. Member for Don Valley has particular constituency problems, I should be grateful if he would draw my attention to those. He also asked about concessionary fuel entitlements and the position of individuals in his constituency with pre-1947 rights. We are aware of that problem and will try to take account of it in ensuring that our pledge that concessionary fuel will be safeguarded is fully implemented.
  We have had a useful debate, but this is not the appropriate Bill in which to have measures such as those suggested in the new clauses. We shall have a chance to return to the matter when we debate the main privatisation Bill later this Session.
  Mr. Dobson: The Minister has accused me and, I suspect by implication, a number of my hon. Friends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Particularly you."]—oh, particularly me—of scaremongering about pensions. I wish that I had a publicity machine that could create the amount of concern that is felt about the future of pension schemes in the coalfield communities and those places where railway workers are employed. They are worried not because of what I have said but because of what they observe day in, day out, on television, what they hear on the radio and read in newspapers. No scaremongering is required by me to remind people of what happened to the Maxwell pensioners or the legions of pensioners suffering as a result of earlier privatisations so well listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney).
  People are bothered about City institutions getting their filthy hands on miners' and railway workers' pension funds and need no reminding about the scandal of BCCI or any other City scandals that have arisen in the past few years. The Government are responsible for those because they have not laid down satisfactory rules in advance, through laws passed in the House; nor have they set up adequate schemes to regulate what happens in the City.
  If any Tory Members believe that regulation of the City is adequate, they are even more empty-headed than they have seemed in previous debates. Surely no hon. Member believes that regulation of the City is adequate. Even the Secretary of State for Social Security—God help us—thinks that pensions legislation is inadequate and has promised that it will be changed.
  If the Minister wants people to stop being scared about what will happen to their pensions as a result of coal and rail privatisation, there is a simple answer. He can accept the new clauses, or if he wants to change them in the House of Lords, he can table new clauses, formulated by his officials, which will provide the sense of security for which people are looking.
  If the law is changed, people will be happier; they will still not be entirely happy, however. The Minister has signally failed to reply to the points made in this debate about the adequacy of the advice that the Government are seeking or which the companies may seek. This Bill is mainly about the advice sought, and the Minister has said nothing about that. He still apparently believes it adequate to seek advice from an organisation such as Smith New Court, about which the Department's own inspectors have said:
  628
  "They did not understand their responsibilities and they did not make any serious attempt to take proper legal advice."
  Apparently the Minister is happy, too, with Ernst and Young, of which the Department's inspectors said:
  "The auditors failed to carry out their responsibility as auditors".
  They had no other responsibilities, but they did not carry out the ones they had.
  Apparently the Minister is happy that the Government should seek advice, or that British Coal or British Rail should seek advice, from Price Waterhouse, about which the Department's inspectors—not scaremongering Dobson—had this to say:
  "Their conduct as regards the non-executive directors and the incoming auditors is indefensible."
  The Minister still proposes to give himself powers to appoint the indefensible to look after the interests of miners and miner pensioners, of railway workers and their pensioners. It is no good the Minister smiling in his bland way in the hope that all this will go away: it will not.
  Miners and rail workers and millions of others think it wrong that Parliament, given the opportunity to protect some pensions, should fail to do so. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will return to this issue over the next few years. We will continue to pursue the Government to ensure that we get justice for present and future pensioners of these two companies.
  Tonight, the Minister has offered every assistance short of actual help. I must take him back to the principles of these pension funds. All provision of this sort is money put by for a rainy day—for the miners and their widows and orphans and for the railway workers and their widows and orphans. They do not save up the money for a rainy day for British Coal or for Intergalactic Property Theft plc or for whoever buys British Coal or gets some options on bits of British Rail. The money in the funds was put there to look after present and future pensioners. They are entitled to protection, and if the Government will not provide them with it, we are entitled to say, and they are entitled to believe, that their money is not safe.
  We do not think the money is safe. That is why the law needs to be changed, and no ministerial assurance will convince anyone to the contrary. We are a law-making Chamber, not a place for empty assurances. If the Minister wants to do something to end the disquiet among coalfield communities and railway workers and their pensioners, he has an easy answer: change the law.
  Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 227, Noes 273.

  Division No. 42]

  [6.55 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Blair, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blunkett, David

  Allen, Graham

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Alton, David

  Boyes, Roland

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Keith

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Austin-Walker, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Byers, Stephen

  Bell, Stuart

  Caborn, Richard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Berry, Roger

  Canavan, Dennis

  Betts, Clive

  Cann, James

  629

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Keen, Alan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

  Clelland, David

  Khabra, Piara

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cohen, Harry

  Leighton, Ron

  Connarty, Michael

  Lewis, Terry

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McCartney, Ian

  Cummings, John

  McKelvey, William

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

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

  McLeish, Henry

  Dalyell, Tam

  McMaster, Gordon

  Darling, Alistair

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Mahon, Alice

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mandelson, Peter

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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Denham, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Dewar, Donald

  Maxton, John

  Dixon, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Dobson, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Donohoe, Brian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Dowd, Jim

  Milburn, Alan

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Miller, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Enright, Derek

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Etherington, William

  Morley, Elliot

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morris, Rt Hon A (Wy'nshawe)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mudie, George

  Flynn, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foster, Donald (Bath)

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Foulkes, George

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Fraser, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Fyfe, Maria

  Olner, William

  Galbraith, Sam

  O'Neill, Martin

  George, Bruce

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Gerrard, Neil

  Pendry, Tom

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Pickthall, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Pike, Peter L

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pope, Greg

  Graham, Thomas

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Grocott, Bruce

  Purchase, Ken

  Gunnell, John

  Qum, Ms Joyce

  Hain, Peter

  Radice Giles

  Hall, Mike

  Raynsford Nick

  Hanson, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Reid, Dr John

  Heppell, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Roche, Ms Barbara

  Hinchliffe, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Hoey, Kate

  Rooker, Jeff

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rooney, Terry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hutton, John

  Sheerman Barry

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Jamieson, David

  Short, Clare

  Janner, Greville

  Simpson, Alan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Jones, Ms Lynne (B 'ham S O)

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

  630

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

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walley, Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spellar, John

  Watson, Mike

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Stott, Roger

  Winnick, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Wise, Audrey

  Straw, Jack

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wright, Tony

  Tipping, Paddy

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

  Vaz, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Devlin, Tim

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Dicks, Terry

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ancram, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Ashby, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dykes, Hugh

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowis, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brazier, Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Bright, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fry, Peter

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Gallie, Phil

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Burns, Simon

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, Edward

  Butcher, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Butler, Peter

  Gillan, Ms Cheryl

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gorst, John

  Cash, William

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clappison, James

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Hague, William

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Hanham, Sir John

  Congdon, David

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Conway, Derek

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawkins, Nicholas

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Couchman, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

  Hendry, Charles

  631

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hicks, Robert

  Redwood, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Richards, Rod

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Riddick, Graham

  Horam, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Robathan, Andrew

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

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jack, Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sackville, Tom

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Michael

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

  Sims, Roger

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stephen, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Stewart, Allan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sumberg, David

  Maclean, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mans, Keith

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Thomason, Roy

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Tracey, Richard

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Trend, Michael

  Milligan, Stephen

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mills, Iain

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Moate, Roger

  Walden, George

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Needham, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nelson, Anthony

  Watts, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Norris, Steve

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wilkinson, John

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Willetts, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f''ld)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wolfson, Mark

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Pawsey, James

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Pickles, Eric

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.

  British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill
    New Clause 4

      SAFETY RECORD (TRANSFEREES)
      '.—In the exercise of their powers under section 1, any relevant corporation or the Secretary of State shall require from any person or body being considered as a transferee details of their safety record and policies.'.—[Mr. Snape]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The clause deals with the safety record of transferees in the coal and rail industries. The safety record in British mines has been hard earned over many years, and our safety record in deep mining is widely regarded as the best in the world. That means that entrants to coal mining in the United Kingdom who have any world-wide experience will inevitably have a worse record than that of British Coal or, if they are completely new to the industry, they will have no record at all. My hon. Friends with greater expertise in the industry will speak about the safety regime following privatisation. We look forward, perhaps with more optimism than we should, to detailed responses from the Minister for Industry.
      I must say to the Minister, en passant—to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), although that does not strike me as the sort of lingo one normally hears in the pubs and clubs of Bolsover—that we should have more details from Ministers about what they propose. There is little point in their saying that we should wait for the White Paper or the Bill. If the House is to legislate properly, Ministers must at least give us the framework of the legislative proposals that they have in mind for both of industries. Safety in both the coal mining and the railway industries ought to be at the top of their list, as it is at the top of ours. It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that in due course the Government will produce a White Paper and after that they will introduce a Bill. They should do better than give the impression that privatisation of these great industries amounts to no more than a line in an election manifesto or an ideological spasm by Tory Back Benchers.
      Safety was discussed fairly briefly on Second Reading but in some detail in Committee. Without repeating anything said in the debates on earlier stages of the Bill, I make no apology for returning to this vital matter. Despite all our discussions and despite long debates in Committee, the word "safety" does not appear anywhere in the Bill. I hope that both the Ministers will ensure that that obvious omission is remedied when flesh is put on the bones of privatisation for both the coal mining and the railway industries.
      Those of us who have worked in the railway industry are aware that safety was always a top priority. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for Energy, who has shown some interest in my notes, is really interested in this matter, I will send him a copy of them. That might enable him to make more accurate contributions than those that he has so far made in the debates on the Bill. I shall be delighted to give way if he wishes to intervene. I understand that it is not usual for Parliamentary Private Secretaries to do that, but nor is it usual for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to speak French. As we are departing from the norm, we may

      633
      as well continue to do so and flout tradition. If the PPS lacks my hon. Friend's confidence—I nearly said sang froid, but thought better of it—we will pass over his lack of contribution.
      The British Railways Board chairman said recently:
      "Absolute safety is our aim. The Board will not treat any level of accident involving risk of injury as acceptable."
      I think that the board has demonstrated its concern about safety, particularly after the tragedy at Clapham, by the expenditure, real and proposed, of £200 million a year.
      My first question to the Minister for Public Transport, who I presume will be replying to the debate, is this: who will take over responsibility for safety matters after privatisation? I hope that he will forgive me if I cynically answer my own question by saying that I expect that we shall. There will be no great rush from people outside either of the industries prepared to invest shareholders' cash in maintaining or improving safety records in either industry. Responsibility for the improvement of safety records will inevitably fall on the public sector in the case of the mines and, I suspect, on the passengers in the case of the railways. I suspect that we shall hear from the Minister today how much money the Government are putting into the railway industry. What they do is allow British Rail to borrow even more money, which is then repaid through the highest railway fares in western Europe.
      7.15 pm
      I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that the Minister will tell us that the industry will bear some responsibility for safety after privatisation but on the whole it will lie with the Department of Transport. That is not good enough, because when anything goes wrong, the Department of Transport will claim that it was merely overseeing safety matters and was not responsible for safety. I suspect that there will be a similar story from the Department of Trade and Industry in the event of a fatal or serious accident in a mine. Both industries need a single authority to oversee safety if we are to maintain the enviable safety records that they have demonstrated over many years.
      Overseeing safety in the railways industry is vital because of the fragmentation of the industry that is likely to take place if the proposals set out in the White Paper are approved by the House. A number of people will be involved and their operating measures will impinge directly on safety. For example, there will be the franchise passenger train operators that I understand the Government wish to see. I say "I understand" because we do not know for sure. Although Ministers have expressed the desire to see other passenger train operators than British Rail, they have not given us any sign of how that will come about. However, those franchise passenger train operators will need to be adequately supervised if a proper safety regime is to be maintained.
      There will be other passenger train operators because I understand that the Government also envisage individual train operations, both passenger and freight, being undertaken by the private sector. The difficulty of seeing that just those two groups conform adequately to proper safety regimes can readily be appreciated by those of us who take an interest in these matters.
      634
      Then there is the track authority itself. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what form he envisages this taking, how it will be composed, whether its members will be appointed by the Secretary of State—another dash of centralisation—and whether they will be selected on the basis of their membership of the Conservative party, as appears to have happened with health authority boards, or on the basis of other, more relevant reasons.
      There will be private station owners. Certain Ministers and many Back Benchers, perhaps demonstrating more enthusiasm than brains, have talked about the need to sell railway stations. Any safety regime will need to embrace the activities of such private station owners. I understand that the routine tasks which have traditionally been carried out in the railway industry, such as track maintenance, will be contracted out. How is it envisaged that track maintenance contracts will be properly policed to ensure that track is adequately and safely maintained after privatisation?
      I am sure that, under the Government's proposals, train maintenance will also be contracted out. I am referring not just to the cleaning and upkeep of trains—something that the Government have for a long time wished to see their private sector friends involved in—but also to actual maintenance. Presumably that too will be put out to tender, and presumably the private sector will be involved.
      Then there are the other people whose duties and activities will impinge on safety—the regulator, whoever he or she is, and, of course the health and safety executive under the railways inspectorate. The nine bodies to which I have referred—there are probably others—will all have responsibilities which impinge directly on safety. We need to hear, if only in outline, how Ministers envisage the duties of those groups being discharged, bearing in mind their safety records and policies—matters to which the new clause refers.
      Safety in the mining and railway industries does not come cheap. Birmingham New Street station, which is not far from my constituency, is currently undergoing extensive safety work at the behest of the fire authority. I understand that about £11 million is being spent on that station because someone in the fire authority decided that, as the bulk of the station is below street level, it is an underground station and that, following the King's Cross disaster, safety measures there are considered to be insufficient. I make no great complaint about that, but in my view the safety regime that outside bodies sometimes force on the railway industry is far more stringent than that imposed on other forms of transport.
      Less than a mile from Birmingham New Street station is the Digbeth coach station, which I should probably be over-praising if I were to refer to it as a 19th-century slum. To my knowledge, no one has ever burned to death at Birmingham New Street in that terrible way people died at King's Cross, yet I understand that this safety regime is being forced on British Rail by the fire authority at a cost of about £11 million.
      It is difficult to imagine any private sector operator accepting such a responsibility. It is difficult to imagine any private sector operator signing a contract for the purchase of Birmingham New Street or any similar InterCity station, or to operate trains through such a station, without securing from the Government of the day a guarantee that such expenditures would not be thrust upon it.

      635
      To protect the average motorist from the consequences of his or her own folly, British Rail is incurring similar expenditure on level crossings around the country. In this context, I should say that members of the public who travel by train do not have the benefit of free railway warrants such as are issued to Members of Parliament. Of the amounts spent on level crossings, 50 per cent. must be met from British Rail's own resources. Is it envisaged that the private operators will pick up such bills?
      Mr. Adley: You must be joking.
      Mr. Snape: I am not joking. I am not given to humour in respect of such matters. But these are relevant questions. Consider the east coast main line. One can envisage considerable costs falling on the public sector—costs that could not be defrayed from the receipts derived from high-speed trains hurtling at 125 miles per hour over level crossings. This expenditure will have to be defrayed out of the public purse, yet in the context of these proposals the Government have said nothing about it.
      Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman implies that private rail operators will find it very difficult to afford the necessary safety. Has he studied the situation in Japan, where there is a large public network and an even larger private network? Has he noticed that the fatality records of the two networks there are almost identical—within two decimal points?
      Mr. Snape: I have studied the situation in Japan, as the hon. Gentleman obviously has not. The myth of the privatisation of Japanese railways is regularly propagated by Ministers and is obviously believed by the more gullible Conservative Back Benchers. Anyone looking at the supposed privatisation of certain railway undertakings previously operated by Japan National Railways will see that it is in no way on the same lines as that envisaged—I have to use the word "envisaged" as we have no real details—by Ministers and certainly by some of the more idealistic Conservative Members.
      The rump of the publicly owned British Rail, or taxpayers at large, will be expected to meet the cost of level crossings between London and Edinburgh. I forget how many there are, but it is certainly more than 100. And the British Rail rump to which I have just referred will be bereft of the profits of the east coast main line because of the intervention of organisations like Stagecoach and Virgin Rail. I expect that, well before they sign any contracts, such undertakings will ensure that they are not to be held responsible, financially or in any other way, for those crossings.
      Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I am not talking about the proposed privatisation of the ex-JNR lines; I am talking about lines that have been in private ownership for many years, by which two thirds of Japanese passengers travel.
      Mr. Snape: I agree that there have been private railways in Japan for many years. Presumably those private railways themselves installed the infrastructure many years ago, and presumably they are responsible for costs of the type about which I am talking. [Interruption.] Once again the hon. Member for Colne Valley, the Minister's Private Parliamentary Secretary, with fingers in various orifices, makes some odd noises. I should think that the system in Japan works as I have indicated. If the hon. Gentleman
      636
      has some evidence to the contrary, or some personal experience of how the system there works, let him break his vow of silence.
      Mr. Graham Riddick: It was a good question.
      Mr. Snape: It may have been a good one, but it was not very relevant.
      The point that I am making to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), who intervened quite properly, is that in the case of British Rail that is not the point from which we are starting. What we are talking about is the introduction of private services on an existing publicly owned railway. I suspect that the rump of the publicly owned railway will remain responsible for the costs that I have outlined, and that the new jazzily painted privately owned railway companies will avoid any such costs.
      My view—I hope that I can take the hon. Gentleman will me—is that, at the very least, the bodies responsible for operating the new privately owned railways should share those costs. After all, their trains will go over the same 100-odd level crossings as will those left in the public sector. What worries me—I am sorry if I have said this too often, but I see a glimmer of understanding in the hon.
      Gentleman's eyes——
      Mr. Dobson: Ever the optimist.
      Mr. Snape: Ever the optimist—perhaps I kid myself.
      What worries me is that these costs, which will increase with increasing train speeds, will continue to fall on the public sector as, of course, will all signalling costs arising from modernisation schemes and from the running of high speed trains.
      Of course, it is not just a matter of the east coast main line—other areas should be close to the hearts of Conservative Members. In Committee, we discussed who would pay the cost of the proposed resignalling of the London-Tilbury-Southend line, which attracts an enormous number of complaints—usually, but not exclusively, since the general election, from Conservative Members. The Minister agreed, although none to graciously at the time, that the taxpayer would pay the resignalling costs. Presumably, a private operator will reap the benefits of that public expenditure when it operates certain services at certain times of the day on that line.
      7.30 pm
      Those matters properly concerned us in Committee and they properly concern us today. As yet, we have had no satisfactory responses from Ministers, either in Committee or since. We look forward—this could be the optimist in me again—to hearing something about that from the Minister later.
      Mr. Bob Cryer: It is not only Labour Members who are sceptical about privatisation. In the negotiations on the rolling stock for the Leeds-Bradford electrification, the Industrial Bank of Scotland—part of the private sector and believing in the market place—decided that the marketplace was not a good enough guarantee for the leasehold payments from the private sector. It asked the Government to guarantee the payments. That is hardly evidence from the private sector of confidence in privatisation.
      Mr. Snape: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in putting that point on the record. The private

      637
      sector remains firmly unconvinced about any guarantees for the Leeds-Bradford line, despite a speech from the Minister suggesting that, whatever happened to the passenger transport executive and its responsibilities, something would be done to accommmodate the costs of leasing electric trains. Obviously, the private sector does not accept the Minister's assurances. Perhaps he will strengthen them when he replies to the debate.
      I am sure that the Minister agrees that whoever operates the trains between Leeds and Bradford—I suspect that in the end it will be the taxpayer, the poll tax payer or the council tax payer—and whatever that company's safety record, the electrification of the line is well worth while and meets even the onerous costings laid down by the Treasury. It should go ahead.
      The safety record of transferees is one with which the Opposition are quite properly concerned. Nothing that we have yet heard has assuaged that concern. I hope that for once the Minister will tell us, at least in outline, what he has in mind so that we can ensure that safety, which has always been of top priority in both industries, is maintained.
      Mr. Redmond: I shall make only a few brief but important points about safety, both in the mines and on British Rail. I used to serve on the Doncaster area safety committee, a sub-committee of the area consultative committee until it was decided that it should be a committee in its own right. For three years on the trot, Doncaster held the national record for making the most safety improvements. I am pleased that I was able to play a small part in bringing that about.
      Safety is an important factor in the mines. Miners cannot afford to relax for a minute or they are liable to lose life or limb. They must be on the ball. It is also important that the mines regulations are adhered to strictly. From time to time, the NUM has refused to defend people who have broken the regulations. It is 100 per cent. in support of any safety recommendations and regulations that protect the miners.
      It is to be regretted that since the miners' strike British Coal has adopted a severe attitude and will not allow the NUM to play a full role in safety matters in a number of pits. The old 1–2–3 inspection teams used to operate effectively in the pits. Members of the NUM would inspect a particular district to ensure that it was complying with the rules and regulations. The NUM wants to continue to do that, but British Coal is reluctant to agree.
      If inspectors are allowed to do their job, they may find all sorts of faults within the present system. That would interfere with production, and British Coal does not want that. Those inspectors fulfil an important role and they should be allowed to continue without interference from the management. I hope that the Minister will take note of that point.
      If we want to continue the excellent safety record that the NUM and British Coal have built up over the years, we must carefully consider any interference with the 1908 Act. That Act was put on the statute book for an important reason—to stop the horrific accidents in the mines. Not just one or two people were killed; it was often several dozen people. It is important that we do not return to those days. Unless the Bill is watertight, when the private
      638
      sector takes over the mines it will disregard safety because it interferes with production. Whether a single pit or a group of pits, it is an important point.
      The Minister has previously referred to registered disabled people within the industry. No doubt at some time in the future he will reply to my letter to him on that matter. British Coal is breaking the law, yet the Government sit back and do nothing about it. Disabled people have a right to a job in the industry and British Coal always used to have tremendous good will towards those who were injured in accidents. It found them jobs both underground and on the surface. That is no longer the case and British Coal gets rid of those people. In fact, if someone is above 50 he is pushed down the road with a redundancy payment.
      I wish briefly to mention two points about British Rail. There have been a number of accidents where passengers have fallen out of train doors. There have been fatalities and the incidents have been investigated. However, British Rail is sitting back and doing nothing, even though the evidence points in a certain direction. I believe that British Rail sought to suppress the evidence and to prevent its being made public. If British Rail is willing to do that as a nationalised industry, one shudders to think what a private-sector railway will get up to.
      Also important is the multi-track signalling equipment that is dotted throughout the country. About eight systems are in operation. One is Scotland fails at times to trigger the signal that there is a train on the track. The signalman looks at his equipment and sees a clear line, when in fact a goods train could have come to a halt on it. In those circumstances, a fast passenger train could be let through. A number of accidents have occurred in that way.
      Before any privatisation, a one-track system should be operating throughout the country. Having been delayed on one occasion at Peterborough and diverted around the system, we were informed on arriving in a particular station, "So far and no farther, because there is no driver to take you to King's Cross." A driver is only used to his own section and only recognises his own signalling equipment. A driver should be able to take a train from one end of the country to the other, guided by the same signalling equipment. It is important for safety's sake for the Minister to take the steps necessary to bring that about before any privatisation.
      Mr. Adley: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was rather harsh on my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan). I am sure that he did not realise that my hon. Friend is very well versed in the subject. He was pointing out that in Japan, where private-sector railways have operated for a long time, the Government insist that private railway safety standards are exactly as high—no better and no worse—as those that pertain to Japanese National Railways. That has long been the case and it is why, unsurprisingly, both sectors have a similar safety record.
      My hon. Friend said that if any private-sector companies eventually run trains on Britain's railways, the House must ensure that the safety standards then applicable are identical to those observed by British Rail. I believe that was my hon. Friend's point.
      Mr. Milligan indicated assent.
      Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend nods. I trust that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East shares that belief.
      Mr. Snape: I am amazed if the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) considered that my reply to him was in any way discourteous. I said that he put a perfectly fair point. If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) thought that I was getting annoyed, or that I was discourteous, he ought to see me on a bad day.
      Mr. Adley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was looking for trouble where none existed. I am only suggesting that when it comes to rail safety, and to many other issues, a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will keep a wary eye on what the Government get up to in the months ahead.
      The British Railways Board is committed to running a safe railway; to improving safety in the design, installation and maintenance of rolling stock, infrastructure and buildings, by staff and suppliers; to training and supervising staff and contractors to ensure safety; to adopting the best safety practices from other industries; and unfailingly meeting the legal requirements on health and safety that are placed upon it.
      In due course, we will want to know that any future legislation will contain a clear commitment to applying those same rules to any private-sector company that seeks to run trains. We will want to know also who will be responsible for implementing safety rules and for ensuring adherence to them.
      One of our difficulties is that this is merely a paving Bill, so perhaps it is inappropriate to have too lengthy a debate on issues that we will consider fully when the final legislation comes before us. However, given that new clause 4 has been selected for debate, I will make a couple of further points.
      We have a record of more than 150 years of stringent safety rules applied by the House to the railways, both when they were in the private sector and when they became nationalised. It was right to do so, and I seek assurances from the Government that those strict safety requirements will be maintained. It is a matter of regret that, as usual, we operate double standards in respect of safety, as in other spheres, when dealing with rail passenger safety, as opposed to safety for those who use the roads.
      I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport has already given an assurance that should satisfy the Opposition and anyone else at this stage in our legislative proceedings. When Standing Committee A debated the Bill at its fourth sitting on 16 June, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister for one simple assurance:
      "As this legislation proceeds, will he assure us now or at an appropriate time that, whatever arrangements may be made in the future to allow, encourage or enable operators other than British Rail to operate trains, in no circumstances will standards of safety lower than those that we, in this House, have for many generations laid upon both public and private sector operators of our railways be permitted to apply to any other company? I hope that my hon. Friend can satisfy that simple request."
      My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport replied:
      "I shall be extremely brief and give my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that assurance."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 June 1992; c. 107.]
      That was short, sharp and succinct, and to the point.
      7.45 pm
      In an earlier debate, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) got very hot under the collar with my hon. Friend the Minister, over the difference between undertakings given in the House and legislation, but all right hon. and hon. Members know that we are
      640
      merely debating a paving Bill. In due course, many of us will want to probe further and to satisfy ourselves. We will want to know whether the financial constraints placed on British Rail—such as the insistence on running single tracks when double tracks were operated in the past—have or have not been a safety factor. At some subsequent stage, that matter is one which I, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and others will want to probe.
      For the present, I am satisfied that we already have an assurance that safety requirements will be built in to the final legislation. I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that I will be keeping a beady eye on my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I have the honour to represent a mining constituency. As a former Secretary of State for Energy, one of the accomplishments that pleased me most was my ability to bring the mining inspecotorate into the Health and Safety Executive. As those who know anything about the mining industry will appreciate, safety was always a major factor in influencing the Miners Federation of Great Britain, and later the National Union of Mineworkers.
      Keir Hardie was elected as a Scottish miner 100 years ago this month, and I had the honour of having his grand-daughter and great grand-daughter to tea today. When I contemplate this legislation, I realise that we are being taken back to the very beginning—even to repealing the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908. Public ownership of the mines was motivated largely by the pressure from miners and a desire to raise safety levels.
      Aneurin Bevan used to ask, "Why look in the crystal ball when it is written in the book?" I refer to a document that has been in my possession for 58 years. In 1935, as a child of 10, I canvassed in a constituency, and I found in my archives a leaflet relating to mining safety issued that year by the Miners Federation of Great Britain. It is headed "The Price of Coal", and goes on to say that 7,839 miners were killed and 1,200,042 injured between 1927 and 1934. The dead included
      "231 boys under 16, 320 lads between 16 and 18, and 294 lads between 18 and 20. The killed and injured include 199,612 lads and boys under 20…The output of coal per man shift has increased by nearly a third since 1924, but wages…have gone down by nearly a sixth…the miners claim an extra two shillings per shift. They offer to abide by the decision of independent arbitrators. The coalowners have refused independent arbitration. The 'national' Government has…refused to take action. The 'national' Government is always on the side of the coalowners."
      Those figures are more relevant to safety than a comparison between the private and public railways in Japan. This country had a long history of exploitation of miners for profit before public ownership, at the cost of lives and safety. Many miners fear that they will pay a heavy price for a return to privatisation, when the coal industry will compete with those of Colombia and South Africa and orimulsion and other hideous materials will be brought in. Their lives, wages and living conditions will be sacrificed.
      The facts that I have just read out relate to a time before nationalisation. They explain why the miners wanted nationalisation so much. Whatever criticism may be made of the Coal Board—especially of British Coal, the way in which it has been run under MacGregor and the thugs whom the Government put in to crush the NUM—the fact remains that, in the context of safety, the relationship

      641
      between the old Coal Board and the NUM was very good. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said that it had deteriorated since the strike, but that was a product of the miners' defeat in 1985.
      Mr. Mark Wolfson: The right hon. Gentleman is presenting us with an historical scenario. I accept that I have not the same experience of a subject in which he has a great and continuing interest. Does he not agree, however, that the legislative control of safety in industries of every kind, from aviation to oil exploration, has moved on? Why should the position necessarily be different in the mining industry?
      Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have moved on—backwards. When we debated industrial safety before the general election, Mr. Brandon-Bravo—a Conservative Member who subsequently lost his seat—asked what connection hours of work had with safety. I interrupted him at that point. If a Concorde pilot spent 18 hours a day flying, would that constitute "moving on"? Safety and hours of work are integral: that is why so many protections exist.
      I do not expect to convert the Minister. I am using Hansard, as I always do, to inform those who read my speech of what they will not read in The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express; that is the purpose of speaking in the House. The Government are winding back safeguards for safety, wages and conditions that it took years of struggle to establish.
      British Rail workers have told me—this applies equally to pit workers—that if they report safety hazards, they could be dismissed on the ground that their evidence might damage the company. Safety factors that should be brought into the public domain—if there is an accident, people will ask, "Why did we not know?"—are being suppressed in the interests of the railways. That will happen even more when the railways become a private enterprise.
      Let me alert those who read my speech to a way to avoid dismissal. If they petition the House of Commons about safety matters, they cannot be sacked by their employers, because they will be covered by privilege. I am a member of the Privileges Committee; it is not the most exciting Committee on which to serve, as it seems to be concerned chiefly with ensuring that an Official Secrets Act governs the work of Committees as tightly as such an Act controls Government business. Since being appointed to the Committee, however, I have secured a victory in regard to privilege.
      A Birmingham shop steward opposed the road race there, which was part of legislation promoted by Birmingham city council, and he petitioned the House. A Birmingham Member drew attention to what had happened: the shop steward had been transferred by the Birmingham city corporation because he had complained about a Bill promoted by his employers. I argued his case strongly in the Privileges Committee, and I am happy to say that the Committee decided that Birmingham city council had been guilty of a breach of privilege. If people who work on the railways or in the mines have any doubts about safety provision and fear dismissal for reporting
      642
      those doubts to the press, they should approach the House of Commons. Any Member of Parliament can present a petition, and the petitioner cannot be sacked as a result.
      I never thought that privilege—a mediaeval arrangement—would be of use to the modern generation, but, as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said earlier, we have moved on. We have moved on to a point at which ancient safeguards are being dismantled, and we must return to even earlier safeguards. I undertake to provide workers with petition forms, and to read out their petitions so that they cannot be sacked.
      We are going back to the days of "blood on coal". That was the phrase that we used to hear: when people said that coal was more expensive after nationalisation, I heard miners say in the House in 1950, "There is no blood on the coal now." The Bill aims to increase profit at the expense of safety and at the expense of the wages and conditions of railwaymen and miners. It is a bad Bill, but, if we can put the case across, people will at least understand what it is really about and will be able to protect themselves from the consequences.
      Mr. Keith Hill: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is right. In recent years, a new rule has been introduced into the British Rail rule book—rule 114(b), known to rail workers as the gagging clause. That rule threatens any rail worker who publicises a defect in the railway system with disciplinary action up to the point of dismissal. It is a scandal that such an infringement of civil liberties has been introduced into the rule book, and I hope that it will be rescinded under privatisation. I fear that that will not happen, but Opposition Members have always made it clear that its withdrawal would be one of our first tasks in government.
      New clause 4 rightly draws attention to the rigoruous safety regime that will be necessary after privatisation. In the railway industry, the closest attention will have to be paid to the operating qualifications of potential owners and franchisees. It is self-evident that, in this country and in Europe as a whole—indeed, worldwide—the experience of the private sector in railway operation is extremely limited. Railway operation is potentially a highly dangerous business, and this country is fortunate enough to have some of the highest standards. There can be no question of any relaxation of those standards; that is why we need close scrutiny of, and the strictest assurances about, the safety record and the policies of potential operators.
      In Committee, we had the benefit of detailed discussion about safety matters relating to the railways. On behalf of the Government, the Minister for Energy gave the Opposition a number of reassurances in response to their questions about future railway safety arrangements. Those assurances were reasonably encouraging, and I am grateful to the Minister for Public Transport for his prompt response in writing to me about other matters of concern, as he promised in Committee. I have drawn those replies to the attention of my sponsoring union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.
      Although we remain opposed to the privatisation project as a whole, we are in some measure reassured at this stage by the replies that we have received. There remains, however, one important matter on which clarification is still required. I shall turn to it shortly and look forward to the Minister's response.

      643
      The Government have now offered various forms of undertakings as to the safety requirements that they envisage in paving the way for the possible transfer of ownership and any new franchising arrangements.
      8 pm
      Mr. Cryer: Did the Minister at any stage say that there would be no legislative attempt to water down absolute legislative provisions and to govern those provisions by the words "so far as reasonably practicable"? By the insertion of those words, the Government remove absolute standards built into the legislation over the years. That is scandalous. My guess is that the Minister will not give such a guarantee because that is what the Government want to do.
      Mr. Hill: I recognise my hon. Friend's wide and long experience and interest in the railway industry. To the best of my recollection, those assurances were not given. In the discussions and debates on the substantive measure that we expect in the autumn, we shall have to make sure that those provisions are included in the Bill.
      In response to the concern which has been expressed at reports that the Government were applying pressure on British Rail to complete its safety standards by the end of September this year, I am pleased to say that they have stated clearly that that is not the case. In response to the concern about whether potential operators will be required to meet specific safety standards, the Minister for Public Transport wrote to me saying that those specific standards will be required. I was pleased to hear that. The Minister has also said that those specific standards will be monitored and enforced. Given the staff shortages and the burden of work facing British Rail's audit department, there was concern about this aspect. It is to be assumed that the Government will ensure that the monitoring and enforcement agencies will be properly financed and properly equipped for the new task before them.
      We have also raised questions about the date on which access of non-British Rail operators to the system will take place—again against the background of reports that the Government envisage that such access will occur from 1 January 1993. The Minister has explained that this date applies only to a specific and limited category of international services affected by European Community directive 91/440—certain international groupings of railway undertakings and operators of international combined transport in all European Community countries. When the Minister wrote to me, he also said:
      "More general rights of access for operators of domestic services will not be available until after the main privatisation legislation has received Royal Assent and the necessary regulatory schemes established."
      If we are to have a privatised railway system, that is certainly what we would expect Government policy to be. It is therefore in this context and in the context of the concerns set out in new clause 4 that I finally seek clarification of the time scale in relation to the introduction of new operators to the network.
      In the report presented to the Secretary of State by the Health and Safety Executive entitled, "Ensuring Safety on a Liberalised Railway", there is a reference on page 6 to the Government's intention to liberalise access in three phases. The second and third phases relate to the need to implement European Community Directive 91/440 and to the Government's larger plan for full liberalisation, with both of which we are familiar. However, the first phase,
      644
      and this is central to new clause 4, involves a request made to British Rail by the Government—I emphasise "by the Government"—to co-operate voluntarily with Government policy by allowing new, independent operators on to the network.
      The logic of that phasing appears to mean that British Rail is being asked to permit access prior to the enactment of the legislation. I accept that the legislation in question could be legislation implementing the European Community directive and not legislation leading to full liberalisation, but there remains a general uncertainty, notwithstanding the Minister's written reassurances that British Rail may be required to allow domestic operators on to the system from 1 January 1993.
      The Minister is aware that according to the Health and Safety Executive the process of reworking the railways' current operational and technical standards, to be applied to all operators, will take until 1994. It is widely recognised that this is an enormously complex and time-consuming process. The Health and Safety Executive alludes to the fact that it took a team of British Rail engineers no fewer than six months to write the engineering specification for the introduction of the Foster Yeoman locomotives, the only example so far of a private concern running operational services on the network.
      Mr. Milligan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that Foster Yeoman is the only company operating a private service. Other companies do that. Tiger Rail and a number of other services, such as the Orient Express and the Scottish Highland service, are run by private companies.
      Mr. Hill: I was referring to Foster Yeoman's involvement in the operation of locomotives and to the fact that that is the most expensive operation of locomotives on British Rail's network. There is also expensive and extensive running of privately owned wagons on the system, but locomotive operation is primarily in the hands of Foster Yeoman.
      The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy will be winding up the debate if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it may help if I respond briefly to that point. Events have moved on since my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport's letter to British Rail about voluntary access. He never envisaged that British Rail would do other than provide the drivers for those trains, but I can confirm that we propose to publish a White Paper and to introduce legislation. Access to the domestic railway network by franchised trains and third party operators must wait until we have a proper regime for charging for track access and until we have received the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and the commission on the safe operation of the railways.
      Mr. Hill: I am most grateful to the Minister. The purpose of my speech may well be said to have been fulfilled by that reassurance. The framework of the new safety regime on British Rail must lie in the hands of British Rail officials whose skill and experience will not be available to new operators. How could it be? That is why the question of the date of access is vital to many of those

      645
      involved in the railway industry. That is why both they and I welcome the precise reassurance that we have received on this.
      Mr. Paddy Tipping:
      "The safety and health of mineworkers must be the paramount consideration in the mining industry."
      Those are not my words but those of the Minister for Energy, speaking in Nottinghamshire only a few weeks ago. They are supported by the management and work force of British Coal.
      British Coal has the best safety record in the world. It is twice as good as Germany's and five times better than that of the United States. It is between 50 and 100 times safer to work for British Coal than in South Africa, Russia, Colombia or China. It is important to realise that the safety record of private contractors operating in the same mines as British Coal is twice as bad.
      British Coal's safety record is second to none, but it can be improved, and in parts of the coalfields people have worked to achieve that improvement. About two years ago, the safety record of the Nottinghamshire group was one of the poorest in the country; today, it is the best. In the past year, there have been no fatal accidents in the Nottinghamshire group. There has been a 34 per cent. improvement in the three-day accident period, and a 24 per cent. target has been set for the current financial year. It appears that that target will be met, because in the first two months of the year the figure is 60 per cent. better than for the same period last year.
      Within two years, the Nottinghamshire group's safety record has gone from being one of the poorest in the country to the best. It is important to focus on why that has happened. In part, it is due to good new equipment—investment in plant and equipment is important—but it is important to recognise the real reason: British Coal training and educating the work force and taking time to work with men so that their safety and the safety of their colleagues is seen to be important. That is the real cost to the organisation, but it is an asset in terms of lack of injury and of fatalities.
      That has been achieved by creating a corporate culture of safety, where everybody works to achieve safety. It is important to note that it has not been done by policing or by the mines inspectorate setting high standards.
      Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says: Nottinghamshire has a tremendous record. He said that the benefit was a loss of injuries and fatalities, which is a tremendous benefit, but does not good safety training in turn lead to more productive mineworkers and mining methods? It is not only a good investment for people's health but a good economic investment.
      Mr. Tipping: It certainly is, but the problem facing the industry is the drive for productivity. Pits throughout the country increased their productivity by 100 per cent. in the past five years. Men have been removed from the workplace to be trained. Gains have been made elsewhere, but the cost of that training is a loss of productivity.
      That training record is under attack. The pit deputies' role is under threat. The 10th draft of the administrative package is out for consultation and debate. The real
      646
      tension is about that new draft. At present, the pit deputies and the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers look after safety. Their role will be changed radically from being whistle-blowers concerned about maintaining safety in the pit to being involved in productivity. There are clear dangers in that confused role. As the Health and Safety Commission has recognised in writing to the Minister, privatisation poses British Coal and the deep-coal industry a real challenge. It is clear to me—I think that it is clear to everybody who works in the industry—that under privatisation productivity and profit will have to increase even more.
      8.15 pm
      I do not know what the final shape of the industry will be in 18 months' time, but it is clear to me that the remaining collieries will have to increase output and profit. The rush to profit and increased productivity will lead to corner-cutting, because men's jobs will depend entirely on their pit being a viable entity. The new owners of the industry should have to comply with the high safety standards that are set by British Coal.
      Those concerns are echoed in the letter from the Health and Safety Commission to the Minister. It says:
      "It will be essential to ensure the continuance of the strong safety culture which exists in mining."
      It points to the need for increased regulation.
      What I want to argue, and what people in the industry understand, is that it is not regulation that makes safe pits but investment in training and education for safety. That will be under threat even more, depending on the final shape of the privatised coal industry. The high standards in the mining industry are set by British Coal; it is the standard bearer of the world. If the privatised industry is not a unitary but a binary model or a model with many other parts, safeguarding those high standards will be extremely difficult, and later this year we shall have to discuss how the mines rescue service will fit into a privatised industry and how information about accidents and injuries can be disseminated across the earth. Who will do the work that British Coal does on maintaining good-quality safety standards and research into them?
      Those are all key issues. The real threat is the knowledge among the work force and management that they must ensure a super-productive privatised industry. If men struggle to save and maintain their jobs, and if their job depends entirely on the output and profit of their colliery, we shall be in danger of returning to the bad old days when there really was blood on the coals.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: An accident that took place on the British Rail Edinburgh-Glasgow line at Polmont was caused by a lack of fencing, which allowed cattle to stray on the line. My question is exceedingly succinct. British Rail has an enormous mileage of line through agricultural land. It maintains fencing and suitable barriers to prevent agricultural livestock from going on to rail. Normally, it has been successful. Who will bear the considerable costs in future?
      My second question is that raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Who will he responsible for the British Transport police and to whom will they report—to the Department of Transport or to the Home Office, or is there to be a relationship between the transport police and the private operators? I have a particular reason for asking because two of my constituents raised that matter.

      647
      I was not a member of the Committee, and those who were not members should be brief when called to speak. I end by saying that I hope that the Government will consider carefully what Jimmy Knapp, the general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, said at the end of last week in Llandudno about a proper safety code. I leave it at that.
      Mr. Eric Clarke: As an ex-miner, I can say that miners have earned the right to demand safety. My forefathers and many people in the mining industry paid a high price for the legislation that has been passed, even by this Parliament. We seem to learn only after disasters. We were continually upgrading legislation, supposedly to make life easier, but sometimes legislation was not enacted because there was no organisation to represent the workers. In other words, there was no trade union strong enough to ensure that people who were victimised for raising safety matters were protected; but that is in the past.
      To many people, privatisation means unsafe working, poorer health and hygiene and a high accident rate staring them in the face. At the moment, none of the miners in the privatised mines have self-rescuers, which belong to the miners. They were introduced after a fire in the Michael colliery in Fife when men died of suffocation from the inhalation of fumes. If they had had the self-rescuers, they could have gone through the smoke-filled atmosphere into safety and fresh air. The device operates for approximately an hour. An hour will enable a fit man to cover a fair distance underground to reach safety.
      Self-rescuers are worn on the miner's belt and belong to him. Privatised mines cannot afford them or do not have them, although British Coal has. What will happen to self-rescuers? Their upkeep and cost are part and parcel of the running of a colliery, but they are a glaring example of what might happen after privatisation. Will the standards he lowered or will the privatised mines come up to the standard of British Coal?
      Many other activities have been mentioned, and I refer specifically to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). What will happen to the rescue brigades which, like the fire brigades, employ people full time? People are on call for a disaster or for any other incident. In between their activities, they maintain their high standards and train people who volunteer as local, part-time rescue brigades. In other words, they maintain the very high standards of a good organisation. What will happen to the first-aid teams and the research and development for new methods?
      New materials are being introduced into collieries. The disaster to which I referred was caused by polyurethane being used as filler in gaps in the roof. It was discovered to be highly inflammable, and we all know what happened when it was used in upholstery. It was used in furniture for ordinary houses and people died not from the heat of the fire but from the fumes. Underground, it is 100 times worse, because of the confined area and because there is only one source of air.
      Another important aspect is the role of individual members. At the moment, we have workmen's inspectors. By law, they are entitled to examine their own place of work and to involve a particular manager when doing their one, two, three, inspections. Their investigative report must be displayed at the colliery. Within seven days the manager must reply to any comments and act accordingly. A copy of the report also goes to Her Majesty's
      648
      inspectorate of mines. In other words, such an inspection is not merely a matter of habit and is not done at the whim of a manager. It is enshrined in the Coal Mines Act 1911 that a person has the right to have his workplace examined and a report sent to the colliery manager for Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines to comment. The trade union also receives a copy of the report in order for its full-time mines' inspectors to follow it up. It is a foolproof method to eliminate accidents before they happen. Every part of the colliery is open for inspection.
      We—meaning the trade union movement—take second place to no one in spending money and effort on training our workmen to be competent inspectors, in conjunction with Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines and the management. Will that go by the board after privatisation? Will it be diluted? Will new legislation be introduced?
      Albert Wheeler went to the United States and returned with a plan. He found that British machinery for extracting coal was having a phenomal success in long wall production, which was new at the time, as was German machinery of the same type. It was said to bring fantastic production which was colossal in comparison to ours. However, there was a price to be paid. The miners had to go in at the height of the coal. If the coal was 4.5 ft high, that was the height of the roadway. There was no extraction of rock to allow a man to stand up. When he went down the mine or into the slant mine, he did not stand upright until he emerged from the pit.
      Even the roof was held up roof bolting—not by girders or props, but by screwing a bolt into the roof. That is putting it crudely, although it was much more technical. I assure the House that it would terrify anyone who went down the mine, because there was no visible means of support. However, men worked—and do work—in those conditions for seven days a week in 12-hour shifts with huge bonuses for the workers at the point of production. Everyone else is paid peanuts, to use American phraseology.
      Mr. Wheeler thinks that such a system was marvellous. Lung disease—or black lung, as it is known in America—was at its highest because of the dust count and, in addition, some roadways or sections in the collieries were single roadways. There was not even an ingang or ausgang, as it is called in mining terms. There was only one way in, and we know what happens when a one-way road is closed. Safety was pushed to one side, and that is not an example we should follow. The industry does not want to implement the Wheeler report, or any similar plan.
      I want the industry transferred from public ownership with safety absolutely guaranteed. The safety measures which we take for granted must continue, with no dilution of the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate of mines. There must be no dilution of the role of the deputies or of any other senior officials connected with safety or production in the collieries.
      8.30 pm
      I said in Committee that safety does not always mean that one does not get production; the truth is the opposite. Safety means production. The Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea was a disaster for production. Of course, it was a bigger disaster for the people who died and for their dependents.
      There are lessons to be learned. We do not need to tell members of my organisation the facts. We must tell the management and the people who are pushing for

      649
      maximum production. I am pleased to see the results of some of our activities. I hope that our efforts will rub off on Conservative Members, on the Minister and even on the Government.
      I cannot say enough about safety. As I said in Committee, there is a plaque to Alexander Macdonald. who was a Liberal Member of Parliament in the 1890s. There was no Labour party in those days. Few Liberals know about coal mining, but Alexander Macdonald did. He was a unique individual. The plaque was put up because he brought about legislation that the miners wanted, deserved and needed. We do not put plaques up to dead people for no reason, although I must admit that, when I see some of the plaques in Westminster abbey and in other places, I wonder. Miners put up the plaque to Alexander Macdonald and they are practical individuals who appreciate people who help them. I hope that Alexander Macdonald will not be forgotten, either by the miners or by the Government.
      Mr. McCartney: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke). He has been a friend of my father's for almost 30 years in the trade union movement. My earliest memory of my hon. Friend and some of his colleagues in the National Union of Mineworkers dates back to 1959. In my own town of Kirkintilloch, there was a mining disaster through which eight young lads at my school and in the surrounding area lost their fathers. The Auchingeich disaster was caused by a fire in a fanbelt which then engulfed the whole colliery. No one came out of the colliery. On the Sunday after the disaster, I walked with all the community behind a huge cross and stood by the pit gang looking down on the colliery. As a youngster, I took in what had happened and what could happen in future to that community.
      When we talk about safety for the mining community, we talk from the experience of our people, not from what we have read in books. Every change in the law in the past 100 years has come about not because of compassion or because of argument by articulate miners through their union, but because of massive disasters.
      This debate concerns the historical protection of the mining industry. It is unique in the industries of Britain because of the regulations that have been introduced not to protect the employers' rights in law, but to protect the employees' rights in law. That is not the case in any other British industry.
      Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc, Act 1974 and under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988, employers should take steps to avoid risk and to improve conditions. That can be done by weighing costs against benefits to the employers. Outside the mining industry, the health and safety of industrial and office workers is balanced by an analysis of cost benefits and what the employer believes is an appropriate risk. They consider whether it is more appropriate to avoid the risk by taking action to improve the position or whether the cost of taking those appropriate steps is far too high. When the employers have carried out a risk assessment, if they believe that the risk is worth taking in financial terms, it will be taken. That is not the position in the mining industry and we do not want it to be the position after privatisation.
      The new clause is vital. I do not mean to criticise my hon. Friends, but I believe that they have been a little shy in coming forward in the way in which they have phrased
      650
      it. I hope that the Minister will accept the new clause. By accepting it or by agreeing to introduce a more appropriately extensive amendment in another place, the Government will reassure the industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been less than generous to himself in the wording of the new clause. There are four clear areas that the new clause should cover if it is to mean anything for the railway and mining industries after privatisation. First, the companies concerned must issue a general statement about their approach to health, safety and welfare. It must be made clear that health and safety are as important as production in terms of the organisation's objectives. That should be a statutory requirement.
      Secondly, there must be a clear chain of duty in the organisation from the employers to the employees concerning employees' rights under that general policy. Every employee must know whom to consult on safety matters. Someone must be designated at the point of employment to represent employees on health and safety matters, whether those employees work underground. above ground, in railway workshops or in the railway network. Those individuals should have statutory rights to training and to time off with pay for that training.
      Thirdly, employers must describe the detailed steps that they are taking to eliminate hazards in each job. There must be a statement about the general environment, including keeping roadways and gangways clear, and keeping doorways clean and in a safe condition. That statement must also include details about noise levels, lighting and welfare facilities. It is vital that such matters should be included in the Bill. There must he details about each machine, substance and process in the pit or railway workshop. Without that, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act cannot be operated effectively on behalf of the employees.
      Contractors will increasingly be brought into the mining industry. For workers such as contractors and those on night shifts, there must be clear statements that those who work in special conditions are also covered by the general policy statement on health and safety and that they are also represented by the designated health and safety officer on site. There must be a right for employees to be informed, and to be involved in training and refresher courses introduced by the employer.
      Fourthly, consultation is vital. There must be a continuing commitment to the assessment of risk, to the revising of the assessment of risk and to the updating procedures and policies to eliminate risk. If the new clause is to mean anything in reality, those four basic requirements must be included. That is not simply a debating point for the Chamber and it is not enough for us all to go away happy in the knowledge that we have fought the good fight. Fighting the good fight here is irrelevant to people who are 600 or 700 ft down, to people who are working in a railway workshop or to people who are working with substances that can be hazardous to health.
      One of the main reasons why I and my hon. Friends in the safety lobby of the Labour movement are concerned about the Government is that, from November 1991 until recently, there have been various announcements by Ministers and hints from British Coal that there will be changes to underground working hours. A regulation on working hours has been in force since 1908.

      651
      It ill becomes the Government to say that the reason for change is that they must implement European legislation. What a cheek! The Government have fought tooth and nail about implementing European health and safety regulations that benefit workers. They seem to believe that they can amend the one regulation that will assist the new privatised industry to undermine working conditions for underground workers. That is totally unacceptable and the Minister should give a clear commitment that no British Government will introduce legislation or commit themselves to regulations from Europe that will undermine the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1908.
      Whenever the Prime Minister answers questions about Europe at the Dispatch Box, he makes it clear that the House will be responsible for our legislation. If that is the case, the Minister for Energy must make it clear that he will not implement anything that will undermine that position.
      The Health and Safety Commission proposes to undermine regulations about silicosis. Silicosis is one of the most dangerous hazards known to miners. It is black lung and it causes pneumoconiosis. Each year, thousands of industrial workers die, are severely injured or have to retire early from work as a result of the effects of silicosis. Until the announcement by the HSC, we had the strongest anti-silicosis legislation in Europe. However, harmonising downwards is not acceptable because, over the next decade or more, thousands of workers will leave work early because of black lung disease, pneumoconiosis and cancer-related diseases.
      We are not prepared to accept an undermining of those principles. Will the Minister for Energy agree to meet a deputation of Opposition Members? If necessary, we will work with the Government to ensure that the proposals of the HSC which, after all, is supposed to represent workers, are not implemented and to ensure that the present legislation is protected. Workers would then be able to go to work even in dangerous conditions and have at least the minimum standard required to ensure that they leave the pit in one piece at the end of a shift and, at the end of their working lives, they do not die from black lung disease or pneumoconiosis.
      Mr. Clapham: New clause 4 is appropriate for British Rail and British Coal, but I want to relate my remarks to British Coal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) eloquently explained how the safety culture in mining had been brought about from the bitter experiences in the inter-war years to the position after 1947 when market forces were largely mitigated within the new National Coal Board. As a result of that, the safety record was improved.
      British Coal is now the safest deep coal mining industry in the world. That record has evolved through the co-operation of the work force and the management. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield identified the strains that caused the safety position to deteriorate in the inter-war years and no doubt they will re-emerge following privatisation.
      Since 1980, protection for the British coal mining industry has been revoked and we have seen how pressure passes from the international coal market through the industry to reach collieries. That pressure will intensify and it is clear that with such pressure in a privatised industry, corners will be cut. It is essential that the
      652
      Government accept new clause 4 so that the powers under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 can be passed on and that strong legislation and the powerful safety culture can be continued.
      As the Minister for Energy is aware, throughout the 1980s the industry went through a second technical revolution. Mining is now a semi-automated process. The number of men employed on a coal face today is much smaller than it was just 10 years ago. Some coal faces of 250 m are run with only five men. There have been enormous achievements in productivity. As the Minister is aware, productivity has increased by 150 per cent. since the miners' strike ended in 1985. That increase in productivity has occurred because of the application of a skilled work force and high technology. At the same time, the number of serious injuries and fatalities has fallen. That is a great tribute to the men and to management.
      8.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) stressed that British Coal has a better safety record than its competitors in Australia, America and south America. He drew our attention to the safety record of private mines in this country. People do not often compare the safety record of private mines with that of British Coal. There are 160 private mines in the country and the record of fatalities and serious injuries in private mines is greater than it is in the publicly owned industry.
      There are 1,800 people employed in the private deep mining sector and there were two fatalities last year. That is one fatality per 900 workers. For British Coal, the equivalent figure is one per 5,000 workers. Would privatisation result in a diminution in safety standards and thus lead to a large decrease in safety in the public sector? That aspect is worrying the miners unions, particularly when they consider the mining companies which operate in America, Australia and South Africa.
      We urge the Minister to look carefully at the present position in British Coal and particularly the role of the deputies. The deputy's safety role is paramount. He is a supervisor who is responsible for production, but he is also responsible for safety. Together with the workmen's inspectors as provided under section 123 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the deputies have managed to achieve a reduction in the number of accidents and likely incidents.
      The Minister should ensure that the role of the deputy continues irrespective of the structure of the privatised industry. The deputy's role is essential for safety. Section 123 inspectors should also be retained, perhaps with improved powers. Under a privatised industry in future, a section 123 inspector should have the right to stop a job if he determines that there are unsafe practices or that a machine is defective. He should be able to do that without any fear of retribution as a result of those decisions.
      The Minister for Energy should consider those suggestions seriously and ensure that, whatever form the privatised industry takes, we have deputies and section 123 inspectors, perhaps with improved powers. In that way, we can ensure that the strong safety culture continues.
      Mr. Eggar: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) said that it was not possible to say enough about safety. I understand that, but I shall try to pick up as many points that have been made by hon. Members as possible. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) asked me to agree to see a delegation on

      653
      safety matters. Yes, of course: if he wishes to come to talk to me with some of his colleagues, I shall be delighted to see him.
      I do not think that there is any disagreement that, whatever system of privatisation is implemented, it is absolutely critical that the safety regime in the coal and rail industries will exist with a view, at the very least, to maintaining what are already by common consent impressive safety standards, and improving them. That objective underlines the Government's approach to safety in the rail and coal industries as we make our decisions on privatisation.
      We have to continue with uniformly—I stress the word "uniformly"—rigorous safety standards. I agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) that we cannot have possible—I stress the word "possible"—fragmentation of the coal industry, leading to a loss of safety knowledge or an impairment of safety information transmission systems. That is why I took particular note of the HSC's proposal that there might be some industry-wide safety arrangements and a safety committee.
      Several hon. Members asked questions about safety in the rail industry. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred mainly to that matter. We will, of course, set out our safety proposals in the White Paper, but the key principles will be, first, that the HSE will have responsibility for setting out and monitoring standards, as at present—it will have the same role. Secondly, the franchised railway passenger companies will individually be responsible for safe operation. Thirdly, the track authority which will be responsible for track and signalling will have overall responsibility for the day-to-day safe running of the railway. I hope that that deals with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and other hon. Members, but I fear that it might not.
      Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend saying that the track authority will be British Rail and that British Rail will be responsible for ensuring all safety on all railways?
      Mr. Eggar: The record will show that the track authority will have overall responsibility for the day-to-day safe running on the railway. Of course, even if my hon. Friend's supposition is right as to who that track authority will be, he will have to wait and find confirmation in the White Paper.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised the circular question of fencing and who will pay for it. That is clearly a matter for the main Bill, and I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. The British Transport police and to whom they report are also being considered at the moment. I expect more detail about that in the White Paper. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Dalyell: I am a little puzzled, as that matter was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). There are crucial decisions that could fairly easily be made in favour of making the British Transport police responsible to a Government Department. If there is no decision, is it not a little alarming to think that the transport police will report to private organisations? What other explanation do we deduce from the Minister's hesitation?
      Mr. Eggar: I am always keen to try to help the hon. Gentleman. I can say no more than that the answer will be made clear in the White Paper, which is due for publication, I understand, in the fairly near future. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will be able to comment on that point.
      Most of the debate has concentrated on safety in the coal mining industry. I was fascinated by what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) had to say, with his 1935 leaflet. Nobody is disputing for a moment the catastrophic safety record that existed before nationalisation in many—not all—private mines. Everyone who has any knowledge of economic history recognises the considerable sacrifices that were made by many miners and their families.
      The supposition on which the right hon. Gentleman based his thesis was that somehow, because ownership of the mines will be returned to the private sector, we will be re-creating the pre-nationalisation safety record. That is not borne out by the record of the private mining industry, for example. It has considerably improved its record. One can always discuss safety statistics, but its record is more or less comparable with that of British Coal. As everybody knows, British Coal's record is among the best in the world.
      The other thesis that the right hon. Gentleman advanced is that there had been a deterioration in safety since the Scargill strike. He put that down to a lack of relationship between the union and management. His hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood gave the right hon. Gentleman part of the answer. There was and has been clear improvement in Nottinghamshire over the past three years because of a major effort by management and the work force. According to the statistics, since the Scargill strike there has been a steady decline in the rate per 100,000 man shifts of all reported injuries. That is a very sharp and welcome decline. The right hon. Gentleman's basic thesis seems to be severely flawed.
      The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) referred to the employment of disabled people. I can assure him publicly that I shall respond to his points in writing. If he will forgive me, I will not take the time of the House on that matter now.
      The hon. Member for Midlothian raised, as he has done on previous occasions, his concerns about roof bolting and its safety implications. I do not know whether I have done so before, and if so I apologise, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit Rufford colliery which I have visited and which is pioneering roof bolting. That colliery is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood. The hon. Member for Midlothian should talk to the men and the NACODS deputy there about what they think about the method of roof bolting that is being introduced in that mine.
      I accept that the simple transfer of American roof bolting practices into United Kingdom geological conditions would give rise to considerable concern and would not be approved by the HSC. They are different geologically, and the stresses, particularly where there are overhead workings, are different. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman make that visit if he has time during the recess, because it opened my eyes and was interesting.
      He also asked about self-rescuers. Licensed mines will be subject to the requirements of the personal protective equipment regulations and, where appropriate, they will be required to provide whatever protective equipment is

      655
      demanded by the assessment that must he carried out, so there will not be a differential system. The level of risk safety assessment will he important in determining the position of self-rescuers.
      The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) also asked about rescue facilities. I assure him that we are carefully considering the appropriate way forward.
      9 pm
      Most hon. Members who spoke raised the question of new changes to the mines health and safety law and particularly its consequences for deputies. As the House knows, those mattes are for the HSC and the HSE. The HSE has carried out extensive consultations and is now on its 10th draft. That consultation process started well before the privatisation issue arose. I assure the House that the new regulations, which are the responsibility of the HSC and HSE, will not mean a change from a statutory to a voluntary basis for the safety inspection and supervision duties currently carried out by deputies. The HSC has always intended that the new proposals will be statutory, so we shall have a chance to consider those.
      Mr. Benn: One issue with which the Minister has not dealt. to which I and one of my hon. Friends referred, is the penalty of threat of dismissal to British Rail employees now, or possibly to employees in the privatised mines, if they report safety defects which they believe might endanger fellow workers or the public. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that nobody will be punished for bringing into the public domain defects that may affect the health and safety of others?
      Mr. Eggar: I would take a dim view of measures taken by management to impair the employment prospects of someone who genuinely—I stress genuinely—expresses concern about safety matters.
      A number of hon. Members have spoken about the dedication of the unions and management to high safety standards within coal mines. I have no quarrel with that. I have forgotten which hon. Member stressed that, whatever else happened, the NUM would not go out of its way to defend a member acting in breach of safety regulations. That is an important statement, and I am aware of the commitment within the mining industry to high safety standards. I am not aware of a case like that described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, and I shall look into the matter.
      Mr. Redmond: This is an important point. The Minister is obviously not aware that British Rail suppressed a report. Had those involved brought it to the public's attention, they would doubtless have been transferred down the line. My right hon. Friend made a valid point about the safety of other people. It is vital that, if employees report defects to management, and management do nothing and allow the deterioration or lack of safety to continue, those employees should be protected against disciplinary action if they bring the defect to the public's notice. That must be right for safety.
      Mr. Eggar: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. As he guesses, I am not aware of the circumstance that he cites, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport was listening to the exchange, and he will look into that matter.
      I agree that, if someone reports his safety concerns through the proper channels, it would he quite wrong for
      656
      disciplinary action to be taken against him. I am not aware of such cases in the mining industry, but if there have been some I would like to look into them and then decide what to say about them.
      Mr. Eric Clarke: We are talking not just about development but about the approval of plant and machinery and of processes and materials. Machines that go underground have to be approved as safe. I do not want to go into detail now, but this is as important a matter as the others that we have been discussing, and we want assurances on it—without them, there could be disasters.
      Mr. Eggar: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point and I will ensure that it is covered. I cannot give him an instant explanation of how we will deal with it: it is one of a number of issues that we will be examining, and I hope that, when the main Bill is published, I w ill be able to satisfy him in the subsequent debates.
      Mr. Snape: The Minister began by saying that it is not possible to say enough about safety. He has just proved that it is possible to spend 15 minutes without saying a great deal about it. His response was less than satisfactory, especially on the future role of the deputies and the safety inspectorate in the mines. He seemed to use the "leave it to the Health and Safety Executive" technique.
      We all admire the work of the HSE. but given the responsibilities being thrust on it for both industries, we need some reassurance that its budget will be considerably increased and that the shortage of personnel qualified to carry out some of these tasks will be dealt with sooner rather than later.
      As some of my hon. Friends have said, it has been pressure applied to management by those who work in the industry and their representatives that has brought about changes in the legislation governing safety in both industries. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) talk about new clause 4. Once or twice over the years, I have heard him discuss the old clause 4, if memory serves. Be that as it may, he made the right point about deaths in mining. What he said applies equally to deaths in the railway industry.
      In the days of steam locomotives and single wagon loads, the rate of attrition among railway workers amounted to two or three people a day. Their deaths did not make the same tragic impact as some of the mine disasters, but both industries proved highly dangerous to those who worked in them. It was largely due to the efforts of those who worked in them and of their trade union representatives that the safety record of both industries improved so much.
      We know from the history books that improvements such as continuous brakes on trains, proper signalling systems, the abolition of gas lighting in railway rolling stock and better hours of work came about because of pressure by workers. Those improvements cost a great deal and were consequently opposed by the private sector managers of the day, many of whom, bewhiskered and top-hatted, sat on the Conservative Benches, as some of them still do—[Interruption.]
      Conservative Members groan, but I must remind them that it was only the railway directors and mine owners of 100 years ago who proved resistant to safety measures. I invite them to cast their minds back five years to the Zeebrugge disaster and to memos signed by the

      657
      management of Townsend Thoresen about the need for proper systems to alert the captain that bow doors had been properly closed. We all remember some of the sarcastic comments made by the managers in the margins of those reports. They were: "Nice, what would they like next? How much namby-pamby effort do we need?"
      The authorship of the comments was denied in the wake of the Zeebrugge disaster, but they show that private sector transport management has always been concerned about the impact of safety measures on budgets. On many occasions private sector management has resisted improvements.
      Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend gives some historical examples. Samuel Plimsoll, whose safety line saved many lives in the coffin ships, was denounced in the shipping gazettes as a terrorist because of his work for the safety of seamen.
      Mr. Snape: My right hon. Friend graphically illustrates the fact that those who cross management for any reason are all too often labelled terrorists or, to bring the parlance up to date, as militants by management who always resist improvements.
      It is not just the private sector which is at fault, nor is it always in the past that safety improvements have been resisted. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) spoke about a railway employee who wrote a critical report about sectorisation on British Rail and the causes of the Newton train accident. The report was written not by an ordinary rank-and-file railwayman, but by Peter Rayner, who was the regional operating manager of the former London Midland region. Because of his trenchant criticisms of sectorisation and its impact on railway safety, he was, if I may use the railway term, shunted into a non-job and then shunted out of the industry.
      That safety manager blew the whistle on unsafe practices caused, in his opinion, by sectorisation. Such problems will be much worse when private operators are franchised to run parts of the railway system in the way that the Government envisage. On this, as on so many other issues, the Minister's reply was inadequate, because he does not know. The Government argue, "Leave it to us. Just vote the necessary expenditure and leave the rest to us. We will publish a White Paper."
      As I said in Committee, if the mayor and leading councillors in the borough of Sandwell turned up at the Department of the Environment and asked to be allowed to spend millions of pounds on a scheme that they were not prepared to define or tell the Secretary of State about, the men in white coats would rush them away before they could make a presentation. That is what the Bill is about.
      Mr. Eggar: You said that in Committee.
      Mr. Snape: I make no apology for repeating it. I may have made the point better in Committee, but the Minister's response this time was no better. If he does not take the grin off his face, I shall repeat the anecdote on Third Reading and see what sort of response we get then. The Minister's replies on safety were inadequate, and I invite my hon. Friends to support the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 267.

      Division No 43]

      [9.15 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Galbraith, Sam

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Galloway, George

      Allen, Graham

      George, Bruce

      Alton, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Godsiff. Roger

      Ashton, Joe

      Graham, Thomas

      Austin-Walker, John

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Barnes, Harry

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Griffiths. Win (Bridgend)

      Bell, Stuart

      Grocott, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gunnell, John

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Hall, Mike

      Benton, Joe

      Hanson, David

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Berry, Roger

      Harvey. Nick

      Betts, Clive

      Heppell, John

      Blair, Tony

      Hill. Keith (Streatham)

      Blunkett, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Boyes, Roland

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hoyle, Doug

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunlermline E)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

      Hutton. John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Jackson. Ms Glenda (H'stead)

      Burden, Richard

      Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Byers, Stephen

      Jamieson, David

      Caborn, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

      Jones. Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones. Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jones. Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cann, James

      Jowell. Ms Tessa

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Clapham, Michael

      Keen, Alan

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

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

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Khabra. Piara

      Clelland, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Leighton, Ron

      Connarty, Michael

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Lewis, Terry

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lloyd. Tony (Stretford)

      Cousins, Jim

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cryer, Bob

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Cummings, John

      McAllion, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dalyell, Tarn

      McCartney, Ian

      Darling, Alistair

      MacDonald, Calum

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      McKelvey, William

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McLeish, Henry

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

      McMaster, Gordon

      Denham, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dewar, Donald

      McWilliam, John

      Dixon, Don

      Madden, Max

      Dobson, Frank

      Mahon, Alice

      Donohoe, Brian

      Mandelson, Peter

      Dowd, Jim

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Martlew, Eric

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Maxton, John

      Eastham, Ken

      Meale, Alan

      Enright, Derek

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Etherington, William

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Milburn, Alan

      Faulds, Andrew

      Miller, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Foster, Donald (Bath)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Foulkes, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Fraser, John

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      659

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Short, Clare

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Simpson, Alan

      Mudie, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

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

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Snape, Peter

      Olner, William

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Neill, Martin

      Spellar, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Pendry, Tom

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stott, Roger

      Pike, Peter L.

      Strang, Gavin

      Pope, Greg

      Straw, Jack

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis

      Purchase, Ken

      Tyler, Paul

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Vaz, Keith

      Radice, Giles

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Randall, Stuart

      Wallace, James

      Redmond, Martin

      Walley, Joan

      Reid, Dr John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Watson, Mike

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Roche, Ms Barbara

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Wise, Audrey

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wray, Jimmy

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wright, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing and Mrs. Llin Golding.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Carrington, Matthew

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cash, William

      Alexander, Richard

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Clappison, James

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Ancram, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Arbuthnot, James

      Congdon, David

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Conway, Derek

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Couchman, James

      Bates, Michael

      Cran, James

      Batiste, Spencer

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

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Body, Sir Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Bos well, Tim

      Dicks, Terry

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Duncan, Alan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Eggar, Tim

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Elletson, Harold

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Butcher, John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Butler, Peter

      Evennett, David

      Butterfill, John

      Faber, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Fabricant, Michael

      660

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Marlow, Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Forman, Nigel

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Forth, Eric

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Merchant, Piers

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Milligan, Stephen

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Mills, Iain

      Freeman, Roger

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      French, Douglas

      Moate, Roger

      Fry, Peter

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Gale, Roger

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gallie, Phil

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Moss, Malcolm

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Needham, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Gill, Christopher

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Gillan, Ms Cheryl

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Gorst, John

      Norris, Steve

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Page, Richard

      Hague, William

      Paice, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hannam, Sir John

      Pawsey, James

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Harris, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hawkins, Nicholas

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hayes, Jerry

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Heald, Oliver

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Richards, Rod

      Hendry, Charles

      Riddick, Graham

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Hicks, Robert

      Robathan, Andrew

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Horam, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

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

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hunter, Andrew

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Jack, Michael

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shersby, Michael

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Sims, Roger

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Knapman, Roger

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

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

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spring, Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sproat, Iain

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Legg, Barry

      Stephen, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Stern, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stewart, Allan

      Lidington, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lightbown, David

      Sumberg, David

      Lord, Michael

      Sweeney, Walter

      Luff, Peter

      Sykes, John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Thomason, Roy

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marland, Paul

      Thurnham, Peter

      661

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whittingdale, John

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

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Tracey, Richard

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Trend, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Willetts, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wilshire, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Walden, George

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waller, Gary

      Wood, Timothy

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Yeo, Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Watts, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Mr. Andrew MacKay and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Whitney, Ray

      Question accordingly negatived.
      New clause 5—Disclosure of negotiations as to transfers
      ', —In the exercise of their powers under section 1 the relevant corporation or the Secretary of State shall disclose to representatives of the workforce and, in the case of British Rail representatives of the passengers, the names and addresses of any person or body with whom they are in contact with a view to transferring to them any fixtures, property, rights or liabilities, within one week of the commencement of that contact.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we shall discuss new clause 6—Coal industry consultation (disclosure)
      Mr. Dobson: I shall be brief, as I do not wish to detain the House. The objective of both new clauses is straightforward. We believe that, where any person or body shows an interest in buying all or part of British Coal or taking a franchise for any part of British Rail, the names and addresses of those persons or organisations should be disclosed within one week to representatives of the work forces of British Coal and British Rail and to the representatives of British Rail's passengers, in the interests of the open government that the Prime Minister claims to favour. If the Government believe in open government, there should be no problem about disclosing that information.
      There need be no secrecy. Those who work in the coal and rail industries and passengers wishing to travel on the British railway network in the future are entitled to know that is happening. We do not believe that those who work in the industries are chattels, to be discussed and distributed as a result of private conversations between business people, Tory Ministers and civil servants. They are not artefacts to be bought and sold, or even to be preserved in a museum. They are human beings. Their jobs are at stake in the privatisation process and they are entitled to know who is trying to become their boss or bosses.
      I hope that the Minister will say either that he agrees with the new clauses or, if he does not agree with the detail, that he finds the principle acceptable and that the Government will change the Bill in another place. I need say no more on the matter. I hope that the Minister will be equally brief in his reply.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I are deeply concerned about one aspect of disclosure covered by new clause 5. I refer to the
      662
      electrification of the Leeds-Bradford railway, and to the leasing of the rolling stock. The Industrial Bank of Scotland has clearly stated that in the absence of specific legislation and of a Government guarantee that after privatisation, the leasing payments will continue to be made—by the Government, if necessary-it is not prepared to pursue negotiations with West Yorkshire passenger transport authority. The scheme is therefore lurching from crisis to crisis.
      The Minister visited Leeds this morning to take part in one of a series of negotiations. The PTA, the manufacturers of the rolling stock in Leeds—Hunslet, and the passengers affected are greatly concerned.
      The Bill has thrown a spanner in the works in respect of the provision of rolling stock on that section of the line it is proposed to electrify. A new clause that requires information about organisations engaged in the transfer of assets under clause 1 would be welcome. It would potentially ensure greater knowledge and certainty for organisations that are helping the PTA by leasing rolling stock.
      As the Minister knows, the Government insisted on the PTA leasing the stock. The Minister shakes his head, but I well recall that that option was the one which the Minister said the PTA should take. I believe that he is sympathetic to the electrification scheme and wants it to go ahead. At a meeting in Bradford last Friday attended by representatives of the chamber of commerce, Members of Parliament and councillors from both major parties, all expressed enthusiasm for the scheme and urged the PTA to go ahead with the leasing arrangements.
      The problem is that the organisations with which it needs to reach agreements, such as the Industrial Bank of Scotland, say that privatisation places the leasing of the rolling stock in jeopardy. The PTA is looking at concluding an arrangement with other institutions for leasing the rolling stock that would not depend on a Government guarantee in the event that privatisation unfortunately went ahead. The PTA itself might be in jeopardy.
      When the Minister was in Manchester on Thursday morning, he said that PTAs and passenger transport executives would in no way be affected by privatisation. I hope that he will repeat that assurance when he winds up. New clause 5 represents a small step towards providing information to bodies—not those under Labour control—such as the Industrial Bank of Scotland. It is a private enterprise bank, but says that privatisation is in effect placing a question mark over the future of the body or bodies that are currently entering negotiations concerning the provision of rolling stock.
      As the Minister knows, it is vital for Bradford that the electrification scheme goes ahead, InterCity services are wholly dependent on that happening. As was made clear at Friday's meeting in Bradford city hall, if electrification does not take place British Rail will have to consider whether current method of taking the sparse inter-city service from Leeds to Bradford remains a viable option.
      Electrification of local lines would provide decent passenger services and a decent capacity, neither of which exists at present on the rush-hour services between Leeds and Bradford and up the Aire Valley. It would also give British Rail the opportunity to expand the London-Bradford InterCity service. Surely the Minister wants the service to be expanded and improved, so that people will be encouraged to travel by rail rather than by road.

      663
      Bradford is a fine city; it is the queen of Yorkshire cities. Surely it deserves, and needs, an electrified railway network as part of the inter-city service. At present, a diesel locomotive has to drag the whole electric train, including the power unit, the trailer car and the coaches, en bloc to Bradford, and then propel them back.
      If new clause 5 were passed, a bit of background information could be provided to give financial institutions more certainty. It does not go far enough, but at least it would be a step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister will give me the assurances that I require, and that, if he does not consider the new clause satisfactory, a provision with similar wording can be tabled in the Lords.
      Mr. Max Madden: I wish to endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), and to stress the importance to Bradford's economic future of the speedy implernentation of the West Yorkshire electrification scheme.
      Madam Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman had an exchange with one of my deputies earlier. I hope that he will relate his speech directly to the new clause.
      Mr. Madden: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he can present a measure in the House of Lords to allay the anxiety of financial institutions about the effects of privatisation on British Rail and the future of passenger transport authorities, especially in West Yorkshire.
      We have heard some powerful speeches, expressing the anxieties about privatisation felt by many British Rail and coal mining workers. I hope that the Minister will tell us that a formula has been found to enable the contract leasing arrangements to go ahead; so that the West Yorkshire PTA can purchase new rolling stock and this important scheme can proceed on schedule with the maximum urgency, bringing to West Yorkshire the benefits that are an integral part of the scheme.
      Mr. Freeman: The hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bradford. West (Mr. Madden) gave us as an example the disclosure of the identity of a possible transferee on the West Yorkshire lines. Clearly, that is highly appropriate: the new clause would require British Rail to disclose the identity of parties consulted by British Rail, the Department of Transport or—in relation to British Coal—the Department of Trade and Industry.
      I shall deal first with the argument of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and then with the points raised in the context of new clause 5 by the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The Government do not believe that either of the new clauses is appropriate. Therefore I do not commend them to the House. However, I agree with the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras: it would confuse employees and users of British Rail if there were to be constant identification of the names and addresses of all parties with whom there had been conversations, for the obvious reason that a number of the applications will not proceed.
      I have had conversations with about three dozen potential railway franchisees and freight operators. I have not disclosed their identity. Some have done so, but that must be a matter for them. It would not be in the interests
      664
      of the 136,000 British Rail employees or of British Rail passengers if there were speculation at this stage about who may or may not be interested.
      Mr. Dobson: One of the objects of the exercise is to end speculation. There would be no speculation if the new clause were accepted. All that the Government would need to do is publish a list once a week of the names of those with whom they had had conversations. There will he speculation if the Government do not publish a list. People will start to wonder who the Government are talking to and who they intend should be the bosses. They will speculate about the record of these outfits, if they are so ashamed of their contacts with the Government that they will not disclose their record, and if the Government are so ashamed of these outfits that they, too, will not disclose their record.
      Mr. Freeman: That does not correspond with the real world. If we, or British Coal or British Rail were under an obligation to publish those names, we should find that some parties who are genuinely interested in operating railway services would be reluctant to come forward.
      Mr. Dobson: Why?
      Mr. Freeman: Because that is the commercial reality of life. Some parties will want to hold conversations in confidence. If there were a potential management buy-out, as happened in the case of the bus industry, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the management and staff of British Rail, interested in principle in running the franchise on one of British Rail's lines, would like their identity, without necessarily their approval or knowledge, to be published? I do not believe that that would be in either their interests or British Rail's interests.
      There will be ample oportunity for those who respond to the competitive process for letting a rail franchise to respond to the tender documents and for the identity of the chosen tenderer, in negotiating the detailed contract both with British Rail as the track authority and with the franchising authority that is to provide any subsidy, then to be fully disclosed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has told me that he has provided to the House of Commons Library a list of all the parties to whom he has written and of all those who have responded on the future of British Coal. He has also told me that those who wish to do so can identify themselves and publish their advice.
      In the context of new clause 5, may I deal with the points raised by the hon. Members for Bradford, South and for Bradford, West? The Government very much want the electrification project to proceed. I do not believe that the issue is the privatisation of British Rail. The problem relates to the potential privatisation of the passenger transport authorities and the passenger transport executives. They are two separate issues. I am happy to repeat the assurance that I gave in Manchester: that the Government have no intention of changing the status of the PTAs or the PTEs, or the method of their funding. That should go some way towards allaying the fears of the banks involved in writing a particular lease.
      Mr. Madden: It is clear from the earlier debates that legislation protecting pension funds is vital. Equally, when the privatisation Bill is introduced, will it be possible to ring-fence PTAs and PTEs from privatisation? That would allay the anxieties of financial institutions, which have

      665
      been increased in recent weeks and months and which led the Minister to have five meetings with the PTA to discuss these thorny issues.
      Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly give that some consideration, but the White Paper will make the position crystal clear. The hon. Gentleman asked for inclusion of such a guarantee in legislation. I am not convinced that that is warranted or appropriate, but I shall bear in mind what he said, because the Government's intentions are clear.
      How do we move forward in the context of new clause 5 to ensure that the project proceeds? At my meeting today, I said that there was no potential transferee for the operations of West Yorkshire railways services. To my mind, the fears of the banking system were misplaced, because we had no intention of changing the proposed arrangements.
      9.45 pm
      I have undertaken to write to the PTA tomorrow morning. I have said that I am perfectly prepared to talk to bankers to try to allay their fears. I hope that a lease can be written. It is the first time for 70 years that a true operating lease will have been written for the railway industry. Therefore, we are breaking new ground.
      I do not believe that the acceptance of new clause 5 would help the case of West Yorkshire electrification. I am confident that that project will proceed and that the lease will be written. It has taken longer than I or those in West Yorkshire would have liked, but there is no doubt in my mind about the outcome.
      I hope, with those few brief remarks, that the House will accept my assurances and explanations, and that new clauses 5 and 6 will not be pressed.
      Mr. Dobson: We have had a bit of a novelty tonight. We all know about the love that dare not speak its name, but now we have the bids that dare not speak their names. Despite the fact that the Minister has not made any commitments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, hr leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      POWER TO ACT IN RELATION TO PROPOSALS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS, PROPERTY ETC.
      Mr. Adley: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
      '(1A) It shall be the duty of the British Railways Board to communicate its intention to the Secretary of State who, within four weeks, shall present a report of such proposals to Parliament.'.
      I move the amendment in the hope that you. Madam Speaker, will accept that it has been difficult throughout the Committee stage of the Bill to know precisely what we were talking about because we had little information. My amendment is related to the provision of information which, I maintain, should have been provided previously by the Government so that we could debate with a little more clarity than has been possible in Committee and even up to Report.
      The heading to clause 1 says:
      "Power to act in relation to proposals for transfer of functions, properties etc."
      666
      There are no such proposals. We therefore need more information from the Government and I hope to be able either to extract that information this evening or to obtain from my hon. Friend the Minister guarantees which satisfy me and my hon. Friends that it will be forthcoming shortly.
      The House is being asked to pass the Bill with insufficient information. I somewhat philosophically ask my hon. Friend the Minister and the House why there is no White Paper. This is the 14th year of Conservative government. We have had some root-and-branch enthusiasts for railway privatisation—my Lords Parkinson, Moore and Ridley, to name but three—none of whom managed to arrange a meeting place between their political ambitions on the one hand and common sense on the other when it came to producing a White Paper on the possible change of ownership in some parts of British Rail.
      Has secrecy precluded the appearance of the White Paper? It cannot be secrecy because we believe in open Government. Is it arrogance? Of course it is not, because the Prime Minister——
      Mr. Dobson: She is in the House of Lords, too.
      Mr. Adley: I shall resist that temptation, having had one go this afternoon. Once a day is enough, as the actress said to the bishop.
      Is it secrecy? No, because we have an open Government who want to provide us with as much information as possible. Is it incompetence? I do not think so. Is it deliberate? I do not know about that. I believe that the answer is much simpler. It is because it is proving so difficult for the Government to produce a sensible White Paper which somehow marries the ambition of one or two of my colleagues with the Government's need and intention to maintain a national rail system. That is the reason why we have not yet had a White Paper.
      I put the question simply to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport. Can he assure me that we shall have a White Paper before the Bill receives Royal Assent? To put it even more bluntly, can he assure me that the House will have the White Paper before we rise for the summer recess? In the absence of such a White Paper, I must make certain assumptions to explain why I wish the Government to show a little more determination to produce it before the Bill proceeds much further.
      I begin by quoting an interesting leader in The Independent a few weeks ago:
      "Having wrestled long and not very impressively with the question of how to privatise British Rail, the Government has come up with a minimalist solution. It will allow contenders to compete for franchises to run passenger services, with the possibility of BR's freight and parcels businesses being sold. John MacGregor. the Transport Secretary, said yesterday that BR will be the track authority. A regulatory body will be empowered to decide who should be granted the franchises and to act as referee.
      This cautious approach has much to commend it."
      Is that correct? Was the writer of that leading article accurately summarising the Government's intentions? If so, are the Government dragging the railway back from what I regard as the abyss or the jungle of total deregulation into which it looked as though it might fall two or three years ago?
      One of the hardest tasks that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have yet to undertake is to realise that the course on which they are embarked will sadly dash the great expectations of

      667
      some of my colleagues who dream of waking up one morning to find that the Great Western Railway has been reincarnated. The Government would therefore be doing themselves a favour if they made the position fairly clear fairly soon.
      Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my hon. Friend concede that it would be sheer common sense for the Government to provide more information so that hon. Members could scrutinise the Government's plans? For example, the Select Committee on Energy thoroughly examined the privatisation of electricity and decided that the costs of nuclear decommissioning could not be met. The City and its institutions formed the same opionion and in the end, at least a section of what was to be privatised was not privatised. One must not underestimate the value of the House in scrutinising the work of the Departments. It would be advantageous if information was given to the House before the legislation proceeds much further.
      Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend makes a point which is not only interesting but pertinent. If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had been in his place, he would have agreed as vigorously as I do. I have not had the opportunity to consider carefully what my hon. Friend says, but he must be right.
      As I recall, Lord Parkinson was Secretary of State for Transport at the time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said, he thought that it would be a mere bagatelle to privatise the nuclear industry. Sadly, the facts eventually proved him wrong. My hon. Friend is right. More information at an earlier date and an opportunity to debate the Government's propositions at an early date could have prevented the embarrassing retraction which had to take place on that occasion.
      Will the White Paper deal with the taxation options? Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether I am right in pushing the point? The Germans, for example, have a transport policy which seeks to transfer traffic from road to rail. They do not have complicated debates about ownership, and privatisation of the railways would he regarded as a faintly silly proposition if it were put to the Bundestag. The Germans simply have taxation arrangements which discourage the use of roads for longer-distance freight and encourage the use of rail. Many of us would like to encourage that here.
      Where are we going with the paving Bill? How much longer are we to pretend that the future of British Coal bears any relationship to the future for British Rail? The Bill is an illogical and unreal piece of legislation in many ways. There is no reference, in the Queen's Speech or in any debates in Committee, to the complete privatisation of British Rail.
      On 18 May—I welcome this totally—my hon. Friend the Minister, in answer to a question of mine, said:
      "I am sure that this will prove useful in the detailed implementation of our policies for restructuring British Rail."—[Official Report, 18 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 34.]
      That is what the Japanese have done. They have restructured their railways and that may be what we are doing. I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if we knew what was in his and the Government's minds, it would save some people getting themselves embarrassingly stuck on the end of a limb from which they will have uncomfortably to withdraw themselves.
      668
      Can my hon. Friend tell us what will he the position on financial support for the railways? Is it to continue indefinitely? What will be the relationship between the recipient of financial support and the providers of franchise-holding services? The word "franchise" is the new in-word emanating from Marsham street. Many colleagues in the House know that for some years I have been involved with a major hotel group which is one of the world's leading franchising operations. I suspect that what the Department of Transport means when it talks about franchise and what some of my colleagues in the House mean when they talk of franchising bear little relationship to what will be in the White Paper. The Government have done the House less than a service in producing a paving Bill on the railways before we have had a White Paper.
      What is to be? We have had a useful exchange. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy was helpful a few moments ago when I thought that he confirmed—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport will tell us whether what my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy said was correct—that on safety, British Rail will be the track authority and will be responsible for ensuring safety levels whoever operates trains on our railways. That will be a substantial step forward.
      We should have liked to see—perhaps we shall—in the White Paper references to, for example, infrastructure costs as between road and rail. Of all the amazing allegations, in The Guardian this morning it is reported that the National Express company is to complain to the Office of Fair Trading about InterCity's 225 service between London and Edinburgh offering prices that are too competitive. We are coming to something when a private sector coach operator, which gets all its track costs provided free of charge by the taxpayer, complains to the Office of Fair Trading about the ability of our nationalised railway service to compete effectively despite the fact that it has to bear all its own track costs.
      Track costs are not the only issue. Will the White Paper include details of the true expenditure as between road and rail in relation to the national health service? Some 5,000 people per year are killed and 250,000 are maimed in road accidents. What is the real cost to the national health service? What is the cost to the Department of Social Security of tens of thousands of people being off work because of accidents on the road?
      What about the police? British Rail has to provide for its police from its budget. Like everyone else who uses the road, National Express finds that the taxpayer funds the police in that respect. What about the cost of time in our courts? Untold millions of pounds are spent in our courts every year dealing with traffic accidents and traffic offences. What about BR's task of maintaining the heritage?
      What about pollution and congestion? Will the White Paper tackle the real questions which should be asked? We need only leave the House this evening to discover a London choking with fumes from the internal combustion engine. One need only blow one's nose to see what the internal combustion engine is doing to the air of this city and of other major cities in this country.
      The White Paper should address those issues. I hope that it will do that, but I am afraid that I have some doubt——
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Ordered,

      669
      That, at this day's sitting, the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
      Not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Mr. Adley: There was a story in the newspapers this morning that BR will shortly announce a loss of £150 million. What will we find in the White Paper about that? I attended the annual general meeting of Lloyd's on Wednesday morning, as I am a member of Lloyd's, and I did some quick mathematics. Lloyd's lost £2 billion in the 1989 trading year. British Rail has allegedly lost £150 million in the trading year 1991. That is a loss of £2 billion for 40,000 people in one year at Lloyd's and a loss of £150 million for 50 million people in one year in the depth of a recession on the railways. On the whole, the taxpayers and travellers of this country do not get a bad deal from BR.
      What is to be the role of the railway? Will the White Paper attend seriously to that primary question? What is the role of the railway in a modern industrial state? Ownership is an interesting proposition, but whether or not someone can tack a few carriages on here or there is a matter of cosmetic interest.
      As usual, there are double standards. British Rail was required by the Government to produce plans for a channel tunnel rail link. The Government said, "Build it as cheaply as you can and make sure that it meets Treasury guidelines." British Rail spent 18 months looking into the matter and buying houses. Then someone else came along and told BR to change the route. In the meantime, the Winchester bypass has been proceeding. I strongly support that, and the taxpayer bears all the environmental costs, but BR is expected to meet Treasury guidelines and to produce a railway which is economically acceptable to the Treasury and environmentally acceptable to everyone.
      Those issues should be in the White Paper, but we do not know whether they are. We do not know whether they are relevant to the Bill. As we do not have the White Paper, I have the advantage that I can get away with saying virtually anything in relation to the amendment, because we do not know what is in the White Paper.
      Madam Speaker: Order. I shall he listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully.
      Mr. Adley: I will therefore draw my remarks to a close.
      My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport was very good in Committee. He has been conciliatory and helpful. I was one of the first people, if not the first, to make the point that the railways enjoy a unique relationship with their work force, born of the loyalty, enthusiasm and dedication of 150 years of serving the travelling public. I am not speaking as a spokesman of the trade unions—I cannot say that the trade unions have done nothing to cause damage to the travelling public, because they have—but there is a new mood afoot within the railway unions. They should be consulted by the Government as the legislation proceeds. The unions have some interesting suggestions to make and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that they will be consulted.
      I close as I started, by saying that I do not want to press the amendment to a Division. Nevertheless, I will do so if
      670
      my hon. Friend the Minister cannot satisfy my request that the White Paper should appear quickly. I hope that he can do that.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not detain the House for long, but an important constitutional point arises from the amendment. If the amendment were adopted, it would be one redeeming feature of a bad Bill and a bad way of proceeding—pushing legislation through the House. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) repeatedly made the valid point that there is no White Paper. Therefore, if the amendment were accepted, there would be some safeguards and a reassurance that the matter would come back to the House before any hard-and-fast decisions were made. There is great anxiety that, if the legislation is passed unamended, the House will be bounced into franchising or privatising the railways, in particular, without being able to take full cognisance of all the ramifications or being able to influence Government opinion before legislation is lined up and pushed through the House.
      I deliberately used the words "constitutional point", because I invite hon. Members to pause to consider that we do not have the White Paper, but that their Lordships may do so when the matter reaches them. It is not only manifestly unfair but wrong in principle that this democratically elected Chamber will not be able to consider the White Paper in advance of legislation, whereas the other place might be able to do so.
      I am told by hon. Members who have been in the House longer than I that it is possible that the Bill will have Royal Assent before the summer recess. Other hon. Members shake their heads and say no. It concerns me that we are about to embark upon a long summer recess. The passing of this legislation will signal to British Rail a certain way of proceeding in anticipation of privatisation. My anxiety is that we shall come back to the House in the autumn and either complete certain stages of the Bill's progress or find it already on the statute book. Incidentally, we keep talking about one privatisation Bill in the autumn, but I assume that there will be two Bills. It would be nonsense and quite outrageous for there to be only one Bill.
      Mr. Freeman indicated assent.
      Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister nods his head, and I welcome that confirmation: there will be two Bills. My anxiety is that we shall be down the road to privatisation or franchising in a manner which no hon. Member will have been able to influence, and we shall be presented largely with a fait accompli.
      If hon. Members consider that remark to be alarmist or without basis, I refer them to the Ports Act 1991, which the same Department that is pushing this legislation through the House produced in the previous Parliament. I studied the Ports Act 1991 this very evening. Very little on the face of the Ports Bill disclosed how the ports privatisation would proceed. It was pushed through both Houses without proper examination.
      I am concerned that, in respect of this Bill or Bills that we are yet to see, there will not be proper discussion of the implications of privatisation unless we adopt an amendment such as that which has been moved by the hon. Member for Christchurch. The hon. Gentleman ably explained why it is in hon. Members' interests to have the capacity, apart from on Second Reading and in

      671
      Committee, to examine the proposals of British Rail which is charged with facilitating the implementation of the Secretary of State's proposals.
      For those reasons, we should support the hon. Member for Christchurch. It is not the fault of the House that there is no White Paper; it is the failure of the Government. They have been dilatory and have let down the House by not producing a White Paper.
      The unelected other place may have the benefit of a White Paper. We have a right and a duty to be able to examine the proposals outside the context of the Second Reading of a future Bill. For those reasons, I hope that we shall support the amendment of the hon. Member for Christchurch and that he will not be tempted to withdraw it.
      Mr. Wolfson: I wish to support the amendment on the basis of my experience and that of all my hon. Friends who represent Kent and south-east London of British Rail's secretive approach to its plans for the development of the channel tunnel rail link in the past three and a half years.
      The amendment would go some distance toward ensuring, through the Secretary of State, that information on British Rails proposals appertaining to the Bill would be in the public arena. My unsatisfactory experience has alerted me to the importance of that happening in the future under the Bill.
      Many unanswered questions about the fast rail link are relevant not only to the south-east of England but the whole country. I am also concerned about how the privatisation proposals will affect Network SouthEast, on which London's prosperity and future will always depend. Although it is right to seek ways of involving the private sector in the operation of British Rail, Network SouthEast, which serves a great capital city, will always need to be the beneficiary of some public subsidy. The House will want to know how that is likely to be organised in a privatisation Bill, so I echo the requests to my hon. Friend the Minister for details of those proposals in a White Paper as rapidly as possible.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point about Network SouthEast being relevant not only to the south-east of England but to the whole of the United Kingdom. I understand that the figures that British Rail will publish tomorrow suggest that, although its loss is £150 million overall, the loss on Network SouthEast is £250 million. The hon. Gentleman's point must be taken on board; if Network SouthEast is to be supported—I accept that it must be, because of what it serves—it should not be at the expense of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is one of the reasons why we must have more information on what is proposed for the south—east and the rest of the country.
      Mr. Wolfson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point in support of my argument.
      I have no doubt that London is now in danger of being less well served by its rail system than other capital cities with which it is in competition. We are having some difficulty in persuading the European bank to come to London and we may not win that argument. The issues on that are much wider than this debate, but one of the factors that will ensure that London continues to be a highly successful financial centre serving the rest of the world is people's ability to travel to and from work. As I have often done in the past, I compare London with Paris, which has
      672
      a 19th-century rail network and a metro network equivalent to our tube. But it also has a whole new network of RER railway lines crossing Paris from 30 miles outside to the centre. Trains on that network travel at 60 mph through the centre of the city. London has no equivalent, and plans for one are still a long way off.
      Through a sensible approach to privatisation, we can better overcome some of the problems, but it is important that the House has an opportunity to monitor and debate the plans as often as possible as they develop. In that context, I support the amendment.
      Mr. Milligan: I sympathise with those who have pressed home the need for the House to have greater information. We have waited a long time for this White Paper—it was first promised in December last year.
      The delay has been extremely fruitful, however. At the time, the proposal that appeared to be circulating in the Government was to begin by selling off InterCity. That would have been a bad mistake. First, it would not have promoted competition. Whoever had bought the company would not want to open up lines to competition from rivals. Secondly, it would have been horrendously complicated. British Rail calculated that 30,000 separate issues would have to be included in the contract between InterCity and other operators if the scheme was to work.
      The plan that now appears to be circulating in the Government, to allow franchising, is a much more practical way to improve rail services, which is what privatisation should be about.
      10.15 pm
      Experience in Sweden, a country which Opposition Members have long admired, shows that franchising has been extremely successful. A bus company in the south of Sweden known as BK-Train won the franchise for 400 kilometers against competition from Swedish Rail. The result after the first year has been a halving of fares, a 40 per cent. increase in use and 95 per cent. of the trains arriving on time. Some of the modifications that the company has introduced have been copied by Swedish railways elsewhere on the network. Franchising and a limited introduction of competition are a practical way to improve rail services, which is why the delay in the White Paper has been a good development.
      I represent a railway constituency in which more than 2,000 people work in the industry, so I make a plea to the Minister not to rush any decision about the future of British Rail Maintenance Ltd., in Eastleigh, which maintains most of the trains in the southern region and employs almost 1,800 of the 2,000 people to whom I have referred. BRML is a successful part of British Rail and a semi-independent company. It repaired most of the motors damaged by the wrong type of snow recently; fortunately those motors got the right sort of maintenance in Eastleigh. The company has been profitable and increasingly efficient and is taking more steps towards efficiency.
      BRML has been hampered, however, by not having the right to compete equally with other companies. It does not, for instance, have the right to compete for contracts to maintain trains north of the river. Apparently the British Rail Board has been trying to reduce its ability to compete with private companies on repairing electric

      673
      traction motors. It cannot compete effectively with depots in Network SouthEast. The tendency is to give work to those depots first and afterwards to BRML.
      Before the Minister makes any decisions on BRML's future, I hope that he will consult its managers and its work force. I am delighted that he has accepted an invitation to come and visit the works and do just that. I hope that he will not rush his decision, because in this matter consideration will lead to a better decision than any attempt to rush one through.
      Mr. Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) on the comprehensive shopping list that he presented to the Minister. If he elicits a better response from him than we have had, we will be worthy of double congratulations. Many of his points, particularly about the White Paper, were pertinent.
      The hon. Gentleman asked about taxation policies and transport. Does he really need a White Paper to find out what the Government's transport taxation policies are? They are very simple: spend as much public money as possible—hundreds of millions of pounds—on widening the M25, and, at least in the view of the former Secretary of State, now Lord Parkinson, then abolish the subsidy for Network SouthEast by 1992. That was his original intention, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) played a prominent role in opposing it. Perhaps he thinks it just as well that Lord Parkinson left the Department of Transport as soon as he did.
      A toll road has been proposed for the west midlands, yet we cannot get the go-ahead to spend the comparatively small amounts of money necessary for the Snow Hill railway line. The hon. Member for Christchurch effectively put across points such as these.
      We need a White Paper to find out exactly what is in the Government's mind. We suspect that, even now, a White Paper is being drafted at the Treasury and that its purpose will be to save even more public money on the railways. It will not augur well for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks or his constituents, or for the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), whom I congratulate on his speech.
      A continuation of the Government's taxation policy for transport is bad for rail users and for those who maintain or operate the system. I hope that the Minister will tell us, if he knows, what is in the White Paper or that he will say as much as possible to satisfy his hon. Friends. We need to know whether the railways' capital requirements and revenue support needs will for once be met, and we should like to hear about negotiations between the Department and the Treasury to bring that happy situation about.
      Mr. Freeman: Before dealing with the amendment, I shall deal with the important point raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but I am sure that he will shortly return. He asked whether we have the correct sequence for the introduction of the Paving Bill and the White Paper on the future of British Rail. That issue is highly relevant to the amendment. I think that we have the sequence right, because the Paving Bill gives British Rail and British Coal the power to hire consultants and extra staff to consider, in due course, our proposals for the introduction of private sector capital into both industries. I am sure that the House wants the reasoned opinions and advice of both those corporations, because they will enable
      674
      hon. Members to reach a conclusion about the main legislation for British Rail which we intend to introduce later this autumn.
      British Rail and British Coal have no power to introduce any element of privatisation until the main legislation has been passed by Parliament. There is no prospect of franchising commencing until the main legislation has been passed. We must first give BR and British Coal the power to consider our proposals. They will then advise not only us, but, through the Government, the House.
      Mr. Dobson: Will the advice to BR and British Coal and their advice in response to Government proposals be made available to hon. Members?
      Mr. Freeman: I do not speak for British Coal, British Rail or the Opposition. I have assured the House that, as the Minister responsible for British Rail on a day-to-day basis, I will ensure that the House is properly informed of BR's views. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy has heard the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Mackinlay rose——
      Mr. Freeman: I have only a few minutes, but if the hon. Gentleman finds that I have not covered his questions, I shall give way towards the end of my reply.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked for specific assurances which I am happy to give. He asked for a categorical assurance that the White Paper would be published before Royal Assent to the Paving Bill. I give him that assurance and hope that that will ensure the sequence that we debated at length in Committee so that the work that British Rail will entrust to its advisers, consultants and extra staff, will have the White Paper as a point of reference.
      There may be opportunity in Parliament for comment on the White Paper before Royal Assent, although the debate on the Paving Bill is probably not the right legislative peg upon which to hang a detailed debate. The House may need to have fuller consideration of the White Paper, but the timing of a debate and whether there is one is not a matter for me. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured on that point. I can confirm our intention to publish the White Paper before the House rises for the summer recess.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Christchurch raised two key points. The first concerns what kind of railway we want to see in the last decade of the 20th century. We want an expanding railway, and one that has been helped by the Government. In the past two financial years, we have increased by £1,000 million the resources available to British Rail. Thank goodness, we did not have a national transportation plan setting out precisely, and no more, what funds should be available to British Rail. The Government responded quickly and promptly, in the face of the recession, to maintain the investment programme of British Rail and to increase the investment programme of London Transport, particularly the London Underground part.
      We want to see more choice and responsibility introduced into British Rail and to turn the clock back beyond 70 years, to when different companies offered different services, because we believe that choice is

      675
      essential. We want an efficient industry, and the forces of the private sector, including BRML, may well improve productivity of those parts of British Rail.
      The transfer of freight and passengers on to rail is an important subject and one which would have had to be addressed whether or not we were proposing privatisation. I can confirm that, within the Department of Transport, we are giving serious consideration to the steps that would be needed to ensure that, when decisions are taken on hauling freight, they are taken on the basis of a level playing field in terms of charging and the fiscal regime.
      I was asked about what is in the White Paper. I put myself firmly in the school of pragmatists within the Tory party and I want to ensure that our proposals are workable. I believe that this White Paper is rather like a Stilton cheese—[Interruption] I am glad that mirth is breaking out on the Opposition Benches, but perhaps Labour Members will bear with me as I finish my speech.
      The White Paper will show that we have workable policies for introducing the private sector into British Rail. We are proposing that BR should have responsibility for running the track and the signalling, through what will become a track authority. There will be a regulator responsible for ensuring fair competition and access to the rail network on the basis of charges to the track authority. We want a privatised rail freight system, and we want to franchise as much as possible of the passenger service, as fast as possible. We are very much in the hands of the private sector, hut, already, informal conversations have shown that the private sector thinks that that policy will work. By the end of this Parliament, a significant proportion of passenger services will be run under franchises.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks asked me about subsidy. I can confirm that, for both Network SouthEast and the regional railway system, a subsidising regime will continue through the passenger service obligation grant, which will be paid to those who operate railway services whether in the public or the private sector.
      Mr. Adley: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on this point. Can he confirm that my understanding of what the Minister said early this afternoon is as I put it to him? That is that British Rail, as my hon. Friend has just said, will be responsible for all the track, all the signalling and the safety of passengers, whoever is running the trains, if anybody else does run them.
      Mr. Freeman: I am happy to conclude my remarks by discussing safety, which is extremely important. I confirm what my hon. Friend said. The Health and Safety Executive will set safety standards and monitor them. But the track authority will be responsible, on a day-to-day basis, for all safety issues on the track. That makes sense. I believe that the private sector, whether operating freight services or franchised passenger services, would want it, and that the travelling public would want it.
      I hope that on the basis of those remarks my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his generous answers to the points that I made. Obviously there will be a great deal more to be said when the White
      676
      Paper is published. On the basis of the assurances that my hon. Friend has given me tonight, I am perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in line 29, after 'corporate', insert 'or regulatory body.'.
      I do not wish to detain the House. Indeed, some of this is a continuation of, or arises out of, a debate that we have just had. However, it would be helpful if Ministers were able to give us a little more information as to how they envisage the privatised coal and rail sectors being regulated. They have not made this at all clear. Indeed, as the debate on rail services has continued, it has become clear that full-blown privatisation is probably not now on the cards at all.
      What we are talking about is the majority of services continuing to be run by the state rail undertaking, and some of the services being franchised. One question that arises immediately is whether or not the track authority will be separate from British Rail as an operator, or whether British Rail will serve in a double capacity. If the Minister were to give some information about that, it would help to clarify forward thinking.
      One point that was made when I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson)—it is a matter for concern—related to how British Rail will relate to the track authority, to the regulator and to the other companies operating. Clearly, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) pointed out, if British Rail were to issue the franchises, it would not he likely to do so on terms good for competition, just as British Gas has not been terribly co-operative in giving other people access to the pipelines.
      If the figures that we expect to get from British Rail tomorrow are correct-showing that the railways lost £150 million, but Network SouthEast lost £250 million; in other words, that the rest of the network, grossed up, made a profit—many concerns will arise, and they will have to be addressed.
      The first is one that I accept—that people in London and the south-east will clearly be concerned that vital electric services are loss makers, and that they may be put at risk, either because the franchising will result in cherry picking that might increase the loss to British Rail, or because the support or subsidy is inadequate to maintain both service and forward investment. But, clearly, the rest of the United Kingdom will be concerned that the subsidising of Network SouthEast may be at the expense of services elsewhere.
      As I represent a north of Scotland constituency I do not have to tell the Minister that we are extremely concerned about the constant publication, in the Scottish papers, of maps that show the future rail network finishing at Edinburgh and Glasgow, with no line serving the north of Scotland. We are unable to get any commitment to the electrification of the east coast main line.
      I put a full stop at that point, because Ministers are in the habit of suggesting that the east coast main line has been electrified. At the risk of boring the House, I repeat that it has been electrified to Edinburgh. The east coast main line always used to run to Aberdeen, and those of us who are served by Aberdeen insist that it should continue to do so. The lack of electrification is an extremely worrying development.

      677
      Similarly, the poor quality of the investment in the services to the north, in terms of rolling stock and the development of services, gives us considerable concern. We need to know how British Rail and the track authority will operate, and how they will relate to each other. For example, it seems very unlikely that there will be a huge queue of people wanting to take up the franchise to operate a service between Aberdeen and Inverness.
      Let me be quite clear: if somebody comes forward and is willing to do it, and believes that he can do it as an attractive proposition and profitably, I will have no objection whatever, just as I had no objection to the Stagecoach experiment from Aberdeen providing seating accommodation on the trains to the south.
      What will happen, however, if no organisation is interested in providing the service, and British Rail feels that it is under pressure to cut loss-making services so that it can compete elsewhere in the network? That is an example of problems that are giving cause for concern. The sooner that we can obtain clarification from the Government of the exact role of the regulator in parcelling out services, including subsidised services, and maintaining services, the better will we be reassured.
      was glad that the Minister was able to say that the White Paper will be published before the House rises for the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to know that I think that that is the right sequence of events I say that because I think that the debate has helped to head off some of the more ideological flights of fantasy and to draw out some real concerns. I hope that those concerns will help to shape future debates on the basis that full-blown privatisation of the rail network—it would seem that the Government have not been able to produce a viable scheme—is not a serious proposition.
      The Government say that they intend to have a rail regulator, but they have not explained how their concept will operate. They left us with a complete blank when we considered the regulation of the coal industry. We considered licensing in Committee, and the Minister said that that was something that he might consider. If there is to be licensing, however, there must be a licensing authority, whether it is a Government Department, a Crown agency, a regulator or whatever.
      There may be a logical continuation for British Coal as the regulator for the coal industry even if it is not to be the operator of pits. The Minister knows that I am not happy with the idea of British Coal, in the private sector, being the operator of pits and the licensee of private pits. I do not understand how such a concept can square with the aspiration of genuine competition and choice. It means that one operator will have a clear advantage over any competitor.
      It is interesting that references have been made to the Health and Safety Executive while discussing the details of safety in both the coal and rail industries. It may be appropriate for the HSE to have a continuing role and for there to be a specific safety responsibility for the regulators and the operators in both the coal industry and the rail network. It is noteworthy that the Minister said earlier that we cannot talk about safety too much or in too much detail.
      We must not put responsibility for ensuring safety in too many places. The danger of separating responsibilities
      678
      is that someone will think that an element of safety is somebody else's responsibility. Surely every operator must have accountability for safety to the HSE and to whoever issues the operating licence. The right to remove or alter the licence could be a factor in determining safe operation.
      If franchising is to be the direction of access to private operators to the rail network, who will set the terms of the franchises? Will they be set by the track authority or an independent body? It is clear that they cannot be set by British Rail if BR is itself an operator, albeit the major operator.
      If British Rail is to continue as an operating body, to whom is it likely to be accountable in future? At present, BR is accountable to the Secretary of State for Transport, and through him or her to the House. If BR is to continue as a public sector body, will that relationship continue, or will BR be accountable through the regulator or the traffic authority? What will be its accountability? The Minister must understand that the relationship is being changed even though the details are not apparent. Some clarification would be appropriate.
      This is the Government's sixth major privatisation. They have all been different. I do not complain about that—they have properly been different, in the sense that different industries require different approaches. It is sad, however, that we have not always learnt the lessons of the preceding privatisation, and that every new regulator had to embark on a new learning curve. The embarrassment suffered over the past two weeks by OFFER, the electricity regulator, because of the scale of the profits made by that industry, has been apparent. The concentration of ownership in the generating sector needs to be further addressed.
      I accept that one cannot apply the techniques used in the privatisation of gas or electricity to those of British Coal and British Rail. However, after 13 years, the Government should have some coherent idea of whether there will be a regulator, and the broad nature of his relationship with the overall track and licensing authorities, and with those operating in the industry.
      The Government said that there will be a regulator for rail, but they have not explained how that regulator will operate or relate. They have not even said whether there will be a regulator for coal. It is high time they did. Given that we may not get a coal White Paper before the summer recess, regulation is essential. Although competition may help to provide some discipline, which is clearly a Government objective, it will not wholly meet the bill. There will clearly be a need to ensure that the industry is properly accountable.
      Mr. Eggar: I hope that I can go some way to helping the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). A number of his detailed questions will be answered in the rail White Paper, which will be published before the House rises for the summer recess. It will include a proposal to establish a rail regulator, which will be separate from British Rail and therefore—as other regulators—ultimately responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
      The regulatory and franchising functions to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be separated from British Rail—but for more details, the hon. Gentleman will have to await the best-selling White Paper.
      As to a regulator for coal, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the situation there is very different. It is not a

      679
      question of a classic regulatory arrangement whereby an outside individual or agency is charged with examining rates of return, prices, and so on. The sense in which the hon. Gentleman uses the word "regulator" relates to his concept of a licensing authority, which he would probably expect to examine such questions as the allocation of deep coal-bearing land, or land otherwise of interest to independent operators.
      I do not want to discuss current thinking because the consultation period finished only a week ago. We received a number of detailed responses, particularly on some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. It would not be appropriate to make up our minds in advance of considering those consultation papers—not all of which I have yet been able to read.
      The hon. Gentleman made the good point that it is important for the operator of coal mining activities to have a separate function from that of the licensing authority. It is clear that the roles need to be separated, although I am not sure exactly how that is to be done.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In the event of a competitive bid for a licence, whether it is for a single pit or for a group of pits—I understand that in Scotland, for instance, there may well be an NUM bid, private sector bids and a bid from a miners' consortium—who will make the ultimate decision? Will it be the Secretary of State, or will the decision-making be delegated?
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Eggar: That, I think, is a separate issue. I have no doubt that, if it were decided that the assets of mines were to be sold on a regional basis in the form of a trade sale—which is presumably what the hon. Gentleman is postulating—responsibility would ultimately lie with the Secretary of State. If assets subsequently remained to be disposed of, there might well be a need for another entity to take charge, at arm's length from the Secretary of State. We have not made any decisions; we are evaluating the consultation responses. Such questions, however, must clearly be answered, and they will be answered before the final Bill is presented.
      Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made several valid points about profitability and the involvements on offer. Did not capital investment in the electricity supply industry give very reasonable returns, and would not investment in the coal and rail industries also give reasonable returns?
      Mr. Eggar: I agree that the hon. Gentleman's point about the profitability of electricity companies should not go unanswered, but I am not sure that this is the forum in which to answer it.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I had no intention of pressing this matter, although I thought it important for us to debate it. The Minister has responded constructively. In a way, the debate is premature; on the other hand, it is better for us to have a debate before the Government have formulated all their ideas.
      I am grateful to the Minister on two counts. First, he made it clear that he recognised that the establishment of some form of licensing authority was the way forward for the coal industry. It is encouraging to learn that that is the Government's view; it has a certain logic, and such an arrangement could be operated flexibly.
      680
      I am still concerned about the lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities in the rail sector. As the Minister says, however, we shall have to wait for the already long-awaited White Paper. If it does not deal with the issue, I shall write to the Minister for Public Transport to seek further clarification.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      10.48 pm
      Mr. Snape: We have had quite a long debate, preceded by a comprehensive Committee stage, on a Bill which—as we have said from the outset—is fairly short in substance.
      I very much doubt whether the concerns of my hon. Friends who have spoken so eloquently and knowledgeably about conditions in the coal mining industry have been answered satisfactorily at any stage. The fact is that pensioners in the industry have no security, and there has been very little commitment on safety. Indeed, secrecy rather than safety seems to be the Government's motto for the future.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) dealt extensively with the problems in the industry. I hope that my hon. Friends who spoke so eloquently will forgive me if I turn from the importance of the coal industry to a subject which I am sure they will agree is just as important—the future needs of the railways.
      The Government have failed to answer the central question about the need of the railways for finance. For 13 years the Government have starved British Rail of capital investment. No matter what Ministers say or how they try to mislead the House, the Government have cut revenue support for the railway industry to the minimum and have controlled British Rail's spending plans, with civil servants continuously double guessing professional railway men. They have invested heavily, and continue to do so, in the road network, which is free at the point of use, and have ignored the competitive effect of that investment on the railway industry.
      For many years the Government have encouraged the use of company cars, now—uniquely in Great Britain—seen as an automatic perk for the better-paid. They have tolerated high road casualty levels and have made little attempt to enforce safety standards, particularly for heavy lorries. Private-sector interest has been shown by companies such as Stagecoach and Virgin. It is based on leasing existing trains from British Rail rather than on investment in new trains. It is a question of new colours rather than new coaches.
      The latest proposals, specious as they are, have had an enormous impact on the already declining morale of British Rail's work force. What is there in the Bill to encourage British Rail's work force or the coalminers to respond to the new challenges that they face? What will happen to their jobs, their pensions, their travel facilities? Ministers appear, apparently, not to know. Who will maintain the recruitment and training programmes in both industries and, just as important, who will pay for them? When will the orchestrated media campaign—orchestrated by Treasury Ministers—against British Rail, with its damaging effects on morale, end?

      681
      On 6 April this year British Rail completed its most fundamental reoganisation since nationalisation. It was entitled "Organising for Quality." It was designed, so BR management said, to focus on customers' needs—though I notice that they are now passengers again—and to deliver the quality standards required. Less than three months after its completion, the Government's proposals in the Bill require yet another upheaval for railway staff, with the separation of infrastructure from train operation and the establishment of franchise areas. Where is the efficiency in that, and how much more managment and staff time is to be wasted on another reorganisation rather than on operating and running the railway industry?
      We have been this way before on many previous occasions. I remind the ideologues in the Conservative party that private ownership of the railway industry is nothing new. The grouping of more than 100 railway companies on a geographical basis in 1923 took place because of the virtual bankruptcy of many of those private companies. The Prime Minister talks about the joys of the brass buttons and the chocolate and cream. He must have been a child prodigy with a vengeance. He is the same age as I am, and I was six when the railway industry was nationalised. I was no child prodigy, I must say, before Conservative Members intervene. However, the Prime Minister talks nostalgically about the great days of the chocolate and cream. That grouping in 1923 lasted for less than 30 years and did not stave off bankruptcy for many of the privately owned railway companies.
      In a book well known to railway buffs—"British Railways 1948 to 1973"—its author, T. R. Gourvish, said:
      "The financial state of the railways on the eve of nationalisation was worse than it had been in the difficult years of the late 1930s … Starved of investment and hampered by the enormous backlog of repairs and renewals, the industry could do no more than offer a product much inferior to that of pre-war days."
      That is the experience of private ownership of the railway industry over the years. Privatisation will he inefficient and wasteful. In the case of the mines in particular, it could—as it was in the past—be positively dangerous.
      We shall oppose the Bill because we think that it is a bad Bill. We shall oppose the succeeding and detailed legislation tooth and nail.
      10.54 pm
      Mr. Barnes: This is a sad Bill and it has been a rather sad day. Before 10.9 pm, only one Conservative Back Bencher—the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley)—had made a speech and he is generally critical of the proposals to privatise railways. No Conservative Members have defended the Bill.
      Mr. Milligan rose——
      Mr. Barnes: Not before 10.9 pm.
      For the bulk of the day, we have been discussing pensions and safety; only Labour Members, the Minister and the hon. Member for Christchurch have spoken. Conservative Members have been silent about a matter of considerable importance.
      On Second Reading, the speeches that we heard from Conservative Members tended to be maiden speeches.
      682
      Some parts of those maiden speeches may have been about the coal industry and British Rail, but generally maiden speeches follow a pattern——
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The speeches would not have been in order if they had not covered the Bill.
      Mr. Barnes: They were in order, but they followed the pattern that maiden speeches generally take. Conservative Members did not deal with the measure before them. They seemed to miss three of their hon. Friends who previously spoke in debates on the coal industry because we won three good victories in Nottingham and got rid of them.
      The Bill is a paving measure. It is a peculiar paving measure, because one would expect it not to give the detail of later measures but to say something about the path down which we are going. Some of the speeches that have been made on pensions show that that is not so, that nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in and that we do not know what will emerge.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was concerned about the railway police, but no idea was given of the role that they will play.
      Safety is of the greatest importance to the railway and coal industries, yet it has not been mentioned. Points have been made about the future role of passenger transport executives and regulators. Will there be an Ofrail, as we have had Ofgas?
      Privatisation is being pushed on to rail and mining communities, where collectivism, association, comradeship and working together have been considerably to the fore. The pattern might have changed in some areas and pits may be more cosmopolitan than they used to be, but they are based solidly on communities that work together. Even this Government should worry about introducing into those areas the principles of competition, possessive individualism, fighting one's own corner or entrepreneurial values. They should not simply be concerned about pushing the ideological line that they have followed with electricity and gas privatisation.
      It is also sad that more and more matters are being removed from parliamentary scrutiny. The Department of Energy has already disappeared, which meant that the Select Committee on Energy also disappeared. In future, questions on rail and coal, which would have been dealt with during Question Time, will be pushed to one side. We have seen that happen with agency agreements, and more and more issues are removed from the Floor of the House.
      A consequence of previous privatisations—the same will be true of the Bill—is that little action is taken by the management of the industries involved to defend public provision. The Opposition should be worried about why there was the necessary commitment among the work force but not among the management. The management looked for the opportunities that were availabe under the new entrepreneurship.
      As the Government have not prepared a White Paper or the necessary paving Bill, there is still time for them to decide to drop the measure, or are we to wait for a White Paper which might be like a chapter in a book about football by Len Shackleton. The chapter dealt with what the average director knew about football—it was a blank sheet. There is a danger that we shall have a White Paper

      683
      which will be as useful as a blank sheet. We want clear information before we can even contemplate allowing the measure to proceed.
      11.1 pm
      Mr. Cryer: Someone shouted that I have just arrived. I have been on the telephone, but I have attended the debate from the early evening arid have already participated. I should not have to give that explanation.
      The House is a place to debate issues, and it is a measure of the Government's attitude that Conservative Back Benchers want to finish the debate, push the paving Bill through and get another slot in the wrecking of British Rail. That is what the Bill means——
      Mr. Eggar indicated dissent.
      Mr. Cryer: The Minister shakes his head, but he should talk to the Minister for Public Transport. The Bill has caused mayhem with the Leeds-Bradford electrification proposals. The passenger transport authority has negotiated with the best faith and the greatest patience, but the Royal Bank of Scotland refused to proceed with leasing because it was critical of the privatisation proposals. It was not prepared to accept that it would be as safe to lease from a private organisation as it would from a public organisation such as the PTA.
      The Bill should be withdrawn. It has caused damage, wasted time and led to extra negotiations and difficulties for a perfectly sensible electrification proposal which the Government want. It will also throw into jeopardy a national system of rail transport, which has been built over many years. The national rail system did not arise by chance. There were clearing houses between the private companies, and there will have to be again if there is a franchising operation to ensure that various franchised services work in conjunction rather than against each other. Co-operation is needed for a decent transport service.
      The idea of choice is absolutely ludicrous. Several trains cannot leave a station at 10.30 am, especially if they are going in opposite directions, because that would be unsafe. When the Stockton-Darlington first operated in 1825, the idea was that there could he many users of the track. The reason that that was stopped was that the system posed a danger to life and limb.
      The Bill is going backwards, not forwards. We shall find that the railway network, instead of encouraging passengers, will put people off by its complexity and uncertainty. Whatever the Minister says, the Bill has cast uncertainty over the railway network, over the management and over the work force who are, by and large, highly dedicated and want to give a decent public service. The Bill will not help and the best thing that the House could do with it is to tear it up.
      Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order—it is certainly bad manners—for junior Ministers and hon. Members to chatter to people who are in the Gallery?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The people concerned are riot in part of the Chamber. They are therefore outside the Chamber. However, I agree that there is too much noise. We should be able to hear hon. Members.
      11.5 pm
      Mr. Freeman: We have had extensive debate on the paving Bill and, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, the Bill has been justified and should now pass to another place. Our proposals for the privatisation of British Coal and the introduction of private-sector capital into British Rail will be in the best interests of the work force, of the passengers and of the customers of British Coal. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
      The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 216.

      Division No. 44]

      [11.05 pm

      AYES

      Adley, Robert

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Day, Stephen

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Alexander, Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Dicks, Terry

      Amess, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ancram, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dover, Den

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Eggar, Tim

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Elletson, Harold

      Bates, Michael

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Evennett, David

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Faber, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Booth, Hartley

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Forman, Nigel

      Bowis, John

      Forth, Eric

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Brazier, Julian

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      French, Douglas

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Fry, Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gale, Roger

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gallie, Phil

      Burns, Simon

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Burt, Alistair

      Garnier, Edward

      Butcher, John

      Gill, Christopher

      Butler, Peter

      Gillan, Ms Cheryl

      Butterfill, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gorst, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Chaplin, Mrs Judith

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hague, William

      Clappison, James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hannam, Sir John

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Colvin, Michael

      Harris, David

      Congdon, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Conway, Derek

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hawkins, Nicholas

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cormack, Patrick

      Heald, Oliver

      Couchman, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Cran, James

      Hendry, Charles

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

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hicks, Robert

      685

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Redwood, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Horam, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

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

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jack, Michael

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sackville, Tom

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

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Shersby, Michael

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lawrencè, Sir Ivan

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Legg, Barry

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Spring, Richard

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Sproat, Iain

      Lidington, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lightbown, David

      Stephen, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Stewart, Allan

      Lord, Michael

      Streeter, Gary

      Luff, Peter

      Sumberg, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Sweeney, Walter

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sykes, John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maclean, David

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Malone, Gerald

      Thomason, Roy

      Mans, Keith

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Marland, Paul

      Thurnham, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

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

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Tracey, Richard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Trend, Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Trotter, Neville

      Milligan, Stephen

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mills, Iain

      Tyler, Paul

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Moate, Roger

      Walden, George

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Wallace, James

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Waller, Gary

      Needham, Richard

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Whitney, Ray

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Whittingdale, John

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Norris, Steve

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Wilkinson, John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Willetts, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Page, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Paice, James

      Wolfson, Mark

      Patnick, Irvine

      Wood, Timothy

      Pawsey, James

      Yeo, Tim

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Mr. Tim Boswell.

      686

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Godsiff, Roger

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Allen, Graham

      Graham, Thomas

      Alton, David

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Ashton, Joe

      Grocott, Bruce

      Austin-Walker, John

      Gunnell, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Hain, Peter

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hall, Mike

      Bell, Stuart

      Hanson, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Heppell, John

      Benton, Joe

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Hinchliffe, David

      Berry, Roger

      Hood, Jimmy

      Betts, Clive

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Hoyle, Doug

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bradley, Keith

      Hutton, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

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

      Jamieson, David

      Burden, Richard

      Janner, Greville

      Byers, Stephen

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Caborn, Richard

      Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

      Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

      Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Cann, James

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Keen, Alan

      Clapham, Michael

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

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Khabra, Piara

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Leighton, Ron

      Clelland, David

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Lewis, Terry

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Livingstone, Ken

      Cohen, Harry

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Connarty, Michael

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      McAllion, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McCartney, Ian

      Cousins, Jim

      MacDonald, Calum

      Cryer, Bob

      McKelvey, William

      Cummings, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      McLeish, Henry

      Dalyell, Tarn

      McMaster, Gordon

      Darling, Alistair

      McNamara, Kevin

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      McWilliam, John

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Madden, Max

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Mahon, Alice

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

      Mandelson, Peter

      Denham, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Dewar, Donald

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dixon, Don

      Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

      Dobson, Frank

      Martlew, Eric

      Donohoe, Brian

      Maxton, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Meale, Alan

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Milburn, Alan

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Miller, Andrew

      Enright, Derek

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Etherington, William

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Fatchett, Derek

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

      Mudie, George

      Foulkes, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Fyfe, Maria

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Galbraith, Sam

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Galloway, George

      O'Hara, Edward

      George, Bruce

      Olner, William

      Gerrard, Neil

      O'Neill, Martin

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      687

      Pendry, Tom

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Snape, Peter

      Pike, Peter L.

      Soley, Clive

      Pope, Greg

      Spearing, Nigel

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Spellar, John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Stevenson, George

      Purchase, Ken

      Stott, Roger

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Strang, Gavin

      Randall, Stuart

      Straw, Jack

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Redmond, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Reid, Dr John

      Turner, Dennis

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Vaz, Keith

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Roche, Ms Barbara

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rogers, Allan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rooker, Jeff

      Watson, Mike

      Rooney, Terry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Winnick, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wise, Audrey

      Sheerman, Barry

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wray, Jimmy

      Short, Clare

      Wright, Tony

      Simpson, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Ken Eastham and Mr Thomas McAvoy.

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

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
      LICENSING (NORTHERN IRELAND)
      That the draft Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

      CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)
      That the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
      That the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (9) (European Standing Committees.).
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      MOTOR VEHICLES (NOISE)
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7857/91. relating to noise limits for motor vehicles; and supports the Government in its objectives of seeking the strictest possible limits consistent with technological capability and timing.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

  Travellers
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Kirkhope.]
  11.18 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: Many of my hon. Friends have expressed interest in joining in the debate. They have included my hon. Friends the Members for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin), for Worcester (Mr. Luff), for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans). In the short time that is allocated to me, it will be impossible to accommodate all or perhaps any of my hon. Friends who may wish to intervene. However, the House will wish to note their interest and that of my other hon. Friends. It certainly suggests the need for a full debate in the near future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  I first raised the subject of travellers in the House some 12 years ago, in 1980, again on a motion for the Adjournment. The invasion that took place at Castlemorton common in my constituency, on Friday 22 May, has prompted me to do so again. On that day, new age travellers, ravers and drugs racketeers arrived at a strength of two motorised army divisions, complete with several massed bands and, above all, a highly sophisticated command and signals system. However, they failed to bring latrines.
  The numbers, speed and efficiency with which they arrived—amounting at one time to as many as 30,000 people—combined to terrorise the local community to the extent that some residents had to undergo psychiatric treatment in the days that followed.
  Such an incident must never happen again, in my constituency or elsewhere. We need tighter laws, especially to give banning powers to the police; a Cabinet Committee to bring responsible Departments together; quicker and more co-ordinated police action; and a more effective application of existing policies by national and local authorities. The main Acts of Parliament that govern the issue are the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Public Order Act 1986. A certain amount of case law also arises, mainly from the miners' strikes of the 1980s.
  There is therefore the problem that at least three Departments of State are directly involved in administering the relevant legislation: the Department of the Environment; the Home Office; and the Lord Chancellor's Office. Immediate steps must be taken to co-ordinate those Departments' activities, preferably through the formation of a special Cabinet Committee.
  The Public Order Act focuses, in this context, on the law of trespass. Section 39 empowers to senior police officers to direct trespassers to leave land on which more than 12 vehicles have been brought or where there has been threatening or abusive behaviour. That would be all very well, except for the practical problem that, once 20,000 people—invariably accompanied by young children—have committed the trespass, it would require not an army but the Army of at least 100,000 persons to get them off.
  The problem of mass gatherings must be dealt with before they take place. Section 39 of the Public Order Act

  689
  could be strengthened to that effect—for instance, by empowering the police to prevent further trespass where a direction to leave has already been given. But the real necessity is that chief constables should be given discretionary powers to ban such gatherings altogether if they decide that they are a threat to public order, in precisely the same way as section 13 of the 1986 Act empowers chief constables to ban public processions. Chief constables may wish to ban all gatherings that have not received an appropriate licence from the local authority.
  In parenthesis, even where a licence has been granted, as at Glastonbury last weekend, there is a great problem of crowd control when such large numbers are involved. That is especially true when the crowd starts to disperse, as the police of Devon are finding out at this very moment.
  The police argue that, to be effective, a banning power requires early intelligence about the forthcoming event. I think that that is only partly true. A banning order would put off the majority of the normally law-abiding, city-based partygoers. As they provide the bulk of the numbers, not to mention the noise, their absence would make the policing task much easier. There is no doubt, however, that police intelligence and hence their response capability must be greatly improved.
  This can be brought about only if there is a great deal more co-operation and co-ordination between police forces. What happens now can almost be characterised as a game of pass the parcel between the forces. Stories—many of them no doubt apocryphal—abound about the police helping to fill up vehicles with petrol in order to get them across their borders and into the territory of another police force. Certainly a blind eye is turned to untaxed vehicles heading in the right direction—that is to say, out of territory.
  There remains the wider issue of the extent to which, in a free society, people should be allowed or presented with the opportunity to lead a nomadic life, and the Caravan Sites Act attempts to deal with just that matter, with a core policy of providing permanent and transit sites for gipsies. A major defect of the Act—I hope that it will be dealt with in the review that the Government propose to undertake in line with their commitment to one in the manifesto—lies in the extremely wide definition of gipsies as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life".
  That has meant, as I discovered when I was the Minister responsible for the matter, that the demand for provided places continually outstrips supply targets.
  The police powers triggered by designation under the terms of the Act have in most parts of the country become a mirage. We therefore need a much tighter definition of "gipsy" as someone whose cultural heritage and economic history provide a clear justification for being on the move. With a tighter definition of "gipsy", it would be easier for local authorities to meet their designation targets swiftly, and once designation has been achieved, the police must move decisively against those who camp illegally on other people's land.
  It is one thing under the 1968 Act to grant special dispensation—there are many such for gipsies—to those who have a deep-rooted cultural and economic tradition of travelling. It is quite another to provide mobile social security services and to waive the law of trespass for
  690
  anyone who decides to pick up sticks and shrug off the responsibilities that are the flipside of the rights of individuals provided by a civilised society.
  Freedom of choice includes without doubt the right to choose one's life style—until it becomes a threat to the life style of the majority. The threat posed by new age travellers and hippies is to private property and the rule of law. Freedom without law can become anarchy, and the antidote of anarchy is often dictatorship.
  It is time the Government acted with a greater sense of urgency and focus against the abuse of property rights and the threat to law posed by illegal encampments on a small and a large scale. The problem, which has been with us for many years, has now reached boiling point. If it is allowed to persist, vigilante groups will spring up and take matters into their own hands; and that way lie anarchy and chaos, not least for the gipsies themselves.
  11.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on his success in raising this important issue. I am mindful of the fact that this must be one of the best attended Adjournment debates for some time. A number of my hon. Friends who are present have experience of problems with new age travellers and ravers, and they will no doubt have taken note of what my hon. Friend said. They may also want to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the chance of a full debate on this subject in due course.
  My hon. Friend is well qualified to speak on this subject because, as he reminded the House, he was Minister of State, Department of the Environment from, I think, January 1990 to November 1990. I appreciate what he says about the need for tighter laws and I shall tell the House about the existing powers and the emphasis that should be placed on co-ordination.
  I agree that co-ordination between police forces could be improved, and that such improvement is important in dealing with people on the move. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments about co-ordination through a Cabinet Committee are passed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend's comments about social security will no doubt be noted by my right hon. and hon. Friends in that Department. Trespass always gives rise to strong feelings.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: The Minister moved quickly over the issue of social security. Does he agree that that is the nub of the matter in so far as the life style of the new age travellers is sustained by what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) called mobile social security? Regulations enable such people to pick up social security payments anywhere in the country. Time and again, lay-bys in my constituency are full of new age travellers who are unable to move on because they have not got their girocheques. Can the Minister tell us more about the liaison between his Department and the Department of Social Security, because such liaison will enable us to grasp the nettle?
  Mr. Wardle: As a result of what my hon. Friend has said, he can be assured that the issue will be raised with the Department of Social Security. I agree that the present system is an inducement and should be closely examined.

  691
  The problems that we are debating arise from the combination of ravers and new age travellers, and I should like to address the aspects of the problem that concern, first and foremost, the Home Office. However, I shall touch on the Department of the Environment.
  During the summer travelling season, the incidence of unlawful occupation causes great distress to local communities and landowners. I assure the House that the Government are firmly committed to tackling the nuisance of illegal encampments in the most effective manner. The events in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South at Castlemorton common over the May bank holiday were exceptional by any standards. My other hon. Friends who are present for the debate have had similar experiences, but this was an exceptional and deeply unpleasant weekend. My hon. Friend spoke with deep feeling about the unpleasant scenes that unfolded in what is normally a beautiful part of rural England.
  I condemn the lawlessness and lack of common decency shown by some of those who camped on Castlemorton common. It is unacceptable for people to try to put themselves beyond the reach of the law by acting together in huge numbers. There is no excuse for the abandonment of common decency, and I have every sympathy with those whose normally peaceful life was so rudely disrupted.
  No one, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, would deny that people have a right to lead a nomadic life if they so choose, but it is quite intolerable for people to behave in contravention of the law and with complete disregard for the rights of others. Faced with these events, my hon. Friend is right to ask what else the police can do, to what degree further co-ordination would help deal with the problem, and whether new powers should be made available to the police.
  Mass gatherings present particular problems. The difficulty faced by the police when dealing with mass invasions such as that at Castlemorton common is not so much what powers they have as how to apply them—as I think my hon. Friend has recognised. The problem is as much logical as legal. The most effective measures that the police can take to deal with new age travellers are preventive. They can make sure that their intelligence gathering is good and that liaison with neighbouring forces and local authorities is close. If the police can monitor the movements of travellers, measures can be taken to try to ensure that the numbers do not build up in any one locality to unmanageable proportions.
  Sir Jim Spicer: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wardle: As time for the debate is limited, perhaps my hon. Friend would allow me to make some more progress. I shall return to him.
  Local authorities and landlords may be able to take action to prevent trespass on their land. For example, prior to the gathering on Castlemorton common, both Avon and Somerset and Gloucestershire constabularies were able to enforce injunctions to prevent travellers assembling on commons in their areas.
  Sir Jim Spicer: I understand the constraints of time, but I am glad of the opportunity to make this one point. We are not just looking at landowners and farmers: we are looking also at our police forces, and they are not those directly involved in this incident. In all the counties
  692
  represented by my hon. Friends who are here, hundreds of police are being diverted weekend after weekend by these miserable people, and this has to be stopped.
  Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why co-ordination between police forces to try to deal with these circumstances as they build up is important.
  It is worth pointing out that, where necessary, chief constables can request mutual aid, as my hon. Friend knows, from neighbouring forces, and, where the scale grows, arrangements can quickly be put into place to supply the host area with additional manpower.
  If, for whatever reason, the police cannot prevent huge numbers from establishing themselves on a site, inevitably they will decide to adopt a policy of containment, as happened at Castlemorton. We must bear in mind that the police have a delicate balance to maintain between dealing with crime and provoking disorder. There is only so much that one can do once a crowd of 20,000 has assembled. It would have been of no benefit to local residents that May weekend if insensitive action had provoked a full-scale riot.
  Besides containment, the police can be expected to provide protection to local residents, as they did at Castlemorton, and mount an operation to tackle the drugs problems. The House will be interested to know that there were 73 arrests at the Castlemorton incident and another 74 cautions, all connected with drugs.
  Mr. Paul Marland: The problem is not only the large gatherings—Castlemorton has highlighted the problems they cause—but the small ones. The police can move in if there are 13 vehicles, but if there are 12 they cannot, although that is just as terrifying and alarming for the landowners and the people in the district. These people go to isolated areas where there are a few houses, often occupied by elderly people, as has happened in my constituency on May hill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) will know. When they eventually go, the local community dig deep ditches and put huge piles of stone and large tree trunks across entrances so that nobody else can get in to enjoy these rural beauty spots, and the innocent picnickers or ramblers are denied access to the sites.
  Mr. Wardle: I understand entirely what my hon. Friend has said: small-scale gatherings can be just as alarming as large-scale ones. I hope that the House will allow me to make progress by going through the powers that already exist and setting out Government actions.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has called for a full report from the chief constable of West Mercia on the policing of the events of Castlemorton common and on any lessons to be learned from it. My noble Friend the Minister of State is this week meeting chief constables to consider the powers available to the police service, the intelligence and liaison arrangements between forces, and their tactics for handling large gatherings. We shall consider what action may be necessary after consultation with those chief officers.
  It is important to emphasise that the effect of successful police operations to prevent travellers gathering at particular locations is to split them up and move them on. The Government have looked hard at the issue of trespass on land, and there are no easy answers. Existing legislation provides a number of remedies for landowners to deal with

  693
  trespass on land by those who intend to reside. The vast majority of cases of trespass are resolved, as they should be, either informally or through the civil courts.
  The Caravan Sites Act 1968, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South said that he was familiar, also has an important role to play. This Act places a duty on local authorities to provide adequate official sites for gipsies—this is the definition that my hon. Friend used—resorting to or residing in their area. For these purposes, gipsies are defined as
  "persons of nomadic habit of life, whatever their race or origin."
  The courts have given clear indications that, in this context "gipsy" has a broad definition.
  Once a local authority has provided sufficient sites and thus become designated under the 1968 Act it has access, through the magistrates court, to move gipsies off any unauthorised site, whether owned privately or by the local authority, but despite the provision of 100 per cent. Exchequer grant for official sites, provision has not kept pace with the growth in the number of gipsy vehicles, as so defined, in England and Wales. Some 300 sites have been provided in all, including 10 in Hereford and Worcester.
  Twenty-two years after the implementation of the 1968 Act, only 38 per cent. of district councils in England have been designated, and only one district council in Wales. So there are not enough sites provided by local authorities for the growing number of travellers—travellers within the broader definition. We are well aware of the difficulty that new age travellers do not always wish to occupy authorised sites but want instead to roam freely across the country where they please. We are also familiar with the argument that powers available to designated authorities under the 1968 Act are too cumbersome to deal quickly with the problem of persistent illegal camping. In addition, even where eviction powers may be used against those who are camped illegally, the effect may be to place them within the ranks of the statutorily homeless.
  The Conservative party manifesto of this year recognised these problems, and the deficiencies in the legislative framework provided in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 for dealing with them. It undertook to tackle the problem by reviewing the 1968 Act, with the aim of reducing the nuisance of illegal encampments. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—is taking the lead in this review. The Government hope shortly to be able to issue a consultation paper with proposals for reform, and will no doubt take account of what my hon. Friend has said this evening.
  However, the question about the way the law seeks to deal with large gatherings, as well as smaller ones, and associated problems, such disorder and noise, is likely to remain. The police have the power at common law to order a crowd to disperse if they apprehend that a breach of the peace is likely to take place. They may also take steps to limit or prevent the build-up of a crowd by turning back people or vehicles if they consider that a breach of the peace is imminent. If necessary, the police may arrest as a result of or in order to prevent a breach of the peace.
  694
  Section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986, to which my hon. Friend referred, was conceived during the passage of the Public Order Bill in response to the mass invasions of land in around Stonehenge during the summer of 1986. Section 39 gives the police the discretionary power to direct trespassers to leave land where two or more trespassers have entered the land with the purpose of residing there, and the owner or occupier has asked them to leave; and if any of the trespassers is threatening or abusive; or if any of the trespassers causes damage; or if the trespassers between them bring 12 or more vehicles onto the land. Section 39 is not a substitute for normal civil procedures, but it provides a limited criminal sanction to deal with aggravated trespass.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister will be aware that, in Davidstow in north Cornwall, we had an invasion by very large numbers. Subsequently, the police, the landowners and the commoners felt that section 39 was not sufficient to deal with the problem. That was 12 months ago. I wonder whether the Home Office has taken account of that experience.
  Mr. Wardle: It has. In fact, I am about to refer to a review of section 39.
  In 1990, we undertook a thorough public evaluation of section 39 to assess how its relatively new powers were working. The review showed that, when used, the section provided a quick and effective remedy. On 22 May 1991, the then Home Secretary announced that no change to the law was required. The powers were there; it was a question of how they were used.
  Apart from trespass, problems can also arise over noise nuisance where parties are held on the land. Where the local authority has adopted such measures, entertainment licensing laws under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 apply inter alia to rave parties. Where there is an entertainment on private land, therefore, in order to be legal, it must be licensed—provided, of course, that the local authority has taken up the available powers.
  The police have no general power under entertainment licensing legislation to seize equipment used for parties, but their powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 allow them to seize material which might be needed for evidential purposes to prevent its being lost, stolen or destroyed. As to noise, I understand that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides for environmental health officers to confiscate audio equipment to secure compliance with a noise abatement notice.
  The measures that I have listed constitute a considerable array of powers which are available to the police and local authorities. Additionally, of course, the civil and criminal law apply.
  I do not, therefore, wish to underestimate the difficulties of tackling the problem. Nevertheless, I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House we are examining whether and how the current position can be improved. The Government will do everything sensible that they can to remedy a difficult situation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  International Agreements
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all the bilateral and multilateral agreements directly or indirectly negotiated by his Department or a body acting on behalf of his Department with(a) Switzerland and (b) Liechtenstein.

  The Attorney-General
  No bilateral or multilateral agreements with either Switzerland or Liechtenstein have been negotiated directly or indirectly by departments for which I have responsibility.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  International Agreements
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list all the bilateral and multilateral agreements directly or indirectly negotiated by his Department or a body acting on behalf of his Department with(a) Switzerland and (b) Liechtenstein.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A complete list of all bilateral and multilateral agreements between the United Kingdom and Switzerland or Liechtenstein could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Wheel Clamping
  Sir Gerard Vaughan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ask the Law Commission to review the law on wheel clamping of vehicles on private land.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans at present to ask the Law Commission to review the law relating to wheel-clamping activities. The recent ruling of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland will, however, be examined carefully by the Government with a view to ascertaining its possible relevance to the position in England and Wales.

  Child Abduction
  Mr. Diner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is planning to take to tighten up procedures whereby a single parent is able to take a child out of the country without the express consent of the other parent.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The removal of a child will in most cases constitute an offence under the existing law. The Government have no current proposals for changes in the law in this field, but are willing to consider any suggestions that are made. In addition, the operation of the Children 366
  Act 1989 is being monitored so that any changes which might be of assistance may be identified in the light of experience.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sittings of the House
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he expects to reply to the report of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will set up a Select Committee on Lockerbie.

  Mr. Newton
  No. Lockerbie matters are regularly raised in the House and I see no need for such a Committee.

  Top Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when he will lay the Top Salaries Review Body's report into Members' allowances before the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Lord President of the Council who has been appointed as a consultant to his office for market testing.

  Mr. Newton
  There are no activities carried out in the Privy Council Office of a suitable nature, or of sufficient scale, for market testing.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to carry out new consultations with a view to revising the guidelines on compensation payments to owners of sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he has taken of the size of awards to landowners made in respect of sites of special scientific interest in the past when planning the total of future public spending on nature conservation.

  Mr. Maclean
  Public expenditure plans for conservation are informed by the figures provided by English Nature in its corporate plan which takes account of the likely costs of payments to owners of SSSIs under management agreements.

  Landowners (Payments)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent assessment he has made of the accuracy of the forecasts made by his consultants, Laurence Gould Associates, of the level of payments to landowners under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mr. Maclean
  We will take account of the Laurence Gould report, together with advice from English Nature, on the actual level of payments made to landowners in the forthcoming review of the financial guideline.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to extend and improve the effectiveness of the monitoring of air quality in urban areas.

  Mr. Maclean
  Plans to expand the geographical coverage of the Department's urban air quality monitoring and the range of pollutants measures were announced in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". The first phase of the expansion was implemented in January. Five new sites are now in operation: London Bloomsbury, Newcastle centre, Belfast centre, Birmingham centre, and Cardiff. Sites are to follow in Edinburgh, Bristol, Leeds and Liverpool.

  Each of these sites monitors SO2, CO, NO, NO2, ozone and PM10 on a continuous basis. Air quality bulletins drawing on the results are now available on Ceefax page 196 and on a free telephone call line 0900 556677.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table indicating for each urban development corporation(a) how much land each UDC has acquired in total, (b) how much land each UDC currently retains, (c) how much money each UDC has spent in land transactions, and (d) how much money each UDC has received from land transactions.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 June 1992]: This information is shown in the table.

  LAND TRANSACTIONS

  The table shows, at column;

  (a) how much land each UDC has acquired in total;

  (b) how much land each UDC currently retains;

  (c) how much money each UDC has spent in land transactions; and

  (d) how much money each UDC has received from land transactions.

  UDC

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  hectares

  hectares

  £ million

  £ million

  Black Country

  399.000

  349.000

  68.000

  3.700

  Bristol

  16.190

  16.190

  24.371

  nil

  Central Manchester

  5.115

  5.115

  12.278

  nil

  Leeds

  41.210

  37.160

  17.525

  1.762

  London Docklands

  870.000

  594.000

  161.000

  302.000

  Merseyside

  382.000

  333.000

  29.000

  11.200

  Sheffield

  170.000

  73.000

  222.700

  30.370

  Teesside

  417.730

  367.860

  428.465

  46.129

  Trafford Park

  167.090

  145.790

  41.619

  9.258

  Tyne and Wear

  330.000

  280.270

  42.359

  5.814

  Notes:

  1All figures are up to the period ending 31 March 1992.

  2Including estimate of land vested but still subject to negotiation.

  3A further £7.395 million is due under firm building agreements.

  4These figures include expenditure on buildings.

  North Warwickshire Borough Council
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the provisional cap on spending on North Warwickshire borough council takes into account all the individual circumstances of the council, including its RECHAR funding potential.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: North Warwickshire borough council is not one of the authorities which have been designated for capping by my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Local Government (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what review the Local Government Commission will be conducting of the pattern of local government in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 May, Official Report, column 59. We intend to ask the commission to look at cases for change to local government boundaries in London when it has completed its programme of structural reviews in the shire counties.

  Local Government Officers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of local government officers who have been(a) disciplined and (b) dismissed for political activities in contravention of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: This information is not collected by my Department.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring is undertaken by his Department in respect of the political activities of local government officers in contravention of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: My Department does not monitor the relevant provisions of this Act.

  City Challenge
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about progress on Southwark council's bids under the city challenge scheme; and how many other councils have submitted applications.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: Fifty-four local authorities, including the London borough of Southwark, have submitted bids in the current round of city challenge. All the bids have been assessed against the aims and criteria set out in the published bidding guidance. Ministers from the Department of the Environment have considered the bids and reports of the regional presentations to officials and have met each bidding authority. The successful authorities will be announced by the end of July 1992.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what income was derived from rates on empty properties in the most recent period of 12 months;
  369
  (2) if he has any plans to introduce regulations to prevent property owners vandalising their own empty properties to avoid the payment of rates;

  (3) what proposals he has to reduce the rate liability on empty buildings; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what information he has on the extent of building vandalisation in the City of London to avoid payment of rates.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: We have no plans to change the law governing the rating of empty property. Empty property benefits from local services and it is right that it should contribute to the costs incurred by local authorities. Property, whether occupied or not, is rateable if it is capable of beneficial occupation. If owners judge it commercially advantageous to render property unusable, that is a matter for them.

  We are aware that five unoccupied properties in the City of London have been made unusable by their owners in order to avoid rates liability. We estimate the loss of rate yield at about £3 million. This has to be set against an estimated total rate income in England from empty property in 1992–93 of some £600 million.

  We are already providing £1.25 billion of help to businesses over the next three years under the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Disabled People
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures and aid his Department will make available to enable disabled people to take part in sporting activities.

  Mr. Key
  In 1991–92, nearly £1 million was spent by the Sports Council on promoting sport for people with disabilities. The council is also working closely with the disability sports organisations and the governing bodies of sport on the implementation of the recommendations of the ministerial review report on sport for people with disabilities, "Building on Ability". I shall be attending the paralympics in Spain in September.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to ensure that the headquarters and the base of operations of Channel 5 is located some distance from London.

  Mr. Key
  No. The location of Channel 5's headquarters and base of operations will be a matter for the licensee to decide.

  London Zoo
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what representations he has received from(a) the public and (b) the Zoological Society in respect of the recent announcement of the likely closure of London zoo;

  (2) if he will provide such assistance, advice and resources to the Zoological Society as are required to safeguard the future of animals in the event of London zoo being closed.
  370
  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: My right hon. and learned Friend and I have discussed with the Zoological Society of London the consequences of the society's decision to close London zoo. We have made it clear that no more taxpayers' money can be given to the zoo, but that we stand by the offer made last year to relieve the society of some of its obligations as lessees.

  The Department has received several letters from members of the public.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Botswana
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of Her Majesty's Government's bilateral aid to Botswana.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Gross British bilateral aid, including Commonwealth Development Corporation investments, to Botswana was provisionally estimated to be £12.18 million in 1991.

  Brazil
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the progress of Overseas Development Administration projects to protect the health of the Yanomami tribe.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1990 we provided through Oxfam a grant of £90,000 to the Campaign for the Creation of a Yanomami Park, a Brazilian non-governmental organisation, to fund the provision of equipment, salaries, communication and travel costs for a health care project in the Demini area of what is now Yanomami national park. The agreed activities have been successfully completed.

  We have this year agreed a second grant through Oxfam, of £175,000, for a new phase of the project which will, among other things, help to support a team of medical staff in the reserve and establish a second health post in addition to that presently operating at Demini.

  We have also indicated to the Brazilian authorities our willingness to consider support for government work to provide health services to the Yanomami.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the Government's latest plans to assist in the reduction of third world debt for 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Agreement to begin implementing the Prime Minister's Trinidad terms initiative to relieve the burden of official debt on the poorest countries was achieved in December. Seven countries have already benefited and we expect many more to do so over coming months. As these new agreements take effect, we can expect a significant reduction in repayments due to government creditors. None the less, the Government continue to press for even greater relief for the poorest, most indebted countries carrying out economic reform.

  The Government have strongly supported and provided their share of resources needed to implement a 1989 agreement, known as the Brady plan, to help deal with the problem of commercial debt. Deals involving the

  371
  effective cancellation of substantial portions of bank debts have been agreed, or are being negotiated, with most of the largest debtors. Most recently, Argentina agreed a deal which will involve an effective reduction of its $25 billion long-term debt to banks by around a third. Brazil is currently negotiating a similar deal with its commercial creditors.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the know-how fund for central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union; and if he will give details on the specific projects so far approved this year for each eligible country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The know-how fund for central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union is going extremely well. Some £82 million has now been spent or committed to well over 400 projects. Other western Governments are using our know-how fund as a model for their own.

  A list of the activities approved since the beginning of 1992 under the know-how fund has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the performance targets for the Overseas Development Administration's natural resources institute in 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  NRI's performance targets for 1992–93 are to break even on full economic costs; to achieve an efficiency gain of at least 1.5 per cent.; and to continue to expand the share of work undertaken for non-ODA clients.

  Indian Ocean (Fishing Rights)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the actual and potential fishing rights surrounding(a) Diego Garcia and (b) other British Indian ocean territories.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 24 June 1992]: On 1 October 1991 Her Majesty's Government declared a 200-mile fisheries conservation and management zone around the British Indian ocean territory. We aim to play a full part in the sensible management and conservation of fishing stocks in that area.

  Russia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase medical, financial and technological aid to Russia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 25 June 1992]: Bilateral technical assistance to the former Soviet Union, including Russia, is provided through a know-how fund totalling £50 million. A further major contribution is made through our 18 per cent. share of the 450 mecu annual European Commission technical assistance programme, and we have also given £1 million to projects under the auspices of the European bank for reconstruction and development.
  372
  In addition, in February of this year we provided £2 million worth of emergency medical assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, including major donations of drugs and equipment to the Russian cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Ekaterinburg, Tyumen and Novokuznetsk.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In line with the proposals in the "Competing for Quality" White Paper, Ernst and Young was employed to assist in the preparation of my Department's market-testing programme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Service
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants there are in the Northern Ireland Office; and how many are based in(a) London and (b) Northern Ireland, indicating in each case the number that are members of the Northern Ireland civil service.

  Mr. Mates
  As at 1 May 1992 there were 1,535 staff in the Northern Ireland Office. The breakdown between the home civil service and the Northern Ireland civil service and the two locations is as follows:

  Civil Service

  Home

  Northern Ireland

  London

  102

  3

  Northern Ireland

  103

  1,327

  205

  1,330

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Mates
  Michael Willacy Associates.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Training and Employment Agency for Northern Ireland for the period 1992 to 1995.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following are the targets which have been set for the Training and Employment Agency for the period 1992–95:

  1. To increase the number of companies developing their management and work force skills from 125 at April 1992 to 225 by March 1993 and to 500 by March 1995.

  To increase by 10 per cent per year the proportion of potential entrants into employment with high levels of attainment as measured by qualification.

  373

  3. In 1992–93 to place 30,000 people into jobs and 15,500 people into training and other agency schemes.

  4. To provide every inward-investment company referred to the agency by the Industrial Development Board with relevant information, advice and customised training.

  5. To maintain customer satisfaction levels and where possible increase them.

  6. To reduce administration costs by at least 2 per cent. yearly.

  7. To establish by March 1993 an initial baseline of unit costs for agency programmes on a full economic cost basis.

  8. To meet for the agency the national Investors in People standard by 31 March 1994.

EDUCATION

  Postgraduate Courses
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list those local education authorities which provide discretionary awards to cover(a) one-year postgraduate law courses and (b) two-year postgraduate courses for non-law graduates; if he will list the average award made by those local education authorities in terms of maintenance grants and tuition fees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  These data are not collected centrally.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools, and of what type, had(a) voted for and (b) voted against applying for grant-maintained status in the period (i) 1988 to 9 April 1992 and (ii) since 9 April; and how many schools of each type have notified his Department of their intention to ballot on grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Patten
  The information requested by the hon. Member follows:

  Ballots on grant-maintained status

  (a) in favour

  (b) against

  (i) 1988–9 April 1992

  Primary Schools

  90

  27

  of which

  County

  63

  21

  Voluntary Aided

  13

  1

  Voluntary Controlled

  14

  5

  Special Agreement

  0

  0

  Secondary Schools

  262

  81

  of which

  County

  205

  69

  Voluntary Aided

  29

  8

  Voluntary Controlled

  26

  3

  Special Agreement

  2

  1

  Total

  352

  108

  (ii) 9 April 1992–29 June 1992

  Primary Schools

  6

  3

  of which

  County

  6

  2

  Voluntary Aided

  0

  0

  Voluntary Controlled

  0

  1

  Special Agreement

  0

  0

  Secondary Schools of

  18

  2

  which

  374

  (a) in favour

  (b) against

  County

  14

  2

  Voluntary Aided

  1

  0

  Voluntary Controlled

  3

  0

  Special Agreement

  0

  0

  Total

  24

  5

  Schools with ballots pending

  Primary Schools of

  8

  —

  of which

  County

  6

  —

  Voluntary aided

  2

  —

  Voluntary Controlled

  0

  —

  Special Agreement

  0

  —

  Secondary Schools

  48

  —

  of which

  County

  34

  —

  Voluntary Aided

  10

  —

  Voluntary Controlled

  2

  —

  Special Agreement

  2

  —

  Total

  56

  —

  Fitzherbert School, Brighton
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to dispose of the site of the former Fitzherbert school, Brighton; what is the current valuation of the site; what is the total expenditure by his Department on the site to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patten
  The CTC trust has been actively marketing the site of the former Fitzherbert school in Brighton, and is engaged in current negotiations to sell it. The total costs of maintaining the site to the end of May 1992 are £183,000. In view of the current negotiations, it would not be appropriate to give a detailed valuation of the site.

  Training Grants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what plans he has to cease funding of the GEST—grants for education support and training—and LEATGS—local education authority training grants scheme—programmes from April 1993;

  (2) when he intends to consult the local authority associations, as required under section 3(5) of the Grants and Awards Act 1984, on changes to the GEST and LEATGS programmes.

  Mr. Forth
  We have no plans to cease funding the programme of grants for education support and training, which includes education support grants and LEA training grants. My right hon. Friend will be writing shortly to the local authority associations with his proposals for the 1993–94 GEST programme.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Forth
  KPMG Management Consulting Ltd. was appointed in March 1992 to advise on the scope for market testing within the Department.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what further measures he is taking to help parents who are in dispute with authorities over their child's special educational needs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government have decided to establish a new independent special educational needs tribunal as part of their package of legislative reforms on SEN announced by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place on 11 June. The tribunal would replace the jurisdiction of both the Secretary of State and appeals committees to hear appeals under the Education Act 1981. The tribunal will give parents quicker redress, a more open and independent hearing, and a simplified structure in line with the parents charter.

  New School Buildings
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average cost of providing a school place at primary, secondary and comprehensive schools when new buildings are constructed.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is not immediately available. I shall write to my hon. Friend when it is.

PRIME MINISTER

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the occasions in the last Session of Parliament on which Ministers have stated the Government's policy on whether a legislative approach is the right way to deal with discrimination against people with disabilities; which Minister has the principal responsibility in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's view was stated principally on 31 January during Second Reading of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People at column 1251.

  Security Services
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the monitoring of hon. Members by the security services.

  The Prime Minister
  The policy remains as stated in 1966 by the then Prime Minister, the Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and as applied by successive Governments since. In answers to questions on 17 November 1966, Lord Wilson said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament, that remained the policy of the Government and that, if there was a development which required a change in the general policy, he would, at such moment as seemed compatible with the security of the country, on his own initiative make a statement in the House about it. The Government regard this undertaking as still applying to both postal and telephone interception.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what attempts will be made by Her Majesty's Government to encourage sufficient states to sign the Rio treaties on climate change and biodiversity respectively to permit the consequent entering into force of the treaties.

  The Prime Minister
  By the end of the Earth summit, 153 states and the EC had signed the conventions on climate change and biodiversity. For the conventions to enter into force. 50 states, in the case of climate change, and 30 states, in the case of biodiversity, must ratify them.

  I have written to the leaders of all EC and Group of Seven countries about the need to maintain the momentum generated by the summit and I have proposed that they draw up a plan of action to include the prompt implementation of both conventions.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 13 May,Official Report, column 106, concerning documents relating to the wartime Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands, he has completed his inquiries; and whether he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The current review of the documents to which the hon. and learned Member refers is proceeding. Considerable work is involved. I will write to him as soon as inquiries have been completed.

  China
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed human rights fact-finding visit to the People's Republic of China.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 13 March 1992 at column 687. We are in contact with Sir Geoffrey Howe and the Chinese authorities over detailed arrangements, including timing, composition and itinerary.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the extent to which the difficulties experienced by young people in obtaining suitable training, to which he referred in his letter of 4 June to the general secretary of the TUC, have now been removed, and of the adequacy of the measures taken to prevent hardship to young people experiencing such difficulties now or in the future.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 June 1992]: The Government are using the contractual relationship with training and enterprise councils to ensure that the difficulties experienced by a minority of young people are addressed urgently. Every TEC is contractually obliged to meet the forecast covered by the Government's youth training guarantee. The Government are committed to seeing that the guarantee is met.

  The severe hardship provision of income support provides a safety net of benefit for those young people seeking work or a YT place who are at risk of hardship.
  377
  The Government continue to monitor the position closely and seek to improve and streamline the administration of benefit wherever possible.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Self-regulatory Organisations
  Mr. French
  'To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received concerning a reduction in the number of self-regulatory organisations;

  (2) whether he has considered the Clucas report on financial services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Matters relating to the recognition of self-regulating organisations under the Financial Services Act 1986 are primarily for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Financial Services
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what appraisal he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of a single regulatory body to oversee financial services;

  (2) what appraisal he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of a single regulatory body to oversee wholesale investment markets.

  Mr. Nelson
  Responsibility for the regulation of financial services passed to me on 7 June 1992. No changes are planned as a result of the transfer, but I shall, of course, keep the effectiveness of the regulatory system under review.

  Carbon Tax
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which revenue collection body in the United Kingdom would be responsible for collecting a carbon tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  On the basis of the proposals put forward by the European Commission and described in explanatory memorandum 8918/91 dated 4 December 1991, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise would be responsible for collecting the revenues associated with a carbon tax in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the price of a litre of petrol of the proposed carbon tax, introduced at $3 a barrel of oil, rising to $10 a barrel.

  Sir John Cope
  A carbon/energy tax of $3 per barrel of oil would add around 1p to the price of a litre of petrol. A tax of $10 per barrel would add around 3.5p per litre. The actual impact of the tax on the retail price of petrol would depend on many factors, including the price of oil, which may be influenced by a carbon tax.

  Inflation
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons underlying his statement of 11 June,Official Report, column 432, that 2 per cent. inflation was probably the equivalent of price stability.
  378
  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statements in the minutes of evidence taken before the Treasury and Civil Service Committee's inquiry into economic and monetary union. A limited degree of recorded inflation is compatible with the concept of price stability, reflecting a number of problems in measuring inflation, including those associated with new products and quality changes.

  Retrospectivity
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to Government policy in relation to retrospective tax legislation since 6 June 1991.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Government policy in relation to retrospective tax legislation has not changed since 6 June 1991.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy governs the Government's decision as to the timing of their retrospective measures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government propose tax legislation that has retrospective effect only after very careful consideration of all the circumstances. Any such proposal is then announced at the earliest suitable opportunity.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the protection in the Government policy in relation to retrospective tax legislation extends equally to taxpayers who have not themselves brought proceedings but(a) have entered into agreement with the Inland Revenue that the outcome of other proceedings of a private law nature shall be taken as determinative of their own dispute or (b) have formally endorsed other proceedings of a public law nature which as a matter of the law are taken as determinative of their own dispute, whether or not the Inland Revenue agrees;

  (2) if it is his policy that taxpayers in dispute with the Inland Revenue should obtain immunity from retrospective legislation as from some particular point in legal proceedings; and if he will specify from which point in legal proceedings such immunity should take effect.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Where, following a successful challenge in the courts, retrospective legislation is introduced to restore the previous understanding of the law, it has long been the Government's policy that the successful litigant should not be deprived of the benefit of the court judgment in his favour. Where other taxpayers have agreed with the Revenue that an action will be regarded as a test case and that they will also benefit from any decision against the Revenue, it is the Government's policy that those taxpayers should also not be affected by any retrospective amendment to the law.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Government policy in relation to retrospective tax legislation prevents the Government from introducing new measures for a retrospective change in the law in its own favour.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Where it is discovered that the tax law does not have the effect that the Government and taxpayers generally thought it had, there are circumstances in which it is right to introduce legislation to restore the position retrospectively to what it was thought to be. This is done
  379
  only in exceptional circumstances and where the Government consider such action is necessary to protect the interests of the general body of taxpayers.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Government policy in relation to retrospective tax legislation applies to(a) public law proceedings, (b) private law proceedings, (c) appeals against assessment and (d) restitution claims.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The application of the Government's policy will depend on the precise circumstances of any particular proceedings.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had since 1989 about the non-availability of mortgage interest tax relief for persons who are not in the mortgage interest relief at source scheme and whose income has fallen below the tax threshold; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Treasury Ministers have received a few such representations.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of home buyers benefiting from the mortgage interest tax relief facility open to lenders to operate separate loan accounts for qualifying and non-qualifying parts of their loans; what is his estimate of the number of lenders operating such a facility; and what plans he has to encourage publicity for such arrangements.

  Mr. Dorrell
  These arrangements are for borrowers and lenders to agree between themselves. We have no estimates either of the number of lenders offering the facility or the number of borrowers taking advantage of it. Inland Revenue guidance notes to lenders in the MIRAS scheme remind them that they can operate separate loan accounts if they wish. In July, the Inland Revenue intends to publish a revised version of its leaflet aimed at borrowers, and this will refer to these arrangements.

  Relocation Expenses
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance with housing costs is given to civil servants who are posted from one part of the United Kingdom to another.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Civil servants in mobile grades who are compulsorily transferred from one location to another and who, as a result, have to move house, are given a range of financial assistance with the costs of that move. This assistance includes help with legal and estate agents fees, removal costs and the interest cost of bridging loans, and also an advance of salary for the purchase of a home. Where staff are moving to an area where housing costs are higher they may also receive help with some of the additional mortgage costs. Staff may also receive help with temporary accommodation and paid leave to search for a home and supervise the removal. In addition, Departments have discretion to offer staff the services of a relocation company.

  Rent-a-room Scheme
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of rooms which will be brought into letting in consequence of the rent-a-room scheme, the average rents for such lettings, and the cost in revenue forgone as a result of the proposed exemption from income tax of the £3,250 received for such lettings(a) in 1992–93 and (b) in a full financial year; and if he will estimate the regional breakdown of such lettings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We hope that many people will be encouraged to let rooms by the rent-a-room scheme. But it is not possible to make estimates of the actual number of new lettings which will be generated by the scheme. It follows that there is no information about the average rents of likely new lettings, nor their regional breakdown.

  Taxation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to require Inland Revenue not to tax bar staff on the value of employer-provided taxis home from work.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to do so. It is a general principle of the United Kingdom tax system that the cost of travel between home and work is a personal expense for which there is no tax relief. Where an employer meets such costs they are generally taxable. It would be inappropriate to single out bar staff for special treatment.

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1992 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), on 3 March,Official Report, columns 123–24.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: Latest estimates of the annual change in income tax liability resulting from the changes in tax rates, allowances and thresholds announced in the 1992 Budget are in the table. The 1978–79 income tax regime has been indexed to 1992–93 levels by reference to the statutory formula, and allowing for independent taxation.

  For the purposes of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the income base of 1992–93. In practice, retention of the regime indexed as appropriate, for the intervening years would have led to changes in the income base.

  Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1992–93 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individuals income in 1992–93

  Number of individuals 1992–931

  Total reduction

  Average reduction

  £

  Million

  £ million

  £ per annum

  Under 5,000

  3.1

  500

  150

  5,000 to 10,000

  7.9

  3,200

  400

  10,000 to 15,000

  6.2

  4,500

  730

  15,000 to 20,000

  4.1

  4,300

  1,060

  20,000 to 30,000

  3.2

  5,000

  1,590

  30,000 to 50,000

  1.2

  3,600

  2,960

  50,000 to 80,000

  0.35

  3,100

  9,200

  Over 80,000

  0.15

  7,200

  46,000

  TOTAL

  26.2

  31,400

  1,200

  381
  1 Individuals liable to income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  Landowners (Tax Exemption)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, column 2, what was the cost to the Exchequer of the exemption from inheritance tax and capital transfer tax given to six landowners in Cumbria who agreed to maintain and preserve their property and provide reasonable public access to it for each year since the exemptions were granted.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: Estimates of the cost of conditionally exempting land and buildings were given for the whole United Kingdom in my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on 2 June at column 399. These figures represented a broad judgment of the likely overall cost of the exemption and were subject to a large margin of error.

  Where exemption is given, it is not necessary to establish the value of individual properties, and so it is not possible to give equivalent estimates for the cost of exempting the small number of properties involved in Cumbria.

  In addition, the normal rules of confidentiality would prevent the disclosure of annual estimates for Cumbria, since these would enable the tax position of particular taxpayers to be identified.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Child Care
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is his latest information on demand for nursery provision in the House.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made towards the establishment of a day nursery in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals there are for the introduction of crèche facilities for the use of the families of hon. Members and staff in the House.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received regarding the setting up of a crèche in the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Beith
  In its report of last Session, "New Parliamentary Building (Phase 2) The Sketch Plan"—HC 269—I—the Accommodation and Works Committee foresaw no accommodation suitable for a child care facility becoming available in the phase 2 building and concluded:"any crèche … would have to be located elsewhere in the parliamentary estate".

  It was anticipated that other space, in some cases more appropriately located, could be found without undue delay in other buildings; and the Committee called upon
  382
  its successor to take up the issue as a high priority. In accordance with a request from the Commission, it is expected that the Accommodation and Works Committee will continue to seek to identify an appropriate location for such a facility.

  Accommodation apart, responsibility for the provision of any child care facility falls to the Establishment Officers' Committee of the Board of Management and to the Administration Committee. Those two committees, the former acting on behalf of the Departments of the House and the latter on behalf of Members and their staff, continue to monitor developments in child care provision. They are advised by the Establishment Office, which keeps in touch with developments taking place in Whitehall, Westminster and elsewhere. A number of possible options in relation to the provision of child care facilities in the Westminster area have recently been proposed and are being investigated.

  Once the feasibility of providing such a service is known and its size, nature and location identified, a survey of potential demand will be conducted.

  Stationery
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 144, if he has any proposals to establish a shop within the main building of the Palace of Westminster to sell stationery.

  Mr. Beith
  I am unable to add significantly to my earlier reply to which the hon. Member referred in his question. Until the phase 2 building is completed, accommodation within the main building will continue to be under great pressure and any proposal for new facilities would need to be carefully examined by the relevant Committee.

  Visitors' Facilities
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received about facilities for visitors to the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  No such representations have been received this Parliament, but I am aware of the representations made by the hon. Member and others in the previous Parliament. If he has any specific concern, he should in the first instant raise it with the Serjeant at Arms or the Director of Catering Services, or with the Chairman of the appropriate domestic Committee.

  Paper Recycling
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how much paper he estimates is used in the Palace of Westminster each year; and what arrangements are made for its recycling.

  Mr. Beith
  It is not possible to make any sensible estimate of the amount of paper used in the Palace of Westminster each year. I understand that non-confidential waste paper is collected by a contractor for recycling.

  Offices
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many right hon. and hon. Members now have single offices in(a) the Palace and (b) other office buildings.

  Mr. Beith
  There are 238 Members with single rooms in the Palace and 171 Members with single rooms in the outbuildings.

  Phase 2
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the current situation in respect of the phase 2 development.

  Mr. Beith
  Progress is being made on the design of the building and negotiations are continuing on the issues raised by the Accommodation and Works Committee in its two reports. There is close contact with London Underground and the Department of Transport on the situation concerning the Jubilee line extension. The Accommodation and Works Committee is expected to give priority to the consideration of developments concerning phase 2 as soon as it meets.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Porton Down
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what species of laboratory animals are being used for the toxicity of organophosphates at the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down; and how many have been used in this research since 1989;

  (2) if he will list the types of nerve gases being tested on animals at the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down; and what other research projects linked to nerve gases involving animals are also being conducted at this establishment;

  (3) how many non-human primates were used in nerve gas experiments at the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down, (a) for the testing of antidotes and (b) for other purposes, in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, under which the use of living animals in research may be authorised. It is not the practice to give details of research at individual establishments which we receive in the course of discharging that responsibility.

  Security Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to ensure that the security services become subject to Parliament's scrutiny; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a question from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 13 May 1992, at column 103.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Department does not at present employ any consultants for market testing.

  Proxy Votes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to monitor the exercising of proxy votes by the proprietors, management and staff of residential care or nursing homes on behalf of residents of such homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No one may vote as proxy at the same parliamentary election in any constituency, or at the same local government election in any electoral area, on behalf of more than two people to whom he or she is not closely related. Electoral registration officers will grant applications to vote by proxy only if they are satisfied that they meet the requirements set out in the Representation of the People Act 1985; and, where practicable, they must notify the elector that the application has been granted. The electoral registration officer is empowered to make inquiries at such times as he thinks fit to see whether there has been a material change in the circumstances of an elector who votes by proxy. Absent voting arrangements will be considered as part of our post-election review of electoral law.

  Parole
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will abolish the restricted policy on parole which applies to those sentenced to more than five years for an offence involving violence, sex, arson or drugs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have recently completed a review of the operation of the restricted policy which applies to those sentenced to more than five years for an offence involving violence, sex, arson or drugs. This policy has the general effect of restricting parole eligibility to a few months at the end of sentence and was waived only in exceptional circumstances. The impending abolition of the policy was announced in the White Paper "Crime Justice and Protecting the Public", published in February 1990, which set out proposals for a wide change to new parole procedures in all cases to make sure that the length of sentence served would be more closely related to the length of sentence imposed by the court. I have decided that the restricted policy should now end for all prisoners. The Parole Board will, of course, continue to review each case carefully to ensure that full and proper account is taken of the need to protect the public in all its discussions.

  Squatting
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will set out the decisions he has taken following the expiry of the consultation period for his departmental paper on squatting; and if he will give the dates when these decisions were taken;

  (2) what progress is being made on his consultations on squatting; and whether he still proposes that squatting shall become a criminal offence.
  385
  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 17 June, at column 522.

  Operation Container
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have earned more than(a) £1,000, (b) £2,000 and (c) £5,000 in overtime carrying out duties for Operation Container.

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

  Voting
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of proxy vote applications registered in each constituency at the time of(a) the 1987 general election and (b) the 1992 general election.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 12 May, at column 61.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Services, Humberside
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about rail services to Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have already received a delegation of hon. Members; the House debated this matter on 17 June; and I shall be meeting the hon. Member shortly. I have also received four letters from members of the public.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the projected increase in car ownership in Greater London over the next five years.

  Mr. Norris
  Car ownership in London is forecast to increase by between 10 and 14 per cent. from 1991 to 1996.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his White Paper on railway privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  I hope to publish the White Paper on railway privatisation before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include protection for British Rail pensions and British Rail pensioner's concessionary travel entitlements in his proposals for rail privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport gave an assurance during the Second Reading debate on the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill on 18 May,Official Report,
  386
  column 23, that the pension entitlements of existing contributors and past employees of the rail industry will be properly safeguarded on the privatisation of British Rail.

  I gave a similar assurance in respect of pensioners' concessionary travel entitlements during the Committee stage of that Bill on 16 June.

  Light Rapid Transit Schemes
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget provision exists for light rapid transit schemes in 1992–93; and what is planned for 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is no budget provision specifically reserved for light rail schemes. However, in 1992–93 we are providing resources of at least £50 million for such schemes. We plan to provide at least £53 million in 1993–94.

  Road and Rail Infrastructure
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an official visit to east London and Essex to study the current state of road and rail infrastructure.

  Mr. Norris
  I have no immediate plans to do so. I am, however, well aware of the situation concerning the improving state of road and rail infrastructure in east London and Essex. We are pressing ahead with investment in the area. The Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Dartford has relieved congestion on the M25 and we opened the new east London traffic control system last February. The modernisation of the Central line is now under way and work has started on resignalling of the Great Eastern line out of Liverpool Street station.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of the British Rail board to discuss Network South East; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of British Rail regularly to discuss current issues on Network SouthEast and on the railways as a whole.

  Carlisle Bypass
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the construction of the Carlisle bypass will start.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The proposals for the Carlisle southern bypass scheme are expected to be ready for a public consultation in spring 1993. It is too early to say when construction will start.

  Bypasses
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses have been planned and built by this Department in the last five years; and how many more are in the final stages of planning.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Between 1987–88 and 1991–92 the Department completed the construction of 69 bypasses on
  387
  national roads in England. At present, there are a further 28 bypasses under construction and 148 in preparation, of which 34 have passed the public inquiry stage.

  Disabled People (Transport)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about transport for the disabled and his published guide "Door to Door"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are in touch with a wide range of disability organisations, local authorities, transport operators and vehicle manufacturers on all matters relating to transport and disability. We work particularly closely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee which was set up under the Transport Act 1985 to offer advice to the Secretary of State in this area.

  The Department's disability unit has recently published its annual report which sets out our current initiatives in this area. I have sent copies to all Members of the House and I will ensure that further copies are placed in the Library.

  "Door to Door", a guide to transport for people with disabilities, produced by my Department, is now in its third edition and a new fourth edition will be published later this summer. The publication offers advice on all aspects of personal mobility, public transport and specialist services for people with disabilities and provides useful contacts for further advice.

  As soon as the new edition is published, I will ensure that copies are placed in the Library.

  Roads (Environmental Protection)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to ensure that the natural environment is protected when new roads are built and existing roads improved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson).

  Traffic, London
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's current estimates of the percentage growth of traffic on London's roads by the year 2025.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not forecast traffic growth in London as a whole over this length of time. Specific forecasts are made for individual trunk road schemes. These are generally lower than the national road traffic forecasts, which cover the whole of Great Britain.

  Village Speed Limits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about his proposals to reduce the speed of vehicles in villages.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A working group drawn from the County Surveyors Society, the Department of Transport, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office has been considering a range of measures to constrain vehicle speeds through villages. A number of schemes to be 388
  introduced on main roads through villages will be monitored over the coming months to assess their effectiveness in keeping speeds down, and improving safety and the quality of life in rural communities.

  Earlier this month the working group published an interim report which has been circulated to county surveyors and others. The response so far has confirmed that there is widespread support for the steps being taken to tackle this problem.

  A1
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the upgrading of the A1 north of Newcastle.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Since taking up office following the general election we have received a small number of representations about upgrading the A1 north of Newcastle.

  Blackened Windows
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about vehicles with blackened windows which prevent identification of the occupants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  None. A legal requirement governing the level of light transmission for motor vehicle glass is specified in the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. For vehicles first used from 1 June 1978 this is at least 70 per cent. transmittance with 75 per cent. transmittance for windscreens of vehicles first used from 1 April 1985. These limits effectively preclude the use of blackened glass.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy towards the Mersey tunnels' tolls.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We believe it is reasonable that tolls at estuarial crossings should where possible cover the costs and debts of those crossings. The application of that principle to the Mersey tunnels must take account of the relevant legislation, which gives the Merseyside passenger transport authority responsibility for the financial management of the tunnels and, hence, for proposing the level of tolls.

  Buses
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about quality of service objectives for London Transport's bus services.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has today written to the chairman of London Transport, setting new quality of service objectives for LT's bus services, including tendered routes, to be attained by the end of March 1994, with interim targets for March 1993. LT has made excellent progress in improving its bus service for passengers since the objectives were last set, in 1989. The new targets will build on this achievement and keep up momentum to improve performance still further in anticipation of deregulation.

  The new targets are as follows, with current targets also given for comparison.
  389

  Per cent.

  Target

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (Present)

  Percentage of scheduled mileage operated (excluding miles lost through traffic congestion)

  >98.5

  >98.5

  (98)

  On high frequency route

  Excess waiting time—difference between scheduled waiting time and actual waiting time

  <1.75 mins

  <1.6 mins

  (New target)

  On low frequency routes

  Percentage of buses arriving on time—not more than 2 mins early or 5 mins late

  >67.0

  >68.0

  (65)

  On low frequency routes

  Percentage of buses arriving more than 2 mins early

  <5.5

  <4.5

  (6)

  Internal and external cleanliness of vehicles, quality of passenger information and condition of bus stops

  LT to draw up customer satisfaction surveys to assess performance in these areas

  LT telephone enquiry service

  Percentage of calls to be answered within 30 secs

  >76.0

  >78.0

  (75)

  Percentage of calls to receive engaged tone

  <10.0

  <10.0

  (10)

  Dr. Liam Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support his Department has given for the greater use of buses in urban areas.

  Mr. Freeman
  We strongly support measures to enable buses to provide a better service and are funding a £10 million programme of demonstration projects over this year and next.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the average speed of buses in London; and what steps are being taken to accord more priority to buses in London.

  Mr. Norris
  Bus speeds in London vary considerably by route and time of day. An analysis of scheduled journey times for selected routes indicates that, on a week day, average speeds range between 6 and 13 miles mph. The schedules allow time for passengers to board and alight.

  London Transport's bus priority steering group was set up in October 1990 to encourage all London boroughs to put forward positive proposals to help buses in traffic-congested areas. A number of promising schemes are now coming forward.

  As part of a Government initiative to promote bus priority, announced in December 1991, schemes in Camden, Ealing, Haringey, Newham and Tower Hamlets have, in total, been allocated £700,000 in supplementary credit approvals—SCA. A bid for SCA to assist in implementing a comprehensive bus priority proposal in six boroughs in the south and west of London is currently being considered.

  In December 1991, the Government also issued local transport note 1/91, "Keeping Buses Moving", which contains comprehensive advice to encourage local authorities to introduce more bus priority measures.

  M4
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to begin on the widening of the M4.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Widening of the short length of M4 between junctions 4b—M25—and 5—A4—is planned to start early in 1993. Investigations into the need for and feasibility of widening other lengths are at too early a stage to forecast start of works dates.

  A570
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the contract for resurfacing the A570 from the M58 to Southport was approved; what target dates were set for commencing and completing the work; whether any financial penalty will be imposed if targets are not met; and when he now expects work to be completed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Maintenance of this stretch of the A570 involves a series of contracts. Two minor ones were carried out in 1991 and completed on time.

  Of the two carried out so far in 1992, one in Ormskirk started on 30 March and finished on 14 June, some five weeks later than we planned when letting the contract. The other, between Ormskirk and the M58 started on 24 February and should finish in the next few days, some seven weeks later than we planned.

  Because of uncertain ground conditions we could not be sure in advance how much work the contractors would need to carry out. It was not therefore appropriate to use our lane rental arrangements which include a predetermined financial penalty for each day's late completion. However, the contracts provide for payments under the standard liquidated damage clause.

  Further A570 resurfacing works are planned later this summer, in Ormskirk and south of the town.

  A565
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will hold discussions with the metropolitan borough of Sefton and Lancashire county council regarding the possible A565 Water Lane bypass.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Our north-west network management division will gladly hold discussions if the councils want them.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he anticipates reaching a decision on the detrunking of the A565 Water Lane.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We will publish the required statutory proposals if Sefton borough council and Lancashire county council agree that the A565 should be detrunked.

  Transpennine Links
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the study of transpennine links between the north-east and north-west has been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 9 June at column 114. I have nothing to add at present.

  River Thames
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the level of passenger traffic on the Thames in London; and what steps he is taking to increase the use of the Thames for passenger transport.

  Mr. Norris
  From the information available to my Department, current usage of the riverbus service amounted to 400,000 passenger trips in 1991. In 1990—the latest year for which figures are available—the estimated total of passenger trips on Thames pleasure boat services was 2.5 million, with a further 2 million using the Woolwich ferry.

  I am keen to encourage greater use of the River Thames for freight as well as passengers. My officials will continue their discussions with river users and their representatives to explore the potential for development.

  European Aviation
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the European aviation market is fully liberalised, and that any agreement does not allow individual member states to prevent airlines from setting market fares.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend attended the EC Transport Council in Luxembourg on 22 June, at which an historic agreement on aviation liberalisation was concluded. This was the culmination of a 10-year process, in which the Government have been in the lead throughout.

  We welcome the agreement, which will lead to a liberal aviation market from the beginning of next year, sweeping away traditional restrictions on market entry and setting fares, and encouraging true competition. This will enable Community air carriers to mount services and set fares according to their own commercial judgment, stimulating improved services and lower fares. There are tightly drawn safeguards to protect the consumer from excessively high and other anti-competitive fares.

  The agreement is good news for the consumer and for competitive airlines.

  London Taxis
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the working party on taxis in London; and when he expects the working party to report its recommendations.

  Mr. Norris
  The working party on the safety of users of taxis and minicabs in London has now reported to me. I am studying the report with interest and will arrange its publication shortly.

  Crewe-Holyhead Rail Link
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to secure European finance for the upgrading of the Crewe to Holyhead rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  It would be for British Rail, in conjunction with local authorities as appropriate, to apply for European funding of any upgrading of the Crewe to Holyhead line. British Rail is currently upgrading the line to allow 90 mph running. It is financing this itself. It has no plans at present for any further upgrading of the line.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on Monday 2 March 1992 to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), on 2 March 1992, at columns 63–64.

  Motorway Construction
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the public consultation process prior to the construction of new motorways.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The procedures have been developed under successive Governments over the last 20 years. They give the public the opportunity to comment on the options in the early stages of preparation.

  Investment Appraisal
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reach firm conclusions on the report of the role of investment appraisal in road and rail transport; and if he is satisfied that each mode of transport is given comparable assessment within that report.

  Mr. Freeman
  This paper described the technical procedures, and their background, at present used or required by the Department of Transport in appraising proposed investments in road and rail transport. The paper attracted helpful comments from many sources. I am quite satisfied with the present rules for providing grants to public transport. However, I also accept that there may be scope for the wider use of full cost-benefit analysis in the appraisal of public transport infrastructure investments. The Department is therefore now developing further guidance on the use of cost-benefit analysis for the appraisal of, in particular, urban public transport infrastructure.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the agreed completion date of the train sets able to run through-train services via the channel tunnel when investment in them was approved; and what is the current expected completion date.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail announced in December 1989 that it, in conjunction with the French and Belgian
  393
  railways, had placed the order for intercapital train sets to run between London and Paris and Brussels from June 1993. The railways now expect services to build up during the first half of 1994. When the railways announced the order of the north of London train sets in November 1991, they stated that these train sets, which will be built as a follow-on order from the intercapitals, were expected to come into service in 1995. This date has not changed.

  BR Locomotives
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the level of investment in new locomotives he has authorised for British Rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  The level and timing of British Rail's investment in new locomotives are determined by operational requirements and available resources. New locomotives are not always required to replace those withdrawn: the regional railways sector has replaced virtually all its loco-hauled services with the faster and more efficient class 158 diesel multiple units.

  Locomotive builds authorised and yet to be fully completed are 34 high-speed train sets and 37 class 92 locomotives for channel tunnel services; and 100 class 60 locomotives for domestic freight services, at a total cost of over £700 million at current prices.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport and its agencies had one member of staff registered as disabled in grades 1 to 7 at June 1992, representing 0.1 per cent. of these grades.

  Overall, 201 of the Department's staff, representing 1.3 per cent. of the total, are registered disabled.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline the nature and duration of the Government grant which is being paid to halt the growth in the Humber bridge debt.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the then Secretary of State for Transport, gave on 6 February on transport cash and running cost limits. A grant of £7.6 million, under the authority of the Appropriation Act, was paid for the financial year 1991–92 to avoid the capitalisation of unpaid interest payments. The amount of grant for 1992–93 will be determined having regard to the outcome of the board's financial position in the year: provision has been made in the estimates for £43.5 million. Grant will need to be paid until Government legislation is in place.

  USA-UK Air Agreement
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in reviewing the United States of America-United Kingdom bilateral air 394
  agreement; whether he will consider negotiating future agreements with the United States of America on a European basis; and what steps he is taking to ensure that more transatlantic services are made available from airports other than Heathrow and Gatwick.

  Mr. Norris
  Discussions with the US Government are continuing about the possibilities for the liberalisation of transatlantic air services. Our aim is to remove obstacles to fair competition between airlines, and to remove unnecessary regulation.

  There may ultimately be a role for the European Community in aviation negotiations with third countries. Once the single market in aviation is established and we get used to operating in and from it, a clearer need for collective negotiations may develop. It will be important not to prejudice the present tried and tested bilateral relationships by attempting to negotiate prematurely at Community level.

  Making more transatlantic services available to airports other than Heathrow and Gatwick is something we have in mind as we pursue our negotiations with the Americans. The last round of discussions covered the possibilities for opening up additional opportunities for both sides, including new routes, without going into the detail of specific services.

  Air Navigation Order 1989
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on how many occasions, in the last year for which figures are available, action was taken to prosecute airlines for contravention of article 88 of the Air Navigation Order 1989;

  (2) what means he uses to enforce regulations designated by article 88 of the Air Navigation Order 1989, in respect of foreign-registered airlines;

  (3) what sanctions are available against airlines which persistently fail to meet requirements laid down by article 88 of the Air Navigation Order 1989.

  Mr. Norris
  Article 67 of the order enables the Secretary of State to revoke, suspend or vary any permit issued under article 88. Article 99 provides that any contravention of the order may be treated as a prosecutable offence. Where there is prime faciae evidence of a breach of article 88, the Secretary of State will investigate, normally with the help of the Civil Aviation Authority. If he is then satisfied that a breach has occurred, he may have recourse to the penalties provided under articles 67 and 99 of the Air Navigation Order. No central records of prosecutions under article 88 are maintained, though it is rare for reported breaches to require prosecution action. It is more usual for action to take the form of a written warning for first offenders, or, in the case of more persistent offenders or where a more serious breach has occurred, a suspension, revocation or variation of the article 88 permit.

WALES

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the number of jobs created in mid-Glamorgan between 1984 and 1989; how many mining jobs were lost in the period 1984–89; and how many of the jobs created between 1984 and 1989 were full-time.
  395
  Mr. David Hunt
  While comprehensive information on total jobs created or lost is not available, it is estimated that the number of employees employed in mid-Glamorgan rose by 13,300 between September 1984 and September 1989; full-time employees accounted for 3,000 of this increase. During the same period, the number of employees employed in deep and opencast coal mining is estimated to have fallen by 10,000.
  (Source: Censuses of Employment)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs there were in mid-Glamorgan in(a) 1978 and (b)

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is estimated that there were 186,000 and 165,000 employees in employment in mid-Glamorgan in 1978 and 1989 respectively.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the job estimate for mid-Glamorgan during the 1990s in the mid-Glamorgan county council economic report.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am aware that a report on mid-Glamorgan has been produced for the consideration of the county council. My Department has obtained a copy and is studying it.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the number of jobs required for mid-Glamorgan during the 1990s to reduce unemployment to 1990 levels.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has made no such estimate.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received representations from Cymdeithas Cynghorau Cemaes concerning the reorganisation of local government in Wales; and when he intends to respond to such representations.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes, I have received representations from Cymdeithas Cynghorau Cemaes. I am considering all such representations and will announce my conclusions in a White Paper later this year.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the gross domestic product of(a) mid-Glamorgan, (b) south Glamorgan, (c) Wales and (d) the United Kingdom in 1979 and the latest available date.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Estimates of the gross domestic product at current prices are given in the table:

  £ million

  1979

  1989

  11990

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,217

  2,920

  n/a

  South Glamorgan

  1,183

  3,247

  n/a

  Wales

  7,073

  18,443

  20,053

  United Kingdom2

  166,189

  430,290

  470,820

  Source: Central Statistical Office

  1Provisional

  2Excluding the continental shelf and statistical discrepancy

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what percentage of officers in grades, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are women.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The details, based on staff in post figures at 31 March 1992, are given in the table:

  Grade

  Women

  Per Cent.

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  9

  4

  1

  17

  5

  10

  15

  6

  15

  17

  7

  35

  20

  Departmental total

  1,235

  49

  Notes:

  1. Includes equivalent professional grades.

  2. Includes agency and industrial staff. Part-time staff count as one unit.

  Businesses
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many businesses there are in mid-Glamorgan; what percentage of these businesses are(a) retailing, (b) construction and (c) catering businesses; and what are the equivalent percentages for the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Hunt
  According to the stock of businesses registered for VAT there were 10,500 businesses in Mid Glamorgan at the end of 1990. The table shows the percentages in each of the requested sub-categories:

  Percentage of total businesses

  Sub category

  Mid Glamorgan

  United Kingdom

  Retailing

  22

  15

  Construction

  19

  16

  Catering

  13

  8

  Source: Employment Department.

  County Council elections
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his best estimate of the likely total cost of the county council elections which are due to take place in 1993.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have made no such estimate. In the financial year 1989–90, the last year in which county council elections took place, counties recorded current expenditure of £1 million on council elections.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement concerning the financial regime for Welsh local authorities for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies that I gave on 22 May to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) at column 277 and to the hon. Gentleman himself on 4 June at 611.

  Syringes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received arid what studies he has undertaken concerning the problem of injuries sustained to individuals by discarded syringes; and if he will take steps to ensure that such equipment is disposed of responsibly.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am not aware of any recent representations about injuries caused by discarded syringes, nor have I undertaken any study. Disposal of needles and syringes used in medical, dental and veterinary establishments in the responsibility of those individual establishments. In relation to needles and syringes used by individuals in the community, such as diabetics, advice on safe disposal has been issued to health and local authorities.

  Drug misusing injectors taking part in needle-exchange schemes are given special containers and are encouraged to return used equipment to reception points. They and other drug users are given advice on how to dispose of used needles safely.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of Welsh Water concerning the cutting off of domestic water supplies; and when he next proposes to meet him.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I regularly discuss issues of mutual interest with the chairman of Welsh Water plc.

  Economic Planning Council
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make a statement concerning his plans to set up an economic planning council for Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A consultation paper seeking views on how the council would operate will be issued in the near future.

  Inmos
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the dates of all contacts and meetings he has initiated with DG XIII and DG XVI to discuss the future of Inmos Newport;

  (2) what proposals he has received from the European Commission to relocate Inmos Newport to another site in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Travellers' Sites
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Queensferry community council to discuss the location of transit sites for travellers.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. The location of sites is primarily a matter for Clwyd county council in consultation with the district council.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on 3 March 1992, at column 133.

  Farmers (Incentive Payments)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish figures showing the increase in the level of incentive payments granted to farmers in Wales since 1976 in real terms.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 25 June 1992]: Complete information on the level of assistance granted to farmers in Wales is not available, because figures for some elements of support, notably intervention expenditure and variable premium payments, are not separately available for Wales. Based on identifiable expenditure on farming in Wales the figures, in real terms, are given in the table:

  Total identifiable payments (in real terms £ million 1976)

  £ million

  1976

  20

  1977

  19

  1978

  20

  1979

  22

  1980

  23

  1981

  30

  1982

  31

  1983

  40

  1984

  34

  1985

  36

  1986

  27

  1987

  29

  1988

  28

  1989

  29

  1990

  33

  1991

  41

  Ministerial Titles
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) for what reason the ministerial title of Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is being changed to Parliamentary Secretary; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on departmental efficiency of one of his departmental Ministers carrying a different title of Parliamentary Secretary for internal correspondence, while continuing to be Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for dealings with the public.

  Mr. David Hunt
  How, for clarity and euphony, Ministers wish to be referred to within Departments is a matter for them. Efficiency will at worst be unaffected and may be marginally improved.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the cost of the change of title of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to Parliamentary Secretary.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The cost of promulgating the decision was around £2.28.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many State Veterinary Service staff there were in each year since 1985 in the categories(a) qualified veterinarians, (b) technical and scientific, (c) administrative and (d) others.

  Qualified veterinarians

  Technical/scientific

  Admin staff

  Others

  As at 1 January 1985

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  As at 1 January 1986

  415

  353

  —

  50.0

  As at 1 January 1987

  350

  339

  —

  51.5

  As at 1 January 1988

  374.5

  337

  —

  46.5

  As at 1 January 1989

  376.5

  331

  —

  41.5

  As at 1 January 1990

  393.5

  373.5

  10.5

  43.5

  As at 1 January 1991

  408

  392.5

  14.5

  48.5

  As at 1 January 1992

  414.5

  383.5

  14.5

  48.5

  1 Figures not readily available.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of confirmed cases of BSE in each county or region in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1992 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Gummer
  The number of cases confirmed for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland from 3 January 1992 to 19 June 1992 is as follows:

  County-region

  Confirmed cases

  England:

  Avon

  291

  Bedfordshire

  39

  Berkshire

  79

  Buckinghamshire

  130

  Cambridgeshire

  49

  Cheshire

  646

  Cleveland

  19

  Cornwall

  1,212

  Cumbria

  537

  Derbyshire

  432

  Devon

  1,604

  Dorset

  1,067

  Durham

  68

  Essex

  69

  Gloucestershire

  274

  Hampshire

  326

  Hereford and Worcester

  259

  Hertfordshire

  37

  Humberside

  63

  Isle of Wight

  70

  Kent

  205

  Lancashire

  553

  Leicestershire

  293

  Lincolnshire

  93

  London

  13

  Manchester

  18

  Merseyside

  20

  Norfolk

  407

  Northamptonshire

  133

  Northumberland

  107

  Nottinghamshire

  87

  Oxfordshire

  255

  Salop

  405

  Somerset

  1,381

  Staffordshire

  700

  Suffolk

  172

  Surrey

  133

  Sussex East

  196

  400
  Mr. Soames
  Since 1985 the structure of the State Veterinary Service has changed several times. For example, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, which formed part of the State Veterinary Service, attained agency status in April 1990. In order to allow direct comparisons, the figures provided relate to veterinary, technical and scientific staff in headquarters, the field and investigation services only. The CVL figures are not incorporated in this return.

  County-region

  Confirmed cases

  Sussex West

  331

  Tyne and Wear

  5

  Warwickshire

  148

  West Midlands

  11

  Wiltshire

  718

  Yorkshire North

  668

  Yorkshire South

  47

  Yorkshire West

  93

  Wales:

  Clwyd

  262

  Dyfed

  908

  Glamorgan Mid

  18

  Glamorgan South

  54

  Glamorgan West

  12

  Gwent

  109

  Gwynedd

  61

  Powys

  209

  Scotland:

  Borders

  44

  Central

  12

  Dumfries

  229

  Fife

  29

  Grampian

  102

  Highland

  23

  Lothian

  22

  Orkney

  7

  Shetland

  2

  Strathclyde

  167

  Tayside

  38

  Western Isles

  0

  Northern Ireland:

  Antrim

  43

  Armagh

  5

  Down

  17

  Fermanagh

  7

  Londonderry

  17

  Tyrone

  21

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about objective 6 of the EC regional aid programme; and how it will be able to help communities such as Lowestoft affected by a future decline in fishing.
  401
  Mr. Curry
  The EC Commission has not yet produced its detailed proposals for objective 6 or elaborated on how it will propose to define fisheries-dependent areas in that context.

  Fur Factory Farms
  Ms. Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will prohibit the keeping of mink and fox in fur factory farms on expiry of the Mink Keeping Order 1987.

  Mr. Soames
  Agriculture departments issue licences under the Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 to establishments keeping mink under secure conditions, as set out in the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975, as amended. The purpose of the order is to prevent the escape of mink into the wild, where they would be destructive pests, and not to regulate fur-farming practices. No similar order exists to place security requirements on the keeping of foxes. The Mink (Keeping) Order expires on 31 December 1992 and a consultation exercise will take place this summer to seek the views of interested organisations on future arrangements for the secure keeping of mink and any possible extension of the controls to other species.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Curry
  The merchant bankers Leopold Joseph and Sons Ltd. were employed to assist in the preparation of proposals for the expansion of areas to be market tested, following publication of the White Paper "Competing for Quality". The resulting programme is still under consideration.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) lambs, (b) sheep, (c) pigs, (d) calves, (e) bulls over six months, (f) heifers over six months and (g) cull cows were exported live from the United Kingdom for (i) fattening and (ii) immediate slaughter in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 24 June at column 240.

  Bananas
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he can report on discussions with the EC on the creation of a banana quota for the Leeward Islands.

  Mr. Curry
  The European Commission has recently published a working paper which looks at ways of arranging the post-1992 European banana market. This paper leaves many questions unanswered and member states will be examining the possible implications of the Commission's approach in detail.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Glass (Safety)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many accidents were caused by furniture constructed in whole or part from glass as listed in the home accident surveillance system for(a) 1981, (b) 1983, (c) 1985, (d) 1987 and (e)

  Mr. Leigh
  The Department's home accident surveilance scheme records the following accidents involving furniture with glass in its construction. The data do not, in all cases, identify whether glass, or some other component of the furniture, caused the accident.

  Number

  1981

  263

  1983

  277

  1985

  309

  1987

  286

  1989

  333

  Note: Figures are not available for England and Wales only.

  Ozone-destroying Chemicals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake to prevent an increase in United Kingdom production or release to the atmosphere of hydrochlorofluorocarbons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government have already agreed that the EC should press for controls on production and use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons. It is envisaged that the matter will also be discussed when the Montreal protocol is reviewed in November 1992. We will be seeking to obtain agreement to limit production to the minimum necessary to meet demand for hydrochlorofluorocarbons in uses where ozone-benign alternatives are not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the approximate total production of hydrochlorofluorocarbons in the United Kingdom for each year from 1986 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Information for 1986 to 1991 is not available. Statistics of United Kingdom production have since been supplied to the Commission of the European Communities in accordance with the terms of EC regulation 594/91, but the information is commercially sensitive and not available for publication.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the latest available yearly export figures for HCFC22; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies with which he has had discussions in relation to ozone depletion or ozone-depleting substances; what advice his Department gives to industry on the environmental impact of hydrochlorofluorocarbons; if he will list planned future meetings with user industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment hold
  403
  regular meetings with producers and users of ozone-depleting substances, including hydrochlorofluorocarbons, to exchange information on future requirements, timetables for phasing out production and the availability and take-up of alternatives. My noble colleague Baroness Denton of Wakefield will also be discussing these matters with a producer of ozone-depletiong substances in July.

  The Department advises industry that hydrochlorofluorocarbons still have potential to deplete the ozone layer and should therefore be used only in applications where completely ozone-benign alternatives are not available and should be recycled wherever possible.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give the most recent figures for the amount of(a) methyl chloroform, (b) chlorofluorocarbons and (c) hydrochlorofluorocarbons used in each of the following sectors (i) refrigeration and air conditioning, (ii) solvents, (iii) foams and (iv) medical aerosols; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list by sector and application the essential uses of ozone-destroying chemicals identified by his Department; if he will estimate the tonnage per year that is required by each sector; if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  Information on current usage of ozone-depleting substances is not available in the form requested and the applications for which the use of these substances will remain essential in the longer term have yet to be identified.

  However, my Department has commissioned Touche Ross to carry out a study into the current and future pattern of use of ozone-depleting substances in solvent cleaning and the Department of the Environment has commissioned a similar study in relation to the refrigeration and air conditioning sector. The studies will examine current usage, the extent to which replacement has already taken place and how the pattern of use will change by the end of the century, paying special attention to the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises. They will identify areas where currently no suitable alternative is available and how much of the probable continuing demand can be met through recycling. The studies will pay particular attention to the period up the end of 1995 as the United Kingdom and its Community partners have agreed to press for all signatories to the Montreal protocol to phase out ozone-depleting substances by then, subject to exemptions for essential uses.

  The consultants have been asked to report their findings by the end of September and both reports will be published in due course. The report on an earlier similar study covering halon uses has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity of chlorofluorocarbons exported from the United Kingdom in 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 June 1992]: I confirm the answer that I gave on 11 March 1992 that the information is not published for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Prompt Payment
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to publish a survey of the prompt payment record of Government Departments for small businesses; and if he will make a statement.
  404
  Mr. Leigh
  Surveys of the payment performance of Government Departments to suppliers of goods and services have been undertaken during the last financial year. Officials are finalising the details of the survey results and I expect to publish them in the very near future.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate a review of the operation of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to consider whether(a) legal recognition may be given to operators of ethical multi-level marketing businesses and (b) these businesses should be labelled as something other than a pyramid selling scheme.

  Mr. Leigh
  As regards the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, multi-level marketing schemes which meet the requirements of the pyramid selling regulations may already operate legally, and I see no need for any further provision for legal recognition. As regards the second half, the Fair Trading Act does not label schemes: it outlaws certain practices by promoters and participants of pyramid selling and similar trading schemes, and provides for regulations for others.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are women.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures for the Department, including its executive agencies and the former Department of Energy, as at 22 June 1992 are:

  Grade level

  Number of women

  Percentage of staff

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  6

  10.2

  Grade 4

  2

  14.3

  Grade 5

  38

  13.5

  Grade 6

  24

  10.5

  Grade 7

  169

  12.9

  All staff

  5,808

  43.9

  Overhead Electric Cables
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's current policy on the safety of overhead electric cables.

  Mr. Eggar
  The policy is to ensure the continuing protection of the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. This includes overhead lines.

  To achieve this, regulations made under the Electricity Act 1989 require the works of electricity suppliers to be used, constructed, installed and protected to prevent danger so far as is reasonably practicable. My Department's engineering inspectorate ensures compliance by carrying out regular safety audits and investigations, and examining the event reports submitted by the companies under the regulations.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  The figures for the Department, including its executive agencies and the former Department of Energy, as at 25 June 1992 are:

  Grade levels

  Number of registered disabled staff

  Percentage of staff

  Grades 1–4

  0

  0

  Grades 5–7

  4

  0.2

  All staff

  135

  1.0

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with Nuclear Electric concerning(a) the 1994 review date set for decisions on further investment in nuclear power, (b) the criteria to be used and (c) proposals for a 2,600 MW station at Sizewell.

  Mr. Eggar
  I meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  The then Secretary of State for Energy made clear to the House on 9 November 1989, Official Report, column 1176, that the Government would review the future prospects for nuclear power in 1994. That remains the Government's policy. No capital expenditure approval will be given to Nuclear Electric plc in respect of any new stations beyond Sizewell B pending the outcome of the review. The review will take account of all relevant factors.

  Self-catering Accommodation (Fire Safety)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to issue(a) the consultative paper and (b) the draft amendment regulations concerning furnishings and fire safety in respect of self-catering accommodation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 June 1992]: My Department plans to publish, in mid-July, draft amendment regulations and associated consultation documents relating to the fire safety of furnishings in respect of self-catering accommodation under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  Water Guns
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to strengthen the law to control the sale of high-pressure water guns as toys.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 25 June 1992]: The Consumer Protection Act 1987 provides the necessary powers to remove from the market any consumer product which is considered unsafe.

  Action Teams
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many action teams his Department has established in Great Britain since 1987; what were their budgets in 1991–92; and what are their proposed budgets for 1992–93;
  406
  (2) what was the budget for his Department's action team in Barrow-in-Furness in 1991–92; and what is the proposed budget for the year 1992–93.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 19 June 1992]: This Department has established one action team since 1987—the Cumbria action team, set up in 1991.

  There is no budget as such. The schemes which the action team targets are national or regional in nature and are not costed on geographical basis. The action team is an inter-departmental body, led by DTI. The running costs of the action team fall to the cross-participating departments. The DTI element of running costs for the Cubria based operation—which cover both the Barrow and Cockermouth offices—is estimated at some £65,000 in the current financial year compared to £56,000 for the nine months in which the team was operation in 1991–92.

  The Department has also provided support for other initiatives set up by local communities to deal with major closures or redundancies.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, columns 61–62, what assessment he has made of whether the coverage of the assisted areas is likely to decrease, following the current review;

  (2) what role the European Commission will have in determining the precise extent of the new assisted areas map or the split between development areas and intermediate areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Under the state aids provisions of the treaty of Rome the Government will have to clear any new map of the assisted areas, including the designation of development and intermediate areas, with the European Commission.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 June,Official Report, columns 61–62, if he will indicate what views the European Commission have expressed about the current and future extent of the assisted areas map.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The current assisted areas map was cleared by the European Commission in 1984 under the state aid provisions of the treaty of Rome. No proposals on the future shape of the map have yet been put to the Commission.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Presidency
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has with local authorities, community groups and other organisations in each standard planning region of the United Kingdom prior to the drawing up of the calendar of special events being held in the United Kingdom as part of the programme of the United Kingdom presidency of the EC.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had regular contact with the Local Government International Bureau which drew attention to the forthcoming presidency and the special events in its
  407
  newsletter. This was followed by further contacts with a range of local authorities and community groups to take forward ideas for individual special events.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost of producing the pamphlet "The UK Presidency of the European Community".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A total of 75,000 copies of the presidency programme booklet are being produced at a total cost of £38,444.60.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about how the United Kingdom venues for the calendar of special events being held as part of the United Kingdom's EC presidency were chosen.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The choice of Edinburgh for the European Council was made by the Prime Minister. The venues for other ministerial meetings were chosen by the Departments concerned. Most of the special events are being organised by non-governmental groups and will take place in various parts of the United Kingdom, including Durham, Bolton, Belfast, Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are women.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The figures at 1 April 1992 for the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are as follows:

  Grade1

  Number of women in grade

  Women as percentage of total in grade

  1

  0.0

  0.0

  2

  1.0

  3.5

  3

  4.0

  3.2

  4

  0.0

  0.0

  5

  16.0

  4.6

  6

  13.0

  14.4

  7

  298.5

  13.5

  Overall, 2,941 officers, representing 37.1 per cent. of the Department's staff, are women.

  1 Includes home civil service grades and the diplomatic service equivalents.

  2Part-time staff are counted as half.

  Channel Islands (War Crimes)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many files relating to war crimes in the Channel islands during world war two are retained in his Department and withheld from the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  No records relating to war crimes in the Channel islands during world war two are retained in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Vietnamese Migrants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of Vietnamese migrants forcibly repatriated to Vietnam who have subsequently returned to Hong Kong.
  408
  Mr. Goodlad
  None of the 161 Vietnamese migrants returned to Vietnam under the orderly repatriation programme has returned to Hong Kong.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvements are planned in the conditions under which Vietnamese migrants are held in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Facilities in the camps are kept under constant review and repair or improvement works are carried out where necessary. The Vietnamese migrant population is steadily decreasing and it will soon be possible to close some of the temporary camps altogether.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has received from the Government of Vietnam that migrants forcibly repatriated from Hong Kong will not suffer punitive and discriminatory action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  In the statement of understanding signed by the British, Hong Kong and Vietnamese Governments on 29 October 1991, the Vietnamese undertook that no Vietnamese migrant returning from Hong Kong would be persecuted and that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would have access to them for monitoring purposes. They have reaffirmed this undertaking on several occasions.

  More than 20,000 migrants have now returned from the region to Vietnam. There has not been a single substantiated case of persecution.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what screening procedures are applied before any Vietnamese migrants are forcibly repatriated from Hong Kong camps; and what legal advice is made available to them.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Vietnamese asylum-seekers arriving in Hong Kong are interviewed by immigration officers using the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' guidelines for the determination of refugee status. Those who are found not to be refugees may appeal to the refugee status review board. Legal consultants operating under the auspices of UNHCR are on hand to assist applicants.

  The screening procedure is supervised by the high commissioner's staff who have unrestricted access to asylum-seekers at each stage.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the number of lawyers employed in the Hong Kong camps in which Vietnamese migrants are housed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The number of lawyers employed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is a matter for her decision, but such questions are regularly discussed by participants at meetings about the comprehensive plan of action for Indo-Chinese asylum seekers.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
  409
  Rights about the resources she has available to monitor the experience of Vietnamese migrants repatriated to Vietnam from Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Returning migrants are monitored by the staff of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, based in both Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city, who undertake frequent visits to returnees' home villages. We regularly review the position with them.

  Monitoring visits are also carried out by the staff of the British embassy in Hanoi and by various nongovernmental organisations.

  Vietnam (Sanctions)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America about lifting economic sanctions against Vietnam and paying agreed war reparations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We regularly discuss these issues bilaterally and in the relevant international bodies.

  Government Communication Headquarters
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make it his policy to answer questions on the number of staff employed at the Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham in departments that do not deal directly with matters of national security.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In his statement to the House of Commons on 6 May at columns 64–65, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government would maintain their policy of not commenting on operational information relating to security and intelligence. The information requested by the hon. Member would fall into that category.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively and overall in his Department are registered disabled people.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office employs no registered disabled staff in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 or 7. One officer at grade 5 is registered disabled—0.3 per cent. of the grade. A total of 0.4 per cent. of the work force of the diplomatic wing and 1.94 per cent. of the work force of the Overseas Development Administration are registered disabled people.

  Brazil
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Brazil about the preservation of tribal reserves of the Guapore valley and the extraction of mahogany from within them.

  Mr. Garel-Jones:
  None.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy with regard to, and extent of, the commissioning of research projects in universities and polytechnics by Government communications headquarters.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 June 1992, c. 108.]: GCHQ, in common with other Government Departments and private industry, commissions research from universities or polytechnics when they are able to offer a particular area of expertise. Research is confined to unclassified subjects and the results may he published by the university or polytechnic if it wishes for the benefit of the academic community as a whole. Over the last four years seven research contracts totalling £506,953 have been placed by GCHQ with four institutions.

  President Mary Robinson
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to have an invitation issued to President Mary Robinson of Ireland to make an official visit to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  There are no plans at present for an official visit.

  China (Political Prisoners)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the removal of Chinese political prisoners to Hong Kong for use in organ transplant operations.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No Chinese prisoners, political or otherwise, have been sent to Hong Kong. No representations have been received.

  Peru
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Peruvian authorities concerning human rights in Peru; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  We take every appropriate opportunity, both bilaterally and with our European partners, to emphasise to the Peruvian authorities their obligation to respect and protect human rights. When President Fujimori called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this year, he was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling in this country. Most recently on 17 June our embassy in Lima reminded the Peruvian Foreign Ministry of the importance we attach to this matter.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Goodlad
  No consultants are presently working on market testing in my Department, although, as I told the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on
  411
  16 June, Official Report, column 491, Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte carried out separate studies on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration earlier this year in line with the commitments given in the White Paper "Competing for Quality"

DEFENCE

  Chemical and Biological Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British equipment related to chemical and biological warfare has been tested at any military establishment in Australia and New Zealand since 1962; and what was the nature of this work.

  Mr. Aitken
  As explained in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 21 May 1992,Official Report, column 254, the United Kingdom armed forces chemical and biological equipment is wholly for defence.

  Environmental testing of prototypes of the S10 respirator was carried out in Austalia in the 1980s.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department's scientists have conducted into the incapacitating agent BZ; and what is the evaluation of BZ as a weapon of war.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  BZ has been identified as a possible incapacitating agent which might be used against United Kingdom armed forces. The chemical and biological defence establishment has carried out studies of anticholinergic compoounds including BZ which confirmed the effectiveness of medical counter-measures against their effects.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Public Record Office the documents relating to the Cabinet Defence Committee in July 1956 to abandon unilaterally all offensive chemical and biological weapons; and for what reason these papers have not yet been placed in the Public Record Office.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The documents in question continue to be properly withheld under the established criteria of the Public Records Acts.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the research establishments conducting human or animal research on nerve gases in Britain.

  Mr. Aitken
  The only research establishment for which my department is responsible conducting research on nerve gases involving animal or human studies is the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down. All research is conducted for defence purposes with the aim of developing effective protective measures for the armed forces against the use of chemical and biological warfare by an aggressor.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many experiments with physostigmine on human volunteers have been carried out at the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down in each year since 1987.
  412
  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  International Agreements
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all the bilateral and multilateral agreements directly or indirectly negotiated by his Department or a body acting on behalf of his Department with(a) Switzerland and (b) Liechtenstein.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department has the following memoranda of understanding with Switzerland:

  Security of classified non-atomic defence matters

  Exchange of quality assurance services

  Firings of the Swiss Rapier weapon system at the Royal Artillery range, Hebrides.

  There are no formal arrangements or agreements with Liechtenstein.

  For details of international treaties with these two countries, I refer my hon. Friend to the answers that he received from my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 24 and 25 June, Official Report, columns 208–211 and 269 respectively.

  Pensions
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many retired officers of the armed services over the age of 55 years are currently in receipt of pensions for each of the ranks of captain, major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, brigadier and major general who retired in the year 1 January 1977 to 31 December 1977.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of retired Army officers over the age of 55 years, currently in receipt of pension, who retired in the year 1 January 1977 to 31 December 1977 is as follows:

  Rank

  Number of officers

  Major general

  11

  Brigadier

  29

  Colonel

  55

  Lieutenant colonel

  155

  Major

  355

  Captain

  117

  Detention Centres
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military detention centres in England.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  They are:

  Royal Naval detention quarters—Portsmouth

  Military corrective training centre—Colchester

  Regional services detention room—RAF Innsworth

  Regional services detention room—RAF Wyton

  Public Information
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now release the files relating to the Shingle street incident in 1940 into the public domain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am not aware of any closed Ministry of Defence records which identify any such incident.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the impact of low-flying military aircraft on livestock and poultry; what consultation he has had with farming organisations and other interested bodies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My Department's policy is to spread low flying as widely as possible throughout the country so as to minimise disturbance. A number of consultations have taken place with farming organisations about low flying.

  Phased Array Radar
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the test phase of the Fylingdales phased array radar is due to be completed; when the PAR is due to become fully operational; and what role it will play in the nation's defence.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The phased array radar at RAF Fylingdales will reach initial operational capability on 1 July this year and will be fully operational on 1 October. The role of the station will continue to be that of a ballistic missile early warning system.

  Fuel Jettisoning
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases of Phantom jets jettisoning more than 1,000 litres of fuel while airborne have been reported in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of reported incidents of RAF Phantom jets jettisoning fuel while airborne is as follows:

  Number

  1980

  12

  1981

  30

  1982

  46

  1983

  52

  1984

  35

  1985

  14

  1986

  5

  1987

  16

  1988

  22

  1989

  15

  1990

  11

  1991

  4

  No records are kept of the amount of fuel jettisoned.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance is given to Royal Air Force and. Royal Navy pilots about jettisoning large quantities of fuel while airborne over(a) the sea, (b) rural areas and (c) built-up areas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is normal practice for aircrew to jettison fuel only if, in an emergency, it is essential to reduce the aircraft weight before landing and the option of remaining airborne in order to burn fuel is not possible.

  In the United Kingdom, RAF and RN pilots are directed that, where possible, fuel is not to be jettisoned at a height lower than 1,500 ft. The aircraft must also be under air traffic control and, where possible, over the sea. Otherwise a sparsely populated area should be chosen.
  414
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the environmental consequences of aviation fuel being jettisoned by airborne military aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RN and RAF pilots are instructed to jettison fuel under carefully controlled conditions which ensure that the great majority of fuel evaporates before it reaches the ground. There is, therefore, minimal environmental impact at ground or sea level.

  The evaporated fuel is widely dispersed. Most of it is biodegradable and that which remains has no known effects on the atmosphere. There are no products in military aviation jet fuel known to cause greenhouse effects, damage to the ozone layer or air pollution in the lower atmosphere.

  Extremely Low Frequency Communications
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many installations for extremely low frequency communications are in operational use in the United Kingdom; whether they are effective; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Nuclear Missiles
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how targets for nuclear missiles are determined; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to discuss our nuclear targeting plans.

  Trident
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make it his policy to provide information on the proportion of Trident nuclear warheads to be constructed in the United States of America.

  Mr. Aitken
  All Trident warheads will be constructed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of successful tests of the Trident missiles and the total number of tests conducted.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United States Navy has to date conducted a total of 35 test firings of the Trident II D5 ballistic missile, of which 30 were successful—one partially—one was destroyed in error by the test range authorities, and four were unsuccessful. All test flights since December 1989 have been successful, and have validated fully the reliability of the Trident II system.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how records were compiled for persons serving in the British nuclear tests, who were not issued with film badges, and what the present day monitoring procedures are.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records of test participants were complied by the National Radiological Protection Board
  415
  from personnel records, Atomic Weapons Research Establishment reports, planning documents, Her Majesty's ships' ledgers, RAF operations record books and the "blue books". As the United Kingdom no longer conducts atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, no present day monitoring procedures for this situation exist. Otherwise, monitoring procedures implement MOD policy which is to justify all exposures, comply with MOD and statutory limits and to keep all exposures as low as reasonably practicable.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records he has of contamination levels in copra, drinking water and sea water, recorded during British nuclear testing in the south Atlantic during the 1950s and 1960s; if he will make them available to the NRPB—National Radiological Protection Board—study; and if he will place the information in the Library.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ministry of Defence records show no significant radioactive material from the tests in the south Pacific ocean was detected in drinking water, copra or sea water in any of the samples collected from areas that were occupied by participants. The monitoring records from Christmas Island are currently being compiled into a report for the National Radiological Protection Board study, and this report will be placed in the Library of the House when it is ready.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British nuclear test participants have died as a result of multiple myeloma and non-lymphatic leukaemia.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Mortality figures for multiple myeloma and non-lymphatic leukaemia among test participants will be provided in the National Radiological Protection Board report, which will be published, subject to peer review, later this year.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the purpose of the "blue book" at the time information was, initially, collated for entry; and if he has made this information available to the NRPB study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The "blue books" are a compilation of information by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment whose purpose was to provide timely advice to test participants on their radiation exposure, if any, from the tests. The "blue books" have been made available to the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the exclusion zone declared between 1 March and 1 August 1957 and the action that was taken to safeguard personnel within that zone; and if he has made this information available to the NRPB study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The purpose of the exclusion zone was to prevent aircraft and ships from straying into a possible danger area. Personnel within the zone were at a safe distance from the detonations. The original archive documents relating to the exclusion zone can be made available for the National Radiological Protection Board's inspection should it so wish.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many deaths per million have occurred 416
  annually, since 1962, resulting from multiple myeloma and non-lymphatic leukaemia in (a) the population of the United Kingdom and (b) British nuclear test participants.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on differences between British and American nuclear test programmes in connection with safety procedures and protective measures; and if he has made this information available to the NRPB study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The United States nuclear weapon test programme was wholly different from that of the United Kingdom. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on United States safety procedures and protective measures which are entirely a matter for the United States.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning persons who were provided with protective clothing at the time of the Grapple Y test who were further away from the test site than other, unprotected, test participants; and if he has made this information available to the NRPB study.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  All participants in the Grapple Y test were issued, where necessary, with suitable protective clothing to protect against the heat generated by the detonation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests are being undertaken to identify levels of Americium contamination in British nuclear test participants and to establish whether this differs from the control group of non-nuclear test veterans.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will compensate Mr. Andrew Dickson for exposure to radiation during nuclear tests in the Pacific.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is no evidence that Mr. Dickson was exposed to radiation whilst serving on Christmas Island. Compensation would be considered if a participant in the United Kingdom test programme could show—even on the balance of probabilities—that participation had caused any subsequent illness.

  Support Services
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will quantify the savings in co-locating the support management groups and logistic support services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The recurring savings which would accrue from the collaboration of all the support management group and logistic support services are estimated to be in the order of £6 million per annum.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide details of the valuations placed on buildings which would be available for disposal under option II of his consultation document "The Wyton Option".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. Provision of the valuations would disclose information which is commercially sensitive.
  417
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the costs for new buildings necessitated by the proposed move of the support management group to RAF Wyton; and what are the costs of refurbishing existing buildings for the same purpose at RAF Wyton.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  This information is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the numbers of posts for RAF service men and civilian employees provided for in his proposal to co-locate the support management group and the associated units of logistic support services.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of service and civilian posts proposed at RAF Wyton is estimated to be about 3,000.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost in redundancy payments arising from his review of the support management groups and logistic support services and reduction in staff levels.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not possible to be precise about anticipated redundancy costs at this stage. The same basis for assessing potential redundancy costs was, however, used for every option which involved non-mobile staff. Every effort will be made to minimise redundancy.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make available a copy of the RAF's relocation implementation working group study report.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. This is an internal document which contains information confidential to management. Summary details of the report have, however, been made public in a consultative document.

  Ministry Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence police officers are based in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For security reasons, it is not our practice to disclose such details.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Mr. Aitken
  Mr. Christopher Littmoden, finance director of Marks and Spencer, has been appointed as a part-time adviser on the Department's market-testing programme.

  Nuclear Contamination, Australia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current position regarding discussions between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia 418
  regarding the clean-up of nuclear contamination on the Maralinga lands in South Australia and compensation to the Aboriginal people affected; and when he expects to announce Her Majesty's Government's intentions.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Australian Government have asked that the United Kingdom make a contribution towards the cost of further rehabilitation of the former nuclear weapon test sites at Maralinga and Emu Field in South Australia, and meet the cost of providing compensation for the local Aboriginal population. Our view is that the agreement reached in 1968 with the then Australian Government releases the United Kingdom from any further responsibility for rehabilitation of these sites and that the question of compensation for the Aboriginal population is not one for Her Majesty's Government. Nevertheless, we are carefully studying the Australian request, which raises a number of complex legal and technical issues, and hope to give a considered response soon.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will list for each training and enterprise council the budget made available from her Department for 1991–92 and 1992–93(a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference;

  (2) if she will list for each training and enterprise council the budget made available from her Department for the provision of youth training places for 1991–92 and 1992–93 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference;

  (3) if she will list for each training and enterprise council the budget made available from her Department for the provision of employment training places for 1991–92 and 1992–93 (a) at current prices and (b) at 1992–93 prices, indicating in both cases the percentage difference;

  (4) if she will list for each training and enterprise council the number of training weeks contracted for under employment training (a) in 1991–92, (b) in 1992–93 and (c) the percentage difference;

  (5) if she will list for each training and enterprise council the number of training weeks contracted for under youth training (a) in 1991–92, (b) in 1992–93 and (c) the percentage difference.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested for 1991–92 is given in the following tables for England only. Information relating to Wales and Scotland is a matter for the respective Secretaries of State to answer. I am not at present in a position to give the coresponding information for 1992–93.
  419

  TEC budget allocations 1991–92 and at 1992–93 prices

  London

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  AZTEC

  Current

  10.7

  2.4

  3.4

  3.6

  6.4

  1992–93 prices

  11.2

  2.5

  3.6

  —

  —

  CENTEC (16 September 1991)

  Current

  12.0

  3.2

  3.2

  6.4

  7.9

  1992–93 prices

  12.5

  3.3

  3.3

  —

  —

  CILNTEC (14 October 1991)

  Current

  8.1

  2.2

  3.1

  4.6

  6.4

  1992–93 prices

  8.5

  2.3

  3.2

  —

  —

  LETEC

  Current

  27.6

  9.0

  10.5

  17.4

  27.0

  1992–93 prices

  28.8

  9.4

  11.0

  —

  —

  North London (16 September 1991)

  Current

  9.7

  3.2

  2.4

  6.1

  5.7

  1992–93 prices

  10.1

  3.3

  2.5

  —

  —

  North West London (16 September 1991)

  Current

  5.6

  1.8

  1.5

  3.3

  3.3

  1992–93 prices

  5.9

  1.9

  1.6

  —

  —

  SOLOTEC

  Current

  18.6

  3.8

  4.7

  6.7

  12.6

  1992–93 prices

  19.4

  4.0

  4.9

  —

  —

  South Thames (27 May 1991)

  Current

  20.5

  7.0

  5.3

  12.9

  10.1

  1992–93 prices

  21.4

  7.3

  5.5

  —

  —

  West London (16 September 1991)

  Current

  8.9

  2.0

  3.4

  3.3

  8.0

  1992–93 prices

  9.3

  2.1

  3.6

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.

  2. Where TECs became operational after 1 April 1991, the dates are shown in brackets.

  TEC budget allocations 1991–92 and at 1992–93 prices

  South East

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Essex

  Current

  29.2

  5.8

  12.3

  9.1

  22.8

  1992–93 prices

  31.0

  6.1

  12.9

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  Current

  32.0

  5.0

  16.8

  9.4

  36.5

  1992–93 prices

  33.4

  5.2

  17.6

  —

  —

  Heart of England

  Current

  10.7

  1.6

  4.9

  2.6

  9.2

  1992–93 prices

  11.2

  1.7

  5.1

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  Current

  19.5

  2.8

  5.4

  5.2

  9.9

  1992–93 prices

  20.4

  2.9

  5.6

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  Current

  4.1

  0.6

  1.6

  1.0

  3.6

  1992–93 prices

  4.3

  0.6

  1.7

  —

  —

  Kent

  Current

  32.2

  5.5

  14.3

  8.9

  28.7

  1992–93 prices

  33.6

  5.7

  14.9

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  Current

  6.5

  1.2

  3.5

  1.9

  5.8

  1992–93

  6.8

  1.3

  3.7

  —

  —

  Surrey

  Current

  14.1

  1.8

  4.5

  3.2

  11.7

  1992–93 prices

  14.7

  1.9

  4.7

  —

  —

  Sussex

  Current

  26.0

  4.5

  11.2

  8.3

  23.1

  1992–93

  27.2

  4.7

  11.7

  —

  —

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  Current

  24.9

  2.4

  13.6

  4.1

  30.4

  1992–93 prices

  26.0

  2.5

  14.2

  —

  —

  Note:

  The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.
  420 421

  TEC budget allocations 1991–92 and at 1992–93 prices

  South West

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Avon

  Current

  29.3

  6.0

  13.0

  11.4

  27.5

  1992–93 prices

  30.6

  6.3

  13.6

  —

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  Current

  52.5

  10.5

  22.1

  19.9

  27.5

  1992–93 prices

  52.9

  11.0

  23.1

  —

  —

  Dorset

  Current

  15.5

  2.5

  7.1

  4.0

  14.7

  1992–93 prices

  16.2

  2.6

  7.4

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  Current

  13.0

  1.9

  6.4

  3.5

  13.4

  192–93 prices

  13.6

  2.0

  6.7

  —

  —

  Somerset

  Current

  13.3

  1.7

  6.4

  3.1

  13.8

  1992–93 prices

  13.9

  1.8

  6.7

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  Current

  12.8

  1.7

  6.3

  3.0

  13.6

  1992–93 prices

  13.4

  1.8

  6.6

  —

  —

  Note:

  The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.

  West Midlands

  £million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Birmingham

  Current

  46.5

  16.6

  15.1

  22.9

  25.9

  1992–93 prices

  48.6

  17.3

  15.8

  —

  —

  Central England

  Current

  11.0

  2.2

  4.8

  5.1

  10.0

  1992–93 prices

  11.5

  2.3

  5.0

  —

  —

  Coventry

  Current

  25.8

  4.9

  12.9

  9.7

  24.7

  1992–93 prices

  27.0

  5.1

  13.5

  —

  —

  Dudley

  Current

  11.2

  2.9

  5.1

  5.7

  11.2

  1992–93 prices

  11.7

  3.0

  5.3

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  Current

  10.1

  2.0

  4.7

  3.7

  9.9

  1992–93 prices

  10.6

  2.1

  4.9

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  Current

  11.4

  2.8

  5.2

  5.7

  10.3

  1992–93 prices

  11.9

  2.9

  5.4

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  Current

  13.5

  2.9

  6.6

  5.8

  14.4

  1992–93 prices

  14.1

  3.0

  6.9

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  Current

  34.6

  6.0

  19.6

  11.6

  39.9

  1992–93 prices

  36.2

  6.3

  20.5

  —

  —

  Walsall

  Current

  10.5

  3.2

  4.5

  6.0

  8.2

  1992–93 prices

  11.0

  3.3

  4.7

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  Current

  11.6

  3.1

  5.0

  6.5

  10.9

  1992–93 prices

  12.1

  3.2

  5.2

  —

  —

  Note:

  1. The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.

  Midlands and Eastern

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Leicester

  Current

  26.3

  4.7

  14.2

  7.3

  30.9

  1992–93 prices

  27.5

  4.9

  14.8

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  Current

  12.9

  2.5

  6.2

  3.8

  13.1

  1992–93 prices

  13.5

  2.6

  6.5

  —

  —

  422 423

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Lincolnshire

  Current

  18.8

  3.7

  11.1

  6.0

  21.4

  1992–93 prices

  19.6

  3.9

  11.6

  —

  —

  Greater Nottingham

  Current

  21.4

  4.7

  11.2

  8.4

  22.3

  1992–93 prices

  22.4

  4.9

  1.7

  —

  —

  North Nottingham

  Current

  17.0

  5.0

  8.2

  5.0

  15.6

  1992–93 prices

  17.8

  5.2

  8.6

  —

  —

  South Derbyshire

  Current

  17.6

  4.1

  9.2

  6.4

  18.2

  1992–93 prices

  18.4

  4.3

  9.6

  —

  —

  North Derbyshire

  Current

  11.5

  2.2

  6.2

  4.3

  12.6

  1992–93 prices

  12.0

  2.3

  6.5

  —

  —

  Norfolk and Waveney

  Current

  22.9

  4.7

  12.4

  8.7

  24.2

  1992–93 prices

  23.9

  4.9

  13.0

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  Current

  14.2

  1.8

  4.5

  3.2

  8.6

  1992–93 prices

  14.8

  1.9

  4.7

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  Current

  12.1

  1.7

  7.0

  2.7

  14.3

  1992–93 prices

  12.6

  1.8

  7.3

  —

  —

  Greater Peterborough

  Current

  8.2

  1.6

  4.3

  3.0

  10.3

  1992–93 prices

  8.6

  1.7

  4.5

  —

  —

  CAMBSTEC

  Current

  6.4

  0.7

  3.2

  1.2

  7.1

  1992–93 prices

  6.7

  0.7

  3.3

  —

  —

  Note: 1. The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Leeds

  Current

  22.5

  5.5

  10.6

  12.1

  17.5

  1992–93 prices

  23.5

  5.7

  11.1

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  Current

  17.0

  3.5

  5.1

  7.1

  13.8

  1992–93 prices

  17.8

  3.7

  5.3

  —

  —

  Bradford

  Current

  18.7

  4.7

  6.9

  8.4

  10.9

  1992–93 prices

  19.5

  4.9

  7.2

  —

  —

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Current

  20.6

  5.5

  9.8

  9.3

  18.0

  1992–93 prices

  21.5

  5.7

  10.2

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  Current

  12.2

  3.2

  6.0

  5.6

  9.6

  1992–93 prices

  12.7

  3.3

  6.3

  —

  —

  Barnsley and Doncaster

  Current

  25.7

  7.5

  14.1

  13.0

  23.8

  1992–93 prices

  26.9

  7.8

  14.7

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  Current

  24.2

  6.8

  12.6

  11.4

  18.2

  1992–93 prices

  25.3

  7.1

  13.2

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  Current

  12.1

  3.3

  6.0

  5.8

  9.9

  1992–93 prices

  12.6

  3.4

  6.3

  —

  —

  Humberside

  Current

  37.5

  10.6

  18.5

  18.3

  37.0

  1992–93 prices

  39.2

  11.1

  19.3

  —

  —

  Note: The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.

  North west

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Bolton and Bury

  Current

  12.9

  2.5

  6.6

  4.3

  13.6

  1992–93 prices

  13.5

  2.6

  6.9

  —

  —

  424 425

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  CEWTEC

  Current

  21.0

  7.4

  10.4

  13.7

  18.5

  1992–93 prices

  21.9

  7.7

  10.9

  —

  —

  Cumbria

  Current

  17.3

  3.4

  10.3

  6.8

  21.8

  1992–93 prices

  18.1

  3.6

  10.8

  —

  —

  ELTEC

  Current

  17.3

  3.5

  8.6

  6.4

  17.6

  1992–93 prices

  18.1

  3.7

  9.0

  —

  —

  LAWTEC

  Current

  26.3

  6.1

  12.9

  10.8

  26.4

  1992–93 prices

  27.5

  6.4

  13.5

  —

  —

  Manchester

  Current

  38.5

  9.9

  16.9

  15.9

  35.6

  1992–93 prices

  40.2

  10.3

  17.7

  —

  —

  METROTEC

  Current

  10.5

  2.4

  5.1

  4.3

  10.1

  1992–93 prices

  11.0

  2.5

  5.3

  —

  —

  Oldham

  Current

  8.6

  1.6

  4.7

  2.9

  9.8

  1992–93 prices

  9.0

  1.7

  4.9

  —

  —

  QUALITEC

  Current

  9.3

  2.3

  5.5

  3.9

  9.8

  1992–93 prices

  9.7

  2.4

  5.7

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  Current

  6.5

  2.1

  2.9

  4.1

  6.1

  1992–93 prices

  6.8

  2.2

  3.0

  —

  —

  South and East Cheshire

  Current

  10.9

  1.8

  4.2

  2.5

  7.5

  1992–93 prices

  11.4

  1.9

  4.4

  —

  —

  Stockport and High Peak

  Current

  9.7

  1.7

  4.9

  3.1

  10.3

  1992–93 prices

  10.1

  1.8

  5.1

  —

  —

  Merseyside (24 June 1991)

  Current

  41.6

  12.6

  20.8

  22.9

  36.5

  1992–93 prices

  43.5

  13.2

  21.7

  —

  —

  NORMID (24 June 1991)

  Current

  11.9

  2.3

  7.1

  4.2

  13.6

  1992–93 prices

  12.4

  2.4

  7.4

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.

  2. Where TECs become operational after 1 April 1991, the dates are shown in brackets.

  Northern

  £ million budgets

  Training weeks × 10,000

  TEC

  Total

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Employment training

  Youth training

  Teeside

  Current

  34.6

  11.8

  14.8

  18.3

  16.8

  1992–93 prices

  36.2

  12.3

  15.5

  —

  —

  Tyneside

  Current

  45.9

  13.5

  20.1

  21.0

  25.9

  1992–93 prices

  48.0

  14.1

  21.0

  —

  —

  Wearside

  Current

  21.5

  6.6

  9.4

  10.8

  35.8

  1992–93 prices

  22.5

  6.9

  9.8

  —

  —

  County Durham

  Current

  34.4

  10.6

  15.7

  17.5

  29.4

  1992–93 prices

  35.9

  11.1

  16.4

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  Current

  15.6

  3.5

  5.1

  5.6

  8.2

  1992–93 prices

  16.3

  3.7

  5.3

  —

  —

  Note:

  The percentage difference between current and 1992–93 prices is 4.5 per cent.

  Ankylosing Spondylitis
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what study her Department has done into the effects of ankylosing spondylitis on the body of sufferers to both work and availability for work as far as unemployment benefits are concerned; and if he will make a statement.
  426
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department has not carried out a study into the effects of ankylosing spondylitis or any other specific illness.

  The Employment Service can offer specialist advice to any unemployed person with a disability or long-term health problem who needs guidance in obtaining work. In providing advice, the Employment Service's general

  427
  approach is to treat each person as an individual and not to be unnecessarily restrictive. We believe that people with disabilities should be considered fit for work across the full range of occupations unless there are very clear reasons otherwise. If the needs of the individual make it necessary, the ES can provide practical help and has access to other specialists who can assist with particular problems which might arise from specific disabilities.

  Physical or mental disability may force some unemployed people to impose restrictions on the work they can accept. If these restrictions are reasonable in the circumstances, and provided the person is available to do some work on each day that benefit is paid, the rules state that benefit is allowed.

  New Jobs
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates her Department makes of the numbers of people in work in Suffolk and Norfolk in jobs which had not been created 10 years ago; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No records are kept of jobs created; only estimates of the net changes in the numbers of employees in employment are made. The earliest and most recent figures for employees in employment by county are from the censuses of employment for September 1981 and September 1989. Between the two census dates the numbers of employees increased by 41,400 in Suffolk and by 30,500 in Norfolk.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will indicate for each training and enterprise council—TEC—area the number of people unemployed in(a) April 1991 and (b) April 1992, indicating the percentage difference;

  (2) if she will indicate for each TEC area the number of people classified as long-term unemployed in April 1991 and April 1992 (a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of the total number unemployed, indicating the percentage difference in both cases;

  (3) if she will indicate for each TEC area the number of young people unemployed in April 1991 and April 1992 (a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of the total number unemployed, indicating the percentage difference in both cases.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans she has to change the legal basis of the careers service.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Legislation to open up a range of options for management of careers services is to be included in the Employment Bill announced in the Queen's Speech on 6 May 1992. The legislation will implement changes proposed in chapter 7 of volume 1 of the Government's White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century", Cm 1536, published in May 1991.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who has been appointed as a consultant to her Department for market testing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department has not appointed any one individual or company as a consultant for market testing. However, several companies have provided consultancy advice on market testing. They are Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, Ernst and Young, KPMG, Symmonds and PA Consultants.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Sproat
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer of 17 June.Official Report, column 591, about hearing appeals on disability living allowances, what is the maximum time he regards as acceptable to hear an appeal;

  (2) how many people have been waiting to have their appeals on disability living allowance heard for (a) less than one month, (b) between one and three months, (c) between three and six months and (d) over six months.

  Mr. Scott
  Clearance times for appeals is a matter for the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, under its framework document, and the president of the Independent Tribunal Service.

  Provisional target clearance times set by the Benefits Agency allow for 80 per cent. of appeals against a disability living allowance to be cleared within 30 working days, and 95 per cent. within 45 working days. This time relates to the preparation of the appeal and its submission to the Independent Tribunal Service. Information about clerance times within the Independent Tribunal Service may be obtained from the office of the president, His Honour Judge Holden.

  No appeals against disability living allowance decisions have been received by the Independent Tribunal Service.

  Pension Law
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he is now in a position to announce the members of the Pension Law Review Committee.

  Mr. Lilley
  On 8 June,Official Report, columns, 19–21, I announced the establishment of a committee to review the framework of law and regulation within which occupational pension schemes operate, which is to be chaired by Professor Roy Goode QC.

  I am very pleased that the individuals listed have agreed to serve as members of the Pension Law Review Committee. Between them they possess an enormous range and depth of knowledge about occupational pensions and the wider social and economic context, and each of them will help to ensure that the committee's final report is complete and authoritative.

  The members are:

  Tony Atkinson—Professor of Economics, London School of Economics

  David Berridge—Chief Executive, Scottish Equitable Life Assurance

  Harvie Brown—Actuary and Principal, William M. Mercer Fraser Ltd.

  429

  Bryan Hines—formerly General Manager, Insurance and Investments, ICI plc

  Stewart James—Partner, Rowe and Maw

  Terence Libby—Chairman and Chief Executive, Morrisflex Ltd.

  Alastair Ross-Goobey—Chief Investment Strategist, James Capel

  Patricia Triggs—Partner, KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock Sue Ward—Freelance journalist and researcher on pensions issues.

  I understand from Professor Goode that the committee will invite evidence to be submitted on the basis of a consultation paper which it will produce as soon as possible. I will ask Professor Goode to ensure that the availability of the consultation paper is made widely known when it is published.

  Mortgage Protection Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the proceeds of mortgage protection insurance are counted as general income, or as a specific offset to any entitlement for mortgage interest support in the calculation of income support; and what are the relevant regulations or orders or guidance to adjudication officers.

  Mr. Burt
  Income from a mortgage protection insurance policy intended and used to meet payments on a loan that is eligible for help from income support is counted as general income, but the following amounts are ignored:

  the amount of the capital repayments, or the endowment premiums on an endowment mortgage;

  the amount of interest not being met in income support because of the 50 per cent. restriction during the first 16 weeks of the claim;

  the amount of the premiums due on the policy.

  The relevant regulation is paragraph 29 of schedule 9 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987—SI 1987–1967. Guidance on this for adjudication officers is at paragraphs 29663–29666 of the Adjudication Officers' Guide. The Benefits Agency issued additional guidance on the assessment of cases involving mortgage protection policies in a bulletin to all income support staff on 9 June 1992.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide for each metropolitan, borough and district council in England and Wales, for each year from 1987–88(a) the number of tenancies held by each local authority, (b) the numbers of housing benefit claimants, split into rent rebate and rent allowance categories and the total amount paid under each heading,(c) the percentage rise in expenditure by each local authority's total housing benefit over the year before,(d) the numbers and amounts of housing benefit backdated payments and the amount as a percentage of each authority's housing benefit expenditure, (e) the numbers, amounts and percentage relative to total housing benefit expenditure of discretionary payments and (f) a breakdown of the categories of housing benefit overpayments, with the numbers and amounts and as a percentage of housing benefit expenditure.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time for processing claims for disability living allowance.

  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.

  Ankylosing Spondylitis
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what study his Department has done into the effects of ankylosing spondylitis on the body with a view to amending its importance in considering social security benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  No such study has been carried out by the Department. In general, social security benefits for disabled people are awarded on the basis of the level and effects of illness or disability, rather than on the basis of the medical condition.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to make invalidity benefit wholly or partially subject to a means test or to replace any part of it with means-tested provision in the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Scott
  We have no such plans.

  Maxwell Pension Funds
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 140, if he will publish the information he has available on the number of people, other than those in the Maxwell pension schemes, whose pensions are threatened because of these schemes not being able to meet the pension payments and future commitments.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers to him on 12 June at column 315 and on 23 June at column 140. I have nothing further to add to the previous answers.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security who has been appointed as a consultant to his Department for market testing.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Price Waterhouse was contracted by this Department to advise on potential areas for market testing. No further market-testing consultancy appointments have been made.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those local offices whose allocation of social fund moneys has now been reduced following the discovery of a computer error; and if he will detail the amount of the reduction for each office.
  431
  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is in the table. The table also shows the level of extra allocation districts were allowed to retain over and above allocations due to them under the national formula in order to minimise any disruption that might otherwise have occurred.

  District

  Reduction

  Retained

  £

  £

  Bankside

  51,860

  27,287

  Bradford (Grants)

  84,083

  38,028

  City East

  44,564

  24,855

  Euston (Grants)

  47,358

  25,786

  Euston

  26,629

  18,876

  Liverpool, North (Grants)

  46,247

  25,416

  Liverpool, North

  54,440

  28,147

  Liverpool, South (Grants)

  77,811

  35,937

  Newham (Grants)

  23,303

  17,768

  Newham

  36,946

  22,315

  Lothian, West

  75,659

  35,220

  Neasdon (Grants)

  95,735

  41,912

  Neasdon

  118,178

  49,393

  Oldham (Grants)

  7,145

  12,382

  Staffordshire, North (Grants)

  40,735

  23,578

  Swansea (Grants)

  10,945

  13,648

  Worcestershire, North

  69,712

  33,237

  Amounts refer to the loans budget unless otherwise indicated.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will introduce further regulations to amend the law concerning occupational and personal pension schemes.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today laid before Parliament regulations which make a number of amendments in the field of occupational and personal pension schemes.

  The regulations tighten existing regulations relating to the disclosure of information by trustees and administrators of occupational and personal pension schemes. The new regulations lay down time limits within which information must be disclosed to members, prospective members, beneficiaries and trade unions. They require schemes to disclose additional information following the introduction of provisions to the Social Security Act 1990, in particular, schemes must disclose:

  the functions and address of the Pensions Ombudsman; the role and address of the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service Ltd.;

  whether an independent trustee has been appointed by an insolvency practitioner in relation to the sponsoring employer, who he is, and, if not, why not;

  whether the scheme has registered with the registrar of occupational and personal pension schemes;

  whether trustees have access to guidance published by the Occupational Pensions Board on "Pension Trust Principles".

  The regulations make a number of technical amendments to definitions in the Disclosure of Information Regulations and to the form of the actuary's statement.

  The regulations also extend the circumstances in which small amounts of pension may be commuted to a lump sum and make a number of technical amendments to the Preservation Regulations, the Levy Regulations and the Register of Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes Regulations.

  The amendments in relation to commutation and to the Levy and Register Regulations will come into force on 20 July 1992; the remainder of the regulations will come into effect on 28 September 1992.
  432
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to respond to the report of the Social Security Select Committee on the operation of pension funds.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government's response to the Select Committee's report is published today. We have accepted the main recommendation of the Committee:"the Government should establish an inquiry operating within a strict timetable to collect evidence from the public on what the detailed structure of a new Pensions Act should be".

  As I announced to the House on 8 June, I have set up a committee to examine the administration and regulation of pension schemes under the chairmanship of Professor Goode of Oxford university. Most of the Select Committee's recommendations fall within the terms of reference of the Goode committee. The Government's response to the Select Committee therefore deals specifically with those areas not covered by the review.

  Social Fund
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for discretionary social fund awards were refused on the grounds that the applicant had insufficient funds to repay the loan; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) region and (b) local DSS office.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: The most recent available figures, based on information for April 1992 from Benefits Agency districts, is in the table.

  Number of refusals classified as inability to repay

  District name

  Number

  Bankside

  47

  Barking and Havering

  15

  Barnet

  16

  Barnsley DMU

  16

  Bedfordshire

  13

  Berkshire

  20

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  29

  Birmingham Heartlands

  23

  Birmingham North West

  31

  Birmingham South East

  7

  Birmingham South West

  32

  Blackburn and Accrington

  34

  Blackpool

  13

  Bolton

  14

  Bradford

  60

  Bristol Severnside

  32

  Brunel

  23

  Buckinghamshire

  21

  Burnley/Pendle/Rossendale

  3

  Cambridgeshire

  30

  Canterbury and Thanet

  9

  Central Derbyshire

  19

  Central Staffordshire

  11

  Channel

  4

  Cheshire North West and Central

  13

  Cheshire East

  8

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  11

  City East

  12

  Clyde Coast and Cowal

  20

  Clyde Valley

  46

  Coatbridge

  88

  Cornwall

  78

  Coventry

  28

  Cumbria North

  16

  Cynon Merthyr Rhymney Valley

  19

  Derbyshire South

  13

  Devonia

  9

  Doncaster DMU

  12

  Dorset

  28

  Durham North

  13

  433

  District name

  Number

  Durham South

  46

  Ealing

  21

  East Lowlands

  22

  East Nottinghamshire

  14

  East Sussex

  8

  Essex South East

  25

  Essex South West

  21

  Euston

  25

  Fife

  32

  Forth Valley

  22

  Fulham

  32

  Glamorgan South

  18

  Glasgow South West

  102

  Glasgow Anniesland

  35

  Glasgow City

  16

  Glasgow East

  116

  Glasgow Laurieston

  78

  Gloucester

  18

  Grampian and Shetland

  14

  Gwent North and Brecon

  15

  Gwyneddigion

  5

  Hackney and Islington

  33

  Halifax

  25

  Hampshire North

  23

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  12

  Hereford and Worcester

  26

  Highlands and Islands

  13

  Hounslow and Kingston

  6

  Hull

  34

  Irvine

  15

  Kent North

  12

  Kirklees MDU

  15

  Knowsley

  21

  Lancaster

  9

  Lea Roding

  10

  Leaside

  27

  Leeds North

  22

  Leeds South

  19

  Leicestershire North

  19

  Lewisham and Brixton

  65

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Liverpool Central

  17

  Liverpool North

  32

  Liverpool South

  19

  Lomond and Argyll

  17

  London Central

  3

  Lothian Central

  33

  Lothian West

  36

  Manchester Central

  25

  Manchester North

  12

  Mid Wales and Maelor

  31

  Neasden

  30

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  25

  Newham

  27

  North and East Hertfordshire

  12

  North Essex

  14

  North Staffordshire

  25

  North Tyneside

  20

  North Wales Coast

  8

  North Yorkshire

  18

  Northamptonshire

  9

  Northumberland

  7

  Norwich

  25

  Nottinghamshire North

  3

  Nottinghamshire West

  12

  Ogwr Afan Nedd

  9

  Oldham

  14

  Oxfordshire

  19

  Preston

  19

  Renfrew

  28

  Rother and Dearne

  14

  South East Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  17

  Salford

  13

  Sandwell

  12

  Sefton

  23

  Sheffield East

  11

  Sheffield West

  62

  Shropshire

  16

  434

  District name

  Number

  Solent and Forest

  19

  Somerset

  8

  South Cheshire

  27

  South Devon

  46

  South Downs

  27

  South Gwent and Islwyn

  10

  South Humberside

  12

  South Leicestershire

  27

  South Manchester

  29

  South West Lancs

  15

  South West Scotland

  41

  South West Thames

  24

  Springburn

  67

  Stockport

  21

  Suffolk

  22

  Surrey Downs

  16

  Surrey North

  16

  Swansea

  25

  Taff Rhondda

  4

  Tameside

  12

  Tayside

  28

  Tees North

  38

  Tees South

  24

  Thameside

  13

  Tyneside

  19

  Wakefield

  20

  Wales West

  2

  Walsall

  6

  Warwickshire

  19

  Wearside

  31

  West Herts

  11

  West Kent

  2

  West Lincolnshire

  21

  West Pennine

  15

  West Sussex

  8

  Wigan and Leigh

  5

  Wiltshire

  12

  Wirral

  42

  Wolverhampton

  21

  Worcestershire North

  22

  Yorkshire East

  14

HEALTH

  Market Testing
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. Sackville
  The Department has already embarked on market-testing exercises for office services in its new buildings at Quarry house, Leeds and 80 London road, London and will be extending testing programme for this year to include a number of other areas of the Department's work.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the percentage of the population who are(a) HIV positive (b) suffering from heart disease and (c) suffering from drug abuse related illnesses; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of the percentage of the population infected with HIV as only those who perceive themselves to be at risk will seek a test. Up to March 1992 there had been 15,424 reports of people infected with HIV in England and Wales
  435
  to the Public Health Laboratory Service's communicable disease surveillance centre. Anonymised HIV studies began in 1990 to obtain more accurate information about the prevalence of HIV.

  Due to their nature, it is not possible to give reliable estimates of the incidence of coronary heart disease and drug abuse related illness within the population.

  Dentistry
  Ms. Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orthodontic practitioners there are in the Wirral; what was the volume of treatments they have given in each of the last five years; and how many of such orthodontic treatments cost over £200, expressed both numerically and as a percentage of the whole.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are four orthodontic practitioners on the Wirral family health services authority's dental list. More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total cost of establishing a salaried dental practice within the framework of a family health services association; and what are its cost components.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The main elements involved in employing a salaried dentist are the salaries of the dentist and the auxiliary dental staff and the cost of the premises. The salary scales for a salaried dentist and dental auxiliaries range from £18,755 to £27,305 and from £6,118 to £18,039 respectively. The cost of premises varies from area to area.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated by salaried dentists in the last convenient yearly period in each of the regional health authorities in England and Wales; and what percentage of the total number of patients treated this represents in each region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information collected about the number of patients treated is not distinguished by region. For the financial year 1991–92 there were 16,029 courses of treatment undertaken by salaried dentists in England and Wales. This represents 0.06 per cent. of the total.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many salaried dentists have been appointed during the last three-year period.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the three-year period to April 1992, 47 salaried dentists were appointed by family health services authorities.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many salaried dentists currently operate within the national health service; and what is their distribution on a family health services association basis.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information available at the end of April 1992 is shown in the table:

  Family health services authority

  Number of dentists

  Derbyshire

  1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  3

  Essex

  2

  436

  Family health services authority

  Number of dentists

  City and East London

  6

  Kent

  1

  Greenwich and Bexley

  7

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  29

  West Sussex

  1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Stilly

  1

  Sandwell

  1

  Liverpool

  2

  Total

  55

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what machinery is in place to monitor the cost-effectiveness and productivity of salaried dentists currently practising within the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is the managerial responsibility of each family health services authority employing a salaried dentist.

  Hydatid Disease
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for the incidence of hydatid disease for each area health authority in England and Wales, for the most recent three years that they are available; and what steps she is taking to eradicate this disease.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make additional Government funds available for an education programme in order to alert the public to the dangers of hydatidosis;

  (2) how many people have been infected with hydatidosis in each of the past nine years;

  (3) what advice she gives to the public regarding the dangers, particularly to children, of contact with dogs fed on uncooked meat and offal.

  Mr. Sackville
  Interim results from a Public Health Laboratory survey of the disease show the following estimated numbers of cases known to have originated in England and Wales, by year of diagnosis:

  Numbers

  1984

  13

  1985

  26

  1986

  11

  1987

  8

  1988

  7

  1989

  6

  1990

  1

  Year not known

  2

  Thirty-nine of these cases were resident in Wales at time of diagnosis and 30 in England. The place of residence of the remaining five is unknown.

  The apparent decline in incidence is welcome. When the full results of the PH LS are available, consideration will be given to whether any specific action is called for, such as a public education programme.

  Pacemakers (Removal)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the cost to relatives in each district health authority and NHS trust in England of removing a pacemaker from a deceased patient;
  437
  (2) if she will consider whether the surgical procedure of removing a pacemaker from a cadaver could be carried out by undertakers.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance on the removal of pacemakers from deceased persons is in health notice (83)6, a copy of which is in the Library; this makes it clear that funeral undertakers may carry out the removal and that the cost in all cases should be met by the national health service.

  Grading Appeal Panels
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the expected overall cost of payments for fees and expenses to management side members who sit on nurses', midwives' and health visitors' national grading appeal panels.

  Mr. Sackville
  The overall cost of payments is not known at this stage, as there is no way of anticipating how many appeals will be lodged at national level. The decision to refer appeals to national level rests with the staff side organisations and trade unions.

  Osteopathy
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet with the principal of the British School of Osteopathy to discuss the school's future.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Asthma
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures her Department holds for the incidence of asthma in each of the last 10 years among(a) the whole population and (b) under 16-year-olds; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally.

  Abortions
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of abortions under the Abortion Act 1967 performed in England and Wales in 1991; what information is available about the number of such abortions at 25 weeks and over; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The total was 179,522 compared with 186,912 in 1990, an overall decrease of 4 per cent.

  A total of 60 abortions were notified in England and Wales in 1991 at 25 weeks or more, of which eight were in the first quarter before the law on abortion changed on 1 April 1991. A more detailed analysis of these is as follows:

  Number of weeks gestation

  Number of abortions

  25

  18

  26

  17

  27

  9

  28

  6

  29

  5

  30

  2

  31

  1

  33

  1

  36

  1

  438
  Since 1 April 1991, for all terminations performed after the pregnancy had exceeded 24 weeks, the operating surgeon has been required to provide a full statement of the medical condition of the pregnant woman-foetus.

  Of the 52 abortions performed at over 24 weeks between 1 April and 31 December 1991, one was under ground A—that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated—and the remaining 51 were under ground E—that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

  Of the ground E cases, 43 per cent. were central nervous system abnormalities, 22 per cent. were genetic abnormalities, 17 per cent. were multiple system abnormalities, 11 per cent. were renal abnormalities and 7 per cent. were cardiac abnormalities. Examinations of the notification forms in respect of these ground E cases confirms that severe abnormalities had been diagnosed as present in all the foetuses.

  It is our intention to publish similar information about post-24-week abortions on a routine basis in the annual Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication "Abortion Statistics". It will not, for reasons of confidentiality, be possible to give more detailed information.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken in the case referred to her by the hon. Member for Congleton in her letter of 22 June about midwives seeking to exercise their conscientious objection to participation in abortion; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The letter referred to was received on 23 June. It is being considered and a reply will be sent as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to prevent hospital managers taking disciplinary action against nursing and midwifery personnel who seek to exercise a conscientious objection to being involved in preparing women for abortion; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no reason to believe the current arrangements for conscientious objections are not in general working well. The Department has received very few letters on this subject. With goodwill and sensitive management it should be possible to overcome any difficulties for people with genuine conscientious objection to abortion without recourse to administrative action or further legislation.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she will now make it her policy to consult with interested parties with a view to reviewing the conscience clause of the Abortion Act 1967.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by her Department about the right of general practitioners conscientiously to object to making arrangements for abortions when they do not believe it is in the best interests of their patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  A doctor should always act in the best interests of his/her patients. Section 4 of the Abortion Act
  439
  1967 sets out the position which applies to GPs who have a conscientious objection to participation in treatment authorised under that Act.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by her Department about the right of general practitioners under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 conscientiously to object to(a) prescribing the morning after pill and (b) fitting intra-uterine contraceptive devices on the basis that they may function as abortifacients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no obligation on GPs to provide contraceptive services if they do not wish to do so.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given by her Department about the right of(a) midwives and nurses and (b) laboratory and other technicians under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 conscientiously to object (i) to the taking of blood specimens and (ii) the processing of test results, respectively, which will lead to mothers being offered abortions if they are carrying babies with a minor handicap; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Before decisions can be taken about any treatment or care, the full diagnostic process needs to be completed. In the case of pregnancy, if a serious problem is diagnosed, there will be a number of options to be considered. They may or may not include abortion. It must be in the best interests of all concerned that any decisions are made in the light of the fullest possible range of information. The expectation must therefore be that professional staff with the relevant experience will be involved in the diagnostic tests, to which an individual patient has consented, irrespective of the outcome.

  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total number of abortions performed in the Stockport health authority under the Abortion Act 1967 since its implementation; and how many and what percentage of these abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 15 June 19921: The number of abortions carried out in Stockport district health authority (DHA) is not released for reasons of confidentiality. However, 7,182 abortions have been performed, under the Abortion Act 1967, on residents of Stockport DHA during the period 1 January 1983 to 30 September 1991. The period in question refers to the first complete year for which data were collected for the Stockport DHA since its constitution on I April 1982, and to the latest date for which figures are available. None of these abortions was performed in an emergency "to save the life of the pregnant woman" (ground 5).

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions have been carried out under the Abortion Act 1967, since its coming into force, in the South West Thames region and the Wandsworth district, respectively; and how many and what percentage of these were carried out in an emergency to save the life of the mother.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 June 1992]: A total of 209,785 abortions have been performed, under the Abortion Act 1967, in the South West Thames regional
  440
  health authority (RHA) for the period 1 January 1975 to 30 September 1991. The period in question refers to the first complete year for which data were collected for the South West Thames RHA since its constitution on 1 April 1974, and to the latest date for which figures are available. Of these, three (0 per cent.) were performed in an emergency "to save the life of the pregnant woman" (ground 5).

  The number of abortions carried out in Wandsworth district health authority (DHA) is not released for reasons of confidentiality. However, 13,199 abortions have been performed, under the Abortion Act 1967, on residents of Wandsworth DHA during the period 1 January 1983 to 30 September 1991. The period in question refers to the first complete year for which data were collected for the Wandsworth DHA since its constitution on 1 April 1982, and to the latest date for which figures are available. None of these abortions was performed in an emergency "to save the life of the pregnant woman" (ground 5).

  Mr. Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total number of abortions performed in each district health authority in Birmingham under the Abortion Act 1967 since its implementation; and how many and what percentage of these abortions were performed in emergency to save the life of the mother.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 18 June 1992]: The number of abortions carried out in each of the Birmingham district health authorities (DHAs) is not released for reasons of confidentiality. However, the numbers of abortions which have been performed, under the Abortion Act 1967, on residents of the Birmingham DHAs during the period 1 January 1983 to 30 September 1991 are listed in the table. The period in question refers to the first complete year for which data were collected for the Birmingham DHAs since the constitution on 1 April 1982, and to the latest date for which figures are available.
  (1) Total number of abortions; (2) number and percentage of abortions performed in an emergency "to save the life of the pregnant woman" (ground 5), 1 January 1983 to 30 September 1991. Central, North. South, East and West Birmingham DHAs of residence.

  Birmingham DHAs of residence

  Total

  Ground 5

  Ground 5 as a percentage of the total

  Central1

  6,153

  1

  0

  North

  5,226

  0

  0

  South1

  7,225

  1

  0

  East

  6,415

  0

  0

  West

  9,467

  0

  0

  1 As Central and South Birmingham DHAs were merged in 1991, the numbers of abortions for these two authorities in 1991 are not included in the above table. In the newly formed DHA for the period 1 January to 30 September 1991 there was a total of 1,406 abortions, none of which was performed under ground 5.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health ( 1) when her Department's survey into Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease will be published; and if this will be publicly available;

  (2) how many cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (a) deaths and (b) patients were reported in the last year for which figures are available;
  441
  (3) how many persons have died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the Yorkshire and Humberside area in the last two years for which records are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson) on 23 June at columns 155–56. The report from Dr. Will contains the relevant information requested on incidence in the Yorkshire and Humberside area.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the information booklet, dealing with the cause and effects of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, has been distributed;

  (2) how many booklets have been produced to inform relatives of patients suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease about the cause and nature of the condition.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information booklet "Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease—A Guide" produced by the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit, based in Edinburgh, which is funded by the Department of Health and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department is distributed on a case-by-case basis to sufferers, their families, friends and carers. It has also been supplied to individuals who have written to the unit for more information.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what processes are available to identify Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in living individuals.

  Mr. Sackville
  Diagnosis of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in living individuals is by expert clinical assessment. There are no satisfactory tests that identify the disease conclusively, although electro-encephelographic testing can assist diagnosis. Histopathological testing of brain tissue can be used, very rarely, to confirm the diagnosis where there is a major doubt over the diagnosis.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has available to identify the cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) has not yet been identified. The agent of the disease appears to be small, atypical—compared to conventional microbes—and transmissible. There also seems to be a genetic influence on the development of the disease. The precise nature of the interaction between the host and the agent remains unclear, but there is considerable research under way both in the United Kingdom and abroad to elucidate the factors producing the disease.

  Most cases are sporadic and the factors which cause illness in these cases are not fully understood. However, in a few cases certain routes of transmission have been identified involving the use of human dura, corneal grafts or human growth hormone, and the exposure of the contaminated instruments during neurosurgical procedures. The Department has taken action to ensure that any potentially infected human tissue is no longer used in medical treatment.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she will take to ensure that families with relatives suffering from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease are provided with advice on the cause and effects of the disease;
  442
  (2) what action has been taken to create a supportive agency in order to help patients' relatives where Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease is suspected to be the cause of illness.

  Mr. Sackville
  Clinicians are responsible for providing information to patients under their care and to their families. In addition, when the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit in Edinburgh is notified, the patient and family are visited and information is provided about the disease. The unit also provides advice on the cause and effect of the disease to family members, friends and carers at other times, and is available to provide more information on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease to other people who have individual concerns.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when procedures in neuro-surgery operations were altered in order to take precautions against contamination from agents causing Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  Advice was first issued by the Advisory Group on the Management of Patients with Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease to NHS hospitals in 1981. The guidance recommended that special precautions, including disposal of instruments, should be taken in surgical procedures involving the brain, spinal cord or eye. This advice remains current.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has available to identify the number of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease patients in(a) national health service hospitals, (b) private hospitals, (c) private nursing homes and (d) family homes;

  (2) what provision is available within the national health service in order to treat Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease patients who suffer from the disease over a period of years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service submits diagnostic information which would provide a broad estimate of the number of cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) which had been treated annually as in-patients in NHS hospitals. Information is not held centrally about the number of CJD patients in NHS hospitals, private hospitals, private nursing homes and family homes. Depending on their medical condition and personal circumstances, individual patients may be looked after in more than one location during the course of their illness.

  Such patients have access to the full range of diagnostic and care facilities provided by the NHS.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons have contracted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease who have not been treated with human growth hormone or involved in any neuro-surgical operations.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not possible to determine causal or contributory factors in the majority of the 456 cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) identified since 1970. Of these, four are known to have had previous neurosurgery, which would not appear to be related to the development of their CJD, and a further 10 definite and one suspected case are known where transmission has occurred from other treatment.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each travel-to-work area and for each district the estimated population as a percentage of the enumerated population according to the 1981 census.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Registrar-General does not make annual population estimates for travel-to-work areas. A comparison between the resident population enumerated in the 1981 census and the mid-year population estimates for 1981 for each local authority district is available in the Library. The population estimates include an allowance for under-enumeration. They also include students at their term-time address and armed forces where they were stationed, rather than where they were living on census day.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the travel-to-work areas and districts in rank order according to the 1991 census population as a percentage of the 1981 census population.

  Mr. Sackville
  Census figures from the 1991 census are not yet available for the resident populations of all local authority districts, nor have travel-to-work areas based on the 1991 census yet been calculated. The 1991 census preliminary report for England and Wales, a copy of which is in the Library, contains provisional figures for the population present on census day in 1981 and 1991 in each local authority district. Table 5 of the report ranks counties in order of percentage change.

  Human Growth Hormone
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if persons who have received human growth hormone treatment are excluded from organ donor programmes.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has advised clinicians, when considering organ transplantation, to check whether or not the donor had been treated with human growth hormone at any time prior to May 1985 when that treatment was withdrawn.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to prevent recipients of human growth hormone treatments becoming blood donors.

  Mr. Sackville
  Recipients of pituitary derived human growth hormone are included in a list of specific groups who must not give blood. This list is shown to all potential blood donors. Furthermore, when human growth hormone recipients are counselled as part of the national counselling programme now under way they are advised not to give blood.

  Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when she received a copy of the World Health Organisation report dealing with spongiform encephalopathies in humans and animals; and what response she has given;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the reasons for restricting the distribution of the World Health Organisation consultation paper dealing with spongiform encephalopathies in humans and animals; and if she will now publish it:
  444
  (3) if she will list those who have received a copy of the World Health Organisation consultation paper dealing with spongiform encephalopathies in humans and animals;

  (4) if she will place in the Library a copy of the World Health Organisation consultation paper dealing with spongiform encephalopathies in humans and animals.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand the report was first issued by the World Health Organisation in November 1991 on a limited basis to member Governments. However, a memorandum based on the report has not been published in the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, volume 70, No. 2 at pages 183–90, and copies have been placed in the Library. We have also asked the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to consider the report and advise on its implications.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken into the link between respiratory problems in individuals and the proximity of opencast mining sites; and if she will establish such an inquiry.

  Mr. Sackville
  A detailed examination of evidence relating to the possible effects of opencast mining upon the health of local residents was undertaken in 1988 and 1989 in connection with an application to establish a mine in south Wales. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence of harm arising from opencast mining operations to justify the refusal of the application. The findings were accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and further investigation was not considered necessary.

  Juvenile Smoking
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, as part of her departmental campaign to discourage juvenile smoking, she will consider the curtailment of tobacco advertising in amusement arcades where children participate in video games simulating motor racing.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The voluntary agreement between the Government and the tobacco industry on tobacco advertising and promotion does not allow advertisements which appeal to children more than to adults. If the hon. Member has examples of tobacco advertisements which he considers breach this agreement, he should bring them to the attention of the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship.

  Medical Training
  Ms. Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the EC directives governing the system of specialist medical training have not been implemented in the United Kingdom over the last 15 years; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Directives 75/362/EEC and 75/363/ EEC were implemented into United Kingdom law by the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977. However, doubt has been cast on whether the present United Kingdom system relating to specialist training fully reflects these directives. The Chief Medical Officer is holding a series of meetings with the medical profession to address these issues.
  445
  Directives 89/594/EEC and 90/658/EEC, which made minor amendments to 75/362/EEC, have not been implemented. Steps are being taken to introduce them into United Kingdom law.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to hold in public the discussions between her Department, the medical royal colleges, the General Medical Council and the British Medical Association concerning the sytem of specialist medical training in the United Kingdom; and if she will make it her policy to ensure that a wide-ranging debate, including patients' representatives, will be held on the proposals that emerge.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. Discussions will continue to be held in private. However, consultation will take place on any proposals that emerge.

  NHS Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the framework document of the "next steps" agency for the national health service superannuation scheme will be published for England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) on 14 May at column 167, I announced the Department of Health's NHS superannuation branch which administers the scheme for England and Wales, is to be launched as a "next steps"446
  agency in the second half of 1992. The framework document under which the agency will operate will be published before the launch date.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who has been appointed as a consultant to her Department for market testing.

  Mr. Sackville
  In line with the proposals in the "Competing for Quality" White Paper, KPMG Management Consulting assisted the Department in identifying activities that might be suitable for market testing. Symonds Facilities Management plc was appointed to advise on a market-testing strategy for office services for the Department's new buildings at Quarry house, Leeds, and 80 London road, London.

  Company Information
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent it is her Department's practice to treat as confidential information on companies and company directors conducting work approved by her Department which is available from information supplied to Companies House and accessible to the general public.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 26 June 1992]: Any information supplied to Companies House which is known to be accessible to the general public, and can be directly obtained, would not be treated as confidential.

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

Central European Time
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret asked Her Majesty's Government:
When Central European Time will be considered for adoption in the United Kingdom, particularly in view of the positive reaction to their survey last year.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the options for future summer time arrangements are under consideration. We shall need to take account, among other things, of a review of summer time which we understand is soon to be undertaken by the European Commission.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this matter has been under consideration for a considerable length of time? Would it not be desirable for it to be considered firmly and then dispensed with one way or the other, so that we at least know where we all are?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, negotiations with our European partners on a directive for dates of summer time for 1995 and beyond are expected to begin around the middle of next year. We understand that, prior to that, the European Commission intends to conduct a wide-ranging review of possible options for future summer time arrangements in Europe. Therefore, it would be premature for us to take any final decision on the way forward until we know in what direction the Commission is moving.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that his noble friend did not quite get that right? We would not know where we are—we would know when we were.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that might easily be the case. But at the moment we know that we are Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, apart from representations from the agricultural industry, whose interests are concerned in this Question, have the Government received any strong representations from other organisations or influential bodies in this country advocating an immediate change?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the responses to the Green Paper showed significant support for a move to single double summer time in England and Wales. However, strong feelings were expressed against the move, particularly in Scotland.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the main argument against our adopting Central European Time is that Britain is by no stretch of the imagination geographically located in central Europe?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are arguments both ways, as your Lordships have pointed out. There are advantages in terms of business and communications. There are also disadvantages in that in the winter it would be somewhat darker in the mornings.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if it is impossible to get people to rise an hour earlier in the morning and make use of the daylight there is no other option but to put the hour on at the other end?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there are as many diverse opinions on this matter as there are on any such matter. That is why we are conducting a considerable review on the subject.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the advantages to business of moving to a common EC time. Can he tell me why this has not been done already under the Treaty of Rome; in particular, under the arrangements for 1993?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I said, we published a Green Paper and there has been substantial further public discussion. We understand that the Commission will review its summer and winter time arrangements. Therefore, it would be premature for us to take action until we knew what the Commission was doing because the result might he that our timetable would have to change perhaps twice a year against European time as opposed to once a year.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain how it is possible for the European Community to know what to do until it has some inkling about what we want to do?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we shall certainly be making strong representations to our partners in Europe on this subject. We shall certainly not take any rushed decision on what time it is in London, in Brussels, or wherever.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the publication of the Green Paper there have been many representations from very substantial bodies ranging from the RAC to British Airways—from the ground upward—requesting some decision to be made on this issue to enable them to plan at least for next summer, if not for this one?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we shall not take any action that will affect summer time for next summer because people need substantial notice; for example, people who produce diaries. Road safety is one of the many aspects that have to be considered in the light of any possible change. It was suggested by evidence in the Green Paper that road safety might improve. But there was concern in Scotland regarding the dark mornings.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the north of Scotland in particular is a very long way north of central Europe? Does he recollect that when double summer time, as we called it, was tried in Scotland on an experimental basis some years ago it was extremely unpopular?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that it was not popular in some places. We believe that Scotland and England should have the same time. The Standard British Time experiment took place between 1968 and 1971 and there were arguments for and against the system.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Greenwich Mean Time is a matter for subsidiarity?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, not necessarily.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if Europe expands to the east, is the prospect that the centre of Europe will also move to the east and that we shall have to rise earlier and earlier the more successful the Government are with the policy?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is not just one time in Europe; for example, this country and Portugal are on Greenwich Mean Time, most other EC countries are on Central European Time, but Greece is on Central European Time plus one

Classified Information: EC Proposal
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as a Member of the EC Council of Ministers, they will withhold approval of the European Commission's proposal for a Council regulation on security measures applicable to classified information (COM(92) 56 final of 29th February 1992) until and unless the proposal, with any amendments, receives the approval of the United Kingdom Parliament.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the normal procedures for parliamentary scrutiny of proposals for European Community legislation will apply. In its present form, the regulation is neither well targeted nor workable. An early decision on the proposal is not in any case expected.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that partially satisfactory reply. Can she say whether the Government are aware that, if the proposal were adopted, it would enable the Commission, and indeed other institutions, to cloak in secrecy any items of correspondence or memorandum that they find inconvenient to publish, as indeed is outlined in Article 3 of the proposal? Further can the Minister give the House a completely unequivocal statement or assurance that the Government will in fact completely oppose the whole question of giving the Commission some protected status in regard to its documents and correspondence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the House already knows that I am not in favour of giving the Commission any protected status. It is not a rare animal; it has to be a working body. I believe that this particular regulation (which has actually been around now for about four years) will not make progress either in its present form or indeed in any form which would lead to more secrecy. We want greater openness in government, not only at Westminster but also in the European Community in so far as its moves affect government of this country. There are grave shortcomings in the regulation. We are pointing them out to fellow member states. The proposal is only being discussed informally. I do not see it making any progress whatever.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the very fact that such a proposal has been put forward show that within the Commission there are people who are bent upon forming in Europe, and setting up in Western Europe, a super-state, complete with all the trappings of such a state including a law of secrecy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it may occur to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as such. The answer is that many matters are discussed in the European Community which stem from a genuine need to have sensible rules covering, say, Community institutions. I see no reason why this particular draft should make progress. It certainly should not cover our interests. We would welcome proper arrangements for handling EC classified documents. However, I really question any need for a regulation which is not in our interests. Therefore, I have made it quite clear that it is not our intention that the draft regulation should proceed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in order to button up the whole matter, will the Minister give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that instructions are sent to Sir John Kerr (the Government's representative on COREPER) that on no account should COREPER permit this item to be sent to the Council in List A, which means that it can be passed through on the nod?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the House that there is no way in which the draft regulation will be put forward as an A point. It is quite clear that our priorities are to ensure that any new procedures apply only to information that genuinely warrants specific protection and that they are workable in practice and do not impose an excessive administrative burden on member states and institutions. Sir John Kerr is aware of that fact. The draft regulation in its present form will not be introduced as an A point.

Light Rail Projects: Funding
2.49 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their proposals for funding the Midland Metro project and other future light rail schemes.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, it will not be possible to provide funds for construction of line one of the Midland Metro in 1993–94. The case for funding will be carefully considered next year in the light of the availability of resources. Some £50 million a year is at present available by way of government grants and credit approvals towards the funding of light rail projects.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, do the Government agree that light rail transport is environmentally friendly in so far as it helps with congestion and the relief of pollution? In the light of that, would it not be advisable for the Government to make funds available for light transport schemes, if necessary by diverting funds from costly road schemes? As funds for light rail schemes derive from Section 56 of the 1968 Act, have the Government in mind the merging of those provisions with finance for road transport so as to give local authorities freedom to determine which type of scheme they wish to adopt?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct when he says that a light rail scheme can be beneficial. There are of course other ways of controlling traffic and improving congestion. With regard to the noble Lord's last point, we look forward to studying the package that is being considered in the West Midlands, but further legislation would be required to bring into effect what the noble Lord wishes.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the funding problem may have arisen because the precept which used to be given directly to passenger transport authorities now goes to the boroughs? The boroughs have not received money earmarked for transport. If the precept were returned to the PTAs it might help to fund light rail schemes.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said, the taxpayer, via the Government, is spending some £50 million this year, and the figure will be roughly the same next year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, have the Government received a request from Cleveland County Council about a light rail system for Teesside? If so, what reply has been sent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there will be no funds available for Teesside in the next financial year.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but will the Minister explain why the funds necessary for these desirable schemes are not available? That was the point of my previous question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the reason there are no funds available, although everyone would like more money, is that we are talking about taxpayers' money. We must keep a strict control on public expenditure.

Ministerial Salary Levels
2.53 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to relate ministerial salary levels to individual performance.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, none.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's Answer, for which I thank him—
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it is necessary to read because it is in the Citizen's Charter, and I want to ask the Minister about it. The Citizen's Charter advocates performance-related pay. I want to know why performance-related pay does not apply to Ministers. It states:
"The ways in which people are paid can have a powerful effect on improving performance".
That must be the case with Ministers. They should not be so pessimistic. It continues:
"Pay systems in the public sector need to make a regular and direct link between a person's contribution to the standards of service provided and his or her reward".
It goes on to talk about those principles being applied to doctors, general managers in the NHS, school heads, classroom teachers and civil servants. All those have been covered already. Why should not the principle of performance-related pay apply to Ministers?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we encourage performance-related pay whenever the circumstances are suitable. The noble Lord might be aware that Ministers form one of the few groups with no security of employment and they can therefore spend a great deal of time with their families at very short notice.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that adoption of the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, would, in view of the high standard of performance achieved by the whole of the present Government, involve a massive increase in public expenditure?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that many sitting on this Bench would welcome that increase in public expenditure, but it might not be appropriate in the present financial situation.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, if any committee is needed to evaluate the individual worth of Ministers the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Hatch of Lusby, should be appointed to sit on it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think, on reflection, that a committee is not needed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are others in the community whose salaries are much larger than those paid to Ministers and whose careers are strangely uncoloured by success but who nevertheless receive rewards which do not reflect that fact?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend can think of one or two, but in this Question we are talking about Ministers.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, if the Government were ever to adopt this interesting proposal would they ensure that the highest paid Ministers are those who produce the least legislation and the fewest orders? Am I not right in thinking that upon that criterion the Minister who should have reached the highest level of payment in recent years is the erstwhile Mr. Peter Walker, who was a satisfactory Minister for many years and who introduced no legislation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, there are no plans.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I agree partly with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? I assumed that the Question was directed entirely to Ministers in the other place. We are all agreed that Ministers in your Lordships' House perform outstandingly and are grotesquely underpaid, as are the principal Opposition spokesmen. A genuine question has been asked. It is one which applies much more broadly as to what one means by individual performance. Is not the problem that in many organisations it is not individual performance but group performance which matters? For the Government to be pressing performance-related indicators to the level of the individual is a mistake. That is the nature of the problem which in a sense was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because if one were trying to judge this matter one would judge the Government as a whole rather than individual Ministers.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, our performance as a group is assessed. It was assessed at the general election, which is why we are sitting on this side of the House and the noble Lord is sitting on the other.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was about to suggest that the principle might apply to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition? However, after listening to my noble friend I am inclined to doubt it.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I must explain matters to the Minister and ask him another question. He must understand that all the answers he has given as to why it would be ridiculous, foolish and fatuous to apply performance-related pay to the Government have been argued with equal force in relation to it being applied to civil servants and National Health Service chief executives. Everyone believes that it should be applied to everyone but them. The Government must be consistent. Either they accept that there are large numbers of chief executives and
592
other senior officials for whom performance-related pay is ridiculous and take it away, or they should apply it to themselves.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord's argument. In order for an effective performance-related pay system f o be put into place clear objectives, a robust performance appraisal and a performance management system are needed, for the very reasons I have given. In answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, there is a wide difference.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister implying that Ministers have no targets or criteria for performance by which they are judged?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have targets and our performance was vindicated at the general election.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after the Committee stage of the Education (Amendment) Bill my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the European Council in Lisbon that is being made in another place.

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 6 [Sea-defence functions of Council]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("parts of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 8. Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment to Clause 6. Amendments Nos. 2 to 8 are amendments to the schedule. They have the effect of saving from repeal certain enactments which the British Railways Board considers to be relevant in connection with its existing railway undertaking.
The amendments do not affect the substantive provisions of the Bill, which are intended to permit the city council of Bristol to discontinue its statutory harbour undertaking at Portishead Docks. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees The Chairman of Committees moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 8:
Schedule [Enactments repealed]:

593
Page 6, line 7, column 3, leave out ("The whole Act") and insert—

("In section 2, the words from the beginning to "1860,'"; the words "and 'The Harbours, Docks, Piers, and Clauses Act, 1847,'"; and the Proviso.

In section 3, the words from "the Expression "'the Undertakers'" to "incorporated;"; and the words from "as the Pier" to "therewith".

Sections 5 to 18.

In section 19, the words "Pier or Jetty,".

In section 20, paragraph 1.

Section 22

Section 26

Sections 28 to 30.

In section 31, the words "Pier or Jetty,", in each place where they occur.

Sections 32 and 33.

Sections 35 to 37.

Section 39.

Sections 41 and 42.

Sections 48 to 60.

Sections 64 to 76.

Section 78.

Schedules B to E.").

Page 6, line 9, column 3, leave out ("The whole Act") and insert—

("In section 2, the words from the beginning to "1860,"'; the words "and 'The Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847,'"; and the proviso.

Section 3

In section 4, the words from "and the Expression 'the Undertakers,'" to "the Company;".

Sections 6 to 8.

Sections 10 to 15.

Section 20.

Section 23.

Sections 32 to 41.

Sections 44 to 68.

The Fourth Schedule.").

Page 6, line 16, column 3, after ("1") insert (", 7").
Page 6, line 35, column 3, leave out from ("to") to end of line 38 and insert ("'1871 and'; the words 'and 14'; the words 'subsections and '; and the words 'and the Portishead undertaking'").
Page 7, line 9, column 3, leave out from ("words") to end of line 12 and insert ("'pier and'").
Page 7, line 16, column 3, leave out ("in both places where they occur").
Page 7, line 20, column 33, leave out ("Section 51.") and insert ("In section 51, the words 'pier and'.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Education (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Assessment of special educational needs]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert (", wherever possible,").
The noble Baroness said: I am aware that under a Private Member's Bill it is not normal practice to group amendments. However, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 together because they are clearly linked. I hope that that will be acceptable to the Committee.
To begin with I wish to repeat what I said at Second Reading. There is no sense in which we on this side of the Committee wish in any way to let local education authorities off the hook on speedy resolution of the problems that parents face in obtaining statements for children with special needs. Any parent faced with the need to obtain a statement about their child's special educational needs wants the matter to be resolved as soon as possible. It is unsatisfactory that there should be long delays and it is now apparent that there is need for considerable improvement in this respect.
At Second Reading we did not have available the report of the Audit Commission and HMI on provision for pupils with special educational needs. It is now available to us. One point that emerged from the report is that in the 12 local education authorities that were surveyed in the study there are unnecessary delays and we must do something about them.
Perhaps I may quote paragraph 54 on page 26 of the Audit Commission/HMI report:
"The deficiencies in the processes of assessment and issuing statements mean that some of the principal provisions of the 1981 Act are not being implemented. In particular, the concept of a timely, meaningful assessment of a child's needs, followed by a clear statement and guarantee of help has largely not materialised. Out of 12 LEAs, the implementation of the statutory procedures has broken down almost completely in one, has been virtually ignored in another, and in a third the level of demand is out of control. Most of the remaining LEAs are falling far short of an adequate performance in most of the measures detailed in this section".
Clearly this is a highly regrettable situation which must be rectified. Thus it is even more important that we should try to make the six-month requirement stick which is already contained in government guidelines to local education authorities.
However, as I said at Second Reading, there are clearly exceptional cases where it may be difficult because of their enormous complexity and because of the problems of local authorities in obtaining both evidence and advice from a wide range of agencies beyond the local education authority, and it is important that we build in a little flexibility in handling matters. Local authorities may have to go to

595
a variety of health service professionals. They may have to go to the social services department, to the courts or the probation service when a somewhat older child has been in trouble with the law. The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to insert "wherever possible" into the provisions of the Bill.
Having said that, I have considerable sympathy with what the Minister said at Second Reading. She suggested that:
"The Government have decided, therefore, that there should be comprehensive provisions for regulating the time and way within which authorities carry through the whole process from initial notification to the LEA that an assessment might be necessary to the issue of a final statement… but [the Government] believe that the precise provisions should be set out in regulations rather than primary legislation". —[Official Report, 11/6/92; col. 1409.]
We on these Benches accept that. I believe that it is the most appropriate way of handling rather difficult and complicated issues of this kind. However, if we are to amend primary legislation, we should like to ensure that a little flexibility is built into the provision. Hence our proposals for something along the lines of Amendment No. 6. Again, we are not wedded to the precise words of the amendment and it is possible that other Members of the Committee or the Minister may wish to bring forward an improvement.
However, we seek something that ensures that local authorities cannot be neglectful and dilatory in dealing with these cases. We want something which forces them to inform parents of any delay in their procedures and to produce a clear timetable as to how they will deal with the problems.
The amendment also requires a local education authority to make interim arrangements for the child's educational provision so that parents are not left with no specific provisions available while statements are being finalised.
I hope that these two amendments will be acceptable to the Committee. They are designed to leave the six-month requirement in the Bill but to allow for some exceptions, which I believe ought to be few, but within a structure which puts pressure on the LEAs to get on with the job and to inform the parents. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As the noble Baroness said, Amendment No. 1 is related to Amendment No. 6. Paragraph 54 of the Audit Commission report, published by the department, sets the seal of approval on all our endeavours in this Chamber on the Bill.
I am concerned with the discipline of the drafting of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 could be treated as an alternative to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 in my name. However, the hope is that that is not the noble Baroness's intention. Strictly speaking, as a matter of drafting, Amendments Nos. 1 and 6, together with Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, could be carried into the Bill without any form of inconsistency. If any tidying up process were to be needed —and it is thought that there would be none—the matter could be dealt with at Report stage.
Both sets of amendments, Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 and those in my name, Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, seek to import a degree of extra flexibility in
596
accordance with the view of the majority of your Lordships expressed on Second Reading, including, I seem to remember, my noble friend the Minister. However, there are some objections to Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 as they stand. Perhaps further consideration might be given to the drafting for although such is by no means the intention—as the noble Baroness has said, she wants to make the measure stick—these Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 could well remove the spur of urgency and provide an all too welcome feather-bed for procrastination. I ask the question, who will decide what is possible; presumably the LEA with a quiver full of excuses, and eventually the court on judicial review? However, by then there will be further delay and the expense that is inevitably involved in all litigation. Litigation must be the last resort.
I should like to ask another question. As regards Amendment No. 6, who will decide how long it must be after the period of six months has expired before the letter to the parents is to be written? Again it will be the LEA, and the same problem arises. I ask the Committee respectfully whether this extra concession to the LEA, by means of Amendments Nos. 1 and 6, is either appropriate or indeed requisite in the light of Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 which stand in my name. It is most respectfully thought that that is not the case. At all events, before Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 are carried into the Bill, perhaps the noble Baroness would consider—she has generously said that she has an open mind on this matter and she is not wedded to any precise form of words—the objections that I have raised in the two questions that I have asked. I take the same point as the noble Baroness took. There should be a clear timetable and no more of this dilatory attitude. There should be interim measures. The Government suggested on a previous occasion that there might be a comprehensive regime of regulation. Well, we shall have to see about that. However, at this stage my hope is that, in their present form, these amendments should not be carried into the Bill. However, I would welcome them if they were made to bite a little harder.
Lord Elton: We shall no doubt have to deal with the mechanics of this matter in detail on Report. As my noble friend has said, we may have to resolve the matter on Report. However, something more should be put on the record with regard to the admirable report published by the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate. I may be ignorant in this field, but it is the first report that I have seen in which the Audit Commission has teamed up with another group of specialists to provide a joint report. It is an excellent piece of work and it is most lucidly presented. It is thoroughly supportive of my noble friend's proposed legislation. It adds force to the arguments of both my noble friend and the noble Baroness on the urgency of pressure being applied, particularly to local authorities.
Paragraph 26 of the report states:
"The length of time it takes to complete the assessment and issue the statement is the principal reason why the process is not valued".

597
The report then gives what I consider a perfectly horrific illustration of what happens in real life. This passage is not in italics, but I consider it to be horrific. It states:
"In the worst case, the parent of a seven year-old-child will not, on average, receive the details of the assessment until the child is 10 years old, by which time most of the information is out of date".
I should have thought that by that time all of the information would be out of date.
We are also told that the main delay arises in the administrative processes of the LEA. The lack of management information in LEAs on the time taken to complete the process illustrates the lack of priority given to the process. The report continues:
"The situation is exacerbated by the in-built financial incentive to delay the completion of statements … some LEAs are likely to continue to regard the issuing of statements as an administrative task which does not warrant management attention, instead of seeing it as the cornerstone of the rights of parents and children".
My noble friend rightly holds the latter view and he has sought to express that view in the Bill.
As regards whether the two proposed routes forward are in sympathy, I daresay other Members of the Committee will have had little time to consider the way the machinery interacts in the Bill. I am warmly supportive of my noble friend's proposal. I wonder whether the drafting of Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Baroness may not have been done with a slight eye askance to the Marshalled List, as the earlier one strikes in a Bill the better one's chances of getting the first amendment in the business. That is a nice place to be. If the noble Baroness has achieved that object and put her point forward now, she could perhaps, by amending her amendment for a later stage of the Bill, return to this matter with an amendment which is more specifically in sympathy with the view of my noble friend. In that case she would be helping us all.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: I support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on this matter. I believe the noble Baroness has blunted the teeth of this Bill. I can understand why she has proposed her amendments. I also understand that there are anxieties about this issue. There is always, too, the problem of funding in this area. That must be borne in mind, but a child who has the problems we are discussing must be dealt with as fast as possible. Every time a delay arises the problems of that child will be compounded. In the end one will probably waste more money and resources than if one deals quickly with the problem. To delay taking action is false economy. Overall, costs will be saved by dealing with these problems quickly. That moral applies to all parts of the Bill.
A child's future will be far better served by rapid treatment. There is the possibility of schools becoming more selective. Therefore it is quite possible that a pupil who receives insufficient help early on will find his entire educational career is ruined through being put into the wrong school. We need to offer help to pupils as rapidly as possible. I am possibly talking about the whole ethics of the Bill rather than the
598
amendments that we are discussing, but when we consider the rest of the Bill it will help us to remember those ethics.
It is never easy or cheap to deal with the problems that we are discussing. However, in the long term it is much cheaper to deal with them quickly and this Bill allows for that. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, are flexible enough to allow the problems to be dealt with quickly. The amendments of the noble Baroness would soften the Bill and allow the provision of incorrect assistance.
Lord Rix: Whenever I see the words "wherever possible" my blood runs cold as they mean that a coach and horses can be driven through legislation. The words "when resources allow" also make my blood run cold. Those words often lead to ineffective legislation. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider these amendments. We understand the problems facing LEAs but we also understand the far greater problems facing parents and children. For far too long parents and children have been denied their right of access to this form of statementing. If the form of education that children require is missing in their early years, their future prospects are ruined.
Baroness Faithfull: I, like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, am worried about the words "wherever possible". I understand the desire of the noble Baroness to obtain flexibility but those words can be so widely interpreted that the process we are discussing might go on for a long time.
I should like to raise a second point. I believe that the work can be done within six months. If a child appears before a court in another context the court asks for a report on the child as to why he or she has come to court and what will happen to the child afterwards. Social workers in the social services department have to make that report for the court within about four weeks. I believe that local authorities can make the assessments within six months and I do not believe that they should take longer.
The Earl of Radnor: I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I believe that a strong line should be taken here and that possibly the noble Baroness might think again about her amendments. She said herself that the six-month period must be made to stick. Then in her amendments she provides the means for it to come unstuck. The words used in the amendment seem to provide an opportunity to make excuses. That is surely what has been happening since 1981. There have been endless excuses. I accept that there have been problems with funding but I do not believe that such problems will ever be overcome until the matter is faced. It is a serious position for a child to have to wait for ever for assessment. As my noble friend Lord Elton said, it is utterly ridiculous and totally wrong for a child to have to wait from the age of seven until it is 10. The time has come not only to wave the big stick but to bring it into action and to leave the Bill broadly as it is presently printed.
Lord Elton: I not only say that it is wrong: it is cruel. The state and the local education authority are

599
under a duty to provide a suitable education for the child and for three years the child may have been receiving the wrong education, which must be a disaster.
Baroness David: I agree with all those who have spoken that it is desirable that the assessment and the statement should be made within a period of six months, and preferably in a shorter time. However, I remind members of the Committee that at Second Reading a great many pleas were made for flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, my noble friend Lady Blackstone, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I all made such pleas and the Minister said that we should not be too rigid.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to Amendment No. 6 which states that if the authority does not provide the assessment within six months it must give reasons. The amendment provides that:
"the authority shall write to the parents specifying a date by which the assessment shall be completed and offering guidance as to the educational provision that the child may receive".
Therefore, it forces the authority to take some action at that point.
The Audit Commission report points out that it is not always the local authority which causes the problems because other agencies such as the health authority, psychologists, social services etc. may have to contribute. Therefore it may not be entirely the fault of the LEAs. I hope that those points will be taken into consideration.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may come to the aid of my noble friend, should he need it. I did indeed suggest that there should be flexibility because I recall as a Minister always being anxious when no alternative was given where one was needed. The problem is controlling the alternative. If the noble Baroness will look at Amendment No. 4 in the name of my noble friend she will find that there is a degree of flexibility. It is very tight, and she may think it too tight. I do not believe that it is too tight. The circumstances must be exceptional but one must provide for the exception. My noble friend has done that. Therefore, I do not think that we need to be worried about flexibility.
What is attractive about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is the idea that the authority should be under a duty to do something when the circumstances are exceptional to mitigate the results of those circumstances. I see that slender part of her group of amendments adding to the effectiveness of the amendments in the name of my noble friend rather than working against them.
Lord Rix: Am I not right in saying that until such time as a definitive statement is made and acted upon the cost of educating the child in terms of providing the additional equipment falls on the school? Therefore, there is every reason for the LEA to delay such a statement by making half-hearted promises. I believe sincerely that the amendments are contrary to the spirit of the amendment Bill.
The Minister of State, Department of Education (Baroness Blatch): I rise in the expectant silence in the Chamber simply to say that this is a Private Member's Bill and that I made very clear that the Government are addressing many of the points which have been raised and many others which are not before the Committee today. The combination of the Audit Commission report—and I agree with my noble friend that it is a very positive report and is very helpful at this time—and the efforts and determination of my noble friend Lord Campbell has done much to further the debate and to give it the impetus which this Chamber has been calling for for some time. We shall be addressing all of those points both in a consultative paper and in a Bill later this year. For those reasons I shall neither oppose nor support the amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: Of course we should be very happy to work to try to improve on the amendments between now and the Report stage of the Bill. In my earlier remarks I made it clear that we are not wedded to any particular aspects of the drafting of the amendments. All we are trying to do is to ensure that there is some flexibility and we are not too rigid.
I accept entirely that there is a case for further defining what is required both in Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 6. However, I should like to reiterate that there is no intention on this side of the House to try to reduce the pressure on local education authorities to deal with these cases as fast as possible. That is not their purpose. We are concerned to avoid poor and inadequate assessments of certain very difficult cases where all the information is not available because local authorities have not been able to get all the agencies concerned to provide it. There is nothing in the Bill which gives the local education authority the power to obtain from a health authority professional or a social services department important information that may be required. Therefore, we are being a little harsh on the local authorities in making the requirement. That could lead to the danger of a poor assessment of a child who is then inappropriately placed because the case has not been adequately considered.
I was somewhat surprised by what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said. I can see that he might be worried by Amendment No. 1. Other noble Lords have also suggested that it might be too open ended. However, the purpose of Amendment No. 6 is to try to make sure that local authorities which go over the time limit in exceptional cases, for very good reasons, should explain why they have done so and make interim arrangements. I should have thought that that was helpful for the parents.
I do not believe that most local education authorities will want to delay. If the Bill goes through there will be a great deal of pressure on them to avoid doing so. There may be some sense in asking local authorities to publish statistics giving simple data concerning the number of cases which were not dealt with within the six-month period. It would be easy to do that and to find out quickly which local authorities were failing in their duties because there were too many such cases. It would then be possible to ask HMI to investigate those authorities which had failed

601
in that way. There are other measures which could accompany the amendments to ensure the flexibility and lack of rigidity which are needed and at the same time ensure that the local authorities are not delaying unnecessarily.
I shall he happy to take away these two amendments and reconsider how we can improve them and perhaps put their positive aspects together with those amendments that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In the light of those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("within six months of the expiry of such period").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment, which received a measure of support in this Chamber. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("educational needs of") and insert ("special educational provision that should be made for").
The noble Lord said: This is a formal correction, spoken to on Second Reading. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert:
("(a) within six months of the expiry of such period, or (b) in exceptional circumstances within such extended period as shall have been granted by the Secretary of State prior to the expiration of the six month period by a reasoned decision which has been brought to the attention of the parent before the expiration of the six month period.").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I wonder whether we could consider this amendment in the light of what I said earlier. We might want to incorporate some aspects of our Amendment No. 6 and see whether we can come up with a slight improvement to what is now on the Marshalled List.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I welcome that suggestion and shall deal with it with an open mind. Perhaps we can consider it on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David: I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, intended to withdraw the amendment so that we could discuss his amendment and the amendment of my noble friend Lady Blackstone together before Report stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 4 has been settled.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1. line 12, at end insert:
("( ) If, after making an assessment of the educational needs of a child, the local education authority decide to determine the special educational provision that should be made, the authority shall, within the period of six months referred to in subsection (6) above, make a draft statement for discussion with the parents of the child concerned.").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this amendment is to require local education authorities to produce, within the six months mentioned in the Bill, a draft statement of the special educational needs of the child for discussion with the parents. It is my understanding that, as the Bill is currently written, the LEA will only be obliged to assess the child to decide whether or not it will determine the educational needs within the six months written into the Bill.
While that is indeed welcome, it does not deal with the main problem which parents contacting MENCAP or RADAR are experiencing; that is, receiving the statement once the need for one has been agreed. During the Second Reading debate I mentioned the plight of a family which received agreement from the LEA within a month that a statement should be produced but did not in fact receive a statement for over three years. That is clearly unsatisfactory. By incorporating this amendment I hope to ensure that the Bill remedies that problem.
I am sure that the Committee is aware that the problem was highlighted only last week in the joint report of the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools, which states that even the best performing local authorities are taking 50 per cent. longer to assess special needs than the Government's guideline of six months. Since no LEA is meeting the Government's deadlines, there is a clear problem which must be addressed. One of the key recommendations is that statutory time limits for the completion of assessments and statements should he set with redress for parents if LEAs do not complete them on time. I agree.
I also welcome the statement made by the department in response to the report and the statement today from the noble Baroness that the Government intend to issue regulations on this issue and to consult widely on the subject. I look forward to seeing the regulations. This amendment may be premature but the debate is long overdue.
I understand the concerns expressed at Second Reading with regard to placing too strict a time limit on LEAs for the production of assessments. I am aware that this amendment may be seen as only adding to their burden. The reality has not changed! and will not change for those children unless some pressure can be brought to bear on both those who carry out the work, the LEAs, and those with resources, that is to say, the Government.
I do not claim that this is a definitive amendment to rectify the problem. However, I am wary of get-out clauses which could allow the authorities to postpone this procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wish to support the amendment moved with clarity and strength by the noble Lord,

603
Lord Rix. To my mind the need for it arises to a very considerable extent from the fact that local education authorities—one cannot blame them—always have to experiment. They experiment in bringing children with special needs into ordinary schools and they experiment in setting up special schools. They tend to take their time over doing so.
It is right, as the noble Lord said, that there should be a statutory time limit of the kind set down in this amendment. I know of one case of a special school, which had been running very well for a good number of years, where the building happened to be in need of physical reconstruction. There were no plans to build another special school so it was decided to do a dispersal job. It was intended to send most of the children to an ordinary school (hopefully but not wisely) and to disperse the children who obviously could not be placed in an ordinary school to a special school some distance away from the children's homes. That was clearly an unsatisfactory situation. I am glad to say that the local people who were involved made strong representations to their Member of Parliament, who happens to hold a very high position in our society, and to others. The local authority was persuaded to change its mind.
There was nothing in the law as it stood which required the local authority to make assessments within a specified time, or to discuss and implement them. This amendment goes a long way toward achieving that. It is my hope that the Committee will accept it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In view of the two authoritative speeches that have just been made by noble Lords who know very much more than I on this subject, I welcome this extension to the general intendment of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in managing to get this measure within the scope of the Bill. It is of great practical significance. It brings parents at a much earlier stage into the arena of discussion as to the welfare and interest of these children.
As for the burden on the LEA, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, put forward—as she always does—a totally reasonable and logical argument on the problems facing the LEA. At this stage I merely point to my Amendment No. 18 which is designed for implementing regulations to be issued. One but only one of the reasons for this implementation provision is to deal with this kind of problem: how the LEA is to get its information and so on.
I hope that the Committee will accept this remarkably useful amendment.
Lord Elton: Reading this text I am becoming anxious. As I understand it, the critical moment is not the moment at which the local authority decides whether or not a particular provision is needed, but the moment at which it issues a statement to that effect. Everything that my noble friends and others are trying to do at the moment is encouraging them to make the decision. That is what they have to do within the six months.
604
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, proposes that the local education authority:
"shall … make a draft statement".
But the statement is only in draft and it is only for discussion with the parents of the child concerned and that discussion can take place at any time. Therefore he has not put an end to the process at all. He has carried it out of the six months and into some undefined period during which discussion may take place. It is when the statement is issued that administrative action has to flow and money has to be dedicated or spent. That being so, will my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, consider whether changes are needed both to the amendment and to the Bill as drafted so that the provision focuses not on the assessment, the decision or the discussion, but on the issuing of the statement? That is when action has to follow.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may support my noble friend Lord Rix and the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I agree that we are talking only about a draft statement. Therefore there is room for considerable time lapse before the definitive statement.
I consulted the Independent Panel on Special Education Advice (IPSEA) which is very experienced in such matters. I had wondered whether one should include in the Bill a second date by which the definitive statement should appear. IPSEA believed that while it is right that parents should have time to question and discuss the draft stage, it would not be appropriate to set a time limit in the Bill.
However, it might be helpful if in guidance the department could emphasise that LEAs should be businesslike in their discussion and aim for finalisation of the statement within another three months. IPSEA said that nine months from the decision, the making of an assessment and the finalising of the statement is a reasonable length of time.
Lord Elton: I beg noble Lords to turn their face against guidance. Guidance is easily ignored. What we need is legislation on the statute.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I was appealed to directly. I shall therefore respond to my noble friend. Perhaps he will understand that I do so without prejudice to my own position on the Bill and the fact that the matters will be addressed.
My noble friend is right that what we want is all possible haste to a full determination of the provision for a child. It is also worth considering an even faster track when the diagnosis is relatively straightforward and there is full agreement with the parents and all the agencies concerned with the child. One can then proceed with all haste to a decision on a faster timetable.
The timetable to which we refer today relates to delays for whatever reason. My inclination is to agree, without prejudice, not to guidance but to secondary legislation. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made. She agreed with the argument for not moving such matters into primary legislation

605
because of the rigidity and poor flexibility that that entails, but the issue needs the backing of some kind of legislation. I prefer to go for secondary legislation. I say that without prejudice because we shall address the matter in a consultation paper and with legislation in the autumn.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the Minister. That is music to the ears of those of us who have striven. It is a great step forward that the issue should be dealt with by secondary legislation. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord Renton: I confess that I have some doubt about the matter. We have control over the expressions used in primary legislation. We cannot amend secondary legislation. When such legislation comes before Parliament, we in this Chamber do not vote against orders. We are obliged to accept them, especially if they have been through another place.
It is a practical matter; but it is an important matter of principle that the practice should be right. I confess that I cannot share the enthusiasm of my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway or Lady Blatch for secondary legislation as a way of dealing with the issue. I prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, or something on those lines. Even if the drafting does not appeal to my noble friend on the Front Bench, I should have hoped that she would keep an open mind about the desirability of making provision in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, suggests.
I should have thought that in the circumstances the best plan might be for the noble Lord, Lord Rix, to suggest—I hope that I do not presume too much in mentioning it—that he is glad that the principle is accepted but, rather than agreeing here and now to the issue being provided for in secondary legislation, that he and the Government should get their heads together and make provision for it in primary legislation at Report stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There has been a total misunderstanding, so far as I am concerned. Either I failed to explain myself with any form of clarity or I have been misheard.
The position from my point of view is this. I agree that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in its present form or some similar form, should be in primary legislation. I have already said so; and I have already stated that I support it. Therefore let us leave that source of confusion alone.
The question then is whether implementation of the principle should be undertaken, for example, along the lines of my amendment, Amendment No. 18, by implementing regulations, or, as has been suggested by the noble Baroness, by guidance. Guidance is a form of anathema to me. Therefore I was delighted to have in this context what I understood to be music to my ears: that the matter would be dealt with by implementing legislation.
That is my understanding of the situation. When my noble friend Lord Renton rose, it appeared that I had made a total muddle of the whole situation. I therefore am extremely grateful to the Committee for allowing me to put it right.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may clear up a matter in case I too was misunderstood. I started out to make a speech totally in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Rix. However, I became slightly diverted by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I am totally in support of my noble friend's amendment. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said about arriving at a final statement within a period. I believed that it was perhaps not right to incorporate that provision in the Bill but in guidance. However, I am totally in favour of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I owe an apology; I am not quite sure, but I shall try to make one.
I had misunderstood the meaning of the intervention of my noble friend Lady Blatch. We shall read Hansard with interest tomorrow. I had thought that she was saying that instead of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, she was going to rely on Amendment No. 18 and have secondary legislation in order to achieve those provisions. But if it be the fact that we shall have the best of both worlds, then that is music also to my ears.
I hope that with that clarification, any misunderstanding may have been removed.
The Earl of Radnor: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was tempting at first. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness on the Front Bench are right. We want to keep our eye on the main chance. We do not want drafts and suggestions. We want the assessments to be accomplished within six months. Then the parents will know the position for certain.
Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me. We keep referring to assessments. The executive moment is the statement that embodies the assessment. We want that on the record.
The Earl of Radnor: That is now on the record. Finally, because I hate it in principle, let us have as little secondary legislation as possible.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will forgive me. I know that the noble Lord will have a right of reply when winding up on his amendment, and what I say may be helpful. I shall also do what I said this afternoon that I would not do: that is, to get involved in the detail of some of the amendments.
I wish to point out to my noble friend Lord Renton an important distinction. Any secondary legislation that flows from a subsequent Bill, whether this Bill or the Government's Bill to be introduced in the autumn, must be linked to a principle in primary legislation. The provision needs to be set out. The issue that is continually emphasised by my noble friend Lord Elton is worth re-emphasising. The point from which executive action flows will be the definitive statement. In debating the amendment we are talking about an assessment and saying that within six months something shall happen. There will he a further period of time beyond that before a definitive statement is

607
obtained. I believe that we are all speaking to the same objective but that we are somewhat confused about the means to the end.
Lord Rix: I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. I wish to crave the indulgence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. He said that guidance was anathema to him. Perhaps he will offer me some guidance now because, being a new boy to the Committee stage structure, I am at sixes and sevens. Shall I now withdraw my amendment so that the noble Lord can strengthen it or shall I leave it standing?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: As the noble Lord asks me, I say move the amendment.
Lord Rix: In that case, I hope that the amendment will be accepted—
Lord Elton: In order to protect that position I give notice that I shall seek to amend the provision when incorporated on Report in order to dispense with the weakness that I pointed out.
Lord Rix: I should be most happy about that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert:
("(8A) Where a new assessment is made, special educational provision determined or an appeal dismissed under subsection (8) above, the parent may appeal in writing to the Secretary of State.
(8B) On an appeal under subsection (8A) above, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, direct the local education authority to reconsider their decision.").
The noble Baroness said: As Members on these Benches said on Second Reading, the introduction of a local appeals procedure under the terms of the Bill would be a great improvement. The right of appeal to the Secretary of State should remain. The amendment mirrors the original right of appeal available under the 1981 Act. The Audit Commission/HMI report has been rightly praised by various Members of the Committee and I wish to endorse that praise. The report is excellent, although it is a little glossy and a great deal of money may have been spent on its production. I am surprised about that because the Audit Commission is always concerned with value for money.
The report makes clear that the role and responsibilities of local education authorities under the 1981 Act should remain unchanged, although overall implementation has been slow, bureaucratic and cumbersome. Therefore, a local appeals committee would be a significant improvement. However, as the Audit Commission report recognises, ultimate responsibility for the success of special educational provision in the UK must rest with central government and with the Department of Education.
The 1981 Act does not define triggers to implement an assessment leading to a statement. The Audit Commission report also argues for national guidelines on the threshold for formal assessment. On occasions
608
there will be a need for the Secretary of State to take an overall view on an aspect of need which will provide a useful precedent for the whole service. Even where judicial cases arise as a result of a decision of the Secretary of State the cases benefit from the national view of the Department of Education. Therefore, a right of appeal to the Secretary of State is needed and should be maintained. The amendment reflects the Bill's intention to improve parental rights of appeal and it is entirely in the spirit of the Bill.
The amendment also raises the question of the right of appeal by local education authorities to the Secretary of State. Under the 1981 Act an LEA can only be directed to action by the Secretary of State for Education. It can present evidence that is specific to an individual case and relate that to the wider resource implications of a directive. The Bill as presently drafted allows the appeal committee to direct the LEA. The appeal committee could then make its decision on an individual case without having an overview, either political or economic, of the LEA's resources. Therefore, an appeal committee's decision might, for example, have the effect of skewing a whole band of provision away from the level which the LEA had determined for the pupils in that band. There is a case for the LEA also having recourse to the Secretary of State, given the wider implications of any appeal committee's decision. I wish to give notice that on Report we may wish to bring forward a further amendment allowing LEAs to appeal against an appeal committee which has altered the special education that was earlier determined by the LEA and its advisers.
The amendment is tabled in order to allow parents the right to a final recourse to the Secretary of State should they consider that their appeal to the local authority had been inadequately dealt with. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee because it is wholly within the spirit of the Bill to allow a parent to appeal in this way. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is the only matter on which I join issue with the noble Baroness because it runs counter to one of the main principles of the Bill. With the leave of the Committee I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 15, which also stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
The effect of the two amendments is designed to ensure that the aspect of the right to appeal should remain. They are designed to ensure that the existing appellate structure to the Secretary of State provided for under Section 5(6) of the Act remains and that under Section 5(8) the Secretary of State has power only to direct the local education authority to reconsider. The reference to that aim appears at col. 1382 of Hansard of 11th June 1992. On Second Reading the storm cones were gently hoisted because it was apparent that that would be an issue of contention.
I have taken a view on the matter based on my practical experience in the courts. My experience is limited to that extent because I am not a social worker, nor do I know a great deal about local education authorities. My experience is purely practical. From my narrow standpoint this procedure is cumbersome

609
and unsatisfactory. It operates on paper representation. There is no real hearing or legal representation and the parents are not able to attend. For that reason the Bill seeks to abolish the aspect of the appellate structure concerned with assessment and to give the reconstituted appeal committee power to amend the statement.
Originally the Bill provided for no appeal against the statement. But in deference to what was said in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and other Members of the Committee I have had drafted into the Bill a new provision. Amendment No. 16 provides an appeal from the appeal committee to the Secretary of State in such circumstances. That is in deference to the views expressed on Second Reading by certain Members of the Committee that the appeal committee should not have the final say. That provision now appearing in the Bill, and having met the wishes of noble Lords to that degree, I hope that Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 may be given further consideration. As a result of my experience, limited as it is, I cannot conceivably accept that the Secretary of State's present appellate powers quoad assessments should remain.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am sure that the Committee will accept that I am in something of a difficulty attending to the detail of the Bill. During Second Reading I foreshadowed all the points which the Government will address. I recently announced proposals to improve parents' access to the present arrangements for conducting assessments and making statements for children with special educational needs by regulating the time and way in which authorities carry out their duties. We are also planning to give the parents of a child with a statement the right to express a preference for their child's school. I also foreshadowed our thinking on the development of national criteria on assessments and statements. We shall be consulting on the development of such criteria and guidance as regards the 1981 Act.
At Second Reading, I also said that we were aiming to provide for a more coherent and comprehensive set of rights of appeal for parents who were not satisfied with the decisions made by local education authorities. The three main issues that we were tackling were: quicker redress; a more open and independent system in line with the Parent's Charter; and whether a single appeal body should replace the present two stage process. I can now announce that the Government will be bringing forward proposals to establish a new, independent tribunal to hear appeals from parents of children with special educational needs.
We have concluded that a tribunal system, rather than an enhanced appeal committee system, would better meet the aims that I set out, and better meet the legitimate expectations of parents to deal promptly and fairly with their appeals. A tribunal would offer a simplified structure by limiting the appeal process to only one tier while keeping the system relatively local. The time taken to consider an appeal should be reduced and that can only benefit the child and the
610
parents. The legislation would make clear that the tribunal could not make decisions which involve the provision of services by health authorities or local authorities' social services departments.
We envisage that the tribunal would be established under a president and would sit as a number of tribunals having the same jurisdiction under regional chairmen. Membership would comprise a legally qualified chairman and two other members, one of whom would need to have expertise in special educational needs and the other one of whom might have experience in local government. In setting its remit, we propose to amend the 1981 Act to extend parents' rights of appeal. The tribunal would determine appeals against a local authority's refusal to assess or reassess a child; against an authority's decision not to determine the provision for a child in a statement; against the special educational provision specified within a statement. It would determine a new specific right of appeal against the school named in the statement; and against an authority's decision to amend or to cease to maintain a statement.
We propose that the legislation would enable the Secretary of State to make rules about the way in which appeals should be made to, and decided by, the tribunal.
On Second Reading, I foreshadowed our thinking on the development of national criteria on assessment and statements. Those national criteria would inform the tribunal's decisions, which is a point about which the noble Baroness was anxious.
As I promised before, we shall be consulting widely about all our proposals, including the establishment of a special educational needs tribunal. We shall shortly be issuing a consultation paper which will set out all the proposals for legislation in more detail. Our forthcoming White Paper about the future structure of the education service will also take account of pupils with special educational needs.
In the light of this statement, I shall neither support nor oppose amendments set out on the Marshalled List. I would prefer that noble Lords await the publication of a consultative paper and subsequent legislation in the autumn and that meanwhile the Bill should be withdrawn. I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell for his patience, determination and hard work which have gone into the preparation of this Bill. What happens now must remain a matter for the whole House. However, it needs to be said that there has been no public consultation on the detail of the Bill. The Bill needs to be withdrawn at some stage to allow wider consultation on its details and also on other details which concern not only Members of this Committee but also members of the public outside.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, when does she estimate that the tribunals will be operational? With all the consultation and so on, it seems to me that it may take rather a long time.
Baroness Blatch: We envisage that a consultation paper will be published next month. That will be followed by legislation which will come from the House of Commons to this Chamber round about

611
November time. Those are the dates for which we are aiming. A reasonable implementation date would be one year following the passing of the Act.
Baroness Faithfull: Will the Minister clarify whether that means that the appeals committees will be abolished and there will just be a tribunal or does it mean that the appeals committees will stay and if there is confrontation, the matter will go to the tribunal?
Baroness Blatch: The intention is to sweep away the appeal system as it stands and to replace it with a one-tier appeal system which will be carried out through a tribunal system.
Lord Rix: Those of us from the all-party disability group and MENCAP —and I am sure other voluntary bodies also—welcome the idea of tribunals. We all welcome the announcement which the Minister made. Will the tribunals work from papers or, as I hope, will the people concerned be able to be present at the tribunals, because it is important that all parties concerned should be represented or should be able to speak for themselves?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, presses me on detail which properly belongs to the consultation process. The purpose of going out to consultation on the principle of setting up a tribunal is to allow interested parties to come back with the kind of information which the noble Lord is trying to elicit from me. The Government want an extremely effective system to enable people to receive a definitive statement as smoothly and as quickly as possible so that proper provision can be made which will benefit everybody.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may try to help the Committee. The time element is important. It may be some time before the Government can act. However, it is a matter for the Committee as to whether it feels that the Bill should be withdrawn at this stage or whether it should go forward to Report stage so that the Government might have the benefit of further discussions. They can then produce something which is at least intelligible and which represents a tidying-up of the Committee's view. As a result of what I have heard, I accept that the Bill will have served its purpose and must be withdrawn. That is my view. However, I should prefer that the Bill goes to Report stage and that we should continue with our discussions. If it is your Lordships' wish, the Bill can then be withdrawn.
Lord Elton: As my noble friend says, this is a matter of timing. One must think when the Report stage will be. Presumably it will be either in the middle of or towards the end of the period of public consultation in October.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The date provisionally given for Report stage is 15th July, before the House rises.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend. Members of the Committee will wish to consider how
612
much more wisdom we can contribute to the process. I regard my noble friend as a kind of Hercules who has picked up the Bill as a type of club. He has found the great rock of government movement poised on the edge of the hill; he has placed the Bill under it; he has manoeuvred it and it has started bounding down the slope. I believe that a great deal of what can be achieved has been achieved but I do not wish to impose my views upon the Committee nor to underestimate in any way the way in which my noble friend continues to add to our views on this complicated issue.
Baroness Blackstone: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. I believe we have achieved a great deal already. We should all be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for introducing the Bill. Perhaps it has helped to put a little pressure on the Secretary of State and the Government to bring forward legislation as soon as possible.
The timetable seems to me to be reasonable, if there is to be a consultation paper some time in July. That will allow people to express their views about what should happen as regards the new proposals for a tribunal. This side of the Committee welcomes that proposal but, of course, we have not yet seen all the details. We shall of course want to see much more of the detail.
My feeling is that we had a good debate at Second Reading and have now started to raise some of the issues of detail in the Bill. To continue with the Committee stage and proceed to Report stage in the light of what the Minister said does not make a great deal of sense. It is difficult for the Minister to give us a reply in terms of what the Government are or are not prepared to do with the Bill. It must be withdrawn at some point in the light of what the Minister said. It seems to me, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that it would make more sense to withdraw it now. To continue would be a waste of the Committee's time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
Baroness Faithfull: I too support what has been said. In the light of the remarks of my noble friend the Minister some of the amendments now do not apply. One would not be able to discuss them or, if one did, it would be a pointless exercise. I therefore agree with my noble friend.
Lord Addington: I suggest that we have covered much of the ground we had in mind to cover. I do not believe that we can put much more into the Bill at this point. The fine detail prepared by most of us has run into a brick wall of government co-operation. Although I am not legally trained in any way, I suggest that we have probably done as much as we can.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for intervening. I say this in advance of not knowing what he is going to suggest and simply to deal with a matter of process and procedure from here on. If the Committee decides to continue then we continue. If so, we should take the Statement

613
following Amendment No. 7 and then resume the Committee stage of the Bill. However, if your Lordships decide that the Bill should be withdrawn at this stage, it is important that those who have tabled amendments on the Marshalled List should systematically withdraw them. The House should then resume and the Bill should be withdrawn at that point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am a servant of the Chamber. I believe that the view expressed is right. I am prepared to withdraw the Bill, it having served its purpose, subject to the formalities required and the withdrawing of the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to my noble friend and can promise him that if he wishes to have personal involvement with my department and officials in talking over some of the detail of the Bill, I can explain that to him and to any other interested parties in the Chamber.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): If your Lordships agree, I intend to take the Committee rapidly through the Bill in a couple of minutes and dispose of it in that way. We cannot abandon it halfway through.
Clause 2 [Composition of appeal committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of parental rights of appeal]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Variation of statement: provision of information]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule [Sections 5 and 8 of the Education Act 1981, as amended]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Bill.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

European Council, 27th and 28th June
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the European Council on 27th and 28th June. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I shall make a Statement about last week's European Council which I attended with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The conclusions of the European Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
614
"This meeting took place on the eve of our own presidency of the Community and dealt with a range of issues which the United Kingdom will now carry forward. These include preparations for enlargement, the future financing of the Community, the issue of subsidiarity and the GATT round. We also discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia.
"We agreed to reappoint the President of the Commission for two years. Thereafter a new five-year appointment will be made of the whole Commission.
"On enlargement, we secured agreement that work should start immediately on the negotiating mandates for the EFTA countries which have applied to join the Community—Austria, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland in the first instance. Much of the groundwork has already been done. I hope that we can agree negotiating mandates by the end of our presidency so that formal negotiations can start at the beginning of next year. The Community has also agreed to step up its dialogue with the countries of central and eastern Europe in preparation for their membership. We plan to hold a meeting with the Visegrad 3 at head of government level during the presidency.
"The Council discussed the future financing of the Community. There was widespread recognition that the existing ceiling for the Community's budget will be adequate for at least the next two years. The agreed language in the communiqué on help for the poorer countries of the Community reinforces that view: it make no commitment to the doubling of resources that the Commission had proposed.
"All heads of government reaffirmed their commitment to the Maastricht Treaty. At Maastricht we won agreement to the principle of subsidiarity and its inclusion in the treaty. At this meeting we have taken that a stage further. Under our presidency work will go ahead on how to turn that general principle into reality in the working practices of the Community. The steps immediately envisaged include rigorous scrutiny within the Commission on whether new proposals are necessary—any such proposals must he justified —and examination of existing legislation to see whether it could be modified or even scrapped. The Commission and the Council will report to our European Council in Edinburgh on progress made.
"The European Council reaffirmed its commitment to negotiating a successful conclusion of the GATT round. The remaining gap between the European Community and the United States on agriculture issues is a narrow one. The OECD has calculated that a GATT settlement would give a boost to world growth worth 195 billion dollars annually in extra world income. Over 90 billion dollars of that would go to developing countries and former communist countries. I hope that those of our partners who are still hesitating about an agreement will reflect on the enormous advantages of success and the price of failure.

615
"We discussed the deteriorating situation in Yugoslavia. I proposed that all member states should make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel for the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift; that with the help of the Commission we should start to assemble humanitarian material at a suitable base now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing them to have part in any international organisations, including the CSCE.
"With the Security Council about to meet, we agreed not to rule out the use of military means by the United Nations to achieve our humanitarian objectives. However, the United Nations has rightly been cautious about organising humanitarian operations in the absence of an effective ceasefire, and about trying to interpose itself in a civil war.
"During the course of the weekend we have had discussions with the United States, the United Nations Secretariat and others. The prospects for a ceasefire and for a humanitarian mission look slightly better than they did. But the Serbian militia and others are numerous and well-armed. It would take only one ground-launched missile to cause serious loss of life. We stand ready to take part in a humanitarian airlift, but will want to be sure that it can happen with the minimum risk to British and other lives.
"Madam Speaker, we adopted conclusions on a number of other foreign policy issues. They are attached to the conclusions which are in the Library of the House. I draw the House's attention in particular to the Statement on nuclear safety in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The Community has committed itself to increase its help for improving the safety of nuclear power plants. Britain has taken a lead on this issue and will be seeking a co-ordinated initiative at the economic summit next week.
"I also draw the House's attention to the Statement on Southern Africa, which calls for all the parties to resume negotiations on CODESA. We continue to be in close touch with the South African Government and the ANC on this.
"Many of the conclusions on the Lisbon European Council constitute the agenda for our presidency which starts on Wednesday. They are a huge challenge for the Community and a great responsibility for the United Kingdom.
"All the issues on which I have reported to the House; namely, subsidiarity, enlargement, future financing and GATT, will fall to us to manage and, we hope, to bring to a successful conclusion. Yugoslavia too will be very high on our agenda. Many difficult matters must be resolved in the months ahead.
"The plain fact is that the future of Europe is at stake and it needs to be addressed with coolness, commitment and with careful calculation."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is clear that the Prime Minister and the Government have been left with a number of complex problems to deal with when they assume the presidency next Wednesday. It seems that very little progress was in fact made on the Maastricht Treaty or indeed on ratification. Although Danish Ministers were present at the summit, it appeared to me, looking at television, that the issue which raised most enthusiasm was the football match between Denmark and Germany. That was only for a very short moment.
The Statement dealt with ratification. Will the noble Lord confirm that ratification is impossible unless the 12 members are parties to it? Can he say whether the Danish Foreign Minister was able to indicate what further step his government were prepared to take to clarify the matter there? Unless they are able to sign, the treaty will have no further validity. Can the noble Lord say whether that is the position? I believe that to be the question which worries noble Lords in every part of the House.
It was reported by a commentator (again on television) that the 11 states could proceed themselves without Denmark to ratify the treaty. Does the noble Lord agree that that is a totally unrealistic position? The Statement further deals with subsidiarity. Can the noble Lord say whether there is any further clarification about that word? Last week I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, whether the Government had reached agreement on a clear definition. At that stage, I was referring to the meeting between the Prime Minister and M. Delors. At that time the noble Baroness was unable to clarify the position and I fully understood the reasons for that.
Will I be far from the mark if I say that subsidiarity means decentralisation or devolution? Subsidiarity is a totally inadequate word. Does the noble Lord agree that the true position is that neither the Government, members of the Civil Service nor the man in the street knows what subsidiarity means? If that is the case, does he agree that it would be far better for Ministers to concede that? The treaty's subsidiarity clause is virtually meaningless at present. It is essential that some progress should be made on its precise interpretation.
We note that the Prime Minister refused point blank to accept the need for an increase in the structural fund. Can the noble Lord say why the Prime Minister was so obdurate? Does the noble Lord agree that that attitude could close the door on any possible enlargement? The Statement refers to enlargement as if it were a fairly immediate prospect. The fact is that if the Government are unable to make any concession on an increase to the structural fund, I do not see any possibility of enlargement at all as an early prospect.
Can the noble Lord say whether the Government support President Mitterrand's initiative in visiting Sarajevo? That is not mentioned in the Statement at all. Does the noble Lord agree that, on the whole, it was a courageous and worthwhile exercise? Can he further say what further steps the Government

617
propose should be taken as a consequence of the French President's visit? Furthermore, before any final conclusion is taken as to any participation in a military initiative involving British troops, does the noble Lord agree that United Nations agreement would be essential?
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his kindness in repeating the Statement to us. In view of our debate on Thursday, I would not wish to go too deeply or at too great a length into these matters today. Perhaps not altogether unintentionally, the closing stages at Lisbon were rather overshadowed by the coup de théâtre of the President of the French Republic. Plenty of problems are left for the British presidency in the next six months.
I do not quarrel with the Government's recipe of coolness, commitment and careful calculation. I hope that the Government's full weight will be put on the second of those three nouns. It it is, they will certainly have my full support as regards Maastricht and that of my noble friends as well. If not, I believe that the Government will inevitably find that both the main proclaimed prongs of their European policy—Britain at the heart of Europe, and to proceed to the rapid enlargement of the Community—will be in ruins.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Perhaps I may deal with the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to ratification. We are committed to it. The French referendum will clear the way for the Committee stage, which I understand it is proposed to resume in another place after the Summer Recess. The noble Lord is quite right in that the treaty has to be ratified by all 12 countries who signed it. However, that does not amount to the same as saying that it is legally impossible for it to be ratified. The Danes can put themselves in a position to ratify the treaty.
The Community agreed at Oslo that the door for Denmark's participation in the union remained open. It excluded a re-opening of the text agreed at Maastricht. It was made clear that ratification in the other member states would continue. That was the position at the Lisbon conference as well.
With regard to subsidiarity, while I agree that it is a pretty dreadful word, the concept is crucial. It is to stop the Community intruding into areas of life which must remain the responsibility of the nation state. It is not something that can be passed over as of no consequence. Article 3B is in the Treaty of Maastricht. There was no such article either in the Treaty of Rome or in the Single European Act. It is an important part of our strategy of stopping that intrusion into our affairs. The Lisbon Council has tasked the United Kingdom presidency to sort out the administrative methods of implementing this complex concept. That is what we intend to do.
On the question of the structure fund and the cohesion fund, the Council reaffirmed the statement in the Maastricht Treaty that a cohesion fund should be
618
set up before the end of 1993 to help finance environment and infrastructure projects in the four poorest member states. We shall see that that is carried out. We see no reason to delay its introduction once the Maastricht Treaty is ratified. But M. Delors' proposal for a doubling of the cohesion fund was not agreed.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, mentioned Yugoslavia. As I indicated in the Statement, at Lisbon my right honourable friend the Prime Minister proposed that all member states should make an immediate pledge of aircraft and transport personnel; that, with the help of the Commission, we should start to assemble humanitarian material at suitable bases now; and that we should demonstrate our condemnation of Serbian actions by not allowing them to take part in international organisations.
With regard President Mitterrand's visit, I believe it was a courageous act symbolising his and our concern for the people of that city. I do not agree with those who suggest —I know that the noble Lord did not suggest it—that the President of France somehow should seek the permission of the EC to do these things. There is nothing in the Maastricht Treaty or any other treaty which would expect a President of France not to carry out an initiative if he believed it right, in just the same way as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister took a similar initiative last year over the problems in northern Iraq.
4.33 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can help me a little. It appears that the Danish people have rejected the present text of the Maastricht Treaty. Consequently, it has a similarity to John Cleese's parrot—it is dead, deceased, and has passed away. The only way we can get them to accept it, without renegotiation and without changing the words of it, is to put exactly the same question to the same people again. I completely support what my right honourable friend is trying to do because it is the right way forward; but are we not kidding ourselves by pretending that something is going to turn up on the day? It seems to me that it will not. Can my noble friend enlighten me? Perhaps President Mitterrand's trip to Yugoslavia was a decent example of subsidiarity.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not have the same gift of clairvoyance as my noble friend. I am not sure what is going to happen. What I do know is that this is a matter for the Danish people. They are the ones who must make up their minds. It is not for us to tell them what to do. All I can repeat is that there will not be ratification of the Maastricht Treaty unless all 12 countries ratify it. The Danes are in a position to put themselves in a position to ratify it if that is their wish.
Lord Jay: My Lords, are the Government still putting pressure on the Danish Government to have a second referendum? Would it not be an equally good idea if we were to have a second general election in this country to get a better result?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the first question has the nature of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" about it. As we are not putting pressure on the Danish Government or the Danish people to have a second referendum, we can hardly be still doing so. With regard to a general election in this country, I do not believe we should hold one. The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy. The electorate was consulted on 9th April and it has delivered its verdict.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the Serbian irregulars in the hills around Sarajevo hold most of the cards and certainly all of the heavy weapons, does the noble Lord agree that these irregulars have no interest whatever in a ceasefire, particularly as they are not the kind of people who will worry in the slightest about not being invited to international gatherings? If humanitarian aid is delayed until such time as a ceasefire is agreed, is it not clear that nothing will happen and tens of thousands of people will starve or die of disease? Can the noble Lord say whether the European Community or the United Nations have given any thought to the possibility of parachuting aid into the beleaguered areas of Sarajevo? That would be rather less risky than trying to open the airport.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I find it hard to go along completely with the noble Lord. All civilised people regret the bloodshed and suffering that is going on there. We all have to strive to find every way of stopping it. We also have to find every way of getting humanitarian aid to that area just as soon as we can do so. I am not saying that it will be possible to have complete peace and tranquillity before humanitarian aid gets there. We shall get it there as soon as it is judged that that can be done with the minimum of risk to British and other lives. Both those aims will be pursued at the same time.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Statement falls far short of removing much of the confusion surrounding the situation in Europe? For example, at the beginning of the Statement there seemed to be an indication that enlargement would be on the way during our presidency. But reports from other sources which are equally authoritative seem to make it perfectly clear that there is no question of the rest agreeing to enlargement until the Maastricht Treaty has been ratified. Which is true? It is wrong to indicate that that course can be taken if the mood at the minute, as laid down in the words at the conference, is that that cannot happen until after ratification.
With regard to subsidiarity, my noble friend gave something of an indication as to what he thinks it means. He said that it is a way of letting things that should be dealt with by nation states be dealt with by nation states. But the words do not seem to imply that at all. Is it not a fact that at the moment subsidiarity has to be defined by the Council of Ministers and then the others have automatically to observe it? If it can be said that subsidiarity will be decided by each individual country and that the Council of Ministers
620
has to prove a case to alter that, that would be a different matter. But the Statement does not indicate any clear decision or view on any of those matters.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend has pointed to two of the major tasks of the United Kingdom presidency. Indeed, one of the conclusions of the Lisbon Council was to ask the United Kingdom presidency to sort out some of these matters in relation to subsidiarity. We have a clear statement in the treaty and we want to put some flesh and blood on those words. Work will take place between now and the Edinburgh Summit to have some conclusions as to the administrative methods of implementing what is, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, a complex concept.
With regard to enlargement, the position equally is that during the period of the British presidency there will be a series of negotiations within the EC to settle our negotiating mandate, which we hope will then he in a position to be approved at the Edinburgh Council. This will enable the discussions and negotiations to take place with the countries that wish to join the EC after the Edinburgh Summit in December. So everything is being organised in a practical and sensible way and—if I may refer to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—in a cool and calm fashion. I think we are making good progress.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House first give an assurance that the Danes will not be put under any improper pressure, or made the subject of threats from the Germans in particular, to alter their view which was expressed through a properly constituted referendum? Secondly, can he give an absolute assurance that the British Government will not, in any circumstances, deploy fighting troops in Yugoslavia? That would very likely involve us in a Vietnam-type situation.
Thirdly, in relation to cohesion funds and bearing in mind the fact that pressure has been brought for additional cohesion funds (especially by Mr. Reynolds whose country receives £1.8 billion a year for between 3.5 million people) will the noble Lord give the further assurance that the British Government will not agree to an increase in such funds if that in any way increases the net contribution of this country to the Community? The United Kingdom is already in dire economic straits with a net borrowing requirement now reaching record proportions. Therefore, I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that the British taxpayer will not be expected to provide even more for countries that are already doing "very nicely, thank you" out of the Community?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked three questions. He asked, first, whether the Germans would put pressure upon the Danes. I have no knowledge of pressure and I am not party to any pressure; indeed, the British Government are not party to any pressure. Moreover, to my knowledge, the German Government are not exerting any pressure. However, that is not something that I can state categorically in the terms requested by the noble Lord because I just do not know. But, so far as the

621
British Government are aware, I should have thought that it was extremely unlikely. Therefore, in so far as I can answer the question, I give him as categoric an answer as I am capable of giving.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may explain what I mean. It is reported that Herr Kohl told the Danes that if they did not ratify the treaty then they ought to leave the Community.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I do not know anything about that. I certainly have no knowledge of it.
With regard to the use of force in support of humanitarian aid in Yugoslavia, that is a matter that the United Nations is considering or will shortly be considering. Of course, it is something about which the British Government have, quite understandably, considerable degrees of reservation. However, if we send troops or humanitarian forces of any kind to the area where there is that type of conflict, there must be the possibility that they will need protection. We shall certainly work with the United Nations to find a solution to the question.
The noble Lord's third question related to the cohesion fund. I do not think that I can add anything further to what I have already said. The Council reconfirmed that the cohesion fund will be set up before the end of 1993 to help finance environmental and infrastructure projects for the four poorest member states of the Community.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in any further elucidation or enforcement of subsidiarity, will the Government keep very much in mind the considerable difference between a term which means leaving with member states "only what is necessary to their sovereignty" and one which means taking to the European Community "only what is necessary for its survival and proper operation"?
As regards my noble friend's reference to GATT, is he aware that if he harnesses the success of Europe to the success of GATT he is actually harnessing it to the survivability of the human race in the long term, which is indeed a powerful engine of persuasion? Finally, as the matter of Yugoslavia has already been broached, can my noble friend assure the House that the people taking the decisions will be aware of the past experiences all the way from Napoleon in the Iberian peninsula to the Americans in Vietnam, and of the dangers of interfering in circumstances where the indigenous population do not share the objectives of the invader? Therefore, will the Government ensure that all the participants in the conflict are clearly aware that no help, no subsidy—that is, other than humanitarian aid—and no recognition will ever be given to any authority regarding the constituent parts of what was Yugoslavia until all forces are withdrawn within their recognised borders?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend's last question emphasises the complexity and difficulty of the position in Yugoslavia. In my view, it also confirms the Government's position in being extremely cautious as to what is practical and possible while, nevertheless, recognising the fact that we must do everything we can to get humanitarian aid to the
622
area as soon as we can. I also noted what my noble friend said about subsidiarity. It seems to me that the important aspect is two-fold: first, that there should be procedures whereby rigorous scrutiny is carried out to determine whether new proposals are necessary and such proposals must be fully justified; and secondly, that an examination should be made of existing legislation within the Community to see whether some of it should be modified or even scrapped. I believe that both those objectives are an important part of the process of putting some flesh on to the concept of subsidiarity.
I turn now to the question of GATT. I do not think that it is possible for any of us to over-emphasise just how important it is that we achieve a GATT settlement. That is absolutely vital for the future prosperity of the world. The gap between us is now considerably less than it was. Therefore, those who are holding out should recognise their responsibilities.
Lord Hughes: My noble friend asked that no improper pressure should be applied upon the Danes. That might imply that there is such a thing as proper pressure. Do I understand that the answer given by the noble Lord the Leader of the House is that no pressure of any kind will be applied against the Danes?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the Danish people and the Danish Government are fully aware of the serious nature of the issues before them. I have no doubt that they will make up their own minds in their own way. I look forward to that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, we were delighted to hear that the discussions in connection with enlargement of the Community will proceed. However, can the Minister give me an assurance that such an enlargement is not dependent upon approval of the Maastricht Treaty? Can the enlargement proceed when the Maastricht Treaty ratification is certainly in doubt, with one member having rejected it and another about to hold a referendum?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the process by which we start preparing for the negotiations on enlargement and the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty will continue together. Further decisions will be taken at the Edinburgh Council. By then it is very much hoped that the Maastricht Treaty will have been ratified by all the countries concerned. It is hoped that the European Community countries will agree to the negotiating mandate which it is hoped will have been negotiated during that period. I do not believe that I can go any further than that.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's announcement that considerable emphasis is to be placed on working out the details of subsidiarity during the United Kingdom presidency. I urge him to consider the possibility of introducing a juridical rule of proportionality under which the Commission would be inhibited from imposing regulations where the cost of implementing them is greater than the benefit they bring. Does he agree that such a rule

623
would greatly reduce the antagonism towards the Commission which has existed in member countries in the past?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend's question is a sensible one. I am not sure that that is the way those discussions will take place. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. It is a good principle upon which we should be able to operate, but it is not the only principle.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Lord has dealt with the issue of subsidiarity. He will be aware that Her Majesty's Government have had the subsidiarity clause (No. 3B) before them for six months since the end of the intergovernmental conference. He has spoken of the administrative arrangements necessary to carry forward Article 3B. Will he —not necessarily now but in the debate on Thursday—give some indication of how the Government propose to do it. Is he aware that under the existing text of the Treaty of Rome —whether or not amended by Maastricht—it is impossible for the Council to act, save on a proposal from the Commission, and that even the Council, acting unanimously, cannot overturn existing Commission regulations unless the Commission itself assents?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, those are issues which, as the noble Lord said, may be better dealt with at some length in the debate on Thursday. I hope he agrees that Article 3B of the Treaty of Maastricht was a useful first move in the direction of defining such matters.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is gobbledegook!
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view. These matters are important. I believe the spirit of them will be accepted by the Commission and the Council. Perhaps the noble Lord will give us all the help we shall need in passing the legislation so that we can ratify the treaty.
Lord Jay: My Lords, surely, according to the Lisbon agreement, enlargement cannot go ahead until the Maastricht Treaty has been ratified. Can we be clear about that, if not now, at the very least on Thursday?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chalker says that the matter is much more complicated than that. There will be no enlargement until after the Edinburgh Council at the end of the British presidency. During our presidency, we shall proceed with agreeing the negotiating mandate. There is not likely to be any enlargement during that period.
I believe that 20 minutes has elapsed and so it may be time for us to move on.

Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1992
4.54 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the first order standing in my name and, with your Lordships' leave, speak to the others. The Long Titles of the orders are complex. Their aim, however, is simple: they are designed to strengthen still further our defences against drug trafficking.
As your Lordships know, drug traffickers are no respecters of international frontiers. That means that we must work closely with other countries and have the legal basis to do so if we are to make inroads into their criminal activities. We are determined to pursue very vigorously every available opportunity for practical and effective co-operation. A significant step toward that goal was our ratification last year of the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The main purpose of that convention is to encourage greater unity among states in many aspects of the anti-drugs strategy.
The United Kingdom's own strategy against drug misuse is as multi-faceted as the problem it seeks to address. It recognises that we cannot be short-sighted or insular in our efforts to stem the problem in this country. On the contrary, a major element in the strategy is to take an active role in international efforts. We seek to give a clear lead to other countries through our own example. We have demonstrated that we are prepared to pay more than lip service to that important initiative. The one thing which unites drug traffickers around the world is the quest for financial gain. Their profits are enormous, and they are becoming increasingly adept at manipulating the financial system—at the international level—to their own benefit. One of our first priorities must therefore be to secure effective co-operation with other countries in the enforcement of laws against such illicit financial gain.
The orders will lay the foundations for such co-operation. They extend the list of countries designated for the purposes of international co-operation against the financial base of the drugs trade and thereby strengthen our contribution to the international effort against drug trafficking. They are very similar in form to Orders in Council which enjoyed the unreserved support of this House last year and the year before. They will enable us to implement four further bilateral agreements which we have negotiated recently with Argentina, Germany, Guyana and Uruguay. They will also enable us to designate a number of countries which have ratified the 1988 Drugs Convention since the last orders were made, thus ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations under the convention.
We expect these orders to make life more difficult for drug traffickers. We intend to make it still more so. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on these Benches greatly welcome the action which the Government propose to take. Having participated on the margin in these debates previously, I understand the difficulties the Government face in trying to make progress. We know that their heart is in the right place. An extension of the coverage of action is to be welcomed.
I have one question only. Can the Minister tell us which countries have not yet signed and whether there is any reason why any country should not be prepared to join with other countries in stopping the dreadful trafficking and damage caused to the world's peace of mind? Some countries may be reluctant to sign. There may be an economic reason. We know that in some countries the economic reason sadly overrides the moral aspect of this matter. If the Minister cannot help me, I am sure that he will write to me. If some countries refuse to be a party to what is a laudable objective they should be exposed to the public. We on this side of the House warmly welcome the Government's action.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, under the existing arrangements, the United Kingdom's central authority has handled a total of 122 requests to and from other countries since the previous orders were introduced. We have about £5 million under restraint here under bilateral agreements. Only designated countries with which we have bilateral agreements and which are parties to the Vienna Convention come under the order. Many countries do not because we are in the process of negotiating and we are pressing them to agree. We are trying to expand the net. For example, we hope shortly to sign an agreement on the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and terrorist funds and an extradition treaty with India. It is something that we are constantly working on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee]. (Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1992
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1992
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NHS Patients: Privacy and the Media
5.1 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to protect patients, including the mentally disordered, in National Health Service hospitals and other health care establishments from intrusion by the media.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the Question on the Order Paper and this short debate is to draw attention to the need to protect patients, including the mentally disordered, who are in NHS hospitals or other health care establishments from intrusion by the media. I refer immediately to the use in the Question of the term "mentally disordered". I am not happy with it, but I am advised that it is technically correct. I see that in an adjournment debate in another place on Wednesday 24th June, the Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Peter Lloyd, referred a number of times to "the mentally disordered".
I ask the Minister whether the Department of Health and the Home Office could find a different term. I believe that she agrees with me that it is not a happy one, although so far as I am aware there is no generally acceptable term in use to cover the mentally ill, mentally handicapped, drugs-dependent and all those who are covered by the term which I have used, "mentally disordered". We all agree that it is unfortunate, although it is semantically correct.
The Question on the Order Paper refers to the media, which covers printed and broadcast material. I have no wish to overlap with the debate on Wednesday on the first report of the Press Complaints Commission. It is clear that the PCC has an important role in the area and I am assured by its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, that the PCC is fully aware of its responsibilities in the matter.
We know that every day editors and others have to make difficult judgments on such matters as accuracy, the opportunity for and right of reply, the distinction between comment, conjecture and fact—during the general election, some of us thought that this distinction was not clearly made in certain newspapers — and such matters as the invasion of privacy, harassment and intrusion. Not even the most fervent defender of the freedom of the press would argue that the media always get it right. This debate may help to highlight the problems in a particular area of possible intrusion by the media—that of health service patients and particularly patients who are mentally disordered. I hope that we may help to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in practice so that all patients are properly protected. As we know, there are people who are particularly vulnerable and whose recovery could be seriously delayed if media intrusion resulted in increased stress and tension.
Noble Lords may be interested to know that I was the recipient not of intrusion by the media but misreporting when I was a patient in hospital. Your Lordships will remember that in this House four years ago there was an outbreak of salmonella. I was a victim and went to hospital. It was reported in a tabloid newspaper that I was in hospital suffering from legionnaires' disease. I telephoned the deputy editor of the newspaper and explained that if his reporters were unable to tell the difference between viral pneumonia and acute vomiting and diarrhoea they were not particularly expert. He apologised and said that he would print a correction the next day. However, it did not appear as a correction, it appeared in a news story to the effect that Lord Carter was able to confirm that he was not suffering from legionnaires' disease. In other words, they subtly put the blame on me for misreporting.
How serious is the problem that we are discussing? I say immediately that it would be most inappropriate in a debate concerning matters such as confidentiality and privacy to refer to details of individual cases which would enable identification. I do not propose to do so. MIND—the National Association for Mental Health—has given examples of things which it says have gone on: intrusion into the lives of patients who are mentally disordered who wish to marry; the libellous description of a patient who had been given leave of absence from hospital; the publication of highly intimate and personal details of a patient's life, not known by the patient's family but which they first read about in a Sunday newspaper.
There is apparently real worry that sensitive information about individual patients has been revealed to the media. The Matthew Trust which concerns itself with issues relating to the mentally disordered in security hospitals and in prisons (besides other related issues) also claims to have received complaints from patients that details of medical records and treatment have been given to the media, often at the request of the media and for payment.
I ask the Minister: what are the safeguards against this happening? Is it a matter of the common law relating to breach of confidence, or is there a form of
628
statutory protection for patients? I understand that before the formation of the Special Hospitals Service Authority (SHSA) release of such information by NHS staff was a breach of the Official Secrets Act. But now it would be a breach of an employee's contract of employment. Is this correct?
Can the Minister tell the House what is the exact legal position of the patient, the NHS employee and the Department of Health? Again I quote from MIND:
"the elements of an action for breach of confidence in a non-commercial and non-governmental context are not clear, if only because the decided cases have been concerned with the protection of valuable commercial information or valuable government secrets".
We immediately understand that patients who are mentally disordered would find it extremely difficult to initiate complaints. That would have to be done on their behalf.
What guidance is given to NHS staff to help them deal with inquiries from the media? I understand that the guidance given in 1956 is in the process of being updated. If that is so, will the new guidance include advice on how to deal with the media?
A wider issue relating to privacy will, I am sure, be dealt with at length during the debate on Wednesday on the Press Complaints Commission's first report. But it is not at all clear where the ultimate responsibility lies in the area that we are discussing. Is it with the Department of Health or the new Department for National Heritage with responsibility for the Press Complaints Commission and the broadcasting media? We also have to ask what is the role of the Home Office in all this. It would be helpful if the Minister would explain exactly how the various departmental responsibilities are allocated and where responsibility would lie if there have been intrusions into a health service hospital or other health care establishments.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the report, The Media and the Mentally Disordered, prepared by the Matthew Trust. The report includes a number of recommendations for changes in the practice of the Press Complaints Commission, the national press ombudsman system and the BBC.
I appreciate that the governmental responsibility does not extend to the operations of those bodies, nor should it. However, I think that we are entitled to ask whether the Government broadly support the general thrust of the recommendations which were contained in the Matthew Trust Report.
Support is forthcoming from some organisations concerned with the problem such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists. It is concerned about the publication of reports in the press about hospital patients without their consent.
It states:
"This can, at times, amount to an unacceptable invasion of privacy which can cause extreme distress to patients and their families. People with mental illness are a particularly vulnerable group. They may, in common with other patients, have real difficulty in pursuing complaints against the press through the complex system currently in operation".
Also, the Special Hospitals Service Authority, to which I referred (SHSA), says that it welcomes any move that would help enhance and protect the privacy

629
of patients within its care. The authority believes that an intrusion into patient privacy can be highly counter-productive to an individual patient's care plans. The authority's view is that the media should exercise extreme caution before the publication of personal information about the patients in special hospitals which, while it may have interest for a section of the readership, could have a devastating effect on the well-being of the individual patient.
Another area of anxiety is the way in which journalists and photographers try to gain entry into health service establishments and to gain access to medical records. There have been a number of well publicised cases of this in the recent past. Is the Minister satisfied that existing NHS rules are sufficient to prevent this kind of thing happening, or should they be strengthened?
I shall now turn to the broadcasting media. Broadcasters are certainly not without fault. They must have a woeful lack of basic knowledge in this area. The BBC, for example, refers to Broadmoor as a prison and repeats that statement after the error has been pointed out. Broadmoor, Rampton and Ashworth are of course special hospitals. They are not prisons and the inmates are not prisoners. They should be regarded as patients.
Broadmoor was an asylum for the criminally insane until 1959 when it became a special hospital as a result of the Mental Health Act. In April 1981, 22 years later, the BBC still referred to "the criminally insane" in the hospital. It retracted that blunder but in July 1991 it referred to Broadmoor as a prison. When that was pointed out the BBC admitted it had made an error but the statement was allowed to persist in news bulletins.
I referred earlier to the Adjournment Debate in another place on 24th June. The Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Peter Lloyd, gave some interesting and encouraging figures in column 363 of Hansard of another place. Those figures show the numbers of prisoners transferred to hospitals in certain years. In 1986, 137 prisoners were transferred to hospitals. In 1990, 325 were transferred, and in 1991, 470 were transferred. The Government expect that this year at least 600 will be transferred. Obviously that is an encouraging trend. I am sure we would all agree it would be ironic if mentally disordered patients were transferred from prison to hospital—that is a welcome policy—only to find that they were more liable to intrusion by the media there than if they had remained in prison.
I have tried to avoid polemics or overstatement on this sensitive topic but there is anxiety among the people involved with this problem that intrusion by the media continues. There is nothing new in complaints concerning sensationalism and trivialisation on the part of the media. That is bad enough when it involves people who may be able to complain or seek some form of redress. However, such action is almost impossible for a mentally disordered patient. Such patients must rely on other people to take action on their behalf. I hope when she replies the Minister
630
will be able to assure the House that the Government are aware of this problem and they are taking steps to deal with it.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for introducing this important topic. I greatly support the sentiments that lie behind all the remarks he has made. Like the noble Lord, I, too, hope the Minister will be able to tell us what steps are afoot to take care of this situation.
Also like the noble Lord, I, too, have had occasional difficulties with the media. I shall refer briefly to two such occasions. I simply wish to make it clear that all of us in this House, and those involved in the profession I try to serve, must realise that the ideal situation is one where we work with the men and women of the media.
I must relate what happened to me in a hospital ward when a ward sister brought a man to me who introduced himself as a member of the press. I shook his hand. This incident occurred exactly 30 years ago. The man said, "I believe Professor you have been carrying out a diabetic survey in Bedford and that you now know how many diabetics there are in the country". I said his first statement was true but the second was not. I told him we were doing a survey and we had an idea how many diabetics there were in Bedford. The man then said, "Surely you can tell me the results of the survey so I can put them in my newspaper and bring glory to your hospital for announcing there are I million diabetics in Britain today. Your results are out".
I told the man I had the results of the survey but that I did not know for certain there were 1 million diabetics. I said I was disinclined to give him a free headline as we had to confirm the results and were not sure that Bedford was typical of the country as a whole. The man then said, "Come on, professor. Just say there are probably 1 million diabetics". I said I could not do that and that was the end of the story as far as I was concerned. The man was not very pleased with me but we parted reasonably good friends.
I shall now relate the other side of the story. In the hospital where I worked there was the editor of a great newspaper who suffered from an undiagnosable disease. Consequently he was seen by many people in many different places. We did not send him quickly enough to be seen by specialists in tropical medicine, who unravelled his disease. However, he was seen by a great psychiatrist who was anxious to press the possibility that the man was malingering. That seemed a rather unwise line to take.
The psychiatrist took the man to his Friday afternoon main clinic which was held in a lecture theatre and was attended by about 150 students. He tried to unsettle the editor by revealing a little of his previous history to the students. He said to the patient, "Tell me, why don't you make an honest woman of your mistress and marry her?" In my view that was a pretty serious assault on the editor. However, I shall always remember the editor's reply as one to produce if one ever needs such a reply oneself. He was sitting in a wheelchair. He drew himself up

631
slightly and waited until he knew he had the attention of every student in the lecture theatre. He looked the professor in the eye and said, "Professor, in my view that is not the sort of question one gentleman puts to another in circumstances like these". The students roared and the professor never again got on top of the situation with that patient.
I have told those two stories as they represent two sides of the combative situation that exists between fact finders such as those involved in medical research and government affairs and the newspaper men. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, drew attention to the dilemma between those sets of people. Doctors desperately need the help of the press these days as regards getting the facts straight and reporting information clearly. We may need the help of the press as we begin to shift from what I shall call the cholesterol story to a new story about the possible causes of coronary heart disease. We call those who expound the latter story free radicals and they are in fruit at the moment expounding theories about orange juice and other such theories.
If we can, we must move away from the combative relationship that exists between those in the professions and those in the press. I remember a word which was current in the playground of my school when I was aged about nine. It was pax. I believe we have now reached a stage where it should be perfectly acceptable for people who have been assaulted by the press to look pressmen dead in the eye and say "pax" meaning they want a little peace. We must protect people in hospitals from intrusion by means of some new kind of approach to media personnel. I do not wish to lose the support of media personnel for the sake of all the good things they do. That is why I mention the possibility of introducing the "pax" concept when things get out of control.
5.18 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not possess the qualifications for speaking on this matter that the previous speaker possesses. My qualifications may also be inferior to those of the Minister. However, I have one or two reasons for speaking apart from my general desire to support blindly the noble Lord, Lord Carter, whatever he suggests.
It is many years since I first visited a special hospital. It was in 1940 to be accurate. Later I visited Broadmoor many times. I visited the hospital that is now called Ashworth and I also visited Rampton. I visited Peter Thompson, who was the founding spirit of the Matthew Trust, several times when he suffered a breakdown. He spent four years in Broadmoor. When he left Broadmoor he wrote two books about his experience for which I wrote the introductions. That all happened a long time ago and since then Peter Thompson has carried out some great work in founding, guiding and inspiring the Matthew Trust. That is the background.
Today I want in particular to call attention to a difficult aspect of the problem, although I do not believe that anyone considers this to be an easy matter. I wish to call attention to the all too
632
ubiquitous presence of moles. Moles are not confined to special hospitals or mental hospitals; they are to be found everywhere in prisons. I cannot go to a prison without finding representatives of the tabloid press outside if I am visiting an "interesting" prisoner. Indeed, there are three prisoners with whom I remain on friendly correspondence terms who would rather not be visited by me because of what they call the hassle. The situation in the prisons is not unlike that in the special hospitals. There is a problem because of moles. No one ever seems to be able to put a finger on them and to unearth them. They are very active.
Some years ago I visited a well-known prisoner at Ashworth. Later the News of the World published a story saying that I had assaulted a security guard. Some people would say that to suggest that an octogenarian had assaulted a security guard was a compliment rather than a detraction. I would never dare to assault a security guard. In fact it was impossible because there was a pane of glass between me and the gentleman concerned. The hospital apologised and eventually the paper published my rebuttal, although it did not publish an apology.
I considered what I could do. I talked to my solicitor and after we had chatted for a few minutes I asked him how much it would cost. He said, "£100 plus VAT—so far". It would have cost £1,000 before the matter got anywhere near court. It is not easy to sue the media in those circumstances. We have to face the fact that there are such moles. My inclination is to suggest that somehow the institution concerned should be made responsible.
Perhaps I may give as another example the horrible scene when the media gathered round the Maxwells as they were arrested the other day. Clearly the press had been briefed by the police, but the top people in the police said that they do not authorise such behaviour. Hospitals do not authorise it. It originates with people lower down the scale. How do the authorities cope with them? It is very difficult.
A first step would be the one for which my noble friend Lord Carter is pressing—clarification of the law. That might make it easier to sue the institution or to bring criminal proceedings.
I wish to support my noble friend Lord Carter, the Matthew Trust and everyone who has spoken in the debate and to ask the Minister whether she believes that the law can be clarified and, if it is unsatisfactory, strengthened.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if my noble friend is not qualified to speak on this subject I certainly am not. My interest in the subject stems from 1965 when I was Member of Parliament for Putney. One of my constituents was Mr. Peter Thompson, who has just been mentioned by my noble friend. I was therefore in touch with his case from the beginning when Mr. Thompson, quite uncharacteristically, committed a violent assault, as a result of which, as my noble friend said, he had to go to Broadmoor for five years. Since then he has had a distinguished career and is now a prominent and leading member of the Matthew Trust.

633
The trust has received many complaints that medical records of patients in special hospitals are given to the press by staff of those hospitals. It is suggested that that must sometimes be in return for payment.
Far from resisting press intrusion some hospital authorities, with the best possible motives, appear to co-operate and to accept the press plea of public interest. That presents us with a difficult problem. However, if it is in the public interest to conceal the secret service from press intrusion and the Government can plead the public interest in refusing to answer questions on such a subject, then surely the privacy of the afflicted should also be preserved in the public interest. We need to draw a line here. However, if we are to draw a line there is consequently a difficulty in determining where the public interest lies. I believe that in some instances that would have to be determined in the courts. However, I believe that the drawing of that line is an absolute necessity and we should not shrink from it.
I suggest that the public interest is not served when it is interpreted as giving a right to infringe the freedom of the sick. That cannot be regarded as being in the public interest, or at least one would want a very convincing case to justify such an intrusion.
It seems to me that two things need to be done. I suggest that the terms of reference of the review which I believe has already been embarked upon or is about to be embarked upon under the aegis of the Secretary of State for National Heritage should be extended to include an examination of the efficacy of the self-regulation of the press currently carried out by the Press Complaints Commission. I believe that we are to debate the commission's report more widely in a couple of days' time so I shall not pursue that item. However, it is relevant to the point that we are discussing this evening.
One of the problems is that the endeavours of the Press Complaints Commission to keep the lower end of the press under reasonable control do not seem to be effective. That matter needs to be looked at. Is that an area in which self-regulation can operate? It seems to me that the answer may well be at least in doubt. I suggest the replacement of the Press Complaints Commission by a genuinely independent body rather than one that merely claims to be independent but is not.
Since 1956 guidance has been give to the NHS. Equally, that guidance does not seem to be effective in this area. Perhaps that guidance should be reviewed, brought up to date and enforced. At present it seems to be observed more in the breach than in practice. When the Minister replies perhaps she can help us on that point. It appears that that guidance is either out of date or ineffective. The problem of its enforcement needs to be tackled.
I have nothing further to add to those two suggestions. Although I have spoken for only five minutes I shall now sit down.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising this debate on an important subject. It is a subject which has wide ramifications. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said, those wider ramifications relating to the role of the Press Complaints Commission will be discussed more fully on Wednesday.
On the narrower focus of the debate dealing with media treatment of hospital patients generally and of the mentally disordered in particular, the whole House will feel that the mentally disordered are a particularly vulnerable group in society and require special protection in this matter. The problem was put very clearly, as reported in the Calcutt Committee, by Lord Justice Bingham, who referred to the case involving Gordon Kaye a few years ago, which no doubt noble Lords will remember. I think that the words he used in his judgment have a general application to anybody who is a patient in a mental hospital. He said:
"If ever a person has a right to be let alone by strangers with no public interest to pursue, it must surely be when he lies in hospital recovering from brain surgery and in no more than partial command of his faculties".
He went on to say that the invasion of this person's privacy:
"however gross, does not entitle him to relief in English law".
That still remains the position and we wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say about the Government's approach to the matter of legal provision in this field.
Noble Lords will remember that the Calcutt Committee made two broad recommendations. One was that a new press commission should be set up and given a period of time to show that self-regulation can work effectively in the general field of relations between the media and the individual citizen. We shall come to that issue on Wednesday. The other recommendation, separate from the first and alongside it, was that a new criminal offence of physical intrusion into private property should be created. It sought to define private property and specifically included hospitals in that definition. I should be interested to hear the Government's views on that proposal, which might help in this situation.
But it is by no means the whole answer. Leaving aside the role of the Press Complaints Commission, about which I shall say a few words before I sit down, in terms of today's debate the main thrust must be toward looking at the arrangements made inside the medical profession and the hospitals to try to ensure that proper confidentiality relating to a patient is adequately protected. We all have stories to tell. I remember landing in intensive care on one occasion and was astonished to read about myself in the newspaper the next morning. It was not an inaccurate report, but as it happened, it was a great breach of confidentiality at that particular moment. I am sure that the reported allegation that in Broadmoor and Ashworth Hospitals the personal details of patients are given out by employees for money can be substantiated. That is a very serious allegation and demands effective action to deal with it.

635
Beyond that, I do not wish to go into detail about the role of the Press Complaints Commission. It is undoubtedly true that a major aspect of relations between the media and the citizen concerns the relations between medicine and the media. It is an important and legitimate area of coverage by the media. One of the healthier developments of the past 20 years has been the greatly increased interest of the citizen in health matters and in maintaining health. The educational role that the media can play in these matters is important. Equally, the investigative role of the media can be important at times when the question of the best policies for our hospitals and the health service is at issue.
But speaking as a former chairman of one of the regulatory bodies of the media, the present fashion of the media, particularly the television media, of feeling that the intimate details of clinical cases, however harrowing, are a proper matter of public interest, can be carried a great deal too far. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, was absolutely right to raise the difficult question of how one defines the public interest in these matters. I rather like the definition given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on one occasion, when he said:
"The media … are an essential foundation of any democracy … However they are peculiarly vulnerable to the error of confusing the public interest with their own interest".
That is part of the problem. We are all to some extent voyeurs, but an interest in other people's problems and troubles is not a general public interest. That requires a different and more responsible definition. How that is to be achieved is the subject of Wednesday's debate about the future of the Press Complaints Commission and the Government's attitude toward alternatives to self-regulation. I do not wish to trespass on those issues at this stage.
On the narrower and important issue of the media in relation to people suffering from mental disorders, I note that there is not a good relationship between the Matthew Trust, which has worked hard on this issue, and the Press Complaints Commission. The chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, with whom I have spoken about this matter, assures me that it is willing to investigate carefully, as is its duty, any specific complaints made to it. I hope that perhaps a fresh effort might be made to deal with some of the problems in that way.
5.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I too welcome this opportunity to debate the very important issue of the media and its relationship with the NHS and hospital patients. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for raising the issue and introducing it in such a measured way. I shall answer for the Government. But before I do so perhaps I may make some personal observations.
This Question particularly interests me as I have a long association with the NHS, chairing a national association health authority and trust working party
636
which produced a report entitled Protecting Patients. I was also a member of the Press Council from 1977 to 1983. Although the Press Council is now much denigrated, I believe that it served a useful purpose. Perhaps it was a creature of its time but it was led by distinguished lawyers as chairmen, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who was the first chairman under whom I served. It is perhaps right that the council was succeeded by the Press Complaints Commission, but the principles established by the council still hold good.
The press council guidelines have been adopted by the Press Complaints Commission. The latter's 15th point of their code of conduct reads as follows:
"Journalists making inquiries at hospitals or similar institutions should identify themselves to a responsible official before entering, except in very rare cases where information which ought to be disclosed could not otherwise be obtained".
I think the Press Council originally put the caveat rather better:
"There can be occasions when newspapers may rightly disregard this obligation and courtesy. They are when information which should be disclosed in the public interest cannot be obtained in any other way".
The general principle in dealing with the press in the NHS is that hospitals and everything about their organisation and services should be open and available to public scrutiny. Management must be accountable to the people it serves.
When I became a district chairman there was a rather secretive and defensive attitude towards the press. Some services were covered by Crown immunity, doctors when interviewed were not named and the Patient's Charter was unheard of. There was an incident in one hospital when a camera crew broke into the kitchen and food store to film. The authority was full of righteous anger in the knowledge that, if asked, permission would have been granted. But the incident nevertheless highlighted the inadequacy of the kitchen and that, like other hospital premises, it was subject to Crown immunity. Subsequently Crown immunity was lifted and the pressure on the NHS as a whole to conform to modern standards triggered a huge and justified investment in hospital facilities. With regard to this issue the media played a useful role, as it does in boosting local charity campaigns, informing the public about the spread of infectious diseases, promoting healthy lifestyles and educating the public about common clinical conditions and new and what can often appear frightening surgical procedures and drug regimes. In local situations, where relationships are good, it is because there is openness at the top and recognition that the freedom of the press is an essential part of democracy and in order to facilitate the media a professional public relations officer is appointed, who is known by all and who is trusted, accessible and honest.
There should be no need for the press to enter a hospital furtively. Journalists should be given access after having had the courtesy to ask. If they are refused they should seek permission from the highest authority. If permission is always refused without very good reason, there might well be something to hide which the press may feel it has a duty to expose.
There is of course another absolutely inviolate principle, and that is the individual person's right to

637
privacy in particular in medical matters. It is embodied in medical ethics and the Patient's Charter and is the subject of the debate today. Patients in hospital are least able to defend themselves, and those who are mentally disordered and perhaps formally detained under the Mental Health Act are the most vulnerable of all. There have been occasions in the past when reporters and photographers have employed subterfuge to enter hospitals and have interviewed and photographed patients. This kind of behaviour, motivated solely by a prurient interest, is to be deplored, but the response needs careful judgment. There is clearly a legitimate public interest in knowing about certain aspects of the hospitals' work, in particular that patients are being properly and securely cared for and that the hospitals are making effective use of the resources entrusted to them.
However, as I have said, one of the most effective ways of countering negative publicity is to promote positive understanding of the hospitals and their work. The Special Hospitals Service Authority, which since 1989 has been responsible for the management of the hospitals, has rightly seen that as an important part of its work. Recently it has made some new press officer appointments showing its determination to improve relationships with the media. The Government support that approach, but also the firm line which the Special Hospitals Service Authority is taking in doing everything in its power to protect the confidentiality of information about the patients in its care.
I have referred to the Press Complaints Commission's code which is the general framework within which the NHS should work. But the department also has guidelines issued in a circular of 1956 and referred to by noble Lords in the debate. It states:
"Information should not be divulged to the Press without the consent of the patient beyond the statement that the person enquired about is a patient.
Where even this could be against the patient's interests"—
examples have been given today, especially with regard to a patient who is in a specialised hospital because from that factor his or her condition can be deduced—
"no information should be given without the consent of the patient and doctor.
In the case of well-known people, a brief indication of progress can be given, but only with the patient's consent".
On another occasion, I am sure that the hospital will seek the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
"In accident cases, the hospital should inform patients' relatives before any statement is given to the Press. Again, the patient's consent must be given before any information, beyond a general indication of [his or her] condition, is made public".
The guidelines clearly annunciate principles about confidentiality for the individual. However, the hospital may say on being asked that the person inquired about is a patient and that information may be withheld if the person is in a special hospital since, as I have said, it will allow the press to deduce the nature of the person's condition.
I do not wish to publicise individual cases and therefore I do not wish to quote from individual
638
findings. However, I gain the impression that the Press Complaints Commission is perhaps taking a more pro-press attitude than its predecessor, the Press Council. Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, in an erudite speech to the annual meeting of the Royal College of Psychiatrists last year, cites the case of a well-known person being named as a patient in a special hospital which in itself identified his medical condition. Though the NHS guidelines prohibit that type of disclosure, it strengthens the case for new guidelines which should be accepted by all, including the NHS, the media, the Department of Health and other organisations which take a keen interest in the matter.
It is widely recognised that the guidelines are 36 years old and I am pleased to announce that new guidelines are being prepared and will be issued shortly for consultation. They will be more comprehensive and will cover a larger remit than just information to the press. They will cover the importance of preserving confidentiality, the responsibilities of all staff in the NHS for the management of health information and for controlling its use and disclosure and operational guidelines for preserving confidentiality and handling disclosures of health information.
The guidelines will thus build upon the existing common law requirements and take account of the ethical responsibilities of doctors and other health professionals. They will cover many of the detailed issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others today.
We shall be consulting widely on the guidelines to ensure that interested parties have an opportunity to help shape the finished product. It is vital to have a policy of openness in the service, but of course the confidentiality of individual patients is of paramount importance.
I wish now to pick up on one or two points raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, gave me the courtesy of informing me of some of the issues that he would raise. I have spent the weekend trying to think of a different term than "mentally disordered". I believe that words are important. One sees how attitudes have altered by the change from the word "bastard" to the words "one parent family". The search for such a term will be a great challenge to wordsmiths. I regret that over the weekend I have failed to find such a term. I hope that others will succeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, raised the question of access to confidential records by those who work in hospitals, some of whom might be tempted to sell or give information to the press. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether those acts are governed by contracts of employment. They are, but perhaps I may suggest that such serious behaviour should be combated in three different ways. First, management in hospitals needs to maximise the information about the institution and to give adequate opportunities for press and public visits. Indeed, the special hospitals are beginning to do that. Secondly, it must be ensured that the establishment has efficient and open management. Thirdly, it is necessary to ensure that

639
both employees and journalists who buy or divulge confidential information are brought to account by their prospective employing authorities and appropriate disciplinary action is taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, enunciated some interesting experiences. He portrayed so well the balance of the dilemma that we all face. In a perhaps more bureaucratic way our guidelines will encourage the "pax" philosophy. But I hope that they will go further: I hope that they will prevent the conflicts from arising in the first place.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has a more prodigious knowledge of such hospitals and some of the unhappy people in them than perhaps any of us. He covered the point also by referring to the guidelines that we have drawn up. I hope that he will make a powerful contribution in the consultation period. I am most anxious that everyone interested in the subject should contribute and that we achieve the best guidelines possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, penetrated the issue surrounding self-regulation of the press. I am reluctant, as other noble Lords have been this afternoon, to pre-empt Wednesday's debate. Ours is a narrow issue which must be seen in a wider context and all the aspects of the subject need to be treated together.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I hope that I have addressed many of the issues and anxieties that he raised. I invite him as former chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority—an important regulating body—to take part in the consultation process.
I have also sought the views of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper on the issue because he is chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission. He is aware of the particular and morbid interest taken by sections of the press in people detained in secure hospitals. Those people should have the same privacy as everyone else. Sir Louis has assured me that the commission is taking a more active part as a channel for patients' complaints and in ensuring that information on the management and operation of the institutions is available and there is proper accountability in the running of the hospitals. He acknowledges that there is a problem with some special hospitals and there is certainly a requirement to update the 1956 guidelines governing patients' confidentiality.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked about the change in the situation of staff who were previously covered by the Official Secrets Act. I believe he considered that a breach of that Act prevented many of them from divulging confidential information. I have thought a good deal about that, but I return to my first principle. We are trying to move from a secretive to an open society. I am sure that there can be no going back; we must be more open. Reverting to the Official Secrets Act as a measure to prevent staff from divulging confidential information would be a retrogressive step.
I am always nervous about what goes on behind the closed doors of any secure unit. The doors must be closed, but the higher the security the greater the
640
necessity to monitor the conditions. I believe that giving the press access on our behalf is a good independent check. There should be nothing to hide except the privacy of individual people.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss what I believe to be a crucial issue, which the debate has provided. It is one in which I take a close interest. We shall ensure that consultation on the revised guidelines is wide ranging and capable of influencing the outcome. I hope that we shall again debate this important subject so that understanding is deepened and consensus is achieved in the interests of the patients, the media and the NHS.

Training and Enterprise Councils: Resources
5.53 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that training and enterprise councils are provided with sufficient resources to support the investors in people scheme and other initiatives.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking the House to consider the state of our training provisions the Unstarred Question focuses on the present failure of the investors in people scheme and other initiatives. However, I do not want noble Lords to feel that they must focus only on that scheme —indeed, it would not take us very long. We should focus on the 17 other programmes and initiatives in the field of training in which the Government are involved. I wish to ask the Government a number of questions about the schemes and about the institutional arrangements. That is a vital element of what is wrong with government provision for training, especially as regards the investors in people scheme.
I take it that we are all pro-training and that we accept that we need more and better training in this country. I also take it that we agree that it is had that 52 per cent. of industrial workers have no training; that 20 per cent. of establishments offer no training; that we have about one third of the volume of training of Germany and less than half of that of France; and that that deficit in and low quality of our training provision is bad, should be remedied and is the key to our economic progress and survival. I take it that that is agreed by all noble Lords and that we do not need to debate those issues.
The question is, therefore, whether we have the right arrangements, resources and programmes. The Government do not appear to be confident about the arrangements which we have in general for training in this country. If they were confident they would not have made so many changes. During this Government's term of office almost every year, and perhaps four or five times a year, they have made changes in the training arrangements and in their involvement in them. They have abolished the MSC, the training commission, the training agency, virtually all of the ITBs and have given the rest very little to do. They have abolished one third of the skill centres and have privatised the rest. The Government are always

641
changing the training arrangements, so perhaps I should first ask them why they ask us to believe, and whether they believe themselves, that the present training arrangements are right.
It strikes me and many others that the training arrangements are extremely fragmented and decentralised. We appear to have an indeterminate number of TECs with an indeterminate number of businessmen and other people serving on them. The latest figure I saw showed that one in 20 of those serving on the TECs were trade unionists but now the figure may he different. Therefore, perhaps I should ask the Government how many TECs there are. Exactly what the TECs do is also unclear, as is what their providers of training do and how they sub-contract down to different levels. The system is vague, imprecise and indeterminate.
During the previous debate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said that we want to move from secret to open Government. Had the bundle not been too large I should have brought to the House some of the reports of the Manpower Services Commission. It was responsible for training in this country and it produced more significant data than is available now. Today training is largely a mystery. Questions about the numbers, the volume, the policies and the programmes arise from the evidence given to the excellent Employment Select Committee of the House of Commons, and as a result of Parliamentary Questions and so forth.
There is no equivalent data as regards our training policy and strategy to that published in the annual report of the Manpower Services Commission. Instead we have a series of rumours and leaks to the press about dissatisfaction with the provision for training. The group of the 10 leading chairmen of the TECs leaked to the newspapers that they were confused and exasperated and that there was overlap. The latest leak threatened that businessmen were about to walk out. We do not know whether that is true but it is the kind of article that one reads in newspapers. From time to time the voluntary bodies write letters of protest stating that they have no money to carry out their responsibilities under the training programme. They also complain about the quality. National firms such as Dixons, Whitbreads, Habitat and Woolworths have withdrawn from the scheme because they state that they cannot deal with up to 100 different TECs.
We say that there is a general requirement, which has never been argued away by the Government, for a national strategy and body, whether it be bipartite or tripartite. There should be a national body for training which reports on strategy, monitors its own performance and is subject to parliamentary review in the way that most of the major bodies are in that field.
We also say something about resources. Again, the figures are extremely vague. We calculate that there has been something like a £1.5 billion cut in the provision of training from 1987 to 1992 but those figures are informal; they are not official figures because we do not have official figures of that kind.
One is forced to make informal contacts in order to discover how much and in precisely what way in
642
different forms of training provision there have been cuts. The Shadow Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Blair, in June of this year, in an effort to find out more information, got on the phone to three-quarters of the TECs. As a result of his calculation, he considers that this year, over last year, there has been a £17 million cut in the youth training budgets and a £47 million cut in the TECs' budget. Is that right? Are there official statistics to tell us how the 17 or so training programmes are spending their money and whether they have as much money as last year? If they do not, is that because there is not the demand for the various provisions made or have the Government cut the budget anyway?
Perhaps the best catalogue of disaster which we have is that relating to the employment training programme. That has been catalogued year by year by the excellent House of Commons Select Committee on Employment which has a Conservative majority. The record laid out in the various reports regarding ET is that of a continual reduction in the provision for ET. When the programme began in 1987–88, the Government were talking about 600,000 places to replace the community programme. We are now in a position in which we really do not know what is happening. I ask the Government how many people are undertaking ET and whether they think that there will be more or less next year. If there will be less next year, what is the reason for that? Is it that, as most people seem to think, employment training has become very largely a useless programme?
Your Lordships will remember that it was established because it was said that the community programme did not provide training and ET would provide training for the long-term unemployed. We now know that half the people who sign up for ET do not turn up and something like 70 per cent. do not complete it. The Government have cut back the provision for ET. As I understand it, they say that they have done so because the long-term unemployed do not need training. Yet, the Government do not find any alternative. They cannot really argue that the employment action programme provides an alternative to ET or any across-the-board provision for the long-term unemployed.
I turn now to the investors in people scheme. That suffers from much the same kind of structural and resource problems as the other programmes; at least that is how it looks. It appears to be in a bigger mess than YT, more unpopular than ET and less visible than employment action. The House will remember that the idea behind the scheme was that we should award a kind of training VC, a Rolls-Royce mark. If a company did virtually all that it should do in the field of training, if it provided lifelong training for all its employees and had that training independently validated and if the authorities were satisfied that the company was a Rolls-Royce firm as regards training, the company would receive a kite colophon which it could put on all its publicity to say that it had won the training VC.
We understood that that was intended to be an encouragement to everybody else so that they too would wish to become superior firms from the training

643
point of view. At the beginning most of us said that we did not see the incentive and why firms—and many excellent companies spent a considerable volume of their funds on training—should go in for that competition. However, in November 1990 the Government said that the immediate target was that they hoped that there would be some 6,000 firms entering—they were not quite clear when—and qualifying under the scheme. Again, I do not have up-to-date figures because we cannot get them these days, unless one culls one's way through the very small print of the Employment Gazette where they may be found. As far as I understand the figures which I have, 38 firms have the kite colophon which means that the Government have 5,962 to go. If that is the case, what is the point of the scheme?
The chairman of the East Lancs TEC, Mr. Tony Cann, giving his explanation as to why the scheme has been a non-starter said that in his opinion it was an extremely expensive scheme. If firms sought to meet the targets set out under the kite scheme, it would cost them over 3.5 per cent. of their pay bill. What is happening to that scheme and what are the accurate figures?
I conclude with seven questions which I should like the Government to address either this evening or in the near future. Looking at the training problem, the criticisms of the training providers and participants in the schemes as well as the problems which individual firms find in operating with the highly decentralised, overlapping system which we have now, surely it is obvious that we need some kind of national training body. Surely that is so. We should have a representative national body with a publicly stated strategy monitoring the attainment of training targets.
Secondly, what is the Government's answer to those companies which say that they cannot deal with the 80 or more TECs? Why can they not deal with a national institution?
Thirdly, what is the present level of government spending on training and how does that relate to last year and the year before? Fourthly, can the Government say whether that money will be protected or cut next year? Do the Government expect to have another 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. cut next year? Fifthly, is Mr. Blair right to suggest that the cuts this year in respect of YT are worth a reduction of 7 per cent. and for ET 15 per cent. in real terms? Sixthly, what is the long-term replacement for ET? If the main reason that the numbers on ET are declining is that it is regarded as inappropriate and wrong, what is its replacement?
Finally, what is happening to investors in people, that Rolls-Royce programme? Is the problem that it is so costly to support the scheme and, therefore, firms cannot afford to become investors in people? Is it the case that large numbers are about to sign on or have signed on under the scheme and that my figures are grossly out of date? In the last general election the Labour Party said that investors in people should be the qualification mark for exemption from the training levy. The Government do not want to do that. What kind of incentive do the Government provide for good
644
companies to reach the necessary international targets in training provision? What are the Government proposing to do?
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has given us the opportunity to talk on this subject and to raise the level of consciousness in regard to the seriousness of the training position or the lack of adequate training in this country.
In the early 1980s the Government seemed to realise that we were woefully behind in training and that we had done far too little in comparison with our competitors. Although in many cases the apprenticeship schemes had been good, they affected far too small a proportion of people leaving school and entering employment. Only around one-third of boys and one-twentieth of girls received any kind of apprenticeship training. The rest received practically nothing.
In the 1980s the Conservative Government seemed to be coming to grips with the problem. Many of us thought that not enough was being done straightaway. But we on the opposition Benches always think that. However, there was a beginning. The Manpower Services Commission, although one may criticise it on many aspects—and we all criticised it — was a start in trying to tackle the huge problem of training. The discussions we have had so often in this House on the subject do not reflect the seriousness and extent of the problem that confronts us.
The Government then saw fit to abolish the Manpower Services Commission and any kind of national responsibility for the development of training. I repeat that it had been a constructive Conservative Party policy and Conservative Party development. I never understood why they were so determined. The MSC had many defects, of course. There was a huge job to be done and a long way to go. But those of us who worked with it—I believe everybody speaking in the debate tonight worked with the Manpower Services Commission in one way or another—knew that despite its defects, it was contributing something. It was moving, however slowly, in the right direction.
The Government then saw fit to hand it all over to the training and enterprise councils. Whenever we raised a Question in your Lordships' House on training, we were told that it was now in the hands of the TECs. We were told they were controlled by employers, and employers knew better than anyone else what training should be given. We were never able to get past the reply given to us by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and others: leave it to the employers; they are the people who know and they will see that it is done.
One can make a number of comments about that. In the past those same employers did not do it. That is one reason, though not the only reason, why we had such a huge backlog of untrained people. The employers did not do it. A small number of extremely good employers did a remarkably good job of training. But they found all too often that they were

645
training not for themselves but for other people. Why should they continue to do that? I once made a study of the training carried out by the Hoover Company. It had a first rate apprenticeship scheme; but at the end of it none of those apprentices stayed with the company. They were so good that other employers came along and took the lot. That is not the way in which one achieves an adequately trained labour force.
All kinds of schemes were introduced. They were not perfect. The levying grant scheme introduced by the Conservative Government became bureaucratic and clumsy. But it was an attempt to spread the cost. Many employers are not competent to give good training either because they do not know what it is or because the work that they undertake does not have the scope and depth that makes good training possible. We do not want everybody to train or to pretend that they are training. We want the people who know how to train and have the scope and facilities to do so, to do the training. Other companies can contribute a fair amount to the cost of training the people who they will afterwards employ, and they will benefit from the training given by the original company.
That was the way in which we were moving. All that has stopped. It has been said that employers know best; that employers and the TECs will see that all is well. As I say, we have every reason to doubt whether employers, without any national organisation to prod them along, will do that. One needs only to look at the construction industry. When looking at the history of the construction industry, we see that they stopped training whenever there was a slump. However, one only needs a 1 per cent. increase in GNP and the construction industry finds that it is running out of skilled people. That has happened not once but it has happened after every single recession and recovery.
If employers are the people who know about training, why does that happen with such unfailing regularity in the construction industry? I do not suppose for one moment that the construction industry is the only industry to experience that. We all know that companies tend to cut back on training when they go into a recession. From the point of view of UK Limited, that is the time that they ought to be training. They have the time and the resources—or could have the resources if the money were made available—and if they do not need the people, they can train and upgrade them for when the situation improves. That does not happen. Leaving training to employers does not produce that result.
Even if employers were prepared to do that working through the TECs, the TECs need sufficient money to stimulate and obtain the training that they want. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, has said on a number of occasions that the money is available. That is not what the TECs say. Before the general election, I was in discussion with the chairman of a TEC in Leeds. He said that sadly he had to cut out two whole groups of training, not because he wanted to do so but because the money had been cut back. He had either to cut a little off every training scheme or close
646
down some entirely. That was not because he wanted to or because he thought it was the right thing to do; it was because he did not have the money to continue. In the face of that, how can the Government say that the TECs have the resources and know what they should be doing?
The TECs and employers generally are bound to be thinking of how to fill immediate requirements. The way in which they are paid encourages them to take a limited view in regard to the training needs of the country. We understand that the TECs' money depends on success in the way it is used and success in training. We are told that success is measured by the number of jobs obtained for people and the qualifications that people achieve in training. That means that if the TECs want to keep their resources up and receive the next slice of government money, they are bound to concentrate on the people who are easiest to place and who are brightest. They will be the most likely to obtain qualifications. That leaves little opportunity for the people lower down in the list and whose training needs in many ways are greatest.
Only a small number of employers can be expected to take a long term view in regard to the training needs of UK Limited as distinct from the training needs of their own specific organisations. But unless somebody looks at the training needs of UK Limited, we shall be in an extremely serious position.
At the end of the 1970s, before the YTS schemes were under way—with all their limitations—44 per cent. of school-leavers in this country went into unemployment or a job without training. The comparable figure in France was 19 per cent., and in Germany it was 9 per cent. Those youngsters are now adults in an untrained labour force. They swell the numbers of the unemployed. That is where they will stay unless something is done for them.
We all know that there is no future in this country for the unskilled—people who do not possess competencies that they can sell. We no longer operate manufacturing in this country alone: companies send their work to be manufactured all over the globe. A company with which I used to work has part of its work done in Argentina and part in Portugal. There is much to be said for that. But in this country it leaves the people who do the least skilled jobs with no openings at all.
The huge backlog of unskilled people in this country is going to be a tremendous weight on the community as a whole. What are we to do with them? We have approximately 3 million unemployed now and a large proportion of them are untrained. There is no escape for them. The situation is becoming more and more difficult. This morning I spoke to a person who had been dealing with companies in Korea. He told me about the level of pay and working conditions there. How are we to compete with them? Initially we can have a protectionist policy to keep their goods out but we do not advocate that. We have to compete with such a country. There is no future for the unskilled people of this country. I, and I am sure the noble Lord also, refuse to believe that among the 44 per cent. of school-leavers I have referred to there is not a large

647
number capable of learning something and making an effective contribution in a modern global economy. But that can only happen if they are given training.
It is a much bigger problem than just what is happening to the TECs. It is a matter of what is happening to the whole programme of training in this country for the unemployed and the large numbers of women of very considerable latent potential who are woefully under-trained but who want to get back into effective work. However, as long as they remain unskilled and untrained they will not be able to do so. Although it is not the group about which I wish to speak tonight, there are also the people with special needs who are right at the bottom of the list when it comes to training opportunities. Their opportunities for training are becoming poorer and poorer. It is not enough to say that they are in the group between the ages of 18 and 24 or 25. There are plenty of others who are not in that age group, and even those who are in that category are not getting training.
It is not true that the aim has been met in all areas as regards the people in these groups. I can understand why the TECs and employers take an inevitably somewhat short-term view because of the recession and other problems. Who can blame them? It is not their particular job to solve the problem. If we neglect the training of these people, in terms of unemployment, social problems and the cost involved we are building up for ourselves a very serious problem for the future. Indeed, we have it now but it is going to get worse rather than better.
We are not getting at the Government in this Question but urging them to think anew about how serious the issue is. I believe it is a subject on which an all-party group could do some useful work. In the past we have talked about the possibility of Select Committees in your Lordships' House. A Select Committee on this subject might be very fruitful indeed. I beg the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, not to give us the reply that these matters should be left to the TECs because they know best but to recognise that it is a much bigger problem than we have been prepared to accept in the past.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to my noble friend for introducing a debate on this important subject. Both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said this evening that everyone agrees that training is of crucial importance and that compared with other developed countries Britain's workforce is under-skilled and under-trained. The Government themselves have frequently said so and claim to he spending large sums of money in an endeavour to improve the situation. They also seem to believe that an adequate training programme is by itself the answer to the evil of unemployment. It certainly seems to us that they have been using the schemes as a way of taking people out of the unemployment statistics.
In 1989 the CBI published a report which advocated that Britain needed nothing short of a skills revolution in order to bring the competence of the
648
British workforce up to the levels of our principal competitors. The report emphasised the need to provide a clear framework for all young people's learning from the age of 14 to 18 years. The framework suggested by the CBI drew on the experience of the German system of apprenticeships. In that model most 16 to 19 year-olds would undergo structured training with employers, involving day release at college and leading to vocational qualifications. Others would continue to study full time but with a broader curriculum, mixing academic and vocational courses.
In 1989 the TUC published its report Skills 2000. That report also drew attention to the failure of training in the UK as compared with our major competitors. It stated:
"We are failing to meet the tasks of a late twentieth century economy and are soon to be plunged into a twenty-first century economy without the protection of a sound national economy".
That is what the report said at that time and it still appears to be the situation three years on.
The main criticism of the TUC report still stands:
"the Government is content to leave training to the market, and the market fails to train. In some countries, markets are much better at delivering training, although in no developed economy is the market vested with such power over training as it is in Britain today".
Until the advent of this Government there was a measure of consensus around the old Industrial Training Act which was itself a product of an earlier Conservative Government. These initiatives resulted in the creation of industry training boards which were tripartite in character and in a national body responsible for overall strategy which was first called the Manpower Services Commission and later the Training Commission. In those days even Conservative administrations acknowledged the existence of trade unions and wanted to involve them and their members in training programmes.
No one, least of all on this side of the House, claims that these were perfect solutions. But certain of the industry training boards, notably the engineering industry training board and the construction industry training board, performed useful functions. Without them the situation would have been much worse. Then along came another type of Conservative Government intent upon tearing up everything that had previously existed by the roots and changing it whether it needed changing or not. The alternatives substituted were based on the assumption that there were no bodies representative of employees worthy to be consulted or involved at all. Training was to be employer-led, despite the fact that this concept had not worked that well in the past and there was still nothing to prevent the employer who would not invest in training from poaching staff from those employers who did. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said a great deal about that this evening and I agree with everything that she said.
So we have had the training and enterprise councils (the TECs). It is not my purpose tonight, nor is it that of my noble friend, to knock the TECs. I accept that many of them are anxious to do a very good job of work and are often led by people who are enthusiastically and energetically pursuing their

649
objectives. But, as has been said, recent reports appear to indicate that all is not well with them. Reports have appeared in the press indicating that TECs lack resources and that they are on a knife edge, according to one report.
Reference is made in the Question—it has been quoted by my noble friend—that initiatives such as investors in people deliberately designed to encourage employers to provide quality training are not meeting with the take-up that was expected. The voluntary approach has brought little fundamental change to the training system that the TECs administer. I shall not go over the ground already covered by my noble friend. Suffice it to say that well-publicised initiatives of various kinds follow one on another in a confusing progression—yet we still do not seem to make the progress in training that we all want to make.
What particularly bothers me is that it is now reported that some TEC leaders are saying that the Government should not have given their famous youth guarantee because it simply cannot be met. That has important consequences for the Government's social security policies. As has been debated quite recently in this House, the Government's policies as regards social benefits for 16 to 18 year-olds have been based on the assumption that such young people will either be at school or be being trained since there would be a youth training place for every young person who wanted one. For that reason entitlement to social benefits has been removed from young people in that age category, although special hardship arrangements have been introduced. As the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee has indicated, however, the procedures for obtaining special hardship arrangements are so convoluted that very few people who are actually in need secure the benefits.
Clearly something has to be done about this. Additional resources must be made available and account should be taken of what the TEC leaders are saying. It is not that they are unwilling to co-operate, but according to their statements something more than government rhetoric is required to ensure that the scheme continues.
Then we have employment training, which is aimed at the unemployed. We are likely to have around 3 million people without work before the end of this year. Opportunities for employment in manufacturing industry continue to decline. I understand that we are to have a debate on the manufacturing industry within the next week, so I shall not go into that dismal subject today. But this is not the time, I should have thought, to cut back on employment training. I understand that the equivalent of 19,000 places are set to be cut from ET this year. If, as seems likely from what my noble friend said earlier, employment training is not fulfilling the purpose, there has to be some alternative to allowing people simply to moulder on the dole indefinitely.
TEC leaders believe that there must be proper public funding to meet the youth guarantee. They also urge tax breaks for companies meeting the IIP training standard. Altogether, as my noble friend has said, the present training system does not appear to be
650
delivering results. Training in the United Kingdom gives the impression of lacking structure and coherence. With the disappearance of the Training Commission—this point was made both by my noble friend and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—there seems to be no national strategy. The quality of training is often low. Government expenditure seems to be spread around a wide range of administrative bodies responsible for training and for monitoring training. Manufacturing industry has suffered since the apprenticeship scheme was abandoned. It had many faults, it is true, but it produced skilled craftsmen and craftswomen—although far too few women. Clearly there is a need to revitalise the TECs and to evolve a training strategy based on adequate resources.
Unions are prepared to be supportive. I refer to a booklet entitled Training for Britain's Economic Success which has been produced jointly by the United Kingdom's two biggest unions—the Transport and General Workers Union and the GM B. They say:
"Our two unions will … stress that trade union bargaining is about building skills as well as about paying bills. We will broaden the emphasis of negotiations from pay to prospects".
They urge the Government and the CBI to support training rights for all employees.
It seems that the will is there. It is up to the Government to harness the enthusiasm that exists. So far we appear to have had a series of changing initiatives which seem more designed to remove people from employment statistics than to provide genuine quality training. I believe that there is a training crisis. I look forward with interest to what the Government have to say in response to the submissions made from this side of the House.
6.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, we have had an informative debate on a subject that underpins the economy of this country—training. As noble Lords will know, Her Majesty's Government believe that to acquire the skills to compete in a world economy we need all sectors of the community involved in training. It is in effect a partnership between government, employers and individuals, each having an important part to play.
It is the role of government to create the climate and framework to encourage training and direct funding support where it is most needed. It is the role of employers to develop the skills of people at work and to make the necessary investment in training. It is their role to set the standards for high quality training—standards like investors in people. Finally, it is up to individuals to take greater responsibility for their own training and development.
Based on these principles, the Government created a network of training and enterprise councils in which employers have the major controlling interest. That is only right as it is the business community which has the experience and knowledge of what is best for its local economy.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, knew the answers to all the questions that he posed to me—that is his style of debate—but he knows very

651
well that 82 TECs in England and Wales are now operational. He also knows that more than 1,200 top businessmen are involved in the running of the TECs and that there are 20 LECs in Scotland. He knew the answers very well. I think he also knew the answer to another question which he posed at the beginning of his remarks. He asked where he could go to get the figures. I do not have to tell him because I am sure that he has examined the matter very carefully. The expenditure figures for three years ahead and for the past year are published in January each year in the departmental report. I believe that the noble Lord knows a little about where he can get the figures.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, what the figures do not give is the distribution between the programmes and the number of individuals who are expected to go on those programmes.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the noble Lord studies the report carefully he can glean the figures that he really wants.
The noble Lord and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Turner, said that the Government have changed things from how they were before. Yes, we do make changes because we seek to make improvements. They would expect a government who are interested in the development of their people, and especially the people in the workplace, to seek to make those improvements.
TECs are not just about running training programmes. They have a legitimate interest in all that bears on the development of their local area. That is why they are increasingly seen as the vehicle for bringing together the full range of local interests to work towards the common goal of a prosperous economy. That is why the Government are giving massive backing to TECs. Our provision to TECs amounts to £2.2 billion this year.
The original Question asked about investors in people. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was right to draw attention to that important initiative. Investors in people sets a framework for business. It is a joint exercise. Employers have set the standard and the Government are providing support and resources through TECs. Employer progress against the investors in people standard will provide an important measure of how they are developing and capitalising on the full potential of the people—the key asset for any business and for a healthy economy.
I shall update the noble Lord on the number of people and companies involved. Today we have 63 accredited investors in people and more than 1,000 organisations have now made commitments to their local training and enterprise councils—or to the local enterprise companies in Scotland—to work towards the standard, or the VC as the noble Lord put it. Those involved include major household names such as Unilever and GEC and small businesses, as well as the public sector. My own department is committed, and this morning I opened a conference for schools committed to taking advantage of the initiative. Unilever now has all its UK business working towards the standard; GEC is promoting investors in people
652
internally, building on the achievements of Woods of Colchester, one of the first companies to be recognised as an investor in people. The managing director of another early investors in people—Appor Limited, which employs just 65 people manufacturing soap dispensers—has set a goal of doubling productivity in two years and says that investors in people is the key to unlock the vast hidden potential of British industry and people. That is something I firmly believe.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that at the present rate of growth it will take about 95 years to hit the target?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I do not agree at all. There are more than 1,000 organisations committed to that task. The noble Lord would not expect the figures to be instantaneous. If the figures were instantaneous it would mean that the standard was not difficult to achieve. It is important that the standard should set a high quality so that we are competitive internationally. I believe that the noble Lord and I would agree on that.
Therefore, employers have reacted positively to the standard based upon the best business practice and to an independent assessment system that measures them against that best practice, but which is also sufficiently flexible to recognise that all businesses are different. That says much about the professionalism of the assessors. This year, TECs have £35 million to support employers in working towards the "investors in people" standard. That, coupled with the increasing flexibilities that TECs now have over their budgets and the imaginative approaches that they are adopting, means that TECs have a substantial influence on employer behaviour.
Individuals must also he persuaded that training pays and that they should take more responsibility for their own development. That is one of the Government's priorities. Our approach was set out in the recent White Paper, People, Jobs and Opportunity, which illustrates the range of government action being taken on a number of fronts in partnership with TECs.
TECs are developing high quality information, advice, guidance and assessment services to help people understand their training needs and make sensible decisions. TECs are finding new ways to give individuals the purchasing power to put those decisions into effect. We have a very successful career development loans scheme which helps individuals to pay for training that they could not otherwise afford. TECs are also looking at ways for adults to make a financial contribution to their own training such as credits for training and individual training accounts as a means of encouraging individuals to see training as a lifelong investment. The Government have recently instituted an important tax relief for training, for people who invest in their own training. Since April, people who train towards a national vocational qualification at levels 1 to 4 are entitled to tax relief on their fees. They qualify for that even if they are not taxpayers, and even if the training is not linked to their present job.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, asked me how money is given to TECs. She also mentioned the

653
problem about the difference in the number of people wanting to train and the difference in their aspirations. I have already spoken from this Dispatch Box on other occasions and said that it is really based on the contract between my department and the TECs to deliver the training needs of all sectors of the workforce. The funding is adjusted to make certain that those, for example, with special needs are included. The contract is reviewed and enforced as would be expected.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount but he never answers me on this question. He always tells me that the money is there and that the TECs are doing the job. But how does he explain what the chairman of the Leeds TEC said to me? He said that he had to cut down on all his training schemes or even cut two of them completely because he did not have the money. He did not want to do it; he had to do so because he did not have the money. It is not good enough to tell us that it is all going beautifully. We are hearing the same speech tonight as we have heard over and over again from the noble Viscount: the TECs know what to do, they have got the money and the Government is backing them. That is not the story that we are hearing from the TECs. Where are the results?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course some TECs would welcome more resources. I believe that reflects the very success of our campaign investors in people.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it is not a question of more resources; they are getting less. Of course, the TECs would welcome more, but they deplore receiving less.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to point out that the figures do not bear out what the noble Baroness has just said. I have indicated that TECs will actually receive more money this year than they did last year. There has certainly been rebalancing between a number of areas in the TECs. Therefore, I can understand that some of them are in a situation where their money has been adjusted. However, more money is going to TECs this year than was the case last year.
Of course, we are reviewing what is needed as part of the public expenditure round. But investors in people is a very important initiative and is, indeed, the subject of the Question tonight. It is about improved business performance and not about subsidised training. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am most grateful. Is the noble Viscount aware that it has been reported that one of the leaders of the TECs has estimated that achievement of IIP could add from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. to a company's wage bill, which is a significantly higher investment than envisaged under a statutory levy?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if I may say so, that is just a comment made by Tony Cann.
Baroness Turner of Camden: That is true.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that comment is not necessarily based upon mere fact; it is based upon supposition. I say that because what the investors in people programme and initiative is all about is more effective training related to the needs of a business. Employers spend about £20 billion per annum on training—and so they should. The aim of the investors in people initiative is to make certain that that investment is wisely spent. I see that my noble friend Lord Stockton wishes to speak. I give way.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I am obliged. Is my noble friend aware that as well as an obvious increase in costs, the estimates that have been undertaken to date by the companies that have pledged themselves to IIP have shown that, when it is in place, it will make a difference of between 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. on average to their profitability on the bottom line? That is certainly an experience that I have found in my own company.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am extraordinarily pleased to hear from someone who has first-hand experience, not only in running a company but also as chairman of a TEC. Therefore, my noble friend has practical experience whereas many of us, unfortunately, are only talking about what we glean from other sources.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, mentioned YTs. Youth training is a success story. It is unmatched in Europe in its extent. The planned expenditure for this year is the same as it was last year despite the downward demographic trend; for example, the number of 16 and 17 year-olds is down 100,000 in the past two years, and increasing numbers are staying on at school. Moreover, 47 per cent of 16 year-olds were in further education in 1987–88, whereas the figure now is more than 60 per cent. I believe that those numbers demonstrate the value that young people place on YT. The value is also reflected in the outcomes: 300,000 currently on YT—vastly more than in structured training a decade ago; 76 per cent. of those completing the training go into jobs or further education; and 62 per cent. of completers obtain vocational qualifications.
Obviously the current economic climate is causing some difficulties. However, I must tell the noble Baroness that the Government are fully committed to making the guarantee work. No TEC would be prevented through lack of funding from meeting that guarantee. The department keeps in close touch with all the TECs. The speed at which suitable places will be found will vary from place to place and from TEC to TEC. But any problems in the supply of those places will be addressed as soon as we can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, also talked about employment training. The planned expenditure for employment training this year is £807 million, offering some 250,000 opportunities. That is a substantial investment. But training is not always the most effective way to help people. The aim of employment training is to help those who are unemployed. The Government

655
now have a wider and more comprehensive range of different forms of assistance such as employment action, with a budget of £178 million and 60,000 opportunities, and the employment services measures such as jobclubs. That is just an indication that the Government take seriously their duty to assist those who wish to keep their skills up to date through employment action or change them through employment training. The Government will of course wish to take stock of any programme that they run. I said a moment ago that the Government always question what they are doing to see whether they are doing the right thing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, tried to show that because of the recession companies are not spending as much on training as they were when economic conditions were better. Of the employers surveyed by the department's Skills need in Britain Survey of 1991, 37 per cent. reported that the average number of off-the-job training days funded or arranged per employer was higher than in the previous year compared to only 6 per cent. who said it was lower. Employers are playing their fair part in ensuring that their employees are trained and upskilled.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister referred to 37 per cent. plus 6 per cent. That is 43 per cent. What about the other 57 per cent?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the others will remain at their previous level of training. That indicates that there is a balance of companies increasing rather than decreasing their spending.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me a number of questions. I have answered one or two. He taunted me as to whether there is a national body for training. Of course there is one: the National Training Task Force upon which Bill Jordan, on behalf of the
656
trades union movement, sits with leading businessmen. That offers strategy guidance and gives leadership. It is undertaking key studies with a commitment to publishing the outcomes, where appropriate. I believe that the noble Lord knew that.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the Minister is well aware that that body has no executive authority. I am talking about a national body with executive authority to give a strategy to planning the country's training needs and to monitor the results.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I know exactly what the noble Lord is talking about. He talks not only about what he would like us to do; he talks disparagingly of the TECs' ability to achieve their task of building up Britain's skills. He hankers after an interventionist approach that has already been tried and found wanting.
"I have seen the future and it works",
said J.L. Steffens, writing of the Soviet Union in 1919. We now know that state-managed economies do not work. What is true of the economy as a whole is true pre-eminently of training. Training works when businesses manage it to secure business goals, not when governments intervene to create a straitjacket for businesses. That is why we attach importance to investors in people. The standard for business investment is skills set by business people to meet business goals.
Our approach is working. Training is now higher than ever on the business agenda. Business is investing more in training. Businesses are planning and budgeting for their training better, and people at work are better qualified. Government strategy has contributed to that major change in our training culture. Our investment in TEC programmes alone of £2.2 billion a year is substantial, and it is clear that our investment is paying dividends.
House adjourned at six minutes before seven o'clock.

  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY
  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY
  EAST TIMOR: EC POLICY
  EAST TIMOR: EC POLICY
  EAST TIMOR MASSACRE: AID TO INDONESIA
  EAST TIMOR MASSACRE: AID TO INDONESIA
  NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE: PERFORMANCE TARGETS
  KNOW HOW FUND
  KNOW HOW FUND
  US CONGRESSMEN'S LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  US CONGRESSMEN'S LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER
  PAROLE PROCEDURES: ENDING OF RESTRICTED POLICY
  PAROLE PROCEDURES: ENDING OF RESTRICTED POLICY
  PAROLE PROCEDURE CHANGES: EXISTING PRISONERS
  PAROLE PROCEDURE CHANGES: EXISTING PRISONERS
  PAROLE PROCEDURE CHANGES: PRISONERS LIABLE TO REMOVAL FROM UK
  PAROLE PROCEDURE CHANGES: PRISONERS LIABLE TO REMOVAL FROM UK
  ASYLUM-SEEKERS
  ASYLUM-SEEKERS
  FRANKLAND PRISON: SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATION
  FRANKLAND PRISON: SEXUAL HARASSMENT ALLEGATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: NEW CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: NEW CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGISLATION
  OFFICIAL REPORT: COVER PRICE
  OFFICIAL REPORT: COVER PRICE
  MENTAL ILLNESS: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  MENTAL ILLNESS: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES